Semi OT: Knowledge
Snit
indeed there be one - is required to identify while those at the coal face
don't have sufficient view of the overall goals. To experience a profound
paradigm shift, combined with optimal use of human resources, motivating
participants and capturing their expectations.
In a collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together through the
merging of like minds. Defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom by
adopting project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process, should be a top
priority at all times.
In order to build a shared view of what can be improved, by moving executive
focus from lag financial indicators to more actionable lead indicators, from
binary cause and effect to complex patterns.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Is there a good reason that you chose not to indicate the source for the
above Snit?
Snit
AM:
LOL!
Seriously, that is one of the funniest comments you have ever made.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
> Wally stated:
>
>> Is there a good reason that you chose not to indicate the
>> source for the above Snit?
>
> LOL! Seriously, that is one of the funniest comments you have
> ever made.
50- JohnOfArc (cola): "I'm not sure "troll" does it justice- more
like a black hole! But hey, if we all promise to never again even
entertain an unkind thought re Apple, will you take it back and
lock it up? Please??" 11 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e2891b1f3984e121
--
HPT
Snit
(spewing his bigoted claims), that this somehow - though he cannot say how -
shows I used a sock puppet. Er? Why does he even bring this back up again?
Nobody was even talking about his proved bigotry... the topic was dead.
High Plains Thumper is making accusations against me... but quoting *others*
(including many of Carroll's known socks) to try to show something about me.
Completely irrational. The one time he tried to actually quote me he
pointed to me quoting someone else! When this was pointed out to him he
just ignored it... and spewed his same accusations. Oh, and he accuses me
of forging data based on his inability to follow simple copy and paste
procedures even with a *video* I made showing him how to do so (and other
signs of his own inability to do simple things with computers).
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/UbuntuCP.mov>
Tim Adams is insisting that I only quoted one word from him in this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d9b209ea0751e067>
... just to dodge the fact he made the absurd assumption that when people
burn "thousands of DVDs" that only "[a] couple of them [are] very likely
good".. an assumption a technically competent person would not make.
Carroll, of course, is patting all of them on the backs for their lovely
trolling. He does not care how much they lie - as long as they support his
hate filled world view.
What the heck is wrong with these morons? Seriously? Do they have no
shame? They spew their same BS lies into a public forum over and over and
over. Can they be so stupid as to believe their own lies?
Can they?
Are they just so hungry for attention and acceptance by each other that they
do not care how absurd and, frankly, stupid they portray themselves? I
simply cannot imagine being so pathetic.
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I doubt that those of us that having quoted a body of work then
automatically cite the author would find that funny Snit! Do you consider
that any slight alterations that you made to the original exempt you from
doing the same?
But then I am talking about those of us that actually fit the description of
honest and honorable Snit! ... You clearly excuse yourself from that group!
nuff said!
Snit
PM:
Seriously, Wally, your making a fool of yourself is just beyond funny. Hey,
maybe this will help you: what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wait: assume I did not. If I said I quoted someone correctly you would
claim that I had "shot myself in the foot" and that this proved I was using
a sock puppet!
Amazing: you are just completely lost. Completely confused. Completely
making a fool of yourself.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
> Wally stated:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Wally stated:
120- Wally: "Because by your own admission "honor and honesty"
are nothing more than a "game" to you, as such not only do you
wish to define the rules, but no doubt you will also attempt to
alter or bend the rules when inevitably things do not go to your
liking, for this reason I doubt anyone would be foolish enough to
play your game." 16 May 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b9b3ed1ee20e5220
>> But then I am talking about those of us that actually fit
>> the description of honest and honorable Snit! ... You
>> clearly excuse yourself from that group! nuff said!
31- Greycloud: "You really shouldn't lie like that. Everyone else
notices that you are not honest and you have no honor." 21 Jan 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3b92f11a1ab00f91
> Seriously, Wally, your making a fool of yourself is just
> beyond funny. Hey, maybe this will help you: what makes you
> think I did not write the above.
56- Kelsey Bjarnason (cola): "Funny how you simply don't bother
reading the posts that rip your entire thesis to bleeding gobbets
of putrid excrescence. Maybe some day you'll learn how to support
your position, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and
humming, hoping it'll all go away." 7 Mar 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/96d064a7a5c6074a
> Wait: assume I did not. If I said I quoted someone correctly
> you would claim that I had "shot myself in the foot" and that
> this proved I was using a sock puppet!
22- Edward Stanfield: "Snit thinks the rules that apply to honest
and honorable people apply to him. That is absurd. He is the
biggest liar in Usenet history. Mackay posted the email to prove
Snit was using sock puppets and he still is. Snit can not give
up his socks puppets and shills. They are the only ones who ever
support him." 28 Jan 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5b52494d96d12229
> Amazing: you are just completely lost. Completely confused.
> Completely making a fool of yourself.
7- BaJoRi:
Snit: "You are, of course, lying."
BaJoRi: "No, I am not. You know it, and I know it, and everyone
else who has read your idiocy knows it. I took your statement,
showed it to be wrong, then added even more, just to be a dick
and REALLY show you to be a fool. You need to judiciously snip
out pertinent points because you are an intellectually dwarfed
turd-burglar." 11 Nov 2008
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> Wally is [snip]
9- Bob S: "This has always been pretty much a free-for-all group,
but since Snit showed up, its become almost impossible to have a
decent discussion about anything. 27 Dec 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3d2f1dff196ca190
--
HPT
Snit
Snit
(spewing his bigoted claims), that this somehow - though he cannot say how -
shows I used a sock puppet. Er? Why does he even bring this back up again?
Nobody was even talking about his proved bigotry... the topic was dead.
High Plains Thumper is making accusations against me... but quoting *others*
(including many of Carroll's known socks) to try to show something about me.
Completely irrational. The one time he tried to actually quote me he
pointed to me quoting someone else! When this was pointed out to him he
just ignored it... and spewed his same accusations. Oh, and he accuses me
of forging data based on his inability to follow simple copy and paste
procedures even with a *video* I made showing him how to do so (and other
signs of his own inability to do simple things with computers).
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/UbuntuCP.mov>
Tim Adams is insisting that I only quoted one word from him in this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d9b209ea0751e067>
... just to dodge the fact he made the absurd assumption that when people
High Plains Thumper
> Wally is [snip]
110- Tattoo Vampire (COLA): "In other words, in another attempt
to troll, you made yourself look like a fool. Again". 28 Aug 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b2676d3540e09f38
--
HPT
Snit
High Plains Thumper
> Wally is [snip]
1- Adam Kesher: "Steve, IIRC Sandman's website has a member area
and a login. If you forget your password, you can ask it to
e-mail it to you, and a bot will send an e-mail. *That* is the
e-mail Snit got from Sandman's website, and yes he's that fucked
in the head and starved for attention that he'd claim it to be an
e-mail from Sandman himself. So, don't get sucked into his
little circus. The e-mail, in this particular instance, did
probably originate from Sandman.net." 27 Feb 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dac74355552b4cc7
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> Wally is [snip]
20- Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought
you knew what a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was
presented to you. I guess I had too much confidence in you." 30
Nov 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3254ec7af27bfb0f
--
HPT
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past is a very good
indicator Snit!
> Wait: assume I did not.
I have already assumed that Snit!
> If I said I quoted someone correctly you would
> claim that I had "shot myself in the foot" and that this proved I was using
> a sock puppet!
See what I mean now about your inability to write anything coherent Snit?
> Amazing: you are just completely lost. Completely confused. Completely
> making a fool of yourself.
By asking a simple question that you could clear up with a simple answer
Snit but for whatever reason you refuse to do So? Yer right! LOL
Snit
Ah, so the above is just too coherent for you to think I wrote it, eh?
>> Wait: assume I did not.
>
> I have already assumed that Snit!
Right: you figured that the above was far, far to coherent for me to
have written it.
Seriously, Wally, you have no idea what a hole you are digging for
yourself. None. And it is very, very funny.
>> If I said I quoted someone correctly you would claim that I had "shot myself
>> in the foot" and that this proved I was using a sock puppet!
>>
> See what I mean now about your inability to write anything coherent Snit?
I understand: you only find text like the first post of this thread to
be "coherent". My general posts are nearly as easy for you to
understand.
>> Amazing: you are just completely lost. Completely confused. Completely
>> making a fool of yourself.
>
> By asking a simple question that you could clear up with a simple answer
> Snit but for whatever reason you refuse to do So? Yer right! LOL
As I said: you have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself...
how right you are proving me to be about you.
Wally
1695d385-9ec3-46fe...@w31g2000prd.googlegroups.com, "Snit"
<brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
indicator Snit!"-Wally
I did not say "too coherent" Snit! If it is coherent ... It's coherent, you
are simply proving my point by using the term "too coherent!
>>> Wait: assume I did not.
>>
>> I have already assumed that Snit!
>
> Right: you figured that the above was far, far to coherent for me to
> have written it.
Good grief! does "far, far to coherent" actually make sense to you Snit?
> Seriously, Wally, you have no idea what a hole you are digging for
> yourself. None. And it is very, very funny.
Sure Snit! <eye roll>
>>> If I said I quoted someone correctly you would claim that I had "shot myself
>>> in the foot" and that this proved I was using a sock puppet!
>>>
>> See what I mean now about your inability to write anything coherent Snit?
>
> I understand: you only find text like the first post of this thread to
> be "coherent".
That merely indicates your general lack of understanding Snit, which partly
explains your inability to make any sense!
> My general posts are nearly as easy for you to understand.
Your thought processes are severely flawed Snit! ...but then you already
know that don't you?
>>> Amazing: you are just completely lost. Completely confused.
Completely
>>> making a fool of yourself.
>>
>> By asking a simple question that you could clear up with a simple answer
>> Snit but for whatever reason you refuse to do So? Yer right! LOL
>
> As I said: you have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself...
> how right you are proving me to be about you.
And you still refuse to answer a simple question ....
"Is there a good reason that you chose not to indicate the source for the
above Snit?"-Wally
The simple fact that authorship (if that is the case) constitutes a "good
reason" completely alludes you Snit! *That* is what is so funny! :-)
Snit
5:18 PM:
...
> The simple fact that authorship (if that is the case) constitutes a "good
> reason" completely alludes you Snit! *That* is what is so funny! :-)
I started a thread with this:
As knowledge is fragmented into specialities the strategic
vision - if indeed there be one - is required to identify
while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of
the overall goals. To experience a profound paradigm shift,
combined with optimal use of human resources, motivating
participants and capturing their expectations.
In a collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds. Defensive reasoning, the
doom loop and doom zoom by adopting project appraisal through
incremental cash flow analysis, benchmarking against industry
leaders, an essential process, should be >>>>>>>> a top
priority at all times.
In order to build a shared view of what can be improved, by
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, from binary cause and effect to
complex patterns.
You decided that could not have been *my* writing, because, as you
said:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the
past is a very good indicator Snit!
To you, Wally, text that is utter gibberish is "coherent" and is an
indicator that it was not written by me. Seriously, Wally... don't
you find that at least a little funny? I know I do!
Wally
1f2200c8-ea0d-4b95...@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com, "Snit"
<brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C61331D1.13C51%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/20/09
> 5:18 PM:
>
> ...
>> The simple fact that authorship (if that is the case) constitutes a "good
>> reason" completely alludes you Snit! *That* is what is so funny! :-)
>
> I started a thread with this:
Actually no you didnšt!
Check your original post and spot the difference!
>
> As knowledge is fragmented into specialities the strategic
> vision - if indeed there be one - is required to identify
> while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of
> the overall goals. To experience a profound paradigm shift,
> combined with optimal use of human resources, motivating
> participants and capturing their expectations.
>
> In a collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
> through the merging of like minds. Defensive reasoning, the
> doom loop and doom zoom by adopting project appraisal through
> incremental cash flow analysis, benchmarking against industry
> leaders, an essential process, should be >>>>>>>> a top
> priority at all times.
>
> In order to build a shared view of what can be improved, by
> moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
> actionable lead indicators, from binary cause and effect to
> complex patterns.
>
> You decided that could not have been *my* writing, because, as you
> said:
I initially asked you ...
"Is there a good reason that you chose not to indicate the source for the
above Snit?"
Notice "the source" Snit, clearly I was indicating that what you posted was
based on something that your post was extracted from!
You replied with ...
"what makes you think I did not write the above."-Snit
> Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the
> past is a very good indicator Snit!
And that was in response to your question ...
"what makes you think I did not write the above."-Snit
And my answer is still a valid one!
As I had seen a possible source that your post could have been extracted
from!
>
> To you, Wally, text that is utter gibberish
The fact that you consider *your* initial post to be "utter guibberish" is
for you to come to terms with Snit, I have asked you for the source of that
material but you seem reluctant to provide it, the source that I have found
has significant differences to the one that you posted which may well
account for the gibberish nature that you mention in *your* version!
> is "coherent" and is an
> indicator that it was not written by me.
Any text repeated out of order and with significant omissions can to some
appear gibberish whereas the original would not have that quality, clearly
judging by your reluctance to indicate the source of the material your
intension was as you have admitted to doing was to make a post that was to
you no more than gibberish! the reason that you will not divulge the source
is that if you do it will be seen that only your version has the negative
quality that you mention!
> Seriously, Wally... don't
> you find that at least a little funny? I know I do!
That you would take someone else's writing and show it in a way that you
describe as gibberish Snit? not only do I not find it funny but I cannot see
one good reason why you would want to do such a thing!
Snit
>
> <brockmcnugg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Wally stated in post C61331D1.13C51%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/20/09
> > 5:18 PM:
>
> > ...
> >> The simple fact that authorship (if that is the case) constitutes a "good
> >> reason" completely alludes you Snit! *That* is what is so funny! :-)
>
> > I started a thread with this:
>
LOL! Wally... seriously, at this point you *have* to be just
joking... making fun of your own absolutely hilarious mistake.
Right? Right? I hope so. Please tell me that not even you are so
completely illiterate that you are trying to defend your claims about
this thread's initial post's coherency and how it being so coherent
let you know it was not my original work.
Come on, Wally... you have seen your mistake? Right? I mean,
seriously, this is as big of a good for you in terms of general
comprehension as your claims about subsets were in terms of basic math
and logic. If you tell me now that you are just having some fun
mocking yourself I will let it go... I shall not use this thread to
point out your complete and total ignorance and clear proof that you
cannot comprehend what you read.
What do you say... for a change actually back down from a position
that is so clearly absurd even you must see it. Do us both a favor...
OK?
Steve Carroll
> Wally stated in post C611E448.13BAE%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/19/09 5:35
> PM:
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <c...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> Wally stated in post C61127C7.13B38%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/19/09 4:11
> >> AM:
>
Snit... busted again, tries again... to shine the light away from his
disingenuous action onto someone else.
> Hey, maybe this will help you: what makes you think I did not write the above.
It figures... the hypocrite Snit, who once whined that I tried to
plagiarize someone's writing when I forget to add the attribution, is
seen here plagiarizing someone's writing and using his "psych degree"
to try and sell the idea to Wally that he wrote it. Unfortunately, for
Snit, Wally just isn't as stupid as Snit needs him to be for this scam
to work.
> Wait: assume I did not.
Of course, Snit, in his usual fashion, likes to have both sides of an
argument covered.
HInt to Snit: There is no need to "assume" you "did not".
I keep telling you, Snit... people just aren't as stupid as you need
them to be.
(snip more os Snit's BS)
Wally
1386fa2f-3bef-46a0...@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com, "Snit"
<brockmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:48 am, Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>> On 21/4/09 8:45 AM, in article
>> 1f2200c8-ea0d-4b95-b790-b8c0b836a...@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com, "Snit"
>>
>> <brockmcnugg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Wally stated in post C61331D1.13C51%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/20/09
>>> 5:18 PM:
>>
>>> ...
>>>> The simple fact that authorship (if that is the case) constitutes a "good
>>>> reason" completely alludes you Snit! *That* is what is so funny! :-)
>>
>>> I started a thread with this:
>>
>> Actually no you didnšt!
The fact that you lack the comprehension skills necessary to realize that...
"Is there a good reason that you chose not to indicate the source for your
OP Snit?"-Wally
...indicated that I knew that what you posted was not how it was originally
intended to be viewed is a problem for you alone Snit!
> and how it being so coherent let you know it was not my original work.
Key phrase... "my original work"!
I was confident after reading the first three lines of your original post
that what you posted was not as it originally appeared Snit! .... Anyone
with even a slight ability to comprehend what they read can do the same,
they don't have to go further than three lines!
Having determined that I was correct I asked you for the "source" of what
you had posted ... I am still waiting for you to answer that question Snit!
The only reason that I even asked for your for the material source was in an
effort to give you the benefit of the doubt of not being the first to
dishonestly portray what you posted in the way that you posted it Snit!
I no longer extend that benefit of doubt to you Snit as your reluctance to
provide a source indicated adequately that any dishonesty originated with
you!
In short once I had determined a possible source for the content of your
original post there was never any likelihood that you were the author snit
even though that view was contrary to the fact that you had offered
authorship as a possibility, You could not have been the author because the
work that you had extracted your posts content from was actually coherent
...a writing ability that you have to date yet to demonstrate that you have
Snit, just as the OP in this thread is testament to!
> Come on, Wally... you have seen your mistake? Right? I mean,
> seriously, this is as big of a good for you in terms of general
> comprehension as your claims about subsets were in terms of basic math
> and logic. If you tell me now that you are just having some fun
> mocking yourself I will let it go... I shall not use this thread to
> point out your complete and total ignorance and clear proof that you
> cannot comprehend what you read.
That is equal to you saying that you would not use a globe of the earth to
prove the earth is flat Snit!
It means nothing for you to state that you will not do the impossible Snit!
> What do you say...
Exactly what I originally said Snit....
Is there a good reason that you chose not to indicate the source for your
OP Snit?
> for a change actually back down from a position
Begging won't help your cause Snit!
> that is so clearly absurd even you must see it. Do us both a favor...
> OK?
I suggested that you check the dosage on the bottle Snit ... That's the best
favor I can do for you!
Snit
PM:
I made a post.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8dac81e46b31528>.
It was utter gibberish - a test for you and others who have no ability to
understand what they read. I was curious as to how you would react... I
assumed it would be funny. It was. Far more funny than I had anticipated.
First, you decided that the utter gibberish could not be from me... your
evidence: you thought utter gibberish was "coherent" - and you acknowledged
you generally cannot understand the actually coherent posts you read! You
made it clear, again, how amazingly poor your reading comprehension is.
Now you are pushing a completely contradictory claim that I "extracted" the
content from something that was coherent... as if you never called the
original gibberish "coherent"! But what coherent source? The answer:
*none*. You simply made that up. But the best line of your rant:
I was confident after reading the first three lines of your
original post that what you posted was not as it originally
appeared Snit!
How, Wally, do you think I changed the very post you were reading to make it
not be "as it originally appeared"? I assure you, Wally, contrary to your
claim, I have no super powers to change the Google archive (or any other
source for Usenet articles)... especially *as* you are reading them.
You really are a very, very funny person. Sadly, I see no indication you
are so on purpose.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
> Now you are pushing a completely contradictory claim that I
> "extracted" the content from something that was coherent... as
> if you never called the original gibberish "coherent"! But
> what coherent source? The answer: *none*. You simply made
> that up. But the best line of your rant:
Snit: "Heck, you can even post a few PDF files and blurry JPGs if
you really want to prove your case, right? :)"
Steve Mackay: "Hey, and you can modify multiple times, post them
on your site, and claim they are the 'originals'. Oh wait...
You've done that already. Wow... more accusations from you
posted with -*gasp*- absolutely no support. You do that a lot..."
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:26:06 -0700
Message-ID: <BF23EBBE.29362%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/87031a1655f235c2
--
HPT
Snit
4/21/09 6:57 PM:
See how you glom on to others accusations to try to defend your own lies.
I do not do that. I, an atheist, would never dream of sinking to the level
you just sank to.
If I were you, and made a false accusation, I would apologize. You are not
capable of doing so... your goal is to find favor with the lowest of the low
of Usenet. Your religion surely does not teach that... yet you cannot stop
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper stated:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Now you are pushing a completely contradictory claim that
>>> I "extracted" the content from something that was
>>> coherent... as if you never called the original gibberish
>>> "coherent"! But what coherent source? The answer:
>>> *none*. You simply made that up. But the best line of
>>> your rant:
>>
>> Snit: "Heck, you can even post a few PDF files and blurry
>> JPGs if you really want to prove your case, right? :)"
>>
>> Steve Mackay: "Hey, and you can modify multiple times, post
>> them on your site, and claim they are the 'originals'. Oh
>> wait... You've done that already. Wow... more accusations
>> from you posted with -*gasp*- absolutely no support. You do
>> that a lot..."
>>
>> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:26:06 -0700
>> Message-ID: <BF23EBBE.29362%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/87031a1655f235c2
>
> See how you glom on to others accusations to try to defend
> your own lies.
>
> I do not do that. I, an atheist, would never dream of sinking
> to the level you just sank to.
So now you blame Christianity?
> If I were you, and made a false accusation, I would apologize.
> You are not capable of doing so... your goal is to find favor
> with the lowest of the low of Usenet. Your religion surely
> does not teach that... yet you cannot stop yourself.
Apologise for what? Why the tit-for-tat?
[WEB] Proverbs 20:3
It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife;
But every fool will be quarreling.
[WEB] Proverbs 26:1
Like snow in summer, and as rain in harvest,
So honor is not fitting for a fool.
[WEB] Proverbs 26:8
As one who binds a stone in a sling,
So is he who gives honor to a fool.
--
HPT
Steve Carroll
> High Plains Thumper stated in post gsltir$rm...@news.motzarella.org on
> 4/21/09 6:57 PM:
>
>
>
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> Now you are pushing a completely contradictory claim that I
> >> "extracted" the content from something that was coherent... as
> >> if you never called the original gibberish "coherent"! But
> >> what coherent source? The answer: *none*. You simply made
> >> that up. But the best line of your rant:
>
> > Snit: "Heck, you can even post a few PDF files and blurry JPGs if
> > you really want to prove your case, right? :)"
>
> > Steve Mackay: "Hey, and you can modify multiple times, post them
> > on your site, and claim they are the 'originals'. Oh wait...
> > You've done that already. Wow... more accusations from you
> > posted with -*gasp*- absolutely no support. You do that a lot..."
>
> > Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:26:06 -0700
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/87031a1655f...
>
> See how you glom on to others accusations to try to defend your own lies.
>
> I do not do that. I, an atheist, would never dream of sinking to the level
> you just sank to.
>
> If I were you, and made a false accusation, I would apologize.
So you apologized to Mackay for calling him a "child molester"?
Or is your "out" here the fact that you are not HPT( "If I were
you...")?
Snit
4/21/09 9:50 PM:
...
>> See how you glom on to others accusations to try to defend your own lies.
>>
>> I do not do that. I, an atheist, would never dream of sinking to the level
>> you just sank to.
>>
> So now you blame Christianity?
I put you actions solely where they belong: you. You are responsible for
your actions. I am responsible for mine. Easy way of seeing the world.
But, I suspect, if you are as religious as you seem to be, you should be
trying to act in a moral way. Clearly you are not. Print out your last few
dozen posts and take them to your religious leader... I am sure you will be
told you are acting inappropriately.
But you will not. You know you are acting poorly - you know you are doing
as I say: repeating accusations others have made and even extending them...
you want to be a part of a group who is clearly immoral. That does not
speak well of you. And, sure, if you are a Christian it speaks poorly of
Christianity. Like it or not, we all represent to others groups we are a
part of. If I were to act like you, for example, I would be representing
educators poorly. But as you and I know, I do not sink to your level.
>> If I were you, and made a false accusation, I would apologize.
>> You are not capable of doing so... your goal is to find favor
>> with the lowest of the low of Usenet. Your religion surely
>> does not teach that... yet you cannot stop yourself.
>
> Apologise for what?
For your false accusations. Start with your dishonest accusations of
forgery: look again at this video:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/UbuntuCP.mov>
Clearly Ubuntu has some pretty bizarre flaws. Instead of admitting to that
you accused me of forging the data. You lied.
> Why the tit-for-tat?
That implies am responding in kind to your lies. I am not. Nor will I.
> [WEB] Proverbs 20:3
> It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife;
> But every fool will be quarreling.
>
> [WEB] Proverbs 26:1
> Like snow in summer, and as rain in harvest,
> So honor is not fitting for a fool.
>
> [WEB] Proverbs 26:8
> As one who binds a stone in a sling,
> So is he who gives honor to a fool.
You can call me a fool if you like, but I will continue to give you chances
to do the right thing. I have been burned by this, and will likely be
burned by you, but I insist on looking for the best in people. There are
very few exceptions - people who I have just given up on them ever doing the
right thing (though, if they were go against all expectations and cease
acting immorally, I would give them another chance - it is in my nature to
be overly trusting). And those are the people you are begging to be
accepted by.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
It was also perfectly clear that the content was not written in your OP as
it was intended to be seen!
You seem to be under the delusion that there was any doubt that the post in
question was written by you Snit, I have never expressed such a doubt, in
fact the post had all the hallmarks of a Snit post ... Disjointed and
garbled ... But the content that you quoted was just as clearly not authored
by you and was plainly part of a larger body of writing and once found it
was obvious why you could not have written it ... It was coherent therefore
in all likelihood could not have been authored by you Snit!
Why do you think I asked you for the source of the material Snit? That act
alone should be all that is needed to realize that I considered your post to
have absolutely no credibility at all!
And I was perfectly correct as it is perfectly clear now that you did
deliberately misrepresent the document just as I first assumed ... An
assumption that persuaded me to search for and find a possible source!
The strange thing is that even though you have now decided to admit to
deliberately misrepresenting a document ... You still feel unable to show a
link to the original, why so reticent Snit?
If you insist on making up this story as you go along then you should
realize that posting a link to the source material should have been one of
the first things that you did Snit ... rather than being one of the last!
But then no one can accuse you of being one of the sharpest knives in the
drawer Snit ... Can they?
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper stated:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> your own lies. I do not do that. I, an atheist, would
>>> never dream of sinking to the level you just sank to.
>>
>> So now you blame Christianity?
>
> I put you actions solely where they belong: you. You are
> responsible for your actions. I am responsible for mine.
> Easy way of seeing the world.
Oh, really? Only just now do you believe you are responsible for
your own actions? Then why in these past 5 years have you not
behaved as though you are responsible for your own actions?
Why are there at least 127 individually thinking posters, of
which personal quotes have been gathered over these past 5 years,
which document their opinions of your actions? I am sure that
the community here could find more than the 127 captured. Why
are all their opinions negative about your character and not
positive? It certainly does not speak highly of you.
> But, I suspect, if you are as religious as you seem to be, you
> should be trying to act in a moral way. Clearly you are not.
> Print out your last few dozen posts and take them to your
> religious leader... I am sure you will be told you are acting
> inappropriately.
[WEB] Proverbs 13:16
"Every prudent man acts from knowledge, But a fool exposes folly."
So, it is morally wrong to express the truth about your actions,
which you call "libel"? It is morally okay for you to
misrepresent the facts, calling others liars, child molesters?
Here, you unprovokingly accused Steve Mackay of being a child
molester:
Snit: "Heck, you can even post a few PDF files and blurry JPGs if
you really want to prove your case, right? :)"
Steve Mackay: "Hey, and you can modify multiple times, post them
on your site, and claim they are the 'originals'. Oh wait...
You've done that already. Wow... more accusations from you
posted with -*gasp*- absolutely no support. You do that a lot..."
Snit: "Oh, wait - you were just trolling."
Steve Mackay: "Naah. I leave that to the experts like you."
Snit: "Er? I have just shown you to be lying, above, and then
you make more baseless accusation. Well, then, as long as you
are making baseless accusation, you *are* a proven child
molester. Keep in mind that the baseless accusation game is the
one *you* are pushing, so you should have no problem with my
referring to you as a 'proven child molester'."
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:26:06 -0700
Message-ID: <BF23EBBE.29362%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/87031a1655f235c2
If Steve wanted to, he could have contacted legal counsel and put
you on notice for libel, but he did not. Does that make it right
for you to continue your Snit Circus charade, because you have
gotten away with breaking societal rules?
> But you will not. You know you are acting poorly - you know
> you are doing as I say: repeating accusations others have made
> and even extending them... you want to be a part of a group
> who is clearly immoral. That does not speak well of you.
> And, sure, if you are a Christian it speaks poorly of
> Christianity. Like it or not, we all represent to others
> groups we are a part of. If I were to act like you, for
> example, I would be representing educators poorly. But as you
> and I know, I do not sink to your level.
What level do you speak of? So, those who expose your unsavory
acts are immoral? And you have already answered your own
question. You DO represent educators poorly, if in fact you do
teach.
Sinking to my level or in fact any of the others who have noted
your behaviour would certainly be an improvement!
>>> If I were you, and made a false accusation, I would
>>> apologize. You are not capable of doing so... your goal is
>>> to find favor with the lowest of the low of Usenet. Your
>>> religion surely does not teach that... yet you cannot stop
>>> yourself.
>>
>> Apologise for what?
>
> For your false accusations. Start with your dishonest
> accusations of forgery: look again at this video:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/UbuntuCP.mov>
>
> Clearly Ubuntu has some pretty bizarre flaws. Instead of
> admitting to that you accused me of forging the data. You
> lied.
Why do I want to look at some "new evidence" you have come up
with, when so far you fail to post truth. You were doing this 5
years ago. Steve Mackay expressed it very well in the above
quote. You have no credibility.
>> Why the tit-for-tat?
>
> That implies am responding in kind to your lies. I am not.
> Nor will I.
You are simply amazing! You seem unable to recognise truth.
>> [WEB] Proverbs 20:3 It is an honor for a man to keep aloof
>> from strife; But every fool will be quarreling.
>>
>> [WEB] Proverbs 26:1 Like snow in summer, and as rain in
>> harvest, So honor is not fitting for a fool.
>>
>> [WEB] Proverbs 26:8 As one who binds a stone in a sling, So
>> is he who gives honor to a fool.
>
> You can call me a fool if you like, but I will continue to
> give you chances to do the right thing. I have been burned by
> this, and will likely be burned by you, but I insist on
> looking for the best in people. There are very few exceptions
> - people who I have just given up on them ever doing the right
> thing (though, if they were go against all expectations and
> cease acting immorally, I would give them another chance - it
> is in my nature to be overly trusting). And those are the
> people you are begging to be accepted by.
You have only been burned by your own foolish actions. Following
statement was made several thousand years ago:
[WEB] Proverbs 6:12-15
"A worthless person, a man of iniquity, Is he who walks with a
perverse mouth; Who winks with his eyes, who signals with his
feet, Who motions with his fingers; In whose heart is
perverseness, Who devises evil continually, Who always sows
discord. Therefore his calamity will come suddenly. He will be
broken suddenly, and that without remedy."
You tread these computer advocacy forums, using them to satisfy
your dishonest lust for sowing the seeds of discord to provoke
others to anger, rather than discuss the issues at hand.
I certainly hope you will recognise the foolishness of your ways
and change, before some worse fate occurs that you are unable to
recover from.
--
HPT
Snit
4/22/09 4:13 AM:
Some questions for you:
1) Why do you use my noting it would be a "baseless accusation"
to call Steve Mackay a "proven child molester" as an excuse
Tim Adams' libel?
2) Why do you think my *not* taking responsibility for the
alleged 127 posters, many of whom are Steve Carroll's
aliases, is in any way a sign of me not taking full
responsibility for *my* actions?
3) If I did not take responsibility for my actions, do you
think that excuses your calling me a forger over your
own inability to follow simple copy and paste directions?
4) Why, when you repeatedly run from topics dealing with
OSs to repeat your absurd accusations, do you accuse
me of not wanting to discuss the OSs of the forums
you and I share participation in?
If you need help with those, print them out and take them to your religious
leader. Really. You know, surely, that your actions are wrong. If you did
not, you would happily print out your own posts and show them to your
religious leader - show the good work you are doing to stop evil in the
world or whatever it is you want to fool yourself into thinking you are
doing. But you will not. You know you are in the wrong. You know your
actions are not those of someone who actually believes in God.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
>> I made a post.
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8dac81e46b31528>.
>>
>> It was utter gibberish - a test for you and others who have no ability to
>> understand what they read. I was curious as to how you would react... I
>> assumed it would be funny. It was. Far more funny than I had anticipated.
>>
>> First, you decided that the utter gibberish could not be from me... your
>> evidence: you thought utter gibberish was "coherent" - and you acknowledged
>> you generally cannot understand the actually coherent posts you read! You
>> made it clear, again, how amazingly poor your reading comprehension is.
>>
>> Now you are pushing a completely contradictory claim that I "extracted" the
>> content from something that was coherent... as if you never called the
>> original gibberish "coherent"! But what coherent source? The answer:
>> *none*. You simply made that up. But the best line of your rant:
>>
>> I was confident after reading the first three lines of your
>> original post that what you posted was not as it originally
>> appeared Snit!
>>
>> How, Wally, do you think I changed the very post you were reading to make it
>> not be "as it originally appeared"? I assure you, Wally, contrary to your
>> claim, I have no super powers to change the Google archive (or any other
>> source for Usenet articles)... especially *as* you are reading them.
>>
>> You really are a very, very funny person. Sadly, I see no indication you are
>> so on purpose.
>
I made a post.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8dac81e46b31528>.
It was utter gibberish - a test for you and others who have no ability to
understand what they read. I was curious as to how you would react... I
assumed it would be funny. It was. Far more funny than I had anticipated.
First, you decided that the utter gibberish could not be from me... your
evidence: you thought utter gibberish was "coherent" - and you acknowledged
you generally cannot understand the actually coherent posts you read! You
made it clear, again, how amazingly poor your reading comprehension is.
Now you are pushing a completely contradictory claim that I "extracted" the
content from something that was coherent... as if you never called the
original gibberish "coherent"! But what coherent source? The answer:
*none*. You simply made that up. But the best line of your rant:
I was confident after reading the first three lines of your
original post that what you posted was not as it originally
appeared Snit!
How, Wally, do you think I changed the very post you were reading to make it
not be "as it originally appeared"? I assure you, Wally, contrary to your
claim, I have no super powers to change the Google archive (or any other
source for Usenet articles)... especially *as* you are reading them.
You then made *more* accusations:
It was also perfectly clear that the content was not written in
your OP as it was intended to be seen!
But that is a lie: the content *was* written *exactly* as it was intended to
be seen. *Exactly*. You keep implying that there is some "source" for the
content that would not be gibberish, as if I took someone else's words and
corrupted them. I did no such thing. You even went so far as to say:
The strange thing is that even though you have now decided to
admit to deliberately misrepresenting a document
See how you lie! I did not misrepresent *anything*. You just keep piling
lie upon lie to run from the fact you thought the gibberish in the original
post was "coherent".
Steve Carroll
> Snit wrote:
> > High Plains Thumper stated:
> >> Snit wrote:
>
> >>> See how you glom on to others accusations to try to defend
> >>> your own lies. I do not do that. I, an atheist, would
> >>> never dream of sinking to the level you just sank to.
>
> >> So now you blame Christianity?
>
> > I put you actions solely where they belong: you. You are
> > responsible for your actions. I am responsible for mine.
As I have repeatedly proven, you have engaged in forgery and admitted
you have done so. You have also claimed to be honest and honorable.
How do you reconcile these things in your tiny little brain, Snit?
> > Easy way of seeing the world.
>
> Oh, really? Only just now do you believe you are responsible for
> your own actions? Then why in these past 5 years have you not
> behaved as though you are responsible for your own actions?
>
> Why are there at least 127 individually thinking posters, of
> which personal quotes have been gathered over these past 5 years,
> which document their opinions of your actions? I am sure that
> the community here could find more than the 127 captured.
No question;)
The number of such posts per year written about Snit number in the
thousands (that's *at least* one thousand such posts... *per year*).
> Why
> are all their opinions negative about your character and not
> positive? It certainly does not speak highly of you.
You know full well what he'll tell you... because these quotes don't
point to his actions... they are all meaningless. If we are to believe
that, then Snit must explain why he holds his judgements of others
higher than judgements others have made about him. Of course, being a
lying hypocrite, Snit will provide no such explanation.
> > But, I suspect, if you are as religious as you seem to be, you
> > should be trying to act in a moral way. Clearly you are not.
> > Print out your last few dozen posts and take them to your
> > religious leader... I am sure you will be told you are acting
> > inappropriately.
>
> [WEB] Proverbs 13:16
> "Every prudent man acts from knowledge, But a fool exposes folly."
>
> So, it is morally wrong to express the truth about your actions,
> which you call "libel"? It is morally okay for you to
> misrepresent the facts, calling others liars, child molesters?
That's what being a lying hypocrite is all about... and Snit is the
king of lying hypocrites.
Steve Carroll
> High Plains Thumper stated in post gsmu4r$n8...@news.motzarella.org on
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/87031a1655f...
Translation: Snit is trying to make the reader forget that he called
Mackay a "child molester" as he simultaneously admitted he had no
basis for doing so. Strangely, Snit also admits that he called Mackay
a "child molester" because, according to Snit, Mackay was making
baseless accusations... an allegation by Snit which he has yet to show
any "actual" support for. Notably, the hypocrite named Snit whined
loudly and threatened lawsuits when the label was applied to him by
another poster.
> 2) Why do you think my *not* taking responsibility for the
> alleged 127 posters, many of whom are Steve Carroll's
> aliases, is in any way a sign of me not taking full
> responsibility for *my* actions?
Translation: Here, Snit is once again trying to use his "psych degree"
in a feeble attempt to discredit the testimony of a large number of
posters. Snit is also trying to pretend that "many" of the quoted
posters are "aliases"... another allegation by Snit which , you
guessed it, he has yet to show any "actual" support for.
>
> 3) If I did not take responsibility for my actions, do you
> think that excuses your calling me a forger over your
> own inability to follow simple copy and paste directions?
Translation: This is the ol' shine the light elsewhere ruse...
everyone knows how it works.
> 4) Why, when you repeatedly run from topics dealing with
> OSs to repeat your absurd accusations, do you accuse
> me of not wanting to discuss the OSs of the forums
> you and I share participation in?
Translation: This one starts off with Snit making yet *another*
allegation which he has yet to show any "actual" support for. It ends
with Snit trying to push his oft-used, yet, bogus and absurd notion
that it's always the *other* guy who doesn't stick to the topic, not
Snit... who, as he would have the reader believe, only comes to
computer related newsgroups to discuss computer related issues.
(snip additional attempts by Snit to use his "psych degree"... a
degree that screams for a refund)
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
All your "test" proved was that you are perfectly able to take a body of
text and deliberately misrepresent it!
The puzzling thing is why you thought a *new* test was needed ... When there
is ample evidence that most if not all posters in CSMA already know that you
have that ability and regularly use it Snit!
> I was curious as to how you would react...
And now you know ... I reacted by firstly finding a source for the text that
you posted, and then asked you for your source! (which you have yet to
produce).
> I assumed it would be funny. It was. Far more funny than I had anticipated.
Then your assumption was as is often the case shown to be flawed!
> First, you decided that the utter gibberish could not be from me...
Let me get this right ...
The only gibberish was contained in your post, and you somehow concluded
that I had decided that post could not be from you Snit? ROTFLMAO.....
Why would I think that Snit when gibberish is your calling card? LOL
> your evidence: you thought utter gibberish was "coherent" -
Having found a possible source *before* responding to you Snit my "evidence"
was that *that* document was "coherent", so when you asked why the text that
you extracted from it could not have been authored by you the answer was
obvious ... It's coherent nature!
> and you acknowledged
> you generally cannot understand the actually coherent posts you read!
Will you showing this alleged acknowledgement anytime soon Snit? ... Of
course not it's just another obvious lie from you Snit!
> You
> made it clear, again, how amazingly poor your reading comprehension is.
The irony in your comments never ceases to amuse me Snit!
> Now you are pushing a completely contradictory claim that I "extracted" the
> content from something that was coherent...
That has always been my view right from my very first post Snit!
> as if you never called the original gibberish "coherent"!
From my first reply...
"Is there a good reason that you chose not to indicate the source for the
above Snit?"-Wally
From my second reply...
"Do you consider that any slight alterations that you made to the original
exempt you from doing the same?"-Wally
Clearly my comments from the very start focused on the source of the text
that you posted Snit *not* your version of it!
> But what coherent source? The answer:
> *none*. You simply made that up. But the best line of your rant:
You now admit that I was talking about the "coherent source" but your answer
to that is to simply deny it's existence .... That's laughable Snit!
> I was confident after reading the first three lines of your
> original post that what you posted was not as it originally
> appeared Snit!
>
> How, Wally, do you think I changed the very post you were reading to make it
> not be "as it originally appeared"? I assure you, Wally, contrary to your
> claim, I have no super powers to change the Google archive (or any other
> source for Usenet articles)... especially *as* you are reading them.
That is pathetic Snit you take comments that you admit related to the
original source for your post and apply them to your post instead? LOL
> You then made *more* accusations:
>
> It was also perfectly clear that the content was not written in
> your OP as it was intended to be seen!
Which is correct as the source for the material proves ... But then you are
scared to post your source ... So mine will have to do!
> But that is a lie: the content *was* written *exactly* as it was intended to
> be seen. *Exactly*. You keep implying that there is some "source" for the
> content that would not be gibberish,
Of course there is ...the original document that you extracted the text that
you posted Snit! ... Do try and keepup!
> as if I took someone else's words and
> corrupted them. I did no such thing. You even went so far as to say:
You altered a coherent document and made it appear gibberish ... Why don't
you see that as being corrupted Snit ... Just because you do it so often
doesnšt make it any less real!
>
> The strange thing is that even though you have now decided to
> admit to deliberately misrepresenting a document
>
> See how you lie! I did not misrepresent *anything*.
So you are saying that the text in your OP was not derived from another
document not authored by you Snit? LOL
> You just keep piling
> lie upon lie to run from the fact you thought the gibberish in the original
> post was "coherent".
>
> You really are a very, very funny person. Sadly, I see no indication you
> are so on purpose.
I look forward to you avoiding answering for your dishonesty Snit!
Snit
PM:
> doesnıt make it any less real!
>
>>
>> The strange thing is that even though you have now decided to
>> admit to deliberately misrepresenting a document
>>
>> See how you lie! I did not misrepresent *anything*.
>
> So you are saying that the text in your OP was not derived from another
> document not authored by you Snit? LOL
>
>> You just keep piling
>> lie upon lie to run from the fact you thought the gibberish in the original
>> post was "coherent".
>>
>> You really are a very, very funny person. Sadly, I see no indication you
>> are so on purpose.
>
> I look forward to you avoiding answering for your dishonesty Snit!
I made a post.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8dac81e46b31528>.
It was utter gibberish. I was curious as to how you would react - I assumed
it would be funny. It was. Far more funny than I had anticipated. First,
you decided that the utter gibberish could not be from me...
Snit:
what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
Thatıs right! You thought utter gibberish was "coherent"! But you got even
more funny:
Wally:
I was confident after reading the first three lines of your
original post that what you posted was not as it originally
appeared Snit!
Amazing! You claimed I have the ability to change the Google archive (or any
other source for Usenet articles) even *as* you are reading my posts!
Wally:
It was also perfectly clear that the content was not written in
your OP as it was intended to be seen!
Wally:
The strange thing is that even though you have now decided to
admit to deliberately misrepresenting a document
Wally:
All your "test" proved was that you are perfectly able to take a
body of text and deliberately misrepresent it!
Snit:
Now you are pushing a completely contradictory claim that I
"extracted" the content from something that was coherent...
Wally:
That has always been my view right from my very first post Snit!
The content *was* written *exactly* as it was intended to be seen and did
not misrepresent *anything*. There is no "original" that I modified in any
way. You simply are making that up. You even went so far as to say:
Wally:
I reacted by firstly finding a source for the text that
you posted, and then asked you for your source! (which you have
yet to produce).
But I *have* "produced" the original text... it is here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8dac81e46b31528>
It is the gibberish you said was "coherent". You really are a very, very
funny person. Sadly, I see no indication you are so on purpose.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
...
>> I made a post.
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8dac81e46b31528>.
>>
>> It was utter gibberish - a test for you and others who have no ability to
>> understand what they read.
>
> All your "test" proved was that you are perfectly able to take a body of
> text and deliberately misrepresent it!
Nope. You made that up. Again, as you have been told, the original text is
shown, unaltered, in the link, above.
It is the text you called "coherent". LOL! It is also the text you claimed
changed *as* you were reading it:
Wally:
I was confident after reading the first three lines of your
original post that what you posted was not as it originally
appeared Snit!
You have yet to answer how you think that post is not as it "originally
appeared." How do you think I changed it?
> The puzzling thing is why you thought a *new* test was needed ... When there
> is ample evidence that most if not all posters in CSMA already know that you
> have that ability and regularly use it Snit!
You lie about me and then say you already knew the lie was true. How cute!
>> I was curious as to how you would react...
>
> And now you know ... I reacted by firstly finding a source for the text that
> you posted, and then asked you for your source! (which you have yet to
> produce).
You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
you insisted was "coherent."
>> I assumed it would be funny. It was. Far more funny than I had anticipated.
>
> Then your assumption was as is often the case shown to be flawed!
Oh, your defense of your ignorance is funny. Your lies, however, are
tiresome.
>> First, you decided that the utter gibberish could not be from me...
>
> Let me get this right ...
Oh, I would love it if you would!
> The only gibberish was contained in your post, and you somehow concluded
> that I had decided that post could not be from you Snit? ROTFLMAO.....
>
> Why would I think that Snit when gibberish is your calling card? LOL
You claimed the gibberish was coherent... and that was your reasoning for
thinking it was not from me:
Snit:
what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
Thatıs right! You thought utter gibberish was "coherent"! But you got even
more funny:
Wally:
I was confident after reading the first three lines of your
original post that what you posted was not as it originally
appeared Snit!
Amazing! You claimed I have the ability to change the Google archive (or any
other source for Usenet articles) even *as* you are reading my posts!
>> your evidence: you thought utter gibberish was "coherent" -
>
> Having found a possible source *before* responding to you Snit my "evidence"
> was that *that* document was "coherent", so when you asked why the text that
> you extracted from it could not have been authored by you the answer was
> obvious ... It's coherent nature!
You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
you insisted was "coherent."
>> and you acknowledged
>> you generally cannot understand the actually coherent posts you read!
>
> Will you showing this alleged acknowledgement anytime soon Snit? ... Of
> course not it's just another obvious lie from you Snit!
Snit:
what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
You thought the gibberish was coherent... and thus could not be from me.
You cannot understand truly coherent posts but think gibberish posts are
"coherent."
I know: that will go over your head. Oh well. It will amuse me to see you
struggle to understand.
>> You
>> made it clear, again, how amazingly poor your reading comprehension is.
>
> The irony in your comments never ceases to amuse me Snit!
Ah, you prove repeatedly in this very thread that I am right... then deny
it. See: I told you that you are funny! Now only if you meant to be.
>> Now you are pushing a completely contradictory claim that I "extracted" the
>> content from something that was coherent...
>
> That has always been my view right from my very first post Snit!
Nope. You, at first, called the gibberish "coherent":
Snit:
what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
Only later did you make up some story about me "extracting" the gibberish
from some source you have found but, oddly enough, cannot point to. Now
what did I tell you about how funny you are... that is *hilarious*!
>> as if you never called the original gibberish "coherent"!
>
> From my first reply...
>
> "Is there a good reason that you chose not to indicate the source for the
> above Snit?"-Wally
Right... you insisted I had not written the gibberish... and you gave your
reason why:
Snit:
what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
That is right: you, at first, merely said the gibberish was, to you,
"coherent". Funny how you deny this over and over. See: you are funny!
> From my second reply...
>
> "Do you consider that any slight alterations that you made to the original
> exempt you from doing the same?"-Wally
>
> Clearly my comments from the very start focused on the source of the text
> that you posted Snit *not* your version of it!
You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
you insisted was "coherent."
>> But what coherent source? The answer:
>> *none*. You simply made that up. But the best line of your rant:
>
> You now admit that I was talking about the "coherent source" but your answer
> to that is to simply deny it's existence .... That's laughable Snit!
You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
you insisted was "coherent."
>> I was confident after reading the first three lines of your
>> original post that what you posted was not as it originally
>> appeared Snit!
>>
>> How, Wally, do you think I changed the very post you were reading to make it
>> not be "as it originally appeared"? I assure you, Wally, contrary to your
>> claim, I have no super powers to change the Google archive (or any other
>> source for Usenet articles)... especially *as* you are reading them.
>
> That is pathetic Snit you take comments that you admit related to the
> original source for your post and apply them to your post instead? LOL
You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
you insisted was "coherent."
>> You then made *more* accusations:
>>
>> It was also perfectly clear that the content was not written in
>> your OP as it was intended to be seen!
>
> Which is correct as the source for the material proves ... But then you are
> scared to post your source ... So mine will have to do!
You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
you insisted was "coherent."
>> But that is a lie: the content *was* written *exactly* as it was intended to
>> be seen. *Exactly*. You keep implying that there is some "source" for the
>> content that would not be gibberish,
>
> Of course there is ...the original document that you extracted the text that
> you posted Snit! ... Do try and keepup!
You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
you insisted was "coherent."
>> as if I took someone else's words and
>> corrupted them. I did no such thing. You even went so far as to say:
>
> You altered a coherent document and made it appear gibberish ... Why don't
> you see that as being corrupted Snit ... Just because you do it so often
> doesnıt make it any less real!
You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
you insisted was "coherent."
>> The strange thing is that even though you have now decided to
>> admit to deliberately misrepresenting a document
>>
>> See how you lie! I did not misrepresent *anything*.
>
> So you are saying that the text in your OP was not derived from another
> document not authored by you Snit? LOL
You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
you insisted was "coherent."
>> You just keep piling
>> lie upon lie to run from the fact you thought the gibberish in the original
>> post was "coherent".
>>
>> You really are a very, very funny person. Sadly, I see no indication you
>> are so on purpose.
>
> I look forward to you avoiding answering for your dishonesty Snit!
Your questions are of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety. You
have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish you
insisted was "coherent."
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> doesnšt make it any less real!
>>
>>>
>>> The strange thing is that even though you have now decided to
>>> admit to deliberately misrepresenting a document
>>>
>>> See how you lie! I did not misrepresent *anything*.
>>
>> So you are saying that the text in your OP was not derived from another
>> document not authored by you Snit? LOL
>>
>>> You just keep piling
>>> lie upon lie to run from the fact you thought the gibberish in the original
>>> post was "coherent".
>>>
>>> You really are a very, very funny person. Sadly, I see no indication you
>>> are so on purpose.
>>
>> I look forward to you avoiding answering for your dishonesty Snit!
>
> I made a post......
Thanks for not letting me down Snit! ROTFL!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C615DB89.13E30%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/22/09 5:47
> PM:
>
> ...
>>> I made a post.
>>>
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8dac81e46b31528>.
>>>
>>> It was utter gibberish - a test for you and others who have no ability to
>>> understand what they read.
>>
>> All your "test" proved was that you are perfectly able to take a body of
>> text and deliberately misrepresent it!
>
> Nope. You made that up. Again, as you have been told, the original text is
> shown, unaltered, in the link, above.
Are you really stating that your OP did not contain text entirely extracted
from another document and represented in a way that the original author of
the document never intended?
And yes Snit I know full well that you are incapable of an honest answer,
but the question had to be asked!
> It is the text you called "coherent". LOL! It is also the text you claimed
> changed *as* you were reading it:
>
> Wally:
> I was confident after reading the first three lines of your
> original post that what you posted was not as it originally
> appeared Snit!
And that is the truth!
> You have yet to answer how you think that post is not as it "originally
> appeared." How do you think I changed it?
I can only answer for what I have said Snit, not for your delusions.... The
text that forms the body of your post is not as it originally appeared!
*that* is a fact!, I asked you for the source of that text, not for the
source of your post! *that* is a fact! the text in your post is garbled and
disjointed! whilst the text in what is the probable original is coherent and
well ordered! *that* is a fact!
>> The puzzling thing is why you thought a *new* test was needed ... When there
>> is ample evidence that most if not all posters in CSMA already know that you
>> have that ability and regularly use it Snit!
>
> You lie about me and then say you already knew the lie was true. How cute!
You were the one that said that you had posted the test Snit, and the only
thing that the test actually showed was that you were able to take a
document and misrepresent it ...... That ability you possess is indeed
common knowledge Snit!
>>> I was curious as to how you would react...
>>
>> And now you know ... I reacted by firstly finding a source for the text that
>> you posted, and then asked you for your source! (which you have yet to
>> produce).
>
> You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
> you insisted was "coherent."
The text that you posted was not gibberish in it's original form! in fact
the text in your post is not actually gibberish! disjointed and
garbled...yes, but gibberish...no!
Had it been unintelligible or meaningless then reading it would not have
convinced me to seek the source of it Snit I would simply have accepted it
as just a typical Snit post!
But given your piss poor comprehension skills I can see why *you* would call
it "utter gibberish" Snit!
>>> I assumed it would be funny. It was. Far more funny than I had
>>> anticipated.
>>
>> Then your assumption was as is often the case shown to be flawed!
>
> Oh, your defense of your ignorance is funny. Your lies, however, are
> tiresome.
>
>>> First, you decided that the utter gibberish could not be from me...
>>
>> Let me get this right ...
>
> Oh, I would love it if you would!
>
>> The only gibberish was contained in your post, and you somehow concluded
>> that I had decided that post could not be from you Snit? ROTFLMAO.....
>>
>> Why would I think that Snit when gibberish is your calling card? LOL
>
> You claimed the gibberish was coherent... and that was your reasoning for
> thinking it was not from me:
You are again holding me accountable for your delusion Snit!
> Snit:
> what makes you think I did not write the above.
> Wally:
> Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
> is a very good indicator Snit!
And that is perfectly true! you did not "write the above" you cut'n'pasted
it!
You of all people should be able to appreciate the difference between
writing and cut'n'pasting Snit!
> That零 right! You thought utter gibberish was "coherent"! But you got even
> more funny:
I thought and still think that what was written was coherent that term does
not apply to your cut'n'paste hatchet job!
> Wally:
> I was confident after reading the first three lines of your
> original post that what you posted was not as it originally
> appeared Snit!
And the probable source confirms that! The first three lines of text are not
shown in your post as they were originally intended to be viewed!
Note "originally" Snit! plagiarizing text as you did does not make it
original!
> Amazing! You claimed I have the ability to change the Google archive (or any
> other source for Usenet articles) even *as* you are reading my posts!
Oh my ...how many times have you used that same old chestnut? Now *that* is
boring!
>>> your evidence: you thought utter gibberish was "coherent" -
>>
>> Having found a possible source *before* responding to you Snit my "evidence"
>> was that *that* document was "coherent", so when you asked why the text that
>> you extracted from it could not have been authored by you the answer was
>> obvious ... It's coherent nature!
>
> You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
> you insisted was "coherent."
Why would I explain one of your delusions Snit? Why do you think that I
would succeed in that endeavor when so many have failed before me?
>>> and you acknowledged
>>> you generally cannot understand the actually coherent posts you read!
>>
>> Will you showing this alleged acknowledgement anytime soon Snit? ... Of
>> course not it's just another obvious lie from you Snit!
>
> Snit:
> what makes you think I did not write the above.
> Wally:
> Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
> is a very good indicator Snit!
>
> You thought the gibberish was coherent... and thus could not be from me.
> You cannot understand truly coherent posts but think gibberish posts are
> "coherent."
>
> I know: that will go over your head. Oh well. It will amuse me to see you
> struggle to understand.
So we can add "acknowledgement" to words that confuse you Snit!
>>> You
>>> made it clear, again, how amazingly poor your reading comprehension is.
>>
>> The irony in your comments never ceases to amuse me Snit!
>
> Ah, you prove repeatedly in this very thread that I am right... then deny
> it. See: I told you that you are funny! Now only if you meant to be.
>
>>> Now you are pushing a completely contradictory claim that I "extracted" the
>>> content from something that was coherent...
>>
>> That has always been my view right from my very first post Snit!
>
> Nope. You, at first, called the gibberish "coherent":
Nope I said you could never write anything coherent, and I was right!
As for your post that you call gibberish ... You did not write that, you
cut'n'pasted it!
So we are left with the fact that the only thing written was the text that
you extracted when it was in it's original form!
I hope you have some nice strong laces Snit as you have a fair bit of
running ahead of you! :-)
High Plains Thumper
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Some questions for you:
>>
>> 1) Why do you use my noting it would be a "baseless
>> accusation" to call Steve Mackay a "proven child molester"
>> as an excuse Tim Adams' libel?
>
> Translation: Snit is trying to make the reader forget that he
> called Mackay a "child molester" as he simultaneously admitted
> he had no basis for doing so. Strangely, Snit also admits that
> he called Mackay a "child molester" because, according to
> Snit, Mackay was making baseless accusations... an allegation
> by Snit which he has yet to show any "actual" support for.
> Notably, the hypocrite named Snit whined loudly and threatened
> lawsuits when the label was applied to him by another poster.
90- Phil Earnhardt: "You're only interested in trying to get
superficial snipes and extrapolate inappropriate conclusions." 1
Nov 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ad24a97d5dc86277
>> 2) Why do you think my *not* taking responsibility for the
>> alleged 127 posters, many of whom are Steve Carroll's
>> aliases, is in any way a sign of me not taking full
>> responsibility for *my* actions?
>
> Translation: Here, Snit is once again trying to use his "psych
> degree" in a feeble attempt to discredit the testimony of a
> large number of posters. Snit is also trying to pretend that
> "many" of the quoted posters are "aliases"... another
> allegation by Snit which , you guessed it, he has yet to show
> any "actual" support for.
There is now the same 127 quotes with substantial linking added,
so any reader can research the threads and see for themselves:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bac3625f53023522
>> 3) If I did not take responsibility for my actions, do you
>> think that excuses your calling me a forger over your own
>> inability to follow simple copy and paste directions?
>
> Translation: This is the ol' shine the light elsewhere ruse...
> everyone knows how it works.
And he does a very poor job of making it work. It reminds me of
my son as a toddler, hiding behind the dining room table with his
rear sticking out, saying that I can't find him.
77- Not Important: "I get this mental image of you and a sibling
as children in the back seat of the family car saying:
Mom, 'snits' touching me ... and you responding much as you do
now ... I'm not touching you, you're touching me! The problem is
that by now you should've grown out of that type of poke and
complain interaction with others. But, of course, you've haven't
learned how to interact with others in a more 'constructive' and
mutually beneficial manner even now." 03 Jul 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d16279e9003ca8f4
>> 4) Why, when you repeatedly run from topics dealing with
>> OSs to repeat your absurd accusations, do you accuse me of
>> not wanting to discuss the OSs of the forums you and I share
>> participation in?
>
> Translation: This one starts off with Snit making yet
> *another* allegation which he has yet to show any "actual"
> support for. It ends with Snit trying to push his oft-used,
> yet, bogus and absurd notion that it's always the *other* guy
> who doesn't stick to the topic, not Snit... who, as he would
> have the reader believe, only comes to computer related
> newsgroups to discuss computer related issues.
You are correct. Just about every topic that anyone responds to
turns into a Snit circus, the tit-for-tat and how that the poster
or another poster that he lost an argument with is now somehow
picking on him.
68- Mike: "Nonsense. I never see you "advocate" anything. All I
see you doing is engage in endless semantic arguments with
everyone. You're the TholenBot of CSMA. BTW, that's *not* a
compliment!" 8 Jul 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7c5b72d70b87ffbd
> (snip additional attempts by Snit to use his "psych degree"...
> a degree that screams for a refund)
He seems to do an excellent job of winning friends and
influencing people (not).
--
HPT
Snit
AM:
> On 23/4/09 9:19 AM, in article C6151031.2B12D%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C615DB89.13E30%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/22/09 5:47
>> PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>> I made a post.
>>>>
>>>>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8dac81e46b31528>>>>>
.
>>>>
>>>> It was utter gibberish - a test for you and others who have no ability to
>>>> understand what they read.
>>>
>>> All your "test" proved was that you are perfectly able to take a body of
>>> text and deliberately misrepresent it!
>>
>> Nope. You made that up. Again, as you have been told, the original text is
>> shown, unaltered, in the link, above.
>
> Are you really stating that your OP did not contain text entirely extracted
> from another document and represented in a way that the original author of
> the document never intended?
Of course! Glad you finally are able to figure that out! So why do you
keep insisting the gibberish you deemed "coherent" was "extracted from
another document and represented in a way that the original author of the
document never intended."
> And yes Snit I know full well that you are incapable of an honest answer,
> but the question had to be asked!
Why, when you humiliate yourself, do you lash out like that? I shall be
snipping your silly insults and accusations to keep the post focused on the
*topic*. I will also snip your repeated claims... make it once and move on,
OK! Can you please try to control yourself?
>> It is the text you called "coherent". LOL! It is also the text you claimed
>> changed *as* you were reading it:
>>
>> Wally:
>> I was confident after reading the first three lines of your
>> original post that what you posted was not as it originally
>> appeared Snit!
>
> And that is the truth!
How do you think I can make the post not be as it "originally appeared"?
How *could* I have changed it? Frankly, once something is posted, as far as
I know I cannot change it.
>> You have yet to answer how you think that post is not as it "originally
>> appeared." How do you think I changed it?
>
> The text that forms the body of your post is not as it originally appeared!
That post is *exactly* as it originally appeared. I assure you, Wally, I
have no capability to alter a post once it is posted.
...
>> You have yet to explain why you keep insisting I did not write the gibberish
>> you insisted was "coherent."
>
> The text that you posted was not gibberish in it's original form!
See how you repeat yourself! Come on! Why do you keep insisting the
gibberish you deemed "coherent" was "extracted from another document and
represented in a way that the original author of the document never
intended"? You make this accusation over and over and over and over... and
you are told you are wrong over and over and over and over.
Deal with it: your after-the-fact excuse for why you deemed the gibberish to
be "coherent" has fallen flat on its face. Your after-the-fact excuse for
why you think I was able to change the post from how it "originally
appeared" has fallen flat on its face.
You made a fool of yourself: I posted some complete gibberish to see how you
(and others) would react. You performed as an excellent comedian! You
insisted that I could not have written the gibberish because, to you, it was
"coherent"... and further, you insisted my writing is not "coherent"... and
given your completely backwards view of coherence that is very much true!
You cannot understand *truly* coherent text, and you call gibberish
"coherent". You are not able to understand what you read, Wally. This
thread proves it.
To try to defend yourself from your mistakes you came up with some BS about
how the gibberish you deemed "coherent" was "extracted from another document
and represented in a way that the original author of the document never
intended." Even more bizarrely, you claimed that I had somehow altered the
text *after* I posted it (which was as it "originally appeared").
When this was pointed out, you just sank to spewing more and more
accusations. Absurd. Get over it. You made a very silly mistake and I got
a good laugh. Tell you what: just admit you made a mistake in your *first*
response to this post and I will let it go. I will not even point to this
thread in the future when, inevitably, you show you cannot understand what
you read in the future. I get my laugh... you get a good lesson. We both
win.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C616889A.13E5E%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/23/09 6:05
> AM:
>
>> On 23/4/09 9:19 AM, in article C6151031.2B12D%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C615DB89.13E30%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/22/09 5:47
>>> PM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>> I made a post.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8dac81e46b31528>>>>>
>
> .
>>>>>
>>>>> It was utter gibberish - a test for you and others who have no ability to
>>>>> understand what they read.
>>>>
>>>> All your "test" proved was that you are perfectly able to take a body of
>>>> text and deliberately misrepresent it!
>>>
>>> Nope. You made that up. Again, as you have been told, the original text is
>>> shown, unaltered, in the link, above.
>>
>> Are you really stating that your OP did not contain text entirely extracted
>> from another document and represented in a way that the original author of
>> the document never intended?
>
> Of course!
Then you are a plagiarist and a liar!
Nuff said!
Wally
> Wally stated in post C616889A.13E5E%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/23/09 6:05
> AM:
>
>> On 23/4/09 9:19 AM, in article C6151031.2B12D%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wally stated in post C615DB89.13E30%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/22/09 5:47
>>> PM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>> I made a post.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8dac81e46b31528>>>>>
>
> .
>>>>>
>>>>> It was utter gibberish - a test for you and others who have no ability to
>>>>> understand what they read.
>>>>
>>>> All your "test" proved was that you are perfectly able to take a body of
>>>> text and deliberately misrepresent it!
>>>
>>> Nope. You made that up. Again, as you have been told, the original text is
>>> shown, unaltered, in the link, above.
>>
>> Are you really stating that your OP did not contain text entirely extracted
>> from another document and represented in a way that the original author of
>> the document never intended?
>
> Of course! Glad you finally are able to figure that out! So why do you
> keep insisting the gibberish you deemed "coherent" was "extracted from
> another document and represented in a way that the original author of the
> document never intended."
Quite simple...
The garbled and disjointed text that appeared in your post was never
intended to appear that way! the coherent document that formed the probable
source for the text in your post is proof of that! the same document also
proves you to be a liar and a plagiarist!
Snit
PM:
...
>>> Are you really stating that your OP did not contain text entirely extracted
>>> from another document and represented in a way that the original author of
>>> the document never intended?
>>
>> Of course! Glad you finally are able to figure that out! So why do you
>> keep insisting the gibberish you deemed "coherent" was "extracted from
>> another document and represented in a way that the original author of the
>> document never intended."
>
> Quite simple...
>
> The garbled and disjointed text that appeared in your post was never
> intended to appear that way! the coherent document that formed the probable
> source for the text in your post is proof of that! the same document also
> proves you to be a liar and a plagiarist!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
Probable source? No, Wally: as you have been told, the gibberish you called
"coherent" was presented *exactly* the way it was intended to be presented.
For the record: until I clicked on the link you provided, I had never seen
the text you pointed to.
As I have repeatedly told you: your after-the-fact excuse for why you deemed
the gibberish to be "coherent" has fallen flat on its face. Your
after-the-fact excuse for why you think I was able to change the post from
how it "originally appeared" has fallen flat on its face.
You made a fool of yourself: I posted some complete gibberish to see how you
(and others) would react. You performed as an excellent comedian! You
insisted that I could not have written the gibberish because, to you, it was
"coherent"... and further, you insisted my writing is not "coherent"... and
given your completely backwards view of coherence that is very much true!
You cannot understand *truly* coherent text, and you call gibberish
"coherent". You are not able to understand what you read, Wally. This
thread proves it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
For the record: to the best of my knowledge I had never seen the text you
are claiming I plagiarized. You have made *another* accusation you will
never support. As predicted, though, you will post more and more lies...
the reason why is clear: I posted some complete gibberish to see how you
(and others) would react. You performed as an excellent comedian! You
insisted that I could not have written the gibberish because, to you, it was
"coherent"... and further, you insisted my writing is not "coherent"... and
given your completely backwards view of coherence that is very much true!
You cannot understand *truly* coherent text, and you call gibberish
"coherent". You are not able to understand what you read, Wally. This
thread proves it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
...
>>> Are you really stating that your OP did not contain text entirely extracted
>>> from another document and represented in a way that the original author of
>>> the document never intended?
>>
>> Of course! Glad you finally are able to figure that out! So why do you
>> keep insisting the gibberish you deemed "coherent" was "extracted from
>> another document and represented in a way that the original author of the
>> document never intended."
>
> Quite simple...
>
> The garbled and disjointed text that appeared in your post was never
> intended to appear that way! the coherent document that formed the probable
> source for the text in your post is proof of that! the same document also
> proves you to be a liar and a plagiarist!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
I just actually did more than give a very, very cursory glance at the link
you pointed to... let us be clear, that is the "coherent" text you think I
plagiarized... right? You know, the "coherent" text you went on and on
about how I misrepresented some coherent text by turning it into gibberish.
Right? In other words, you find the following "coherent":
Benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times organizations capable
of double-loop learning, by moving executive focus from lag
financial indicators to more actionable lead indicators. The
three cs - customers, competition and change - have created a
new world for business big is no longer impregnable an
investment program where cash flows exactly match
shareholders' preferred time patterns of consumption. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities in order to build a shared view of what can
be improved, combined with optimal use of human resources. By
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, to focus on improvement, not
cost, working through a top-down, bottom-up approach.
If that is too much for you, as it clearly is, maybe you can explain this
single sentence from the source *you* called "coherent":
An important ingredient of business process reengineering while
those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall goals.
Let me give you a hint, Wally: this source you pointed to - the very one you
have claimed, repeatedly, is "coherent" - and you have accused me of
plagiarizing... it is gibberish, too! Complete and total nonsense... but,
and this is the really, really funny part, you *clearly* had no idea that
the "evidence" you pointed to was gibberish. You referred to it as:
"the coherent document"
LOL! Wally... poor, poor Wally... you have once again shown that when you
read complete and utter gibberish you think it is "coherent"... and you have
made it clear when you read coherent posts you are not able to understand
them.
See: I told you that you were being funny in this thread... and here you
are, being very, very funny.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
>>>>>> It was utter gibberish - a test for you and others who have no ability to
>>>>>> understand what they read.
>>>>>>
>>>>> All your "test" proved was that you are perfectly able to take a body of
>>>>> text and deliberately misrepresent it!
>>>>>
>>>> Nope. You made that up. Again, as you have been told, the original text
>>>> is shown, unaltered, in the link, above.
>>>
>>> Are you really stating that your OP did not contain text entirely extracted
>>> from another document and represented in a way that the original author of
>>> the document never intended?
>>
>> Of course!
>
> Then you are a plagiarist and a liar!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
>
> Nuff said!
Oh, yes! You have said a lot... again! Look at you link... the very source
you have repeatedly called "coherent". Guess what, Wally... it is complete
and utter gibberish. Nonsense.
Once again, Wally, you are showing that you thing gibberish is "coherent".
LOL, here is another paragraph from the document at your link (I presented
some to you elsewhere in this thread):
An important ingredient of business process reengineering
presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong,
the strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required
to identify taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles. Building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization, quantitative
analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role to play in
this the vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme
importance. Exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler, from binary cause and effect to complex patterns,
building a dynamic relationship between the main players.
Highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.
After you decided my purposefully gibberish post was "coherent" and I told
you that you were wrong, you found an equally unintelligible post, accused
me of plagiarizing it (I did no such thing), and told me that the gibberish
you pointed to was "coherent"!
LOL! Wally... how many times will you make that same mistake in this
thread... pointing to complete and utter gibberish and insisting that, to
you, it is "coherent"? You keep proving, over and over, you have no
ability to understand what you read... your inability to comprehend is so
extreme you think the above gibberish is "coherent".
Seriously, Wally, I am laughing out loud... this is one of the funniest
threads I have seen in CSMA in a long, long time.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
>> You have yet to answer how you think that post is not as it "originally
>> appeared." How do you think I changed it?
>
> I can only answer for what I have said Snit, not for your delusions.... The
> text that forms the body of your post is not as it originally appeared!
> *that* is a fact!, I asked you for the source of that text, not for the
> source of your post! *that* is a fact! the text in your post is garbled and
> disjointed! whilst the text in what is the probable original is coherent and
> well ordered! *that* is a fact!
For the record, you have now pointed to the source of this document you call
"coherent and well ordered". Here is the link you provided:
<http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn>. And in case the document is ever removed, or
you change the link from tinyurl, the link you point to is:
<http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:7y_EIw0dy4IJ:www.londonmet.ac.uk/london
met/library/t23739_24.doc+In+a+collaborative,+forward-thinking+venture+broug
ht+together&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au>.
Here is the Word DOC it came from:
<http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/londonmet/library/t23739_24.doc>
And what follows is the text *you* have deemed to be "coherent and well
ordered"... in its entirety. For the record, this has got to be one of the
funniest things I have ever seen in CSMA... you, Wally, claiming the
following is "coherent and well ordered":
Introduction
Benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times organizations capable
of double-loop learning, by moving executive focus from lag
financial indicators to more actionable lead indicators. The
three cs - customers, competition and change - have created a
new world for business big is no longer impregnable an
investment program where cash flows exactly match
shareholders' preferred time patterns of consumption. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities in order to build a shared view of what can
be improved, combined with optimal use of human resources. By
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, to focus on improvement, not
cost, working through a top-down, bottom-up approach.
An important ingredient of business process reengineering
presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong,
the strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required
to identify taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles. Building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization, quantitative
analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role to play in
this the vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme
importance. Exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler, from binary cause and effect to complex patterns,
building a dynamic relationship between the main players.
Highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.
Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles.
Presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, through the adoption of a proactive stance, the
astute manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To
ensure that non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
Exploitation of core competencies as an essential enabler, in
order to build a shared view of what can be improved, in a
collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds.
In a collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds. From binary cause and
effect to complex patterns, working through a top-down,
bottom-up approach, defensive reasoning, the doom loop and
doom zoom. By adopting project appraisal through incremental
cash flow analysis, taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles, measure the process, not
the people. Motivating participants and capturing their
expectations, exploiting the productive lifecycle empowerment
of all personnel, not just key operatives.
That will indubitably lay the firm foundations for any
leading company the components and priorities for the change
program maximization of shareholder wealth through separation
of ownership from management. The balanced scorecard, like
the executive dashboard, is an essential tool measure the
process, not the people. Big is no longer impregnable
building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, in a collaborative, forward-thinking
venture brought together through the merging of like minds.
The components and priorities for the change program
empowerment of all personnel, not just key operatives,
combined with optimal use of human resources. Exploiting the
productive lifecycle whether the organization's core
competences are fully in line, given market realities taking
full cognizance of organizational learning parameters and
principles. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering by adopting project appraisal through
incremental cash flow analysis, exploitation of core
competencies as an essential enabler. Building a dynamic
relationship between the main players.
From binary cause and effect to complex patterns, while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. The three cs - customers, competition and change -
have created a new world for business in order to build a
shared view of what can be improved, an important ingredient
of business process reengineering. In a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
exploiting the productive lifecycle the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units.
Empowerment of all personnel, not just key operatives, the
strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required to
identify benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential
process, should be a top priority at all times. Building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, working through a top-down, bottom-up
approach, in a collaborative, forward-thinking venture
brought together through the merging of like minds. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities organizations capable of double-loop
learning, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals.
Building a dynamic relationship between the main players. The
vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme importance
measure the process, not the people. As knowledge is
fragmented into specialities the strategic vision - if indeed
there be one - is required to identify the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business.
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, presentation of the process flow should
culminate in idea generation, whenever single-loop learning
strategies go wrong. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, an investment program where cash flows
exactly match shareholders' preferred time patterns of
consumption highly motivated participants contributing to a
valued-added outcome. To ensure that non-operating cash
outflows are assessed.
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
combined with optimal use of human resources, to focus on
improvement, not cost. The new golden rule gives enormous
power to those individuals and units, defensive reasoning,
the doom loop and doom zoom in a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds.
Quantitative analysis
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this the components and priorities for the change
program by adopting project appraisal through incremental
cash flow analysis. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows
are assessed. By moving executive focus from lag financial
indicators to more actionable lead indicators, building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. That will indubitably lay
the firm foundations for any leading company an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Benchmarking against
industry leaders, an essential process, should be a top
priority at all times highly motivated participants
contributing to a valued-added outcome.
The new golden rule
The new golden rule gives enormous power to those individuals
and units, in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, an important ingredient of business process
reengineering. To ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Presentation of the process flow should culminate
in idea generation, through the adoption of a proactive
stance, the astute manager can adopt a position at the
vanguard. To experience a profound paradigm shift, that will
indubitably lay the firm foundations for any leading company
while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of
the overall goals.
Big is no longer impregnable the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units, in a
collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds. Combined with optimal use
of human resources, in order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to focus on improvement, not cost.
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this benchmarking against industry leaders, an
essential process, should be a top priority at all times
highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.
The adoption of a proactive stance
Through the adoption of a proactive stance, the astute
manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed. The new golden rule
gives enormous power to those individuals and units, by
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, as knowledge is fragmented into
specialities. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company exploiting the productive lifecycle
building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization.
Defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. In order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, empowerment of all personnel, not just key
operatives, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. The new golden rule gives enormous power to those
individuals and units, the components and priorities for the
change program an important ingredient of business process
reengineering.
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this whether the organization's core competences
are fully in line, given market realities the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company. The three cs - customers,
competition and change - have created a new world for
business measure the process, not the people. The balanced
scorecard, like the executive dashboard, is an essential tool
benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times to ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
Single-loop learning strategies
Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong, to focus
on improvement, not cost, building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization. Motivating
participants and capturing their expectations, an important
ingredient of business process reengineering organizations
capable of double-loop learning. Presentation of the process
flow should culminate in idea generation, working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, while those at the coal face
don't have sufficient view of the overall goals. Maximization
of shareholder wealth through separation of ownership from
management building flexibility through spreading knowledge
and self-organization, that will indubitably lay the firm
foundations for any leading company. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard.
By moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to
more actionable lead indicators, the balanced scorecard, like
the executive dashboard, is an essential tool an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Big is no longer
impregnable in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, measure the process, not the people. By adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. Working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, that will indubitably lay the
firm foundations for any leading company to focus on
improvement, not cost.
Benchmarking
Benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times organizations capable
of double-loop learning, by moving executive focus from lag
financial indicators to more actionable lead indicators. The
three cs - customers, competition and change - have created a
new world for business big is no longer impregnable an
investment program where cash flows exactly match
shareholders' preferred time patterns of consumption. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities in order to build a shared view of what can
be improved, combined with optimal use of human resources. By
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, to focus on improvement, not
cost, working through a top-down, bottom-up approach.
An important ingredient of business process reengineering
presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong,
the strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required
to identify taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles. Building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization, quantitative
analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role to play in
this the vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme
importance. Exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler, from binary cause and effect to complex patterns,
building a dynamic relationship between the main players.
Highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.
Double-loop learning
Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles.
Presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, through the adoption of a proactive stance, the
astute manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To
ensure that non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
Exploitation of core competencies as an essential enabler, in
order to build a shared view of what can be improved, in a
collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds.
In a collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds. From binary cause and
effect to complex patterns, working through a top-down,
bottom-up approach, defensive reasoning, the doom loop and
doom zoom. By adopting project appraisal through incremental
cash flow analysis, taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles, measure the process, not
the people. Motivating participants and capturing their
expectations, exploiting the productive lifecycle empowerment
of all personnel, not just key operatives.
That will indubitably lay the firm foundations for any
leading company the components and priorities for the change
program maximization of shareholder wealth through separation
of ownership from management. The balanced scorecard, like
the executive dashboard, is an essential tool measure the
process, not the people. Big is no longer impregnable
building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, in a collaborative, forward-thinking
venture brought together through the merging of like minds.
The components and priorities for the change program
empowerment of all personnel, not just key operatives,
combined with optimal use of human resources. Exploiting the
productive lifecycle whether the organization's core
competences are fully in line, given market realities taking
full cognizance of organizational learning parameters and
principles. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering by adopting project appraisal through
incremental cash flow analysis, exploitation of core
competencies as an essential enabler. Building a dynamic
relationship between the main players.
From binary cause and effect to complex patterns, while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. The three cs - customers, competition and change -
have created a new world for business in order to build a
shared view of what can be improved, an important ingredient
of business process reengineering. In a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
exploiting the productive lifecycle the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units.
Empowerment of all personnel, not just key operatives, the
strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required to
identify benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential
process, should be a top priority at all times. Building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, working through a top-down, bottom-up
approach, in a collaborative, forward-thinking venture
brought together through the merging of like minds. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities organizations capable of double-loop
learning, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals.
Building a dynamic relationship
Building a dynamic relationship between the main players. The
vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme importance
measure the process, not the people. As knowledge is
fragmented into specialities the strategic vision - if indeed
there be one - is required to identify the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business.
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, presentation of the process flow should
culminate in idea generation, whenever single-loop learning
strategies go wrong. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, an investment program where cash flows
exactly match shareholders' preferred time patterns of
consumption highly motivated participants contributing to a
valued-added outcome. To ensure that non-operating cash
outflows are assessed.
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
combined with optimal use of human resources, to focus on
improvement, not cost. The new golden rule gives enormous
power to those individuals and units, defensive reasoning,
the doom loop and doom zoom in a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds.
Quantitative analysis
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this the components and priorities for the change
program by adopting project appraisal through incremental
cash flow analysis. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows
are assessed. By moving executive focus from lag financial
indicators to more actionable lead indicators, building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. That will indubitably lay
the firm foundations for any leading company an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Benchmarking against
industry leaders, an essential process, should be a top
priority at all times highly motivated participants
contributing to a valued-added outcome.
The new golden rule gives enormous power to those individuals
and units, in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, an important ingredient of business process
reengineering. To ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Presentation of the process flow should culminate
in idea generation, through the adoption of a proactive
stance, the astute manager can adopt a position at the
vanguard. To experience a profound paradigm shift, that will
indubitably lay the firm foundations for any leading company
while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of
the overall goals.
Big is no longer impregnable the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units, in a
collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds. Combined with optimal use
of human resources, in order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to focus on improvement, not cost.
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this benchmarking against industry leaders, an
essential process, should be a top priority at all times
highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.
Through the adoption of a proactive stance, the astute
manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed. The new golden rule
gives enormous power to those individuals and units, by
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, as knowledge is fragmented into
specialities. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company exploiting the productive lifecycle
building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization.
Defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. In order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, empowerment of all personnel, not just key
operatives, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. The new golden rule gives enormous power to those
individuals and units, the components and priorities for the
change program an important ingredient of business process
reengineering.
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this whether the organization's core competences
are fully in line, given market realities the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company. The three cs - customers,
competition and change - have created a new world for
business measure the process, not the people. The balanced
scorecard, like the executive dashboard, is an essential tool
benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times to ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong, to focus
on improvement, not cost, building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization. Motivating
participants and capturing their expectations, an important
ingredient of business process reengineering organizations
capable of double-loop learning. Presentation of the process
flow should culminate in idea generation, working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, while those at the coal face
don't have sufficient view of the overall goals. Maximization
of shareholder wealth through separation of ownership from
management building flexibility through spreading knowledge
and self-organization, that will indubitably lay the firm
foundations for any leading company. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard.
By moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to
more actionable lead indicators, the balanced scorecard, like
the executive dashboard, is an essential tool an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Big is no longer
impregnable in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, measure the process, not the people. By adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. Working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, that will indubitably lay the
firm foundations for any leading company to focus on
improvement, not cost.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C61728DD.13EF7%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/23/09 5:29
> PM:
>
> ...
>>>> Are you really stating that your OP did not contain text entirely extracted
>>>> from another document and represented in a way that the original author of
>>>> the document never intended?
>>>
>>> Of course! Glad you finally are able to figure that out! So why do you
>>> keep insisting the gibberish you deemed "coherent" was "extracted from
>>> another document and represented in a way that the original author of the
>>> document never intended."
>>
>> Quite simple...
>>
>> The garbled and disjointed text that appeared in your post was never
>> intended to appear that way! the coherent document that formed the probable
>> source for the text in your post is proof of that! the same document also
>> proves you to be a liar and a plagiarist!
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
>
> Probable source? .....
Of course "probable" Snit, you have continually refused to reveal the exact
source, so all that is left is finding "probable" sources!
Have you always had this inability to understand anything at all Snit?
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
So it's your opinion that it is pure coincidence that *all* of your OP can
be found in the text that I have shown you? ....really?
Considering that it contains sentences such as ....
"As knowledge is fragmented into specialities the strategic vision - if
indeed there be one"
"while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals."
"To experience a profound paradigm shift"
"combined with optimal use of human resources"
"the doom loop and doom zoom"
"by moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more actionable
lead indicators."
.... You have just proven that there is absolutely no limits to your
stupidity Snit, none at all! ROTFLMAO!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C61728DD.13EF7%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/23/09 5:29
> PM:
>
> ...
>>>> Are you really stating that your OP did not contain text entirely extracted
>>>> from another document and represented in a way that the original author of
>>>> the document never intended?
>>>
>>> Of course! Glad you finally are able to figure that out! So why do you
>>> keep insisting the gibberish you deemed "coherent" was "extracted from
>>> another document and represented in a way that the original author of the
>>> document never intended."
>>
>> Quite simple...
>>
>> The garbled and disjointed text that appeared in your post was never
>> intended to appear that way! the coherent document that formed the probable
>> source for the text in your post is proof of that! the same document also
>> proves you to be a liar and a plagiarist!
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
>
> I just .....
Made a complete ass out of yourself Snit? ... Yes I did notice! LOL
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Gladly Snit!
On one condition ... I am perfectly willing to give you the knowledge that
you seek after you enlighten me as to why a person such as you would need to
plagiarize a document and when caught doing so would deny doing it in the
most farcical manner possible!
Explain *that* satisfactorily Snit and I will do as you have asked!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C61726C3.13EF5%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/23/09 5:20
> PM:
>
>>>>>>> It was utter gibberish - a test for you and others who have no ability
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> understand what they read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> All your "test" proved was that you are perfectly able to take a body of
>>>>>> text and deliberately misrepresent it!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. You made that up. Again, as you have been told, the original text
>>>>> is shown, unaltered, in the link, above.
>>>>
>>>> Are you really stating that your OP did not contain text entirely extracted
>>>> from another document and represented in a way that the original author of
>>>> the document never intended?
>>>
>>> Of course!
>>
>> Then you are a plagiarist and a liar!
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
>>
>> Nuff said!
>
> Oh, yes! You have said a lot... again! Look at you link... the very source
> you have repeatedly called "coherent". Guess what, Wally... it is complete
> and utter gibberish. Nonsense.
ROTFLMAO! Check the name on the bottle Snit ... Those pills cannot have
been intended for you!
Snit
AM:
See, Wally, how you cannot understand simple conversation. Look above:
Wally:
Are you really stating that your OP did not contain text
entirely extracted from another document and represented in a
way that the original author of the document never intended?
Snit:
Of course! Glad you finally are able to figure that out! So
why do you keep insisting the gibberish you deemed "coherent"
was "extracted from another document and represented in a way
that the original author of the document never intended."
And, look, even *after* you are told that, *you* *do* *not* *understand*
*it*.
But it gets better. Your claimed "probable" source, the one of which you
said:
the probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that*
is a fact!
Guess what! It is complete and total gibberish. Utter nonsense.
Seriously, Wally, you have gone above and beyond making a complete and total
fool of yourself.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
>>> Then you are a plagiarist and a liar!
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
>>>
>>> Nuff said!
>>>
>> For the record: to the best of my knowledge I had never seen the text you
>> are claiming I plagiarized.
>
> So it's your opinion that it is pure coincidence that *all* of your OP can
> be found in the text that I have shown you? ....really?
Nope. You made that up. Likely the person who posted the gibberish you
pointed to, the gibberish you said this about:
the probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that*
is a fact!
That person likely used the same tool to make *original* text as I did. He
or she knew nothing of me and my text, and I knew nothing of his or her
text. This is a simple, simple concept. But it goes over your head...
completely baffles you.
> Considering that it contains sentences such as ....
>
> "As knowledge is fragmented into specialities the strategic vision - if
> indeed there be one"
Of which you said:
the probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that*
is a fact!
> "while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
> goals."
Of which you said:
the probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that*
is a fact!
> "To experience a profound paradigm shift"
>
> "combined with optimal use of human resources"
>
> "the doom loop and doom zoom"
Of which you said:
the probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that*
is a fact!
> "by moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more actionable
> lead indicators."
>
> .... You have just proven that there is absolutely no limits to your
> stupidity Snit, none at all! ROTFLMAO!
Oh, Wally... the irony. The utter, hilarious irony. You are going so far
and above the call of duty to play the fool in this thread I, seriously, am
beginning to feel sorry for you. You are u
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
No you won't! Face it - it is utter gibberish. Complete and total
nonsense. But it is *also* the text you said this about:
the probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that*
is a fact!
You seriously could not tell that the above utter nonsense was anything
other than "coherent and well ordered". And "*that* is a fact!"
LOL!
> On one condition ... I am perfectly willing to give you the knowledge that
> you seek after you enlighten me as to why a person such as you would need to
> plagiarize a document and when caught doing so would deny doing it in the
> most farcical manner possible!
>
> Explain *that* satisfactorily Snit and I will do as you have asked!
You keep going on and on about plagerizing... when there is *no* reason to
think the person who produced the gibberish you found on the web and I had
*any* knowledge of each other's text.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
....
>>> Then you are a plagiarist and a liar!
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
>>>
>>> Nuff said!
>>
>> Oh, yes! You have said a lot... again! Look at you link... the very source
>> you have repeatedly called "coherent". Guess what, Wally... it is complete
>> and utter gibberish. Nonsense.
>
> ROTFLMAO! Check the name on the bottle Snit ... Those pills cannot have
> been intended for you!
>
Oh Wally... you continue to make a complete and total fool of yourself. I
am having so much fun with your link, the one you dishonestly and repeatedly
claimed I plagiarized... the link to complete and utter gibberish. Here are
just some things you said about *that* complete and utter gibberish:
You could not have been the author because the work that you
had extracted your posts content from was actually coherent
You called complete and utter gibberish "actually coherent".
But the content that you quoted was just as clearly not
authored by you and was plainly part of a larger body of
writing and once found it was obvious why you could not have
written it ... It was coherent therefore in all likelihood
could not have been authored by you Snit!
You called complete and utter gibberish "coherent".
Having found a possible source *before* responding to you
Snit my "evidence" was that *that* document was "coherent",
so when you asked why the text that you extracted from it
could not have been authored by you the answer was obvious
... It's coherent nature!
You claimed complete and utter gibberish had a "coherent nature".
You altered a coherent document and made it appear gibberish
You called a document filled complete and utter gibberish "a coherent
document".
I asked you for the source of that text, not for the source
of your post! *that* is a fact! the text in your post is
garbled and disjointed! whilst the text in what is the
probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that* is a
fact!
You called complete and utter gibberish "coherent and well ordered". *Well
ordered*! LOL!
Face it, Wally, you have *again* proved you cannot distinguish complete and
utter gibberish from text that makes sense. You even call complete and
utter gibberish "coherent and well ordered".
Oh, Wally, I did not expect you to make *this* big of a fool of yourself...
I almost feel sorry for you. Maybe when I stop laughing I will. :)
For the record, in case the file you pointed to goes away, this is the text
of the post you said was "coherent and well ordered":
Introduction
Benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times organizations capable
of double-loop learning, by moving executive focus from lag
financial indicators to more actionable lead indicators. The
three cs - customers, competition and change - have created a
new world for business big is no longer impregnable an
investment program where cash flows exactly match
shareholders' preferred time patterns of consumption. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities in order to build a shared view of what can
be improved, combined with optimal use of human resources. By
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, to focus on improvement, not
cost, working through a top-down, bottom-up approach.
An important ingredient of business process reengineering
presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong,
the strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required
to identify taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles. Building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization, quantitative
analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role to play in
this the vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme
importance. Exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler, from binary cause and effect to complex patterns,
building a dynamic relationship between the main players.
Highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.
Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles.
Presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, through the adoption of a proactive stance, the
astute manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To
ensure that non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
productive lifecycle whether the organization's core
competences are fully in line, given market realities taking
full cognizance of organizational learning parameters and
principles. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering by adopting project appraisal through
incremental cash flow analysis, exploitation of core
competencies as an essential enabler. Building a dynamic
relationship between the main players.
From binary cause and effect to complex patterns, while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. The three cs - customers, competition and change -
have created a new world for business in order to build a
shared view of what can be improved, an important ingredient
of business process reengineering. In a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
exploiting the productive lifecycle the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units.
Empowerment of all personnel, not just key operatives, the
strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required to
identify benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential
process, should be a top priority at all times. Building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, working through a top-down, bottom-up
approach, in a collaborative, forward-thinking venture
brought together through the merging of like minds. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities organizations capable of double-loop
learning, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals.
Building a dynamic relationship between the main players. The
vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme importance
measure the process, not the people. As knowledge is
fragmented into specialities the strategic vision - if indeed
there be one - is required to identify the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business.
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, presentation of the process flow should
culminate in idea generation, whenever single-loop learning
strategies go wrong. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, an investment program where cash flows
exactly match shareholders' preferred time patterns of
consumption highly motivated participants contributing to a
valued-added outcome. To ensure that non-operating cash
outflows are assessed.
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
combined with optimal use of human resources, to focus on
improvement, not cost. The new golden rule gives enormous
power to those individuals and units, defensive reasoning,
the doom loop and doom zoom in a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds.
Quantitative analysis
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this the components and priorities for the change
program by adopting project appraisal through incremental
cash flow analysis. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows
are assessed. By moving executive focus from lag financial
indicators to more actionable lead indicators, building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. That will indubitably lay
the firm foundations for any leading company an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Benchmarking against
industry leaders, an essential process, should be a top
priority at all times highly motivated participants
contributing to a valued-added outcome.
The new golden rule
The new golden rule gives enormous power to those individuals
and units, in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, an important ingredient of business process
reengineering. To ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Presentation of the process flow should culminate
in idea generation, through the adoption of a proactive
stance, the astute manager can adopt a position at the
vanguard. To experience a profound paradigm shift, that will
indubitably lay the firm foundations for any leading company
while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of
the overall goals.
Big is no longer impregnable the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units, in a
collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds. Combined with optimal use
of human resources, in order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to focus on improvement, not cost.
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this benchmarking against industry leaders, an
essential process, should be a top priority at all times
highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.
The adoption of a proactive stance
Through the adoption of a proactive stance, the astute
manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed. The new golden rule
gives enormous power to those individuals and units, by
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, as knowledge is fragmented into
specialities. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company exploiting the productive lifecycle
building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization.
Defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. In order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, empowerment of all personnel, not just key
operatives, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. The new golden rule gives enormous power to those
individuals and units, the components and priorities for the
change program an important ingredient of business process
reengineering.
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this whether the organization's core competences
are fully in line, given market realities the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company. The three cs - customers,
competition and change - have created a new world for
business measure the process, not the people. The balanced
scorecard, like the executive dashboard, is an essential tool
benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times to ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
Single-loop learning strategies
Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong, to focus
on improvement, not cost, building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization. Motivating
participants and capturing their expectations, an important
ingredient of business process reengineering organizations
capable of double-loop learning. Presentation of the process
flow should culminate in idea generation, working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, while those at the coal face
don't have sufficient view of the overall goals. Maximization
of shareholder wealth through separation of ownership from
management building flexibility through spreading knowledge
and self-organization, that will indubitably lay the firm
foundations for any leading company. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard.
By moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to
more actionable lead indicators, the balanced scorecard, like
the executive dashboard, is an essential tool an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Big is no longer
impregnable in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, measure the process, not the people. By adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. Working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, that will indubitably lay the
firm foundations for any leading company to focus on
improvement, not cost.
Benchmarking
Benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times organizations capable
of double-loop learning, by moving executive focus from lag
financial indicators to more actionable lead indicators. The
three cs - customers, competition and change - have created a
new world for business big is no longer impregnable an
investment program where cash flows exactly match
shareholders' preferred time patterns of consumption. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities in order to build a shared view of what can
be improved, combined with optimal use of human resources. By
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, to focus on improvement, not
cost, working through a top-down, bottom-up approach.
An important ingredient of business process reengineering
presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong,
the strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required
to identify taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles. Building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization, quantitative
analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role to play in
this the vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme
importance. Exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler, from binary cause and effect to complex patterns,
building a dynamic relationship between the main players.
Highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.
Double-loop learning
Organizations capable of double-loop learning, by adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong. Defensive
reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom to experience a
profound paradigm shift, in order to build a shared view of
what can be improved. Empowerment of all personnel, not just
key operatives, from binary cause and effect to complex
patterns, taking full cognizance of organizational learning
parameters and principles.
Presentation of the process flow should culminate in idea
generation, through the adoption of a proactive stance, the
astute manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To
ensure that non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
productive lifecycle whether the organization's core
competences are fully in line, given market realities taking
full cognizance of organizational learning parameters and
principles. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering by adopting project appraisal through
incremental cash flow analysis, exploitation of core
competencies as an essential enabler. Building a dynamic
relationship between the main players.
From binary cause and effect to complex patterns, while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. The three cs - customers, competition and change -
have created a new world for business in order to build a
shared view of what can be improved, an important ingredient
of business process reengineering. In a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
exploiting the productive lifecycle the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units.
Empowerment of all personnel, not just key operatives, the
strategic vision - if indeed there be one - is required to
identify benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential
process, should be a top priority at all times. Building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, working through a top-down, bottom-up
approach, in a collaborative, forward-thinking venture
brought together through the merging of like minds. Whether
the organization's core competences are fully in line, given
market realities organizations capable of double-loop
learning, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. An important ingredient of business process
reengineering while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals.
Building a dynamic relationship
Building a dynamic relationship between the main players. The
vitality of conceptual synergies is of supreme importance
measure the process, not the people. As knowledge is
fragmented into specialities the strategic vision - if indeed
there be one - is required to identify the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business.
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, presentation of the process flow should
culminate in idea generation, whenever single-loop learning
strategies go wrong. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, an investment program where cash flows
exactly match shareholders' preferred time patterns of
consumption highly motivated participants contributing to a
valued-added outcome. To ensure that non-operating cash
outflows are assessed.
Building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, while those at the coal face don't have
sufficient view of the overall goals. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard. As knowledge is fragmented into specialities
combined with optimal use of human resources, to focus on
improvement, not cost. The new golden rule gives enormous
power to those individuals and units, defensive reasoning,
the doom loop and doom zoom in a collaborative,
forward-thinking venture brought together through the merging
of like minds.
Quantitative analysis
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this the components and priorities for the change
program by adopting project appraisal through incremental
cash flow analysis. In order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to ensure that non-operating cash outflows
are assessed. By moving executive focus from lag financial
indicators to more actionable lead indicators, building
flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization, taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. That will indubitably lay
the firm foundations for any leading company an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Benchmarking against
industry leaders, an essential process, should be a top
priority at all times highly motivated participants
contributing to a valued-added outcome.
The new golden rule gives enormous power to those individuals
and units, in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, an important ingredient of business process
reengineering. To ensure that non-operating cash outflows are
assessed. Presentation of the process flow should culminate
in idea generation, through the adoption of a proactive
stance, the astute manager can adopt a position at the
vanguard. To experience a profound paradigm shift, that will
indubitably lay the firm foundations for any leading company
while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of
the overall goals.
Big is no longer impregnable the new golden rule gives
enormous power to those individuals and units, in a
collaborative, forward-thinking venture brought together
through the merging of like minds. Combined with optimal use
of human resources, in order to build a shared view of what
can be improved, to focus on improvement, not cost.
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this benchmarking against industry leaders, an
essential process, should be a top priority at all times
highly motivated participants contributing to a valued-added
outcome.
Through the adoption of a proactive stance, the astute
manager can adopt a position at the vanguard. To ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed. The new golden rule
gives enormous power to those individuals and units, by
moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more
actionable lead indicators, as knowledge is fragmented into
specialities. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company exploiting the productive lifecycle
building flexibility through spreading knowledge and
self-organization.
Defensive reasoning, the doom loop and doom zoom while those
at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals. In order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, empowerment of all personnel, not just key
operatives, exploitation of core competencies as an essential
enabler. The new golden rule gives enormous power to those
individuals and units, the components and priorities for the
change program an important ingredient of business process
reengineering.
Quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this whether the organization's core competences
are fully in line, given market realities the three cs -
customers, competition and change - have created a new world
for business. That will indubitably lay the firm foundations
for any leading company. The three cs - customers,
competition and change - have created a new world for
business measure the process, not the people. The balanced
scorecard, like the executive dashboard, is an essential tool
benchmarking against industry leaders, an essential process,
should be a top priority at all times to ensure that
non-operating cash outflows are assessed.
Whenever single-loop learning strategies go wrong, to focus
on improvement, not cost, building flexibility through
spreading knowledge and self-organization. Motivating
participants and capturing their expectations, an important
ingredient of business process reengineering organizations
capable of double-loop learning. Presentation of the process
flow should culminate in idea generation, working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, while those at the coal face
don't have sufficient view of the overall goals. Maximization
of shareholder wealth through separation of ownership from
management building flexibility through spreading knowledge
and self-organization, that will indubitably lay the firm
foundations for any leading company. Through the adoption of
a proactive stance, the astute manager can adopt a position
at the vanguard.
By moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to
more actionable lead indicators, the balanced scorecard, like
the executive dashboard, is an essential tool an investment
program where cash flows exactly match shareholders'
preferred time patterns of consumption. Big is no longer
impregnable in order to build a shared view of what can be
improved, measure the process, not the people. By adopting
project appraisal through incremental cash flow analysis,
quantitative analysis of all the key ratios has a vital role
to play in this taking full cognizance of organizational
learning parameters and principles. Working through a
top-down, bottom-up approach, that will indubitably lay the
Steve Carroll
<highplainsthum...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> Some questions for you:
>
> >> 1) Why do you use my noting it would be a "baseless
> >> accusation" to call Steve Mackay a "proven child molester"
> >> as an excuse Tim Adams' libel?
>
> > Translation: Snit is trying to make the reader forget that he
> > called Mackay a "child molester" as he simultaneously admitted
> > he had no basis for doing so. Strangely, Snit also admits that
> > he called Mackay a "child molester" because, according to
> > Snit, Mackay was making baseless accusations... an allegation
> > by Snit which he has yet to show any "actual" support for.
> > Notably, the hypocrite named Snit whined loudly and threatened
> > lawsuits when the label was applied to him by another poster.
>
> 90- Phil Earnhardt: "You're only interested in trying to get
> superficial snipes and extrapolate inappropriate conclusions." 1
> Nov 2004
>
>
> >> 2) Why do you think my *not* taking responsibility for the
> >> alleged 127 posters, many of whom are Steve Carroll's
> >> aliases, is in any way a sign of me not taking full
> >> responsibility for *my* actions?
>
> > Translation: Here, Snit is once again trying to use his "psych
> > degree" in a feeble attempt to discredit the testimony of a
> > large number of posters. Snit is also trying to pretend that
> > "many" of the quoted posters are "aliases"... another
> > allegation by Snit which , you guessed it, he has yet to show
> > any "actual" support for.
>
> There is now the same 127 quotes with substantial linking added,
> so any reader can research the threads and see for themselves:
>
Providing a link so a reader can see that the attribution is true and
the context in which the statement was made is a great idea. We
really should create a Snit FAQ of sorts and link to this now that
it's so thoroughly documented. The FAQ could also have a link to
Sandman's web page about troll scoring (he did a lot of great work
there). The funniest part about it is that Snit basically asked
Sandman to do it... Snit obviously didn't expect to be the top troll;)
Also funny is that Snit tried to 'stuff the ballot box', so to speak,
by "scavenging" a ton of quotes about me and submitting them in the
hopes that I would look like him. The reality, of course, is that no
one can look like Snit. Here's a link to it if you want a look:
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit
A link in to the csma "About this group" webpage would be a good thing
to include:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/about?hl=en
Notice that Snit holds 2 out of the top all time 10 spots:
22933 s...@cable0ne.net.invalid
10840 c...@gallopinginsanity.com
Almost 34.000 posts in 5 years in just csma alone (and that's not
counting his ID forgeries, sock puppets, nymshifts, etc.) !
> >> 3) If I did not take responsibility for my actions, do you
> >> think that excuses your calling me a forger over your own
> >> inability to follow simple copy and paste directions?
>
> > Translation: This is the ol' shine the light elsewhere ruse...
> > everyone knows how it works.
>
> And he does a very poor job of making it work. It reminds me of
> my son as a toddler, hiding behind the dining room table with his
> rear sticking out, saying that I can't find him.
Exactly.
> 77- Not Important: "I get this mental image of you and a sibling
> as children in the back seat of the family car saying:
> Mom, 'snits' touching me ... and you responding much as you do
> now ... I'm not touching you, you're touching me! The problem is
> that by now you should've grown out of that type of poke and
> complain interaction with others. But, of course, you've haven't
> learned how to interact with others in a more 'constructive' and
> mutually beneficial manner even now." 03 Jul 2007
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d16279e9003c...
>
> >> 4) Why, when you repeatedly run from topics dealing with
> >> OSs to repeat your absurd accusations, do you accuse me of
> >> not wanting to discuss the OSs of the forums you and I share
> >> participation in?
>
> > Translation: This one starts off with Snit making yet
> > *another* allegation which he has yet to show any "actual"
> > support for. It ends with Snit trying to push his oft-used,
> > yet, bogus and absurd notion that it's always the *other* guy
> > who doesn't stick to the topic, not Snit... who, as he would
> > have the reader believe, only comes to computer related
> > newsgroups to discuss computer related issues.
>
> You are correct. Just about every topic that anyone responds to
> turns into a Snit circus, the tit-for-tat and how that the poster
> or another poster that he lost an argument with is now somehow
> picking on him.
Yet another reason why a FAQ to point to would be perfect... a list of
of 100% verifiable facts (answers) to obvious questions about Snit
that can easily be retrieved by anyone. The quotes are ready to go
thanks to your additions. Sandman's troll scoring site, which is based
on quotes, is waiting and ready to use (providing he keeps it
running). The csma "About " page is a solid, relative indicator of the
extent of time Snit's devoted to csma. These things are all based on
100% verifiable facts. The FAQ can also show examples where Snit is
unquestionably acting in dishonest and dishonorable ways... followed
by his denials... and claims that he is honest and honorable and
always supports his claims.... blah, blah. If I get time I might just
put one together. Snit would be denying the facts on it for years;)
> 68- Mike: "Nonsense. I never see you "advocate" anything. All I
> see you doing is engage in endless semantic arguments with
> everyone. You're the TholenBot of CSMA. BTW, that's *not* a
> compliment!" 8 Jul 2006
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7c5b72d70b87...
>
> > (snip additional attempts by Snit to use his "psych degree"...
> > a degree that screams for a refund)
>
> He seems to do an excellent job of winning friends and
> influencing people (not).
Really;)
Snit
AM:
Oh, the irony!
<http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
LOL! Come on, Wally, even you have to admit you went over the top on making
a fool of yourself... you have surpassed all expectations I had for the
amusement I would get from you in this thread.
First, you claimed I could not have written the utter gibberish I posted
because it was coherent:
Snit:
Seriously, Wally, your making a fool of yourself is just
beyond funny. Hey, maybe this will help you: what makes you
think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
But then you completely went over the top in absurdity by claiming you had
found the "probable" source, of which you said:
text in what is the probable original is coherent and well
ordered! *that* is a fact!
And when you pointed to this "probable original", which is anything but, it
turned out it was complete and utter gibberish. Seriously, Wally, people
are going to start thinking you are purposely making a fool of yourself just
to make me look good!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
MuahMan
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You asked...
"Probable source?"-Snit
Explain how it could be anything but "probable" when you continually refuse
to say where you actually plagiarized the text in your OP from Snit!
Now come on Snit at least make some sort of effort to show that you have
some idea what's going on here!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C617BCB8.13F6A%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/24/09 4:00
> AM:
>
>>>> Then you are a plagiarist and a liar!
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
>>>>
>>>> Nuff said!
>>>>
>>> For the record: to the best of my knowledge I had never seen the text you
>>> are claiming I plagiarized.
>>
>> So it's your opinion that it is pure coincidence that *all* of your OP can
>> be found in the text that I have shown you? ....really?
>
> Nope. You made that up.
Then explain how every word of your OP including sentences such as ...
"As knowledge is fragmented into specialities the strategic vision - if
indeed there be one"
"while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals."
"To experience a profound paradigm shift"
"combined with optimal use of human resources"
"the doom loop and doom zoom"
"by moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more actionable
lead indicators."
... Can be found in a body of text that you have claimed that you have never
seen Snit!
I offered the possibility of coincidence .... You have now rejected that
idea, so what is your explanation Snit!
And yes I do realize that you will have absolutely no answer for that
question Snit!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Yes I will! At a time when the subject is no longer about your dishonesty
but is about your lack of education Snit!
> Face it - it is utter gibberish. Complete and total
> nonsense. But it is *also* the text you said this about:
As I said your lack of education is not the topic at this time Snit!
> the probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that*
> is a fact!
Correct! It's quite amazing that the only time you make sense and are not
lying is when you accurately quote someone Snit!
> You seriously could not tell that the above utter nonsense was anything
> other than "coherent and well ordered". And "*that* is a fact!"
As I said your lack of education is not the topic at this time Snit!
> LOL!
>
>> On one condition ... I am perfectly willing to give you the knowledge that
>> you seek after you enlighten me as to why a person such as you would need to
>> plagiarize a document and when caught doing so would deny doing it in the
>> most farcical manner possible!
>>
>> Explain *that* satisfactorily Snit and I will do as you have asked!
>
> You keep going on and on about plagerizing... when there is *no* reason to
> think the person who produced the gibberish you found on the web and I had
> *any* knowledge of each other's text.
Why do you suggest that the person who's work you plagiarized need know of
your OP Snit? .... Oh wait that's just your established MO to try and muddy
the waters!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C617BF90.13F6E%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/24/09 4:12
> AM:
>
> ....
>>>> Then you are a plagiarist and a liar!
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
>>>>
>>>> Nuff said!
>>>
>>> Oh, yes! You have said a lot... again! Look at you link... the very source
>>> you have repeatedly called "coherent". Guess what, Wally... it is complete
>>> and utter gibberish. Nonsense.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO! Check the name on the bottle Snit ... Those pills cannot have
>> been intended for you!
>>
> Oh Wally...
How did I know? ... Just an educated guess!
Snit
PM:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
>>>>
>>>> Probable source? .....
>>>
>>> Of course "probable" Snit, you have continually refused to reveal the exact
>>> source, so all that is left is finding "probable" sources!
>>>
>>> Have you always had this inability to understand anything at all Snit?
>>
>> See, Wally, how you cannot understand simple conversation. Look above:
>
> You asked...
>
> "Probable source?"-Snit
>
> Explain how it could be anything but "probable" when you continually refuse
> to say where you actually plagiarized the text in your OP from Snit!
>
> Now come on Snit at least make some sort of effort to show that you have
> some idea what's going on here!
<http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
My predictions for this thread; Wally will:
1) insist he never called the gibberish I posted "coherent", contrary to the
Google archive (as shown in the video).
2) insist that the posted gibberish has some secret "source", though he has
*no* evidence it was produced anywhere other than my computer.
3) avoid the fact that the gibberish he pointed to as the "probable source"
is not "coherent and well ordered! *that* is a fact!". The fact he
*repeatedly* claimed that gibberish was coherent proves his illiteracy.
4) obfuscate by accusing *me* of all sorts of things in the sad, sad hope
his huge embarrassment is obfuscated. His "crew" will jump in to defend
Wally... never acknowledging the unbelievable blunders he made.
Before Wally showed his logic/math skills were abysmal, spouting nonsense
such as:
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
as you have said it would!
Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
Math, logic, reading comprehension: Wally has proved his deep lacking in
each of these areas. No matter how Wally tries to twist and turn and lash
out - no matter how outrageous his "crew" becomes - those are bells Wally
can never unring; he *repeatedly* insisted he was correct in both cases, and
anyone with a grade school education can see where he was just flat out
wrong.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
My predictions for this thread; Wally will:
Snit
PM:
My predictions for this thread; Wally will:
Snit
PM:
<http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C618CB99.14017%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/24/09 11:15
> PM:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
>>>>>
>>>>> Probable source? .....
>>>>
>>>> Of course "probable" Snit, you have continually refused to reveal the exact
>>>> source, so all that is left is finding "probable" sources!
>>>>
>>>> Have you always had this inability to understand anything at all Snit?
>>>
>>> See, Wally, how you cannot understand simple conversation. Look above:
>>
>> You asked...
>>
>> "Probable source?"-Snit
>>
>> Explain how it could be anything but "probable" when you continually refuse
>> to say where you actually plagiarized the text in your OP from Snit!
>>
>> Now come on Snit at least make some sort of effort to show that you have
>> some idea what's going on here!
>
> <http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
>
> My predictions for this thread;
Is that you will continue to avoid answering simple questions Snit?
Yup that's the same as my prediction!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You will resort to your overuse of cut'n'paste Snit?
Yup ... I agree you will!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I have been spending the last few minutes considering when I last saw
anything as stupid as your belief that you could not have plagiarized text
from a document because you and the 'original author' of the text in
question did not have any knowledge of *each other* ...
"You keep going on and on about plagiarizing... when there is *no* reason to
think the person who produced the gibberish you found on the web and I had
*any* knowledge of each other's text."-Snit
Well the last time I saw something *that* stupid was when you stated that
two things could not be considered synonymous because they were so unalike!
ROTFLMAO!
At least you get points for consistency Snit! :-)
Snit
PM:
> On 25/4/09 12:08 AM, in article C617322A.2B685%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C617BCB8.13F6A%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/24/09 4:00
>> AM:
>>
>>>>> Then you are a plagiarist and a liar!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/dnl3qn
>>>>>
>>>>> Nuff said!
>>>>>
>>>> For the record: to the best of my knowledge I had never seen the text you
>>>> are claiming I plagiarized.
>>>
>>> So it's your opinion that it is pure coincidence that *all* of your OP can
>>> be found in the text that I have shown you? ....really?
>>
>> Nope. You made that up.
>
> Then explain how every word of your OP including sentences such as ...
>
> "As knowledge is fragmented into specialities the strategic vision - if
> indeed there be one"
>
> "while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
> goals."
>
> "To experience a profound paradigm shift"
>
> "combined with optimal use of human resources"
>
> "the doom loop and doom zoom"
>
> "by moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more actionable
> lead indicators."
Hey, Wally, have you watched this little video:
<http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
Isn't it funny! Oh. You just keep snipping it. Too much for you, eh?
LOL! OK, to your quotes... let's clarify: all of those phrases are in the
gibberish I posted, of which you said:
Snit:
what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
And also in the work of which you clearly foolishly wrote this:
the probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that*
is a fact!
Those phrases, the ones you quote above, are - to you - "coherent" and, in
the case of the reference you found, presented in a "well ordered" document.
You even said "*that* is a fact!"
> ... Can be found in a body of text that you have claimed that you have never
> seen Snit! I offered the possibility of coincidence .... You have now rejected
> that idea, so what is your explanation Snit! And yes I do realize that you
> will have absolutely no answer for that question Snit!
I have no obligation to explain the obvious flaws in your BS accusations...
but here is a big, big hint for you: defying logic and rationality, when you
saw similitude you falsely assumed direct influence from one to the other,
and even went so far as to push accusations based on your illogically
reached conclusion.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
PM:
You have sank to cutting and running, Wally... and you simply have no
response to his video:
<http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
As it proves, you first called my gibberish "coherent":
Snit:
what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
And then you back pedaled on that, and insisted you had found:
the probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that*
is a fact!
But your source there was just as much gibberish. You proved your
illiteracy when you repeatedly insisted such gibberish was "coherent".
Now you are spewing accusations based on your error of noting similitude and
falsely assuming direct influence... and irrationally demanding I have some
obligation to tell explain why your assumption is irrational. Nope. I have
no such obligation. Stew in your ignorance, Wally... or beg your "crew" to
explain to you why similar things need not have any direct influence on the
other.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
>> My predictions for this thread;
>
> You will resort to your overuse of cut'n'paste Snit?
>
> Yup ... I agree you will!
You have sank to cutting and running, Wally... and you simply have no
response to his video:
<http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
As it proves, you first called my gibberish "coherent":
Snit:
what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
And then you back pedaled on that, and insisted you had found:
the probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that*
is a fact!
But your source there was just as much gibberish. You proved your
Snit
AM:
> On 25/4/09 2:56 PM, in article C6180235.2B84C%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> I have been spending the last few minutes considering when I last saw
> anything as stupid as your belief that you could not have plagiarized text
> from a document because you and the 'original author' of the text in
> question did not have any knowledge of *each other* ...
There is no indication we had any knowledge of the other's work, Wally.
Again, as you have repeatedly been told:
you are spewing accusations based on your error of noting
similitude and falsely assuming direct influence... and
irrationally demanding I have some obligation to tell explain
why your assumption is irrational.
But that error of yours is not as amusing as your others in this thread.
Here, the video you have not been able to even acknowledged you have
watched:
<http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
As it proves, you first called my gibberish "coherent":
Snit:
what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
And then you back pedaled on that, and insisted you had found:
the probable original is coherent and well ordered! *that*
is a fact!
But your source there was just as much gibberish. You proved your
illiteracy when you repeatedly insisted such gibberish was "coherent".
> "You keep going on and on about plagiarizing... when there is *no* reason to
> think the person who produced the gibberish you found on the web and I had
> *any* knowledge of each other's text."-Snit
I had no knowledge of his work... and I have no reason to believe he knows
of mine. Why is that confusing to you?
> Well the last time I saw something *that* stupid was when you stated that
> two things could not be considered synonymous because they were so unalike!
> ROTFLMAO!
Please quote where you think I said that.
> At least you get points for consistency Snit! :-)
One error of yours, Wally, is to falsely assume direct influence when you
note similitude. I have repeatedly told you this... but you show now
ability to comprehend.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
11:57 PM:
...
>> How did I know? ... Just an educated guess!
>
> <http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
>
> My predictions for this thread; Wally will:
>
> 1) insist he never called the gibberish I posted "coherent", contrary to the
> Google archive (as shown in the video).
Wally has *not* done this yet... so this prediction has not come true.
Instead, Wally has just avoided the issue. Well, being that he clearly did
as I said, what "out" could he find?
Snit:
what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
> 2) insist that the posted gibberish has some secret "source", though he has
> *no* evidence it was produced anywhere other than my computer.
Wally has done this repeatedly... showing he cannot understand the flaw in
his logic when he notes similitude and assumes direct influence. Not only
is Wally illiterate, he has very, very poor logic skills.
> 3) avoid the fact that the gibberish he pointed to as the "probable source"
> is not "coherent and well ordered! *that* is a fact!". The fact he
> *repeatedly* claimed that gibberish was coherent proves his illiteracy.
Yup, Wally has completely avoided this one! This is, clearly, one of the
most amusing blunders I have ever seen in CSMA, and Wally simply will
*never* talk about it. He made a complete and total fool of himself, so now
he just runs away.
> 4) obfuscate by accusing *me* of all sorts of things in the sad, sad hope
> his huge embarrassment is obfuscated. His "crew" will jump in to defend
> Wally... never acknowledging the unbelievable blunders he made.
If his crew has jumped in to defend him I have not seen it, but Wally has
been lashing out, snipping and running, etc.
> Before Wally showed his logic/math skills were abysmal, spouting nonsense
> such as:
>
> But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
> as you have said it would!
>
> Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
>
> Math, logic, reading comprehension: Wally has proved his deep lacking in
> each of these areas. No matter how Wally tries to twist and turn and lash
> out - no matter how outrageous his "crew" becomes - those are bells Wally
> can never unring; he *repeatedly* insisted he was correct in both cases, and
> anyone with a grade school education can see where he was just flat out
> wrong.
Wally has no response to this... just BS lies about me to try to get me on
the defensive.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Hey, Wally, ......
Yes I know ... Expecting you to be able to answer sensible questions is
hardly fair considering your *condition* Snit!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
The same response that I have to all of *your* videos ... Fiction is not
really my thing Snit!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C618D96E.1402D%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/25/09 12:14
> AM:
>
>> On 25/4/09 2:56 PM, in article C6180235.2B84C%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have been spending the last few minutes considering when I last saw
>> anything as stupid as your belief that you could not have plagiarized text
>> from a document because you and the 'original author' of the text in
>> question did not have any knowledge of *each other* ...
>
> There is no indication we had any knowledge of the other's work....
Below is a perfectly good indicator that you had knowledge of the text that
you extracted the body of your OP from....
"As knowledge is fragmented into specialities the strategic vision - if
indeed there be one"
"while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals."
"To experience a profound paradigm shift"
"combined with optimal use of human resources"
"the doom loop and doom zoom"
"by moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more actionable
lead indicators."
... Do you have another explanation as to how you duplicated the above ...
by accident yet Snit? ROTFLMAO!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Snit stated in post C618027F.2B84D%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com on 4/24/09
> 11:57 PM:
> showing he cannot understand the flaw in
> his logic when he notes similitude and assumes direct influence.
Where is the flaw in my logic that your OP was extracted from the document
that I linked to considering the content of your OP contained such sentences
as ...
"As knowledge is fragmented into sentences the strategic vision - if
indeed there be one"
"while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
goals."
"To experience a profound paradigm shift"
"combined with optimal use of human resources"
"the doom loop and doom zoom"
"by moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more actionable
lead indicators."
... Exactly as the document in question does!
You are proving your insanity by suggesting that you authored your OP that
purely by coincidence contained nothing in the body of text that was not in
the document that I linked to Snit!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
The only thing that I really would like to see you *on* Snit ... Is
effective medication, now that would be a win/win situation!
Snit
AM:
> On 25/4/09 3:46 PM, in article C6180DE8.2B862%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit stated in post C618027F.2B84D%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com on 4/24/09
>> 11:57 PM:
>
>
>> showing he cannot understand the flaw in
>> his logic when he notes similitude and assumes direct influence.
>
> Where is the flaw in my logic that your OP was extracted from the document
> that I linked to considering the content of your OP contained such sentences
> as ...
As I said: you are noting similitude and assuming a direct influence.
Wait. Those are some big words. You, clearly, have no idea what the heck I
am talking about. OK, smaller words for you. You got it!
You have noticed that there are similarities between the gibberish I posted
- which you called "coherent" - and the gibberish you found online, which
you not only called "coherent", but even said was " coherent and well
ordered! *that* is a fact!" Specifically, if you can handle the use of a
word with so many syllables, you have noted several uses of the exact same
phrases in both sets of gibberish that you called "coherent."
Seeing these similarities you, *correctly* might I happily add!, noted that
their must be some relationship! But, sadly, then you jumped to a faulty
conclusion - one that is not based on logic or evidence - you decided that
one of the gibberish examples that you ignorantly called coherent "likely"
was the "source" of the other. Nope. That is your error. You goofed.
Again. Not only did you goof once, but like with your past ignorance about
subsets and your current ignorance about gibberish being "coherent", you
*repeatedly* made the same mistake... a simple, basic error in logic that
most adults would likely not make, given the exact same data you have. You
see, Wally, your ability to comprehend what you read is weak. Your ability
to come to logical conclusions is faulty. This is something you prove over
and over.
Sadly, you not only have such weaknesses, you also lash out when you are
faced with your errors. Maybe you are just trying to obfuscate your
errors... though I am not sure you even *see*, even when told, how absurd
your errors are. Heck, you have not even acknowledged you have watched the
video on your current silliness: <http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish> .
Have you? Do you understand your error? You have not said if you have or
have not? By your dodging of that topic, though, I suspect you have. If
so, good! That would mean you were not *quite* as lost as you portray
yourself.
Anyway, I know I used more than five words and that might intimidate you.
You might even be tempted to just snip it all... just overwhelmed with
seeing such "in depth" explanations. So be it... I cannot only lead a horse
to water, I cannot force it to drink.
> "As knowledge is fragmented into sentences the strategic vision - if
> indeed there be one"
>
> "while those at the coal face don't have sufficient view of the overall
> goals."
>
> "To experience a profound paradigm shift"
>
> "combined with optimal use of human resources"
>
> "the doom loop and doom zoom"
>
> "by moving executive focus from lag financial indicators to more actionable
> lead indicators."
>
> ... Exactly as the document in question does!
> You are proving your insanity by suggesting that you authored your OP that
> purely by coincidence contained nothing in the body of text that was not in
> the document that I linked to Snit!
Coincidence? What? You fabricated that, Wally. Fabricated, in this
context, means you made it up. Hope that helps!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
<http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
Oh, Wally, you keep noting similarities in the two examples of gibberish you
called "coherent" and insisting this means either one was influenced
directly by the other *or* they are so similar based on "accident" or
"coincidence". Please, Wally, I have given you so many hints as to the
obvious other - and true - possibility. OK, let me offer you another hint:
look up the phrase "dummy text", and then see why such text might be similar
to each other and yet not, in any way, influenced from each other or, in any
meaningful sense, "plagiarized" from anything - no more "plagiarized" than
the auto-generated text at the start of your post is "plagiarized" because
you repeatedly fail to offer an attribution for it (and, no, before you
misunderstand that, I am not saying you should!)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
>>>>> Now come on Snit at least make some sort of effort to show that you have
>>>>> some idea what's going on here!
>>>>
>>>> <http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
>>>>
>>>> My predictions for this thread;
>>>
>>> Is that you will continue to avoid answering simple questions Snit?
>>>
>>> Yup that's the same as my prediction!
>>
>> You have sank to cutting and running, Wally... and you simply have no
>> response to his video:
>
> The same response that I have to all of *your* videos ... Fiction is not
> really my thing Snit!
LOL! Are you now denying you called my gibberish "coherent" as I quote you
doing here:
Snit:
what makes you think I did not write the above.
Wally:
Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
is a very good indicator Snit!
Are you denying you found similar gibberish online and said of it:
"probable source" that was "coherent and well ordered!
*that* is a fact!
Really? Are you really in that much denial? Even though the Google record
proves it and there is a video that shows it in so much hilarious detail?
<http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
Your response is just to flat out deny the facts. That is sad, Wally. Very,
very sad.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
>> Hey, Wally, ......
>
> Yes I know ... Expecting you to be able to answer sensible questions is
> hardly fair considering your *condition* Snit!
Oh, Wally, I have repeatedly told you your error... you whine when I copy
and paste the same data, but when you are faced with information you could
use to answer your questions you just snip and run! From a recent post:
You have noticed that there are similarities between the
gibberish I posted - which you called "coherent" - and the
gibberish you found online, which you not only called
"coherent", but even said was "coherent and well ordered!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
6:36 AM:
Oh my! I see I said:
I cannot only lead a horse to water, I cannot force it to drink.
Which will surely through you off in *two* ways...
1) I goofed in that the first "cannot" should be a "can". Poor editing as I
was deciding what cliché to use. This is likely to completely confuse you!
2) I did not offer an attribution to the cliché... you are now likely to
find similar text and insist it is "probable" I plagiarized it!
Sorry for this horrible confusion
Of course, *had* I quoted the cliché correctly, and then noted I quoted it
correctly, you would be likely to make the same absurd claim you made in the
past, that doing such somehow "proves" the use of sock puppets!
Oh, Wally... I feel sorry for you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C618F59E.1403E%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/25/09 2:15
> AM:
>
>> On 25/4/09 3:46 PM, in article C6180DE8.2B862%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit stated in post C618027F.2B84D%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com on 4/24/09
>>> 11:57 PM:
>>
>>
>>> showing he cannot understand the flaw in
>>> his logic when he notes similitude and assumes direct influence.
>>
>> Where is the flaw in my logic that your OP was extracted from the document
>> that I linked to considering the content of your OP contained such sentences
>> as ...
>
> As I said: you are noting similitude and assuming a direct influence.
>
> Wait. Those are some big words. You, clearly, have no idea what the heck I
> am talking about. OK, smaller words for you. You got it!
>
> You have noticed that there are similarities ...
Similarities? ROTFLMAO
You have now clearly decided that your comments will not have any semblance
of sanity included in them Snit!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote insane drivel!:
Snit
AM:
...
>>> Where is the flaw in my logic that your OP was extracted from the document
>>> that I linked to considering the content of your OP contained such sentences
>>> as ...
>>
>> As I said: you are noting similitude and assuming a direct influence.
>>
>> Wait. Those are some big words. You, clearly, have no idea what the heck I
>> am talking about. OK, smaller words for you. You got it!
>>
> Similarities?
Yes. Similarities: the plural of similarity.
<http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?re
fid=1861732843>
-----
similarity:
1. likeness: the possession of one or more qualities or
features in common
2. shared characteristic: a quality or feature that two or
more people or things have in common
-----
As you noted, correctly!, there are multiple instances of that: multiple
phrases from the two examples gibberish you called "coherent" where they
have features in common.
Sadly, the only conclusions you have been able to think of, when faced with
such similarities, is that either one example of this "coherent" (as you
call it) gibberish is plagiarized from the other or that it is
"coincidence." Frankly, I find it sad how incapable you are, Wally... so
incapable that the word "similarities" completely through you off.
> ROTFLMAO
>
> You have now clearly decided that your comments will not have any semblance
> of sanity included in them Snit!
Wally, please - I implore you!, try to understand what you read and do not
just snip and run!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
> On 25/4/09 9:41 PM, in article C6186106.2B8BF%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote insane drivel!:
>
>
Hey, Wally, you offered no attribution for your above! Does that mean, to
you, that you plagiarized it?
LOL!
When faced with other auto generated text - gibberish you called "coherent"
- you insisted it must be plagiarized.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C618F1C7.1403A%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/25/09 1:58
> AM:
>
>>>>>> Now come on Snit at least make some sort of effort to show that you have
>>>>>> some idea what's going on here!
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
>>>>>
>>>>> My predictions for this thread;
>>>>
>>>> Is that you will continue to avoid answering simple questions Snit?
>>>>
>>>> Yup that's the same as my prediction!
>>>
>>> You have sank to cutting and running, Wally... and you simply have no
>>> response to his video:
>>
>> The same response that I have to all of *your* videos ... Fiction is not
>> really my thing Snit!
>
> LOL! Are you now denying you called my gibberish "coherent" as I quote you
> doing here:
I did not refer to your post as "gibberish" only you have done that Snit!
therefore I could not have referred to what *you* call gibberish as coherent
Snit!
In fact I have actually corrected you for calling your post gibberish ...
had you forgotten?
> Snit:
> what makes you think I did not write the above.
> Wally:
> Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past
> is a very good indicator Snit!
And that is the truth, To any sane person reading my first reply to you it
will be obvious that I was indicating my belief that what was in your post
was not as it was originally intended to be viewed Snit, the whole structure
of your OP makes that perfectly clear.
So I found a possible source for the text in your post and asked you for
yours, you declined to supply that detail instead choosing to ask why you
could not have written the text contained in your post, to which I replied
"Your proven inability to write anything coherent in the past is a very good
indicator Snit!" and that again is the truth!
But what you are trying to ignore is the fact that I had already dismissed
the text in your post as being authored by you Snit, therefore any reference
to coherency that I made would obviously be describing what I believed to be
the probable source of the text in your OP, whilst the post itself was I
believed a cut'n'paste hatchet job! You seem to choose to call your post
"gibberish", well that is up to you Snit, personally I believe doing so
could be considered derogatory toward the original author of the text
contained in your post! But then I doubt that would concern you in the
slightest!
But what is interesting is the fact that you choose to ignore what I said in
the post *before* the one that you so enjoy quoting where I said...
"I doubt that those of us that having quoted a body of work then
automatically cite the author would find that funny Snit! Do you consider
that any slight alterations that you made to the original exempt you from
doing the same?"-Wally
A post that made it perfectly clear that I did not consider the text that
you posted to be your work at all Snit, but simply a garbled, disjointed,
and as it turned out plagiarized hatchet job of an original! LOL
> Are you denying you found similar gibberish online and said of it:
I found a document online that contained *every sentence* that was contained
in the body of your OP Snit, That's far more that similar in my opinion
Snit, And gibberish is your interpretation ... Not mine!
> "probable source" that was "coherent and well ordered!
> *that* is a fact!
Correct! the document that I provided the link to could well be described as
above!
> Really? Are you really in that much denial? Even though the Google record
> proves it and there is a video that shows it in so much hilarious detail?
The Google record will show what I have described Snit, and I consider your
video's to be as always immaterial!
>
> <http://drop.io/coherent_gibberish>
>
> Your response is just to flat out deny the facts. That is sad, Wally. Very,
> very sad.
Facts? ...No! Your delusional interpretations? ...Yes!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C618F137.14039%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/25/09 1:56
> AM:
>
>>> Hey, Wally, ......
>>
>> Yes I know ... Expecting you to be able to answer sensible questions is
>> hardly fair considering your *condition* Snit!
>
> Oh, Wally, I have repeatedly told you your error... you whine when I copy
> and paste the same data.....
It's not whining to enquire why you would cut'n'paste and then plagiarize
someone else's work Snit!
Snit
AM:
You have repeatedly been told, Wally, that my post was *exactly* as it was
"originally intended to be viewed." Why is this so hard for you to
understand? And, above, I quote you calling the gibberish I posted
"coherent." Why do you deny it when it is so easy to prove? You also talk
about some mythological "original author", showing you *still* do not
understand that the gibberish I posted was produced on my computer, even
though you have been told this *repeatedly*. It is not a hard concept,
Wally!
You also claimed you had found a "possible source" that you *also* deemed
coherent - in very strong language even - but when you finally posted a link
to this "possible source", it was clear it was *also* gibberish.
Then, defying all logic, you decided that these two examples of gibberish
you had deemed "coherent" were somehow related not just by obvious
similarity (which nobody has denied), but that one must have come from the
other... the only other option you have pointed to is "coincidence."
>> Are you denying you found similar gibberish online and said of it:
>
> I found a document online that contained *every sentence* that was contained
> in the body of your OP Snit, That's far more that similar in my opinion
> Snit, And gibberish is your interpretation ... Not mine!
Of course the gibberish I posted and the gibberish you pointed to are
similar! Heck, they are clearly examples of the same form of "dummy text."
Why has this alluded you so long?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
>> Are you denying you found similar gibberish online and said of it:
>>
>> "probable source" that was "coherent and well ordered!
>> *that* is a fact!
>
> Correct! the document that I provided the link to could well be described as
> above!
OH MY! Wally... really... please! I am in shock. You *still* think the
post you pointed to is "coherent and well ordered"... you still think
"*that* is a fact!" Wally... I am in shock. I had no idea how completely
and totally illiterate you are.
In case someone missed the document you linked to, here it is:
<http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:7y_EIw0dy4IJ:www.londonmet.ac.uk/london
met/library/t23739_24.doc+In+a+collaborative,+forward-thinking+venture+broug
ht+together&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au>
I am just in shock, Wally. Not even I thought you were so illiterate.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
> On 25/4/09 9:48 PM, in article C61862A9.2B8D3%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally stated in post C618F137.14039%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/25/09 1:56
>> AM:
>>
>>>> Hey, Wally, ......
>>>
>>> Yes I know ... Expecting you to be able to answer sensible questions is
>>> hardly fair considering your *condition* Snit!
>>
>> Oh, Wally, I have repeatedly told you your error... you whine when I copy and
> It's not whining to enquire why you would cut'n'paste and then plagiarize
> someone else's work Snit!
OH MY! Wally... really... please tell me you are just mocking your own
errors! I cannot believe even you are *that* illiterate!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C6193DD6.1406F%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/25/09 7:23
> AM:
>
>> On 25/4/09 9:41 PM, in article C6186106.2B8BF%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote insane drivel!:
>>
>>
> Hey, Wally, you offered no attribution for your above! Does that mean, to
> you, that you plagiarized it?
You wouldnšt need to ask that if you knew what plagiarized meant Snit!
Oh wait you did attempt to explain that! how did it go now... You think that
for text to be plagiarized the original author and the person doing the
plagiarizing need to be aware of each other's text!
"You keep going on and on about plagerizing... when there is *no* reason to
think the person who produced the gibberish you found on the web and I had
*any* knowledge of each other's text."-Snit
Hahahhahahahahahahahahaha ...Really Snit!
> LOL!
>
> When faced with other auto generated text - gibberish you called "coherent"
> - you insisted it must be plagiarized.
LOL!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
That's never been in question Snit, I have no doubt that you deliberately
plagiarized someone's work and portrayed it in a particular way exactly as
your OP demonstrates!
Wally
"Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Wally stated in post C6194926.14072%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/25/09 8:11
> AM:
>
>>> Are you denying you found similar gibberish online and said of it:
>>>
>>> "probable source" that was "coherent and well ordered!
>>> *that* is a fact!
>>
>> Correct! the document that I provided the link to could well be described as
>> above!
>
> OH MY! Wally... really... please! I am in shock.
Then please get back to me *after* your therapy!
Chance Furlong
Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> On 25/4/09 11:30 PM, in article C6187A8A.2B92D%cs...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <cs...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > Wally stated in post C6194926.14072%Wa...@wally.world.net on 4/25/09 8:11
> > AM:
> >
> >>> Are you denying you found similar gibberish online and said of it:
> >>>
> >>> "Probable source" that was "coherent and well ordered!" That is a fact!
> >>
> >> Correct! the document that I provided the link to could well be described
> >> as above!
> >
> > OH MY! Wally, really, please! I am in shock.
>
> Then please get back to me after your therapy!
I doubt therapy will help Mr. Incest.