POLL: Should he stay or should he leave.
Steve Mackay
sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
[ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
or
[ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
David Fritzinger
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>
>
> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>
> or
>
> [x] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
Having voted the way I did, let me add that, on occasion, Snit does make
reasonable posts. However, on balance, the Snit Circus is destroying
CSMA, IMHO.
--
Dave Fritzinger
John Slade
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com...
Snit is full of shit and knows little about computers. However I don't
think anyone should leave based on how stupid they are. Everyone has a right
to say whatever they want. If Snit wants to display his ignorance and lack
of knowledge, he should have that right.
John
Snit
dfritzin-17A63A...@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com on 12/28/04 6:57
PM:
Keep in mind what the "Snit Circus" is based on... it is based on my
responding to most trolling messages instead of ignoring them.
The fact that I do so pisses of many of the people who troll. If they would
stop trolling CSMA, the "Snit Circus" would not exist.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Nasht0n
Nicolas
Snit
5DqAd.201440$Np3.8...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 12/28/04 9:44 PM:
This will never happen... too many people want to blame me for their
actions. I openly admit I keep many of the circus threads alive by
responding to the silly accusations and trolling tossed into CSMA. I have
been minimizing this by clearly labeling the threads as Circus threads, but
the fact is I could just simply not respond. I am responsible for my own
actions.
I just wish others that trolled in CSMA would be honest and take
responsibility for their own actions.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Wally
----------
In article <pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com>, Steve Mackay
<steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Frankly Snit doesn't factor into my scheme of things for me to care one way
or the other, clearly I believe him to be a liar and the most dishonest
person it has been my misfortune to witness perform! but he has been
instrumental in starting or extending threads where I have gained some
useful info or insights on many subjects due exclusively to 'others' taking
up the banner against him, So even by ignoring the bulk of his posts he has
served a purpose all be it indirectly.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<steve_...@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
Snit is only as big a problem as you allow him to be. He doesn't
bother me at all. If people quit stoking his ego with mentions of him
like this thread, he'd go away.
--
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want
any part of that."
Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
Snit
X4rAd.7642577$6p.12...@news.easynews.com on 12/28/04 10:16 PM:
LOL! Good troll Wally... one of your better ones, really.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
7mf4t09qc64gsq7gv...@4ax.com on 12/28/04 10:23 PM:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:18:19 -0600, Steve Mackay
> <steve_...@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>
>>
>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>
>> or
>>
>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>
> Snit is only as big a problem as you allow him to be. He doesn't
> bother me at all. If people quit stoking his ego with mentions of him
> like this thread, he'd go away.
The funny thing is I am blamed for two things:
- wanting attention... yet the people who claim to most hate me give me the
most. Why would they give me what they claim I want if they really wanted
me to go.
- destroying CSMA... yet the people who claim that are the ones who join...
and even *start* the silly circuses in CSMA. If my goal is to create such
circuses, they are doing my "dirty work" for me.
The claims against me make no sense.
Even the specific ones... look at some of the recent claims against me:
- Steve Mackay has been claiming I posted as Doctor Captain. Not only is he
blaming me for lying, he is blaming Doctor Captain. He makes such
accusations against two people... even though he has absolutely no support
for his accusation. He is, of course, completely and entirely wrong.
- Tim and others: claiming that when I talk about an XP box having a problem
I *must* mean - to them - that it is the fault of XP and not the box itself.
Even when I have explained this to them many, many times, they keep on
trolling. The one thing they run to is *one* time when I wrote "XP" when
"XP box" would have been an accurate term.
These type dishonest claims against me hurt CSMA... if not the claim itself,
the fact that I openly admit I enjoy messing with the trolls who make such
claims, and the circuses become annoying to most. But keep in mind, I am
not the one who started these circuses... in the case of the first one, with
Steve, I had not even participated in the tread when Steve blamed someone
else of lying, and then attributed the lie to me.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
George Graves
> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>
>
> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>
> or
>
> [X] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
Everybody wants Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever, and I MEAN
EVERYBODY!
--
George Graves
------------------
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French
one behind me." Gen. G.S. Patton
MartinWS
> In article <pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com>,
> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>
>>
>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>
>> or
>> [X] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>
> Everybody wants Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever, and I MEAN
> EVERYBODY!
You're wrong about everybody. I don't want him to go away.
--
--
MartinWS
Tim Adams
> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>
[ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
or
[X] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
--
Tim
Snit
gmgravesnos-F16B...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com on 12/29/04
1:00 AM:
> In article <pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com>,
> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>
>>
>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>
>> or
>>
>> [X] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>
> Everybody wants Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever, and I MEAN
> EVERYBODY!
This has already been shown to be false.
Just curious... do you count the people Steve blames as being my sock
puppets as my sock puppets? Do you want those other people to go away, too?
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-01123B.08...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/29/04
6:45 AM:
Then why do you respond to me? If you need help building a kill filter, let
me know.
Edwin
Steve Mackay wrote:
> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and
his
> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He
asked me
> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>
>
> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>
> or
>
Snit
pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com on 12/28/04 6:18 PM:
> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
> to prove it. So here I am.
And here we are ... a few days later. It is clear that your claim... that
*nobody* wants me here is not accurate.
Will you admit to your error?
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
John Slade
"George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:gmgravesnos-F16B...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com>,
> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and
his
> > sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked
me
> > to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
> >
> >
> > [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
> >
> > or
> >
> > [X] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>
> Everybody wants Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever, and I MEAN
> EVERYBODY!
This is an open forum and all are welcome to me. I don't want anyone to
go away, even people as clueless as Snit and Jim Polanski deserves to be
heard. You're now telling me to leave because you don't like what I say. I
suggest you just ignore us if you don't like us. Don't try to stifle
conversation. This reminds me of what Apple did when people question the
infamous firmware trojan they put out to disable Macs with third party
upgrade cards. When the issue came up on Apples "public" forums, they
deleted any messages discussing the issue. You're an Apple guy through and
through.
I suggest you start a web site with Apple forum you can moderate. You
can boot whoever you want.
John
John Slade
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
news:BDF819F4.19250%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-01123B.08...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/29/04
> 6:45 AM:
>
> > In article <pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com>,
> > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and
his
> >> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked
me
> >> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
> >>
> >
> > [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
> >
> > or
> >
> > [X] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>
> Then why do you respond to me? If you need help building a kill filter,
let
> me know.
For once me and Snit are on the same side. Don't go away Snit! Give them
hell!
John
bsd23
Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in
the messages directed to me.
Don't advocacy newsgroups tend to be verbose anyway?
Snit
N2HAd.3863$wZ2....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com on 12/29/04 4:26 PM:
LOL... you, too. Even though I disagree with you on tech issues, believe it
or not, I think it is likely you are a pretty good guy. Of course, I could
be wrong. :)
Edwin
Snit wrote:
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com on 12/28/04 6:18 PM:
>
> > The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit
and his
> > sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He
asked me
> > to prove it. So here I am.
>
> And here we are ... a few days later. It is clear that your claim...
that
> *nobody* wants me here is not accurate.
The people who don't want you to leave are just the ones you haven't
gotten around to sucking into a Snit Circus.
> Will you admit to your error?
Nah, he's not wrong. Down deep everyone wants you to go.
Edwin
bsd23 wrote:
> Steve Mackay wrote:
> > The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit
and his
> > sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He
asked me
> > to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
> >
> >
> > [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
> >
> > or
> >
> > [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>
>
> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his
messages?
Because he just changes his name to get around your killfile.
> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person
in
> the messages directed to me.
Get into an argument with him and see how fast that changes.
> Don't advocacy newsgroups tend to be verbose anyway?
There's a difference between "verbose" and mindless babble...
Dawg Tail
I would agree with this. Unfortunately he quickly turns a reasonable
discussion into childish bantering as soon as he's proven wrong and he
will not let it go (expect to see an example soon).
Snit
1104371439.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 12/29/04 6:50 PM:
>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me to
>>> prove it. So here I am.
>>>
>> And here we are ... a few days later. It is clear that your claim... that
>> *nobody* wants me here is not accurate.
>>
> The people who don't want you to leave are just the ones you haven't gotten
> around to sucking into a Snit Circus.
Please explain how I "suck" people into anything in CSMA? By responding to
their trolling comments? So?
>
>> Will you admit to your error?
> Nah, he's not wrong. Down deep everyone wants you to go.
You think all the people who said otherwise are lying?
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Snit
>
> bsd23 wrote:
>> Steve Mackay wrote:
>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me to
>>> prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>
>>>
>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>
>>
>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>
> Because he just changes his name to get around your killfile.
Nope, though I did play with the name 尬≡ for a while, but even then I had
"snit" in the e-mail, if I recall correctly.
>> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in the
>> messages directed to me.
>
> Get into an argument with him and see how fast that changes.
LOL... most people in CSMA do not like the way I insist on sticking to
objective data and hold people to what they say... though I also like to
bring up people's lies... at least until they admit they are lies. Like
yours, Edwin, when you claimed that some process in MS Word was too
*whatever* for me to use, even though I had shown you screen shots of how I
used the feature! You still have not backed down from that lie, so I still
tease you about it.
>> Don't advocacy newsgroups tend to be verbose anyway?
> There's a difference between "verbose" and mindless babble...
And you do some of both.
Snit
pan.2004.12.30....@dawg-bogus-tail.com on 12/29/04 7:34 PM:
LOL! Nope... I just like to hold people to their words... for example,
you.... did you ever come to a conclusion about your view on why XP gets so
much malware? Sometimes you claim there are only two factors that
contribute to it:
I have claimed that OS X's market share makes it much less of an
attractive target for malware authors. Combine this with OS X's
secure default configuration and you have the reason why I think that
malware is not prevalent on OS X.
and
I told you that it's my opinion that these two factors are what
account for the difference in malware between the two platforms.
and you have even claimed to provide support for this view:
> The bigger question is if you can support your claim that the only two
> things to lead to the massive amounts of malware on Windows and the
> comparative lacking of malware on OS X are the two things you have
> mentioned:
> 1) The difference in market share / user base
> 2) The inherent weakness of the "standard" settings on Windows
> You have made it clear that this is your claim, but I have not seen
> your support. Can you provide any?
I already had when I first discussed this with you.
But then you get all bent out of shape when I parrot your opinion back to
you:
> That is the real issue here, Dawg. You are not able to support your
> claim that only two variables affect the malware problem on XP.
A claim that I did not make.
Can you clear this up now? Why do you think there are so many Win XP
malware programs in comparison to other OS's, OS X included? So far we seem
to have two reasons from you:
1) The difference in market share / user base
(which you have some trouble with deciding which it is)
2) The inherent weakness of the "standard" settings on Windows
Are there other reasons in your "expert" opinion? Clearly you are confused
and are not able to answer that question. So be it.
You then wonder why your self proclaimed status of "expert" is seen to be a
joke. You are not an expert under any meaningful definition of the word.
If you were, you would not be getting yourself so tied up in knots over such
simple concepts.
Steve Mackay
LOL!
Snit
I love when I am "proven" wrong with no evidence or logic... just
accusations by trolls. Take you, Steve... you always get pissed off by
comparisons between Mac and PC prices... 'cause they do not support your
bias. Yet when I ask you to point to other comparisons that are more to
your liking, you get all bent out of shape and start calling me names. Then
you insist I am lying and have been "proven" wrong. It is very funny.
Heck, even in this trolling thread that you started, you claimed *nobody*
wants me here, yet you have been proven wrong.
Will you admit to your error yet?
Edwin
Snit wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
> 1104372574.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 12/29/04
7:09 PM:
>
> >
> > bsd23 wrote:
> >> Steve Mackay wrote:
> >>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit
and his
> >>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He
asked me to
> >>> prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
> >>>
> >>> or
> >>>
> >>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his
messages?
> >>
> > Because he just changes his name to get around your killfile.
>
then I had
> "snit" in the e-mail, if I recall correctly.
>
> >> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice
person in the
> >> messages directed to me.
> >
> > Get into an argument with him and see how fast that changes.
>
> LOL... most people in CSMA do not like the way I insist on sticking
to
> objective data and hold people to what they say...
No, most people don't like the way you mangle what they say and lie
through your teeth.
> though I also like to
> bring up people's lies... at least until they admit they are lies.
Like
> yours, Edwin,
The lies are all your own, especially your accusations against me and
others of having lied.
> when you claimed that some process in MS Word was too
> *whatever* for me to use, even though I had shown you screen shots of
how I
> used the feature! You still have not backed down from that lie, so I
still
> tease you about it.
That crap you talk about up there is one of the things that most
condemn you on this group, yet you gloat over it as if it were some
sort of victory for you. You're a sad, sick, twisted little man.
> >> Don't advocacy newsgroups tend to be verbose anyway?
>
> > There's a difference between "verbose" and mindless babble...
>
> And you do some of both.
The smell of elephant dung wafts through the air...
Steve Mackay
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
> 1104371439.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 12/29/04 6:50 PM:
>
>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me to
>>>> prove it. So here I am.
>>>>
>>> And here we are ... a few days later. It is clear that your claim... that
>>> *nobody* wants me here is not accurate.
>>>
>> The people who don't want you to leave are just the ones you haven't gotten
>> around to sucking into a Snit Circus.
>
> Please explain how I "suck" people into anything in CSMA? By responding to
> their trolling comments? So?
>>
>>> Will you admit to your error?
>
>> Nah, he's not wrong. Down deep everyone wants you to go.
>
> You think all the people who said otherwise are lying?
Umm, and you said "a few days later"? Umm, your warped little mind can't
even comprehend time now? It's barely been 24 hours!
Snit
Ok... so how long do you generally wait before you admit to your lies? Has
it been long enough, or do we need to wait a few more days... weeks...
years?
Will you ever admit to your trolling lie?
Steve Mackay
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
> 1104372574.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 12/29/04 7:09 PM:
>
>>
>> bsd23 wrote:
>>> Steve Mackay wrote:
>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me to
>>>> prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>>
>> Because he just changes his name to get around your killfile.
>
> Nope, though I did play with the name 尬≡ for a while, but even then I had
> "snit" in the e-mail, if I recall correctly.
Your telling us you've never used another name?
>
>>> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in the
>>> messages directed to me.
>>
>> Get into an argument with him and see how fast that changes.
>
> LOL... most people in CSMA do not like the way I insist on sticking to
> objective data and hold people to what they say...
That would be great, if you followed your own advice.
> though I also like to
> bring up people's lies...
How about confronting your own?
> at least until they admit they are lies.
What about admiting to yours?
> Like
> yours, Edwin, when you claimed that some process in MS Word was too
> *whatever* for me to use, even though I had shown you screen shots of how I
> used the feature! You still have not backed down from that lie, so I still
> tease you about it.
Uh huh, okay sigmond.
Dawg Tail
> "Dawg Tail" <da...@dawg-bogus-tail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.30....@dawg-bogus-tail.com on 12/29/04 7:34 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:57:45 +0000, David Fritzinger wrote:
>>
>>> In article <pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com>,
>>> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>>>> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> [x] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>>
>>> Having voted the way I did, let me add that, on occasion, Snit does make
>>> reasonable posts. However, on balance, the Snit Circus is destroying
>>> CSMA, IMHO.
>>
>> I would agree with this. Unfortunately he quickly turns a reasonable
>> discussion into childish bantering as soon as he's proven wrong and he
>> will not let it go (expect to see an example soon).
Point proven. He's so predictable...it's not even a challenge anymore:
Snit
>>> Get into an argument with him and see how fast that changes.
>>>
>> LOL... most people in CSMA do not like the way I insist on sticking to
>> objective data and hold people to what they say...
>>
> No, most people don't like the way you mangle what they say and lie through
> your teeth.
Your next post will provide several examples, I am sure... since they are so
easy to find. You can show them off! This should be fun!
>
>> though I also like to bring up people's lies... at least until they admit
>> they are lies. Like yours, Edwin,
>>
> The lies are all your own, especially your accusations against me and others
> of having lied.
So do you still claim that the process in MS Word is too *anything* for me
to use... keeping in mind I have shown you screenshots of how I follow the
very process you (*almost* correctly) described.
>> when you claimed that some process in MS Word was too *whatever* for me to
>> use, even though I had shown you screen shots of how I used the feature! You
>> still have not backed down from that lie, so I still tease you about it.
>>
> That crap you talk about up there is one of the things that most condemn you
> on this group, yet you gloat over it as if it were some sort of victory for
> you. You're a sad, sick, twisted little man.
Yeah, I do tend to "gloat" over such things. I am sure it is something that
pisses you off. You could just admit to lying about it and I would stop.
The only time I can think where I did not stop was with Steve Carroll... and
that was because he spent a year lying and trolling me like nobody else...
and then finally admitted he was playing a dishonest game where he was
pretending to not know what I was talking about.
Hmmmm, he seems to be essentially gone. George Graves once gave me credit
for chasing that particularly nasty little troll out of CSMA. I have no
idea if he is right... but I sure hope he is!
>
>
>>>> Don't advocacy newsgroups tend to be verbose anyway?
>>
>>> There's a difference between "verbose" and mindless babble...
>>
>> And you do some of both.
> The smell of elephant dung wafts through the air...
As you post... yes. :)
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Snit
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:49:11 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>> 1104372574.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 12/29/04 7:09 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> bsd23 wrote:
>>>> Steve Mackay wrote:
>>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>>>>> to
>>>>> prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>>>
>>> Because he just changes his name to get around your killfile.
>>
>> Nope, though I did play with the name 尬≡ for a while, but even then I had
>> "snit" in the e-mail, if I recall correctly.
>
> Your telling us you've never used another name?
No. I used the name "Brock McNuggets" for a few posts, and was asked to
post under another name, so I did... and then was trolled for doing so.
How about you? Do you remember your Steve2 name?
Oh, and speaking of other names... did you ever apologize for blaming Doctor
Captain for being my sock puppet? How about all the others you have blamed
for the same thing?
>>
>>>> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in the
>>>> messages directed to me.
>>>
>>> Get into an argument with him and see how fast that changes.
>>
>> LOL... most people in CSMA do not like the way I insist on sticking to
>> objective data and hold people to what they say...
>
> That would be great, if you followed your own advice.
Oh, I do not mind it when people do that.
>
>> though I also like to bring up people's lies...
>
> How about confronting your own?
Ahh, the old accusations without evidence trick again.
Are you still holding to your entirely incorrect and baseless accusation
that I was posting as Doctor Captain? Is that the lie of "mine" you are in
reference to?
Snit
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:51:15 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Dawg Tail" <da...@dawg-bogus-tail.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2004.12.30....@dawg-bogus-tail.com on 12/29/04 7:34 PM:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:57:45 +0000, David Fritzinger wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com>,
>>>> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>>>>> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> [x] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>>>
>>>> Having voted the way I did, let me add that, on occasion, Snit does make
>>>> reasonable posts. However, on balance, the Snit Circus is destroying
>>>> CSMA, IMHO.
>>>
>>> I would agree with this. Unfortunately he quickly turns a reasonable
>>> discussion into childish bantering as soon as he's proven wrong and he
>>> will not let it go (expect to see an example soon).
>
> Point proven. He's so predictable...it's not even a challenge anymore:
Perhaps, but it is just as easy to predict that you will not answer the
simple question below:
did you ever come to a conclusion about your view on why XP gets so
much malware?
You claim to be an expert in this area, but you have never been able to
explain why you are so confused on the topic.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Dawg Tail
Welcome to our world. I think everyone who has engaged Snit could make
this exact statement. As Edwin said: Disagree with him and then get back
to us.
PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all of them are
making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many diverse people
who share a common perception where do you think the problem lies? With
Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't require an advanced
degree to figure out.
Snit
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:48:21 -0500, bsd23 wrote:
>
>> Steve Mackay wrote:
>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>>> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>
>>>
>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>
>>
>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>
>> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in
>> the messages directed to me.
>
> Welcome to our world. I think everyone who has engaged Snit could make
> this exact statement. As Edwin said: Disagree with him and then get back
> to us.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with
people lying about me. Even then, it is just CSMA, not that big of a deal.
>
> PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all of them are
> making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many diverse people
> who share a common perception where do you think the problem lies? With
> Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't require an advanced
> degree to figure out.
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com on 12/29/04 8:00 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:45:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>>> 1104371439.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 12/29/04 6:50 PM:
>>>
>>>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> prove it. So here I am.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And here we are ... a few days later. It is clear that your claim... that
>>>>> *nobody* wants me here is not accurate.
>>>>>
>>>> The people who don't want you to leave are just the ones you haven't gotten
>>>> around to sucking into a Snit Circus.
>>>
>>> Please explain how I "suck" people into anything in CSMA? By responding to
>>> their trolling comments? So?
>>>>
>>>>> Will you admit to your error?
>>>
>>>> Nah, he's not wrong. Down deep everyone wants you to go.
>>>
>>> You think all the people who said otherwise are lying?
>>
>> Umm, and you said "a few days later"? Umm, your warped little mind can't
>> even comprehend time now? It's barely been 24 hours!
>
> Ok... so how long do you generally wait before you admit to your lies?
By your example... Your "a few days later" was a lie. But we know you have
a difficult time with telling the truth.
> Has
> it been long enough, or do we need to wait a few more days... weeks...
> years?
So, I was wrong about EVERYONE. But the majority do want you and your
sockpuppets to go away.
>
> Will you ever admit to your trolling lie?
I said I was wrong. What more do you want? At least when I'm wrong, I'll
admit to it.
Snit
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:09:44 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com on 12/29/04 8:00 PM:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:45:42 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>>>> 1104371439.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 12/29/04 6:50 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and
>>>>>>> his sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He
>>>>>>> asked me to prove it. So here I am.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And here we are ... a few days later. It is clear that your claim...
>>>>>> that *nobody* wants me here is not accurate.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The people who don't want you to leave are just the ones you haven't
>>>>> gotten around to sucking into a Snit Circus.
>>>>>
>>>> Please explain how I "suck" people into anything in CSMA? By responding to
>>>> their trolling comments? So?
>>>>
>>>>>> Will you admit to your error?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, he's not wrong. Down deep everyone wants you to go.
>>>>>
>>>> You think all the people who said otherwise are lying?
>>>
>>> Umm, and you said "a few days later"? Umm, your warped little mind can't
>>> even comprehend time now? It's barely been 24 hours!
>>
>> Ok... so how long do you generally wait before you admit to your lies?
>
> By your example... Your "a few days later" was a lie. But we know you have
> a difficult time with telling the truth.
I openly admit my "a few days" was in error.
>
>> Has it been long enough, or do we need to wait a few more days... weeks...
>> years?
>
> So, I was wrong about EVERYONE.
You were wrong about *everyone*. Quite telling. :)
> But the majority do want you and your sockpuppets to go away.
When was the last time I used a sock puppet? I mean, really, will your
trolling never end?
>>
>> Will you ever admit to your trolling lie?
>
> I said I was wrong. What more do you want? At least when I'm wrong, I'll
> admit to it.
Fair enough.. you have admitted to your error... you were wrong about
"EVERYONE". :)
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com on 12/29/04 7:46 PM:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 02:34:38 +0000, Dawg Tail wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:57:45 +0000, David Fritzinger wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com>,
>>>> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>>>>> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> [x] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>>>
>>>> Having voted the way I did, let me add that, on occasion, Snit does make
>>>> reasonable posts. However, on balance, the Snit Circus is destroying
>>>> CSMA, IMHO.
>>>
>>> I would agree with this. Unfortunately he quickly turns a reasonable
>>> discussion into childish bantering as soon as he's proven wrong and he
>>> will not let it go (expect to see an example soon).
>>
>> LOL!
>
> I love when I am "proven" wrong with no evidence or logic... just
> accusations by trolls. Take you, Steve... you always get pissed off by
> comparisons between Mac and PC prices... 'cause they do not support your
> bias.
I don't have a bias. I have a massive amount of experience in many
platforms to back up my claims. Don't like it? Don't read it. That fact
is, Macs are more expensive. No matter what spin you continue to take on
it.
Snit
>> I love when I am "proven" wrong with no evidence or logic... just
>> accusations by trolls. Take you, Steve... you always get pissed off by
>> comparisons between Mac and PC prices... 'cause they do not support your
>> bias.
>
> I don't have a bias. I have a massive amount of experience in many
> platforms to back up my claims. Don't like it? Don't read it. That fact
> is, Macs are more expensive. No matter what spin you continue to take on
> it.
Yeah yeah yeah... I have heard it from you before. *You* are right, and
*EVERYONE* else is wrong (oh, except for a few others in CSMA who also have
some the same "secret" knowledge you do).
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices
Dawg Tail
> "Dawg Tail" <da...@dawg-bogus-tail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.30....@dawg-bogus-tail.com on 12/29/04 8:21 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:48:21 -0500, bsd23 wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Mackay wrote:
>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>>>> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>>
>>> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in
>>> the messages directed to me.
>>
>> Welcome to our world. I think everyone who has engaged Snit could make
>> this exact statement. As Edwin said: Disagree with him and then get back
>> to us.
>
> I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.
Just like most alcoholics don't think that they have a problem. I'm sure
that you honestly believe what you wrote. That doesn't make it true.
> I do have a problem with people lying about me.
One has to wonder: Why is it that so many people are lying to you? Is it
some conspiracy against you? Or is it that they're really not lying but
you're lacking any substantive counter response? Like the question below
this answer doesn't require an advanced degree either.
> Even then, it is just CSMA, not that big of a deal.
>>
>> PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all of them are
>> making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many diverse people
>> who share a common perception where do you think the problem lies? With
>> Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't require an advanced
>> degree to figure out.
Interesting that you didn't address this...any what are your thoughts
about this?
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com on 12/29/04 8:02 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:49:11 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>>> 1104372574.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 12/29/04 7:09 PM:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> bsd23 wrote:
>>>>> Steve Mackay wrote:
>>>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>>>>
>>>> Because he just changes his name to get around your killfile.
>>>
>>> Nope, though I did play with the name 尬≡ for a while, but even then I had
>>> "snit" in the e-mail, if I recall correctly.
>>
>> Your telling us you've never used another name?
>
> No. I used the name "Brock McNuggets" for a few posts, and was asked to
> post under another name, so I did... and then was trolled for doing so.
>
and what about sigmond?
> How about you? Do you remember your Steve2 name?
Yup, and shortly after I posted as steve2, I also said it was a mistake.
Hey, but why let the truth get in the way?
>
> Oh, and speaking of other names... did you ever apologize for blaming Doctor
> Captain for being my sock puppet? How about all the others you have blamed
> for the same thing?
Nope. And what others have I accused as your sockpuppets?
How about finally admiting to posting as sigmond?
How about finally admiting to your jpg fiasco?
>>>>> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in the
>>>>> messages directed to me.
>>>>
>>>> Get into an argument with him and see how fast that changes.
>>>
>>> LOL... most people in CSMA do not like the way I insist on sticking to
>>> objective data and hold people to what they say...
>>
>> That would be great, if you followed your own advice.
>
> Oh, I do not mind it when people do that.
Ahh, more games from snit. Color me shocked. I didn't say other people. I
said YOU. But hey, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.
Good thing you're a "teacher".
>>> though I also like to bring up people's lies...
>>
>> How about confronting your own?
>
> Ahh, the old accusations without evidence trick again.
>
> Are you still holding to your entirely incorrect and baseless accusation
> that I was posting as Doctor Captain? Is that the lie of "mine" you are in
> reference to?
No lie there. But no way to verify it either way, besides
the fact that you have been known to use sockpuppets to support your
position.
Steve Mackay
> "Dawg Tail" <da...@dawg-bogus-tail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.30....@dawg-bogus-tail.com on 12/29/04 8:21 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:48:21 -0500, bsd23 wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Mackay wrote:
>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>>>> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>>
>>> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in
>>> the messages directed to me.
>>
>> Welcome to our world. I think everyone who has engaged Snit could make
>> this exact statement. As Edwin said: Disagree with him and then get back
>> to us.
>
> I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.
Yes you do.
> I do have a problem with
> people lying about me.
Yet, you wourself lie so often.
> Even then, it is just CSMA, not that big of a deal.
It is obviously to you.
Snit
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:29:00 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Dawg Tail" <da...@dawg-bogus-tail.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2004.12.30....@dawg-bogus-tail.com on 12/29/04 8:21 PM:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:48:21 -0500, bsd23 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Mackay wrote:
>>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>>>>> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>>>
>>>> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in
>>>> the messages directed to me.
>>>
>>> Welcome to our world. I think everyone who has engaged Snit could make
>>> this exact statement. As Edwin said: Disagree with him and then get back
>>> to us.
>>
>> I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.
>
> Just like most alcoholics don't think that they have a problem. I'm sure
> that you honestly believe what you wrote. That doesn't make it true.
So provide support for your claim.
>
>> I do have a problem with people lying about me.
>
> One has to wonder: Why is it that so many people are lying to you? Is it
> some conspiracy against you? Or is it that they're really not lying but
> you're lacking any substantive counter response? Like the question below
> this answer doesn't require an advanced degree either.
Um, Dawg... people lie a lot in CSMA. They twist words. They troll. They
make claims they can not support. Have you not figured this out yet?
>
>> Even then, it is just CSMA, not that big of a deal.
>>>
>>> PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all of them are
>>> making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many diverse people
>>> who share a common perception where do you think the problem lies? With
>>> Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't require an advanced
>>> degree to figure out.
>
> Interesting that you didn't address this...any what are your thoughts
> about this?
Several people are telling you how silly your security claims are... I have
even pointed out how your claims are not consistent.
Why do you think others make this claim? Have you found *anyone* to agree
with your position?
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com on 12/29/04 8:37 PM:
>
>>> I love when I am "proven" wrong with no evidence or logic... just
>>> accusations by trolls. Take you, Steve... you always get pissed off by
>>> comparisons between Mac and PC prices... 'cause they do not support your
>>> bias.
>>
>> I don't have a bias. I have a massive amount of experience in many
>> platforms to back up my claims. Don't like it? Don't read it. That fact
>> is, Macs are more expensive. No matter what spin you continue to take on
>> it.
>
> Yeah yeah yeah... I have heard it from you before. *You* are right, and
> *EVERYONE* else is wrong (oh, except for a few others in CSMA who also have
> some the same "secret" knowledge you do).
Secret knowledge? Hmm, didn't know experience transposed into "secret
knowledge". Good thing ya told me...
<snit's biased comparisons snipped>
Snit
>>>>>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Because he just changes his name to get around your killfile.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, though I did play with the name 尬≡ for a while, but even then I had
>>>> "snit" in the e-mail, if I recall correctly.
>>>
>>> Your telling us you've never used another name?
>>
>> No. I used the name "Brock McNuggets" for a few posts, and was asked to
>> post under another name, so I did... and then was trolled for doing so.
>
> and what about sigmond?
I have agreed to not talk about those accusations. Are you trying to get me
to break my word and do so?
>
>> How about you? Do you remember your Steve2 name?
>
> Yup, and shortly after I posted as steve2, I also said it was a mistake.
> Hey, but why let the truth get in the way?
Oh, one of your famous "mistakes". OK.
>>
>> Oh, and speaking of other names... did you ever apologize for blaming Doctor
>> Captain for being my sock puppet? How about all the others you have blamed
>> for the same thing?
>
> Nope.
You never apologized for that mistake of yours? Why not?
> And what others have I accused as your sockpuppets?
I do not keep track, but a quick search of Google brings up "Fretboard".
> How about finally admiting to posting as sigmond?
> How about finally admiting to your jpg fiasco?
I have agreed to not talk about those accusations. Are you trying to get me
to break my word and do so?
On one hand people complain that I keep bringing up the past... so I agree
to let a big nasty episode go... and you keep bringing it up.
In any case, I have talked about it plenty in the past... if someone wants,
they can go fishing in Google.
>
>>>>>> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in
>>>>>> the messages directed to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Get into an argument with him and see how fast that changes.
>>>>>
>>>> LOL... most people in CSMA do not like the way I insist on sticking to
>>>> objective data and hold people to what they say...
>>>>
>>> That would be great, if you followed your own advice.
>>>
>> Oh, I do not mind it when people do that.
>>
> Ahh, more games from snit. Color me shocked. I didn't say other people. I
> said YOU. But hey, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.
> Good thing you're a "teacher".
Hmmm, you replied to my comments about other people by referring to me... I
responded by referring back to other people again, and you get all bent out
of shape.
>
>>>> though I also like to bring up people's lies...
>>>
>>> How about confronting your own?
>>
>> Ahh, the old accusations without evidence trick again.
>>
>> Are you still holding to your entirely incorrect and baseless accusation
>> that I was posting as Doctor Captain? Is that the lie of "mine" you are in
>> reference to?
>
> No lie there. But no way to verify it either way, besides the fact that you
> have been known to use sockpuppets to support your position.
So you admit you have no way to verify your accusation, yet you refuse to
apologize to either of the two people you are accusing of lying.
Even if you do not trust me, you are *also* accusing Doctor Captain of
lying.
Snit
>> I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.
>
> Yes you do.
Your support is...?
>
>> I do have a problem with people lying about me.
>
> Yet, you wourself lie so often.
And your support is... ?
>
>> Even then, it is just CSMA, not that big of a deal.
>
> It is obviously to you.
And your support is... ?
Hmmm, you sure can make a lot of accusations... do you ever support them?
Snit
So you still insist that a few people in CSMA are right, and *all*
comparisons outside of CSMA are wrong?
>
> <snit's biased comparisons snipped>
Yeah, you run from them:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices
As I said, I use logic, reason, and support.
You, clearly, do not.
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com on 12/29/04 8:52 PM:
>
>>>>>>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because he just changes his name to get around your killfile.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, though I did play with the name 尬≡ for a while, but even then I had
>>>>> "snit" in the e-mail, if I recall correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Your telling us you've never used another name?
>>>
>>> No. I used the name "Brock McNuggets" for a few posts, and was asked to
>>> post under another name, so I did... and then was trolled for doing so.
>>
>> and what about sigmond?
>
> I have agreed to not talk about those accusations. Are you trying to get me
> to break my word and do so?
LOL, how predictable you are. Of course you wont talk about a lie you
tried to smokescreen for months. And how many threads that took on,
that *YOU* created. and how many times you accused me of lying, when you
in fact were the only one doing the lying. Just for the sake of
smokescreening over the fact that you were the one posting as sigmond.
More of your lack of logic at it's finest.
>>
>>>>> though I also like to bring up people's lies...
>>>>
>>>> How about confronting your own?
>>>
>>> Ahh, the old accusations without evidence trick again.
>>>
>>> Are you still holding to your entirely incorrect and baseless accusation
>>> that I was posting as Doctor Captain? Is that the lie of "mine" you are in
>>> reference to?
>>
>> No lie there. But no way to verify it either way, besides the fact that you
>> have been known to use sockpuppets to support your position.
>
> So you admit you have no way to verify your accusation, yet you refuse to
> apologize to either of the two people you are accusing of lying.
I also have no way to verify it's not you, except for the fact that you
have used sockpuppets in the past to support your positions. The
likelyhood of me being wrong on this one is pretty darn slim. It's also
not unlike you to create major smokescreens and deny your sockpuppets for
months on end.
>
> Even if you do not trust me, you are *also* accusing Doctor Captain of
> lying.
I'll not loose any sleep over it either way.
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com on 12/29/04 9:00 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:38:52 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>>> pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com on 12/29/04 8:37 PM:
>>>
>>>>> I love when I am "proven" wrong with no evidence or logic... just
>>>>> accusations by trolls. Take you, Steve... you always get pissed off by
>>>>> comparisons between Mac and PC prices... 'cause they do not support your
>>>>> bias.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a bias. I have a massive amount of experience in many
>>>> platforms to back up my claims. Don't like it? Don't read it. That fact
>>>> is, Macs are more expensive. No matter what spin you continue to take on
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> Yeah yeah yeah... I have heard it from you before. *You* are right, and
>>> *EVERYONE* else is wrong (oh, except for a few others in CSMA who also have
>>> some the same "secret" knowledge you do).
>>
>> Secret knowledge? Hmm, didn't know experience transposed into "secret
>> knowledge". Good thing ya told me...
>
> So you still insist that a few people in CSMA are right, and *all*
> comparisons outside of CSMA are wrong?
Please support where I've said all comparisons outside of CSMA are wrong.
Dawg Tail
> "Dawg Tail" <da...@dawg-bogus-tail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.30....@dawg-bogus-tail.com on 12/29/04 8:48 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:29:00 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Dawg Tail" <da...@dawg-bogus-tail.com> wrote in post
>>> pan.2004.12.30....@dawg-bogus-tail.com on 12/29/04 8:21 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:48:21 -0500, bsd23 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve Mackay wrote:
>>>>>> The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit and his
>>>>>> sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He asked me
>>>>>> to prove it. So here I am. Just fill in the blanks:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets here in CSMA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] I want Snit and his sockpuppets to go away forever.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in
>>>>> the messages directed to me.
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to our world. I think everyone who has engaged Snit could make
>>>> this exact statement. As Edwin said: Disagree with him and then get back
>>>> to us.
>>>
>>> I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.
>>
>> Just like most alcoholics don't think that they have a problem. I'm sure
>> that you honestly believe what you wrote. That doesn't make it true.
>
> So provide support for your claim.
One person has alrady agreed with me. I'm sure their not the only one. Is
this the beginning of another consipiracy against you?
>>> I do have a problem with people lying about me.
>>
>> One has to wonder: Why is it that so many people are lying to you? Is it
>> some conspiracy against you? Or is it that they're really not lying but
>> you're lacking any substantive counter response? Like the question below
>> this answer doesn't require an advanced degree either.
>
> Um, Dawg... people lie a lot in CSMA. They twist words. They troll. They
> make claims they can not support.
But the question is why are you the focus of so much of this alleged
behavior? Again I ask: Do you think that this diverse set of people have
gather together and conspired against you? Or is it you? Again the answer
doesn't take an advanced degree to figure out.
> Have you not figured this out yet?
Yes...the regulars of this group are wise to your dishonest "debating"
style. Hence the thread. No need to spell it out for us like you just did.
>>> Even then, it is just CSMA, not that big of a deal.
>>>>
>>>> PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all of them are
>>>> making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many diverse people
>>>> who share a common perception where do you think the problem lies? With
>>>> Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't require an advanced
>>>> degree to figure out.
>>
>> Interesting that you didn't address this...any what are your thoughts
>> about this?
>
> Several people are telling you how silly your security claims are... I have
> even pointed out how your claims are not consistent.
>
> Why do you think others make this claim? Have you found *anyone* to agree
> with your position?
The responses that I receive are to be expected due to the forum for which
it is being discussed. Unless you want to claim that the regulars here
have conspired against you there is no analogy. PC advocates, Mac
advocates, Linux advocates...many of them are making the same claim about
you. And that's the one thing that it appears that this diverse set of
people agree on. You'd be wise to take a good, hard, objective look at
yourself. You might learn something about yourself. Oh the hell with
it...who am I kidding...forget it...you'll never learn.
Snit
Here are all the ones that have been found:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices
Do you have any that you agree with?
>
> <snit's biased comparisons snipped>
Why do you dishonestly refer to them as my compasisons, when I am not even
the one to introduce them to CSMA, no less have *anything* to do with
producing them?
Are you so caught up in your bias that you can not recognize you are lying
when you say they are *my* comparisons. They are no more mine than MS is my
company because I have linked to it.
Snit
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:00:30 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com on 12/29/04 8:52 PM:
>>
>>>>>>>> Why not put him in your killfile if you don't want to see his messages?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because he just changes his name to get around your killfile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, though I did play with the name 尬≡ for a while, but even then I
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> "snit" in the e-mail, if I recall correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your telling us you've never used another name?
>>>>
>>>> No. I used the name "Brock McNuggets" for a few posts, and was asked to
>>>> post under another name, so I did... and then was trolled for doing so.
>>>
>>> and what about sigmond?
>>
>> I have agreed to not talk about those accusations. Are you trying to get me
>> to break my word and do so?
>
> LOL, how predictable you are.
Yes. I am keeping my word. It is very predictable.
> Of course you wont talk about a lie you tried to smokescreen for months. And
> how many threads that took on, that *YOU* created. and how many times you
> accused me of lying, when you in fact were the only one doing the lying. Just
> for the sake of smokescreening over the fact that you were the one posting as
> sigmond.
The topic has been beaten to death. If you want my comments, go Google
diving. I gave my word to not discuss the details of it, and I will not.
No matter how many times you ask me to lie, I will not.
Why do you want me to lie?
>>>> How about you? Do you remember your Steve2 name?
>>>
>>> Yup, and shortly after I posted as steve2, I also said it was a mistake.
>>> Hey, but why let the truth get in the way?
>>
>> Oh, one of your famous "mistakes". OK.
No comment?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and speaking of other names... did you ever apologize for blaming
>>>> Doctor
>>>> Captain for being my sock puppet? How about all the others you have blamed
>>>> for the same thing?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> You never apologized for that mistake of yours? Why not?
No comment?
>>
>>> And what others have I accused as your sockpuppets?
>>
>> I do not keep track, but a quick search of Google brings up "Fretboard".
No comment? Another "mistake" on your part?
>>
>>> How about finally admiting to posting as sigmond?
>>> How about finally admiting to your jpg fiasco?
>>
>> I have agreed to not talk about those accusations. Are you trying to get me
>> to break my word and do so?
>>
>> On one hand people complain that I keep bringing up the past... so I agree
>> to let a big nasty episode go... and you keep bringing it up.
>>
>> In any case, I have talked about it plenty in the past... if someone wants,
>> they can go fishing in Google.
No comment?
>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm here too infrequently to vote, but he seemed like a nice person in
>>>>>>>> the messages directed to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Get into an argument with him and see how fast that changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL... most people in CSMA do not like the way I insist on sticking to
>>>>>> objective data and hold people to what they say...
>>>>>>
>>>>> That would be great, if you followed your own advice.
>>>>>
>>>> Oh, I do not mind it when people do that.
>>>>
>>> Ahh, more games from snit. Color me shocked. I didn't say other people. I
>>> said YOU. But hey, reading comprehension has never been your strong suit.
>>> Good thing you're a "teacher".
>>
>> Hmmm, you replied to my comments about other people by referring to me... I
>> responded by referring back to other people again, and you get all bent out
>> of shape.
>
> More of your lack of logic at it's finest.
No comment?
>
>>>
>>>>>> though I also like to bring up people's lies...
>>>>>
>>>>> How about confronting your own?
>>>>
>>>> Ahh, the old accusations without evidence trick again.
>>>>
>>>> Are you still holding to your entirely incorrect and baseless accusation
>>>> that I was posting as Doctor Captain? Is that the lie of "mine" you are in
>>>> reference to?
>>>
>>> No lie there. But no way to verify it either way, besides the fact that you
>>> have been known to use sockpuppets to support your position.
>>
>> So you admit you have no way to verify your accusation, yet you refuse to
>> apologize to either of the two people you are accusing of lying.
>
> I also have no way to verify it's not you,
Is there any way to verify it is not you? No. So what? I do not
repeatedly toss around accusations against Doctor Captain because I think
you are a liar.
> except for the fact that you have used sockpuppets in the past to support your
> positions. The likelyhood of me being wrong on this one is pretty darn slim.
> It's also not unlike you to create major smokescreens and deny your
> sockpuppets for months on end.
More accusations from you.
You are, of course, wrong about Doctor Captain. When will you admit to it?
>
>>
>> Even if you do not trust me, you are *also* accusing Doctor Captain of
>> lying.
>
> I'll not loose any sleep over it either way.
You do not mind blaming others... because you do not trust me.
Speaks volumes of your character.
Snit
LOL! So when there is consensus against you, it is meaningless, but against
me, you want it to mean something.
> Unless you want to claim that the regulars here have conspired against you
> there is no analogy.
I have made no such claim of wide conspiracy... yet there is a clear and
easy to see analogy. Your lack of acknowledging it does not change that.
> PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates...many of them are making the
> same claim about you.
What is the claim... and what is the evidence to support the claim?
> And that's the one thing that it appears that this diverse set of people agree
> on. You'd be wise to take a good, hard, objective look at yourself. You might
> learn something about yourself. Oh the hell with it...who am I
> kidding...forget it...you'll never learn.
Will you?
Just for the record: I have no problem with you disagreeing with me.
I do wish, however, that you would try to support your claims.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>Snit wrote:
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2004.12.29....@hotmail.com on 12/28/04 6:18 PM:
>>
>> > The title says it all. Sandman and I have been trying to get Snit
>and his
>> > sockpuppets to leave CSMA. Telling him nobody wants him here. He
>asked me
>> > to prove it. So here I am.
>>
>> And here we are ... a few days later. It is clear that your claim...
>that
>> *nobody* wants me here is not accurate.
>
>The people who don't want you to leave are just the ones you haven't
>gotten around to sucking into a Snit Circus.
Steve Carroll and Steve Mackay are equally responsible for building
the Snit Circus. Steve Mackay at least seems to have recognized the
error of his ways and quit. Steve Carroll seems to have disappeared.
No doubt he's pouring over Old English dictionaries somewhere in an
attempt to brush up his language skills. 8)
>
>> Will you admit to your error?
>Nah, he's not wrong. Down deep everyone wants you to go.
--
"...I doubt that I would ever buy a Mac. I've seen
what owning one can do to people. And I don't want
any part of that."
Rich Brooks
columnist for the
Southwest Florida
Herald-Tribune
Snit
lp37t0d9o5tjnh1ve...@4ax.com on 12/29/04 10:19 PM:
>>> And here we are ... a few days later. It is clear that your claim... that
>>> *nobody* wants me here is not accurate.
>>
>> The people who don't want you to leave are just the ones you haven't
>> gotten around to sucking into a Snit Circus.
>
> Steve Carroll and Steve Mackay are equally responsible for building
> the Snit Circus. Steve Mackay at least seems to have recognized the
> error of his ways and quit.
Not sure Steve Mackay was ever quite as bad as either Steve Carroll or
myself. He is trying to play catch up recently. :)
> Steve Carroll seems to have disappeared.
At one point George gave me credit for that. I have no idea if it is
true... but I hope so.
> No doubt he's pouring over Old English dictionaries somewhere in an
> attempt to brush up his language skills. 8)
LOL!
Steve Mackay
You didn't post any support for your lie that I've said *all* comparisons
outside of CSMA are wrong. So we'll just take that as another lie you wont
admit to. Not a real shocker..
<snit's biased comparisons sniped>
Snit
Do you have a single counter example? One? Just one example that you think
is moderately fair?
>
> <snit's biased comparisons sniped>
Again, Steve, you are lying by saying I linked to any of my comparisons. I
did not.
Please try to be honest, no matter how hard it is for you.
Tim Adams
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
~snip
> I also have no way to verify it's not you, except for the fact that you
> have used sockpuppets in the past to support your positions.
He's also used them just to stir the pot. ie: 'evil' John.
> The
> likelyhood of me being wrong on this one is pretty darn slim. It's also
> not unlike you to create major smokescreens and deny your sockpuppets for
> months on end.
>
> >
> > Even if you do not trust me, you are *also* accusing Doctor Captain of
> > lying.
>
> I'll not loose any sleep over it either way.
--
Tim
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-97E385.04...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/30/04
2:08 AM:
> In article <pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com>,
> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ~snip
>
>> I also have no way to verify it's not you, except for the fact that you
>> have used sockpuppets in the past to support your positions.
>
> He's also used them just to stir the pot. ie: 'evil' John.
Steve Carroll admitted to being "evil" John.
I am not Steve Carroll.
Then again... I have been blamed for being lots and lots of people in CSMA.
99% of the claims are not accurate. Look at Nashton - he says "Hi Snit" so
often - to other people - he appears to be going insane.
>
>
>> The
>> likelyhood of me being wrong on this one is pretty darn slim. It's also
>> not unlike you to create major smokescreens and deny your sockpuppets for
>> months on end.
>>
>>>
>>> Even if you do not trust me, you are *also* accusing Doctor Captain of
>>> lying.
>>
>> I'll not loose any sleep over it either way.
--
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-97E385.04...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/30/04
> 2:08 AM:
>
> > In article <pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com>,
> > Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ~snip
> >
> >> I also have no way to verify it's not you, except for the fact that you
> >> have used sockpuppets in the past to support your positions.
> >
> > He's also used them just to stir the pot. ie: 'evil' John.
>
> Steve Carroll admitted to being "evil" John.
A lie you've never been able to prove.
~snipped more garbage
--
Tim
Steve Mackay
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-97E385.04...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/30/04
> 2:08 AM:
>
>> In article <pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com>,
>> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ~snip
>>
>>> I also have no way to verify it's not you, except for the fact that you
>>> have used sockpuppets in the past to support your positions.
>>
>> He's also used them just to stir the pot. ie: 'evil' John.
>
> Steve Carroll admitted to being "evil" John.
That's highly unlikely. Would you mind showing some support for this claim
of yours?
Snit
"Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
teadams$2$0$0$3-F642A9.12...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/30/04
10:27 AM:
--
Snit
Steve is, for now, gone. I have no desire to drag up his old posts. I
posted his admission many times... so you should be able to find it easily
if you care.
Steve Mackay
You're the one that made the unlikely claim. I'd be more inclined to
believe that you are lying yet again. In fact, what little I did follow
that whole fiasco, you are lying. But hey, nothing new here, eh?
Snit
You may believe whatever you like... but if you were going to be reasonable
you would either acknowledge that you do not know or, if you are really
going to obsess over this, spend a few minutes with Google.
Can not say I care either way.
Tim Adams
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:34:55 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> > "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> > teadams$2$0$0$3-97E385.04...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/30/04
> > 2:08 AM:
> >
> >> In article <pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com>,
> >> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ~snip
> >>
> >>> I also have no way to verify it's not you, except for the fact that you
> >>> have used sockpuppets in the past to support your positions.
> >>
> >> He's also used them just to stir the pot. ie: 'evil' John.
> >
> > Steve Carroll admitted to being "evil" John.
>
> That's highly unlikely. Would you mind showing some support for this claim
> of yours?
That will never happen.
I find it amusing that in the several times now that I suggested that
snit posted as 'Evil' John, he has NEVER stated that he didn't do it,
opting instead to point the finger at Steve.
Steve on the other hand has, in this NG, stated that he has never had an
account with the provider that this posting came from (snit has had one
BTW) and Steve has also denied, again in this NG, making the post in
question.
--
Tim
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Problem is, this 'admission' isn't any such thing, as even Steve has
told you.
--
Tim
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> What excuse do you have for dishonestly snipping content this time, Tim?
Once again - I see your still having problems reading. I clearly, and
correctly labeled what I posted. See, it;s right down there still for
you to try and read.
>
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-F642A9.12...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/30/04
> 10:27 AM:
>
> > In article <BDF97C3F.194F4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-97E385.04...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/30/04
> >> 2:08 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com>,
> >>> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ~snip
> >>>
> >>>> I also have no way to verify it's not you, except for the fact that you
> >>>> have used sockpuppets in the past to support your positions.
> >>>
> >>> He's also used them just to stir the pot. ie: 'evil' John.
> >>
> >> Steve Carroll admitted to being "evil" John.
> >
> > A lie you've never been able to prove.
> >
> > ~snipped more garbage
--
Tim
Snit
2:59 PM:
Yes, Steve has tried to twist his admission around. I have never claimed
otherwise... in any case, I have no desire to discuss him... why do you?
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Snit
3:00 PM:
> In article <BDF99792.19512%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> What excuse do you have for dishonestly snipping content this time, Tim?
>
> Once again - I see your still having problems reading. I clearly, and
> correctly labeled what I posted. See, it;s right down there still for
> you to try and read.
I have been reading you excuses and your accusations.
And note that you dishonestly snipped *again*!
>
>>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-F642A9.12...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/30/04
>> 10:27 AM:
>>
>>> In article <BDF97C3F.194F4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
>>>> teadams$2$0$0$3-97E385.04...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/30/04
>>>> 2:08 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com>,
>>>>> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ~snip
>>>>>
>>>>>> I also have no way to verify it's not you, except for the fact that you
>>>>>> have used sockpuppets in the past to support your positions.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's also used them just to stir the pot. ie: 'evil' John.
>>>>
>>>> Steve Carroll admitted to being "evil" John.
>>>
>>> A lie you've never been able to prove.
>>>
>>> ~snipped more garbage
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Steve Mackay
I'll stick with you lying again. It's only because of your well
known reputation of lying in here.
Snit
If pasting such trolling claims makes you feel better...
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Steve Mackay
It's not a claim. It's fact. Now fuck off and leave.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-5EDB07.17...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/30/04
> 3:00 PM:
>
> > In article <BDF99792.19512%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> What excuse do you have for dishonestly snipping content this time, Tim?
> >
> > Once again - I see your still having problems reading. I clearly, and
> > correctly labeled what I posted. See, it;s right down there still for
> > you to try and read.
>
> I have been reading you excuses and your accusations.
>
> And note that you dishonestly snipped *again*!
Lying again I see. How typical of you.
> >
> >>
> >> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-F642A9.12...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/30/04
> >> 10:27 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <BDF97C3F.194F4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> >>>> teadams$2$0$0$3-97E385.04...@news1.east.earthlink.net on
> >>>> 12/30/04
> >>>> 2:08 AM:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <pan.2004.12.30....@hotmail.com>,
> >>>>> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ~snip
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I also have no way to verify it's not you, except for the fact that
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>> have used sockpuppets in the past to support your positions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He's also used them just to stir the pot. ie: 'evil' John.
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve Carroll admitted to being "evil" John.
> >>>
> >>> A lie you've never been able to prove.
> >>>
> >>> ~snipped more garbage
--
Tim
Alan Baker
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
There was never any such admission. Give it up.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
thor...@juno.com
In case you haven't noticed, Snit hasn't posted here in days. He has
given up.
Mike Dee
news:1105112984....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
I doubt it. He's probably more like you than you'd care to admit,
Eddies. That is: periodically he gets dragged off the 'Serenity Fields
Rest Home for Burned Out Trolls' [for his own good].
I expect he'll be back before you get too comfortable.
--
dee