FahrenHYPE 9/11
Snit
what dirt they could pull up on Michael Moore and his movie.
I expected they would be able to pull up plenty - after all, I have no doubt
that the original F 9/11 was filled with innuendo, partial parts of stories,
and perhaps even some factual errors. It was not produced to be even
handed, and it clearly was not.
That is what I expected.
While there may have been a few minutes here and there where the movie was
able to point to a flaw in Fahrenheit 9/11, for the most part it was nothing
but even more over-the-top propaganda Fahrenheit 9/11 itself. It was filled
with self-contradictory statement - such as when it claim terrorism was a
clear thread to America - to outright lies - such as saying the war in Iraq
is tied to 9/11. Mostly it was filled with whiney people spewing emotional
baggage onto the screen.
At the end of the movie some yahoo military type stood up at the front of
the audience and started spewing BS about how if Kerry is elected all war
heroes in the US will be tried as war criminals. All. He made that clear.
The guy was whacked. So I stood up and politely started to walk out - not
looking at him but also not hiding my disgust for what he was saying. He
must have seen my eyes rolling, because he blocked me and started to go off
on how I had better vote for Bush and how horrid Kerry is ... and even told
me he could squish me like a bug.
Well, now I was in front of a moderate sized audience with some crazed
ex-special forces idiot spewing off at me... so I opened my mouth. I told
him he was very much right - with one hand tied behind his back he could
still probably think of 10 ways to kill me or make me wish I were dead. So
what? He was trying to argue he was right based on this. He believed might
makes right. That is about as far as his thinking could go. And he and
Bush are in agreement.
With that I turned my back to him and walked out the door. I was happy to
see the rest of the audience following me. :)
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Why do I not believe that this actually happened?
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry - Betraying America Since 1971
Snit
gmgravesnos-C007...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com on 10/29/04
6:01 PM:
For the same reason you find it OK to attack people based on skin color or
medical conditions... utter ignorance on your part.
Just a guess...
Tim Adams
<gmgravesnos-C007...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <BDA812F5.DF9F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
`Snip
>
> Why do I not believe that this actually happened?
Because of the 'person' that posted it most likely.
--
Tim
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
There you go lying again. I have nowhere said that it was OK to attack
people based on their skin color or medical condition. But your
disingenuous and totally dishonest "selective reading comprehension"
makes you alter what people actually say to fit your agenda. You're a
liar and a fraud. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say
that you do this because you are unwell, but unlike Steve, I don't think
so.
Snit
9:32 PM:
Yet you support Steve's accusations against me he based on my medical
condition.
> But your disingenuous and totally dishonest "selective reading comprehension"
> makes you alter what people actually say to fit your agenda. You're a liar and
> a fraud. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you do
> this because you are unwell, but unlike Steve, I don't think so.
Again I notice your lack of support for your claim, though your claim itself
has become more specific.
Here is the place for Steve to jump in and show an example or two where I
misunderstood someone... It has happened (as it happens to all frequent
posters). As he does so, if he can get some help with his research that is,
look to see how I react.
Then look to see how he reacts. Take, for example, his absurd semantic
games, as supported most recently by this post: http://snipurl.com/a54w
Yet I rarely see you talk about Steve's reading comprehension problems.
Really, the example I provide in that post is perhaps the most severe to
ever grace the history of csma. Can you point to one where someone has been
so obsessed over a semantic misunderstanding as Steve has been for the last
year? I know I never have.
Steve's "defense": he points out my anxiety disorder... as though somehow
that excuses his semantic games. It does not, but it does point to his
bigger character flaw: his bigotry.
Why you would defend Steve's bigotry I can not even guess... but it is not
tied to any health problems of yours, your skin color, or your religion.
Steve Mackay
Because anyone who has been "'round the block" a couple of times know
Snit's type. He's a sniveling little coward, and would do no such thing. I
highly doubt he even watched the movie.
It could also have to do with Snit's glaring, pathalogical dishonesty? :)
Snit
pan.2004.10.30....@hotmail.com on 10/29/04 10:07 PM:
Care to be specific with your accusations, or do you prefer to hide behind
unclear accusations with no evidence?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
All too easy. You are spinning wildly attacking a position you created for me. I
was NOT attributing your reading comprehension problems with your anxiety
disorder. If you could understand what you read, you would have seen that. It's
ironic that, in a post where I talk about a likely reason for your reading
comprehension problem,(fetal alcohol effects) you perfectly display that problem
for all to see.
> Then look to see how he reacts. Take, for example, his absurd semantic
> games, as supported most recently by this post: http://snipurl.com/a54w
>
> Yet I rarely see you talk about Steve's reading comprehension problems.
> Really, the example I provide in that post is perhaps the most severe to
> ever grace the history of csma. Can you point to one where someone has been
> so obsessed over a semantic misunderstanding as Steve has been for the last
> year? I know I never have.
>
> Steve's "defense": he points out my anxiety disorder...
No... your reading comprehension problem has you believing this. Thanks for
pointing it out so clearly. Saves me time...
> as though somehow
> that excuses his semantic games. It does not, but it does point to his
> bigger character flaw: his bigotry.
>
> Why you would defend Steve's bigotry I can not even guess... but it is not
> tied to any health problems of yours, your skin color, or your religion.
Reality check: That you tied your anxiety problem to skin color is bizarre.
--
Snit: "In my view, Bush is guilty based on #1 and #2, but not #3 (he is
morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty)."
Snit, speaking in a legal context: "Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
No evidence? That 4 posters have now responded to this thread and all feel the
same way is some evidence, Snit. Does it prove you are dishonest? Of course
not... but a more pertinent question in a NG forum might be:
Do most of the posters in csma feel it is any longer necessary to prove
dishonesty where Snit is concerned?
Snit, do you still not see what Bob Fovell, George Graves and I were trying to
tell you long ago... before you totally trashed your credibility in the eyes of
so many regulars?
Jason McNorton
fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com says...
You know.. I fight with snit a few times here and there. He irritates
me, but he's obviously ill. I wouldn't get in an outrage over it. He's
what he is. He's predictable.
I don't pity him, he's too malicious for that. But at least don't get
upset.
Mike Dee
news:MPG.1becf7cfb...@news-40.giganews.com:
> You know.. I fight with snit a few times here and there. He
> irritates me, but he's obviously ill. I wouldn't get in an
> outrage over it. He's what he is. He's predictable.
>
> I don't pity him, he's too malicious for that. But at least don't
> get upset.
How magnanimous of you, Jason.
It must pain you to come out and take a piece out of someone seeming so
down. It wouldn't be because the two of you are so politically
diametrically opposed by any chance?
--
D.
Jason McNorton
emte...@optushome.com.au says...
No, snit's 'special'.
I consider liberalism to be a mental illness for sure, but a vague one.
Snit's got a real issue. If you like him, good enough, that's great.
He's more than a mindless liberal, there's a specific oddness and
insanity that he displays.
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
I can prove your dishonesty. I said in an earlier post that one's
cultural background colors one's ideas and that astute observers can see
this in one's posts. I also said that your anxiety disorder could be the
cause your bizarre on-line personality.
In another thread, you turned these statements around to have me saying
that the color of people's skin and/or their medical problems are fair
fodder for personal usenet attacks, when I said nothing of the sort,
inferred nothing of the sort, and meant nothing of the sort. That's
pretty clear evidence of your dishonesty in my book.
George Graves
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
No. he proves it himself daily, and did so WRT me earlier today. I said
one thing in one post, and he twisted it around to have me saying
something that I most assuredly did not say in another. He can't use
reading comprehension problems as an excuse either, because his response
to my original post showed that he understood EXACTLY what I was saying,
but that didn't stop him from twisting my words into vicious lies for
his own self aggrandizement. I say hound the bastard out of this NG!
>
> Snit, do you still not see what Bob Fovell, George Graves and I were trying
> to
> tell you long ago... before you totally trashed your credibility in the eyes
> of
> so many regulars?
He sees. But he doesn't care.
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry  Betraying America Since 1971
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
I support nothing. I merely said that it COULD explain your behavior.
OTOH, it doesn't explain that vicious lie about me that posted above.
> > But your disingenuous and totally dishonest "selective reading
> > comprehension"
> > makes you alter what people actually say to fit your agenda. You're a liar
> > and
> > a fraud. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you do
> > this because you are unwell, but unlike Steve, I don't think so.
>
> Again I notice your lack of support for your claim, though your claim itself
> has become more specific.
LOL! The lie you just told: "For the same reason you find it OK to
attack people based on skin color or medical conditions... utter
ignorance on your part." is ample support for my "claim."
>
> Here is the place for Steve to jump in and show an example or two where I
> misunderstood someone... It has happened (as it happens to all frequent
> posters). As he does so, if he can get some help with his research that is,
> look to see how I react.
>
> Then look to see how he reacts. Take, for example, his absurd semantic
> games, as supported most recently by this post: http://snipurl.com/a54w
>
> Yet I rarely see you talk about Steve's reading comprehension problems.
> Really, the example I provide in that post is perhaps the most severe to
> ever grace the history of csma. Can you point to one where someone has been
> so obsessed over a semantic misunderstanding as Steve has been for the last
> year? I know I never have.
>
> Steve's "defense": he points out my anxiety disorder... as though somehow
> that excuses his semantic games. It does not, but it does point to his
> bigger character flaw: his bigotry.
>
> Why you would defend Steve's bigotry I can not even guess... but it is not
> tied to any health problems of yours, your skin color, or your religion.
Snit, you're a bore, a lying, sniveling bore and the proof is there in
abundance for all to see.
Snit
2:09 AM:
>>> Because anyone who has been "'round the block" a couple of times know
>>> Snit's type. He's a sniveling little coward, and would do no such thing. I
>>> highly doubt he even watched the movie.
>>>
>>> It could also have to do with Snit's glaring, pathalogical dishonesty? :)
>>
>> Care to be specific with your accusations, or do you prefer to hide behind
>> unclear accusations with no evidence?
>
> I can prove your dishonesty. I said in an earlier post that one's
> cultural background colors one's ideas and that astute observers can see
> this in one's posts.
But it does not excuse bigotry toward that cultural background... which was
my point. Nor does it allow you to be able to tell the color of someone's
skin, or their religion, or their sexual preference, etc. by the way they
post.
> I also said that your anxiety disorder could be the cause your bizarre on-line
> personality.
You have said so without giving any objective criteria for what you mean by
a "bizarre on-line personality", nor have you suggested how a health
concern can lead to any such affect.
In other words you are spewing meaningless insults. So?
>
> In another thread, you turned these statements around to have me saying
> that the color of people's skin and/or their medical problems are fair
> fodder for personal usenet attacks, when I said nothing of the sort,
Yet you spew meaningless insults, as you just did, above.
> inferred nothing of the sort, and meant nothing of the sort. That's
> pretty clear evidence of your dishonesty in my book.
Of course it is - if you can spew meaningless insults at me, you can
rationalize anything you want.
Care to account for your meaningless insults? You are tying to relate a
physical health disorder with an undefined posting pattern and speaking of
it in derogatory ways. There is no difference between that and claiming
that black people can not post coherently. It is utter BS.
Snit
2:18 AM:
>>> There you go lying again. I have nowhere said that it was OK to attack
>>> people based on their skin color or medical condition.
>>
>> Yet you support Steve's accusations against me he based on my medical
>> condition.
>
> I support nothing. I merely said that it COULD explain your behavior.
> OTOH, it doesn't explain that vicious lie about me that posted above.
Yes, yes... it is like saying someone being black *could* explain why they
are unable to post coherently or intelligently then trying to hide behind
your use of the word "could".
You have yet to define what it is about me that *could* have an affect, and
you have yet to define what the affect *could* be.
In other words you are spewing meaningless insults. The fact that you are
offended by my pointing it out does not change that.
MuahMan
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
news:BDA812F5.DF9F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
Snit
iBTgd.45$T_...@bignews4.bellsouth.net on 10/30/04 2:22 PM:
> I call Bullshit!
I never call Bullshit, but then again, I generally only call my friends.
George Graves
"MuahMan" <Mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I call Bullshit!
That's exactly what it is. Bullshit. This never happened. I doubt that
Snit even saw the film, but if he did, he sat there silently, watched
it, and afterwards he left without comment. His version isn't Snit,
under any stretch of the imagination.
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry  Betraying America Since 1971
Snit
2:44 PM:
> In article <iBTgd.45$T_...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "MuahMan" <Mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I call Bullshit!
>
> That's exactly what it is. Bullshit. This never happened. I doubt that
> Snit even saw the film, but if he did, he sat there silently, watched
> it, and afterwards he left without comment. His version isn't Snit,
> under any stretch of the imagination.
Yawn. And then you wonder why I do not take you seriously.
My version, you claim, is not me... then who is it?
You stated recently you can tell a lot about a person based on how they post
- you, clearly, know very, very little about me.
Steve Mackay
> I call Bullshit!
Of course it is. Snit would *NEVER* do something like that. It's doubtful
he even saw the movie.
Snit
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:22:11 -0400, MuahMan wrote:
>
>> I call Bullshit!
>
> Of course it is. Snit would *NEVER* do something like that. It's doubtful
> he even saw the movie.
Thank you.
It is clear that the same people who make outrageous claims about my posting
in csma *also* show they know me very, very poorly.
This is actual a pretty good litmus test... those people that feel the need
to say they "know" me well enough to know I did not do what I *did* do are
the same one ones who tend to have baseless attacks in csma.
Anyone else?
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.10.30....@hotmail.com on 10/30/04 4:47 PM:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:22:11 -0400, MuahMan wrote:
> >
> >> I call Bullshit!
> >
> > Of course it is. Snit would *NEVER* do something like that. It's doubtful
> > he even saw the movie.
>
> Thank you.
>
> It is clear that the same people who make outrageous claims about my posting
> in csma *also* show they know me very, very poorly.
They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to know?
~snip
--
Tim
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-04B387.23...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/30/04
8:01 PM:
That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
Snit
BDA9A6E7.E374%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 10/30/04 8:15 PM:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-04B387.23...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/30/04
> 8:01 PM:
>
>> In article <BDA97A7C.E329%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>>> pan.2004.10.30....@hotmail.com on 10/30/04 4:47 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:22:11 -0400, MuahMan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I call Bullshit!
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is. Snit would *NEVER* do something like that. It's doubtful
>>>> he even saw the movie.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> It is clear that the same people who make outrageous claims about my posting
>>> in csma *also* show they know me very, very poorly.
>>
>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to know?
>
> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
unsupported accusations from you:
Not here: http://snipurl.com/a6ne where you have no problem with my
questions about slot loading iMacs
Not here: http://snipurl.com/a6ng where you seem to have no problem with my
assessment of MS Office UI oddities.
Not here: http://snipurl.com/a6nh where I was talking about a Win 98 problem
Not here: http://snipurl.com/a6nj where you offer a slight correction to my
comments on DW800 drives
Not here: http://snipurl.com/a6nm when we discuss the price of PC's
But here: http://snipurl.com/a6ns you jump in to a political discussion
making a silly joke about John Kerry.... no big deal, we seem to disagree
about politics...
But then you go back to seeming to agree with me here:
http://snipurl.com/a6nv about Windows screen shots...
And here: http://snipurl.com/a6nw you suggest I stop responding to Steve to
stop him from turning every thread into a flame thread...
And here you go back to being down right chummy with me:
http://snipurl.com/a6ny
So just where did you decide to be against me? I must not have been paying
attention to that episode of the csma soap opera... :)
Wally
----------
In article <iBTgd.45$T_...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "MuahMan"
<Mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I call Bullshit!
Oh! that's not fair, At a time where, in *reality* the members of a ng show
total contempt wrt a certain poster, and just because this certain poster
claims to have experienced a situation where he is afforded complete and
total support thereby reversing the previous sentiments by the............OK
you win, this isn't working is it? ;=)
Snit
V7%gd.2132924$yk.3...@news.easynews.com on 10/30/04 10:56 PM:
I love reading the comments of people who claim to have some insight to an
event they have no direct knowledge of. It is amusing.
It would be one thing to have no opinion on such an event - I do not expect
people to accept anyone's word as gospel... but to actively disbelieve...
that shows a level of ignorance that is quite humorous.
Thanks for sharing your comments...
Wally
----------
In article <BDA9CF06.E3A0%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
You reject the *reality* wrt this ng in relation to you?...amazing! LOL
> It would be one thing to have no opinion on such an event -
You expected comments from people on your 'story' that had no opinion on it?
> I do not expect people to accept anyone's word as gospel...
There are people here that if they were to tell a similar 'story' to you
they would have been believed, but here is the difference, they would not
have had the *need* to have made the story so obviously unbelievable, that
was deliberate on your part your intention was to be able to dismiss your
detractors knowing that they would obviously be the same as those that
failed to offer you any support previously when you said.....
"Perhaps it is because it is so personal for me that I find his comments as
offensive as I do. I would very much appreciate comments from other.
Or did you not notice that all the comments agreed with the comments that
you claim were "offensive"?
So it was totally predictable that you would claim...
"It is clear that the same people who make outrageous claims about my
posting in csma *also* show they know me very, very poorly.
This is actual a pretty good litmus test... those people that feel the need
to say they "know" me well enough to know I did not do what I *did* do are
the same one ones who tend to have baseless attacks in csma."
> but to actively disbelieve...
believe: "accept as true; take to be true", you have a problem with that.
> that shows a level of ignorance that is quite humorous.
That depends on the person and the statement being made, considering it is
Snit and a claimed experience by Snit, disbelief is not so unlikely.
> Thanks for sharing your comments...
>
;=)
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Do you fucking believe this guy? What the hell does he think he's going
to prove with all this? Snit, get a life, man!
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry - Betraying America Since 1971
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in post
> BDA9A6E7.E374%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 10/30/04 8:15 PM:
>
> > "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> > teadams$2$0$0$3-04B387.23...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/30/04
> > 8:01 PM:
> >
> >> In article <BDA97A7C.E329%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> >>> pan.2004.10.30....@hotmail.com on 10/30/04 4:47 PM:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:22:11 -0400, MuahMan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I call Bullshit!
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course it is. Snit would *NEVER* do something like that. It's
> >>>> doubtful
> >>>> he even saw the movie.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you.
> >>>
> >>> It is clear that the same people who make outrageous claims about my
> >>> posting
> >>> in csma *also* show they know me very, very poorly.
> >>
> >> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to know?
> >
> > That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
>
> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
> unsupported accusations from you:
Except I supported them.
~garbage snipped
--
Tim
Snit
12:09 AM:
Prove? What do I think I am going to prove?
See the little squiggly thing at the end of the sentence where I *ask*:
So just where did you decide to be against me?
That is generally not a sign of trying to *prove* anything. I was asking a
question.
Geez...
Snit
6:31 AM:
As shown by... ?
Snit
What are you talking about? Please be specific. I am talking about an
event that nobody in the newsgroup was present at other than myself.
>
>> It would be one thing to have no opinion on such an event -
>>
> You expected comments from people on your 'story' that had no opinion on it?
Not reasoned ones... and you have proven that point. Thanks!
>
>> I do not expect people to accept anyone's word as gospel...
>>
> There are people here that if they were to tell a similar 'story' to you they
> would have been believed,
So to you it is about personalities and not data. OK.
> but here is the difference, they would not have had the *need* to have made
> the story so obviously unbelievable, that was deliberate on your part your
> intention was to be able to dismiss your detractors knowing that they would
> obviously be the same as those that failed to offer you any support previously
> when you said.....
Funny how you call a real event "obviously unbelievable". Shows how closely
tied to reality you are... or are not ...
Again, I do not expect you or anyone to stake their life on some event they
read about in a Usenet group... that would be silly. But to actively deny
what you have no direct knowledge of... and even claim that on one hand it
"would have been believed" while on the other saying it is "obviously
unbelievable" shows what a fool you are.
Please, keep talking.
>
> "Perhaps it is because it is so personal for me that I find his comments as
> offensive as I do. I would very much appreciate comments from other.
>
> Or did you not notice that all the comments agreed with the comments that you
> claim were "offensive"?
Actually, nobody has jumped in to support Steve's bigoted comments. George
has jumped in and claimed that because Steve stated his bigoted comments as
a "theory" that that disavows him of bigotry. I call bullshit on that.
You, well, your silly games do not come as naturally to you as Steve's do to
his. I never take anything you say seriously... face it - even in this
discussion you are merely trolling and I am merely humoring your trolling.
Not even you believe half the BS you spew in here. The scary thing is I
think Steve *does* believe what he spews. Big difference.
>
> So it was totally predictable that you would claim...
I am fairly predictable... comes from being open and honest and consistent.
>
> "It is clear that the same people who make outrageous claims about my posting
> in csma *also* show they know me very, very poorly.
>
> This is actual a pretty good litmus test... those people that feel the need to
> say they "know" me well enough to know I did not do what I *did* do are the
> same one ones who tend to have baseless attacks in csma."
Yup. The people who claim that the events I describe do not "fit" me
clearly show that they know me very poorly. People who do know me, when I
tell them, are not at all surprised that I spoke up. A couple have been
surprised that I did not do more.
>
>> but to actively disbelieve...
>>
> believe: "accept as true; take to be true", you have a problem with that.
Do you have a question?
>
>> that shows a level of ignorance that is quite humorous.
>>
> That depends on the person and the statement being made, considering it is
> Snit and a claimed experience by Snit, disbelief is not so unlikely.
Yawn. Oh, you are just trolling and tossing around insults. What a shock!
Sorry, they seem less natural coming from you than from Steve. He is far
more the "natural" troll. Read his posts... maybe you can learn some
trolling techniques from him.
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Oh, just everything you've ever posted here.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Posts in several different threads that you were either a) to lazy to
read fully or b) to ignorant to understand or c) so stupid that the
point went over your head.
--
Tim
Snit
9:48 AM:
Sigh... if you have nothing to support a claim, just say so...
If you *have* something to support a claim, well, then, by all means support
it!
Snit
9:51 AM:
>>>>>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to know?
>>>>>
>>>>> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
>>>>
>>>> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
>>>> unsupported accusations from you:
>>>
>>> Except I supported them.
>>
>> As shown by... ?
>
> Posts in several different threads that you were either a) to lazy to
> read fully or b) to ignorant to understand or c) so stupid that the
> point went over your head.
And you will be posing quotes / links to support your claim when? Should I
expect them this week, next? Maybe six months from now? Just when do you
plan on ending your silly game and actually trying to support your
accusations?
Hmmm, maybe I should return some baseless accusations... just so we are
even:
You cook babies up in corn oil and serve them to the homeless for
Thanksgiving dinner!
This is shown by several of your threads where you talked openly about how
you were doing exactly as I describe. You even said the taste is growing on
you.
There, we have now both supported our accusations equally. I suppose they
both must be true.
Peter Hayes
> In article <BDA812F5.DF9F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Why do I not believe that this actually happened?
It may or may not have actually happened, but what's sad is that it's
entirely credible, especially following the excesses in Abu Graib.
--
Peter
Snit
1gmjaol.4g6ll09k80gaN%pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk on 10/31/04 10:45 AM:
That is a reasoned response... Peter does not claim to have knowledge of the
incident I describe, other than based on my comments, of course - and does
not dismiss them out of hand nor swear accuracy to them.
I, of course, know that it did happen very much the way that I describe -
though some people have taken the comments too literally and assumed that
when I said the audience was following me they read that to mean every
single person. I did not count nor bother to try to see if anyone stayed
behind. For all I know, several people stayed behind to slap Mr. Special
Forces on the back and tell him how proud they made him feel.
In any case...
Thanks, Peter, for showing that there are still some in csma with a basic
understanding of logic and reason.
Phil Earnhardt
Hayes) wrote:
>> > With that I turned my back to him and walked out the door. I was happy to
>> > see the rest of the audience following me. :)
>>
>> Why do I not believe that this actually happened?
>
>It may or may not have actually happened, but what's sad is that it's
>entirely credible, especially following the excesses in Abu Graib.
While Abu Graib was indeed an unfortunate incident, it is absolutely
nothing compared with the thefts, bribes, and corruption under the UN
"Food for Oil" program in Iraq. Over $10B was stolen from the Iraqi
people -- funds that were supposed to be used for food, medicine, and
essential supplies.
Please get your priorities in order. Saying "Yawn" when you hear about
this story is an unacceptable response.
Thanks.
--phil
Lars Tr?ger
> I call Bullshit!
No honey, you SAY bullshit. All the time.
Lars T.
Peter Hayes
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:45:08 +0100, pe...@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter
> Hayes) wrote:
>
> >> > With that I turned my back to him and walked out the door. I was
> >> > happy to see the rest of the audience following me. :)
> >>
> >> Why do I not believe that this actually happened?
> >
> >It may or may not have actually happened, but what's sad is that it's
> >entirely credible, especially following the excesses in Abu Graib.
>
> While Abu Graib was indeed an unfortunate incident, it is absolutely
> nothing compared with the thefts, bribes, and corruption under the UN
> "Food for Oil" program in Iraq. Over $10B was stolen from the Iraqi
> people -- funds that were supposed to be used for food, medicine, and
> essential supplies.
Why are you getting so worked up about this? Everyone and his dog knows
Saddam Hussein was an extremely nasty piece of work, on a par with
Teodoro Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea who is also stealing his country's
riches, it would seem with the active cooperation of US banks and oil
companies,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1101-2004Sep6.html
> Please get your priorities in order. Saying "Yawn" when you hear about
> this story is an unacceptable response.
If it had been posted in a us.election or us.politics n/g fine, but
CSMA?
--
Peter
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-4E6285.11...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/31/04
> 9:51 AM:
>
> >>>>>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to know?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
> >>>>
> >>>> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
> >>>> unsupported accusations from you:
> >>>
> >>> Except I supported them.
> >>
> >> As shown by... ?
> >
> > Posts in several different threads that you were either a) to lazy to
> > read fully or b) to ignorant to understand or c) so stupid that the
> > point went over your head.
>
> And you will be posing quotes / links to support your claim when?
I've done that in the past with you either totally ignoring them OR
removing them from your replies. Why waste more of my time on posting
them again?
~more shit snipped
--
Tim
Steve Carroll
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <fretwizz-3BDA6C...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com says...
> > In article <BDA871AC.E07F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > > "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> > > pan.2004.10.30....@hotmail.com on 10/29/04 10:07 PM:
> > > >>> With that I turned my back to him and walked out the door. I was
> > > >>> happy
> > > >>> to
> > > >>> see the rest of the audience following me. :)
> > > >>
> > > >> Why do I not believe that this actually happened?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Because anyone who has been "'round the block" a couple of times know
> > > > Snit's type. He's a sniveling little coward, and would do no such
> > > > thing. I
> > > > highly doubt he even watched the movie.
> > > >
> > > > It could also have to do with Snit's glaring, pathalogical dishonesty?
> > > > :)
> > >
> > > Care to be specific with your accusations, or do you prefer to hide
> > > behind
> > > unclear accusations with no evidence?
> >
> > No evidence? That 4 posters have now responded to this thread and all feel
> > the
> > same way is some evidence, Snit. Does it prove you are dishonest? Of course
> > not... but a more pertinent question in a NG forum might be:
> >
> > Do most of the posters in csma feel it is any longer necessary to prove
> > dishonesty where Snit is concerned?
> >
> > Snit, do you still not see what Bob Fovell, George Graves and I were trying
> > to
> > tell you long ago... before you totally trashed your credibility in the
> > eyes of
> > so many regulars?
>
> You know.. I fight with snit a few times here and there. He irritates
> me, but he's obviously ill. I wouldn't get in an outrage over it. He's
> what he is. He's predictable.
>
> I don't pity him, he's too malicious for that. But at least don't get
> upset.
You're falling for more of Snit's propaganda... I'm not upset, that's a
projection on his part. Why do you say he's obviously ill? Solely based on
lying?
--
Snit: "In my view, Bush is guilty based on #1 and #2, but not #3 (he is
morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty)."
Snit, speaking in a legal context: "Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
> gmgravesnos-269E...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com on 10/30/04
> 2:09 AM:
>
> >>> Because anyone who has been "'round the block" a couple of times know
> >>> Snit's type. He's a sniveling little coward, and would do no such thing.
> >>> I
> >>> highly doubt he even watched the movie.
> >>>
> >>> It could also have to do with Snit's glaring, pathalogical dishonesty? :)
> >>
> >> Care to be specific with your accusations, or do you prefer to hide behind
> >> unclear accusations with no evidence?
> >
> > I can prove your dishonesty. I said in an earlier post that one's
> > cultural background colors one's ideas and that astute observers can see
> > this in one's posts.
>
> But it does not excuse bigotry toward that cultural background... which was
> my point.
You have no point because fetal alcohol effects are not a cultural background in
and of themselves. They are effects produced by a disease that may be the result
of a particular cultural background... but they are not remotely connected to
being black, white, Jewish, Italian or anything else you are trying to claim.
This entire argument is a dime store strawman. If you are not focusing on fetal
alcohol effects, you are not talking about my theory for your disingenuous
behavior. I have yet to see you address this in many posts now, in more than one
thread. You are arguing strawman... business as usual for you.
Phil Earnhardt
Hayes) wrote:
>> While Abu Graib was indeed an unfortunate incident, it is absolutely
>> nothing compared with the thefts, bribes, and corruption under the UN
>> "Food for Oil" program in Iraq. Over $10B was stolen from the Iraqi
>> people -- funds that were supposed to be used for food, medicine, and
>> essential supplies.
>
>Why are you getting so worked up about this?
Because tens of thousands of Iraqis died because of these thefts.
You tell us in one posting that you're concerned with the deaths of
Iraqi civilians. But here you try to "Yawn" away this whole issue. You
have zero credibility in your claims of being concerned about any
civilian lives in Iraq.
Do you start to get it, Peter? Your flip-flopping on this is really
disgusting!
> Everyone and his dog knows
>Saddam Hussein was an extremely nasty piece of work,
The difference here is that French, German, Russian, Chinese, and UN
officials were accomplices to the theft this time. Oh: there were a
few American businessmen, too.
>on a par with
>Teodoro Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea who is also stealing his country's
>riches,> it would seem with the active cooperation of US banks and oil
>companies,
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1101-2004Sep6.html
You think those thefts were "on a par" with Saddam's theft of $10B?
Can you show me your math on that one.
BTW: Of course all cases of bribes should be investigated. We should
not be "Yawn"ing about any of these!
>> Please get your priorities in order. Saying "Yawn" when you hear about
>> this story is an unacceptable response.
>
>If it had been posted in a us.election or us.politics n/g fine, but
>CSMA?
This is a specious reason.
If you protested some significant percentage of OT political postings
to the newsgroup, that would be one thing. But you do not do that.
You're pretty damn selective in where you Yawn.
And, in this case, it was dreadfully inappropriate. Imagine how much
pain, suffering, and death was caused by the theft of that $10B of
humanitarian funding.
How exactly should we feel about the officials who set up the program
that way, executed it on a day-to-day basis, or resisted any change in
the program -- even when it became painfully obvious that large
cheating was going on.
I fondly hope that I have cured your sleepiness, Peter.
--phil
Snit
3:21 PM:
Oh. In other words you got nothin'.
If you did, let's face it, you would have posted a link... or a quote...
or... well something of value.
Snit
1) I owe you, of all people, no explanation for any research I have ever
done for my health concerns.
2) Talking to you about my health concerns and how your accusations are
outrageous would be like a black man talking to a card carrying KKK
member about the "theory" of how his being black affects his posts. It
is an exercise in futility. You, like the KKK member, are a bigot.
Do you think a black man would be able to convince a KKK member to
drop his bigotry - all based on a Usenet discussion. Not a chance.
3) Even if your bigoted "theory" had any value... which it does not...
it would make no sense in the *context* that you claimed to post it,
as a "defense" for your actions of playing silly semantic games
and posting as "John" (see these two threads: http://snipurl.com/a54w
and http://snipurl.com/a2wt )
You see, Steve, it is clear what you are doing. You are frustrated that
your games have been pointed out, repeatedly by me - most recently in the
above to threads (note a fundamental difference between you and I: I support
my claims with links and evidence).
You have no reasonable defense for your actions, so, when your obfuscations
and general name calling failed to get you off the hook, , you resorted to
making absurd "theories" about me as your "defense" - a completely
irrational, bigoted attempt at a Å‚defenseË› on your part.
Yes, Steve, I have health concerns. Yes, Steve, as you were able to find I
have looked at all sorts of ideas as to how to deal with some of the affects
of the health concerns and have even looked into the idea that it was
possible there was a fetal developmental problem - one of the theories as to
Mitral Valve Prolapse Syndrome. So what?
You post a load of bigoted BS and then try to claim you are not a bigot
because it is a "theory". Sorry, Steve, your bigoted comments are not
shoved under the rug so easily. You posted bigoted comments, and you show
no remorse. You are, Steve, a bigot.
By the way, do you have any clue what a theory even is? Your bigoted
comments do not even rise to the level of a reasonable hypothesis, no less a
"theory". So what are they: a pile of bigoted accusations you posted in
order to try to turn the attentions away from your trolling, playing of
absurd semantic games, and posting as "John".
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
fretwizz-EB14E3...@netnews.comcast.net on 10/31/04 3:47 PM:
--
Steve Mackay
Snit seems to think, that if he dismisses proof/evidence, or just plainly
ignores it, it never existed. It's fortunate that most in CSMA are far
smarter than he is, and will never fall for his BS. Much the reason I
doubt anyone believes this "story" of his.
Lets face it, even if he wasn't the pathalogical liar, that he most
certainly is, Snit's type is far too cowardly to actually have done
ANYTHING like this. So like usual, Snit has reality confused with his
fantasy world.
Snit
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:21:59 +0000, Tim Adams wrote:
>
>> In article <BDAA6A07.E42E%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$3-4E6285.11...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/31/04
>>> 9:51 AM:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to
>>>>>>>>> know?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
>>>>>>> unsupported accusations from you:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except I supported them.
>>>>>
>>>>> As shown by... ?
>>>>
>>>> Posts in several different threads that you were either a) to lazy to
>>>> read fully or b) to ignorant to understand or c) so stupid that the
>>>> point went over your head.
>>>
>>> And you will be posing quotes / links to support your claim when?
>>
>> I've done that in the past with you either totally ignoring them OR
>> removing them from your replies. Why waste more of my time on posting
>> them again?
>>
>>
>> ~more shit snipped
>
>
> Snit seems to think, that if he dismisses proof/evidence, or just plainly
> ignores it, it never existed.
In order for me to dismiss something, it must be presented.
> It's fortunate that most in CSMA are far smarter than he is, and will never
> fall for his BS. Much the reason I doubt anyone believes this "story" of his.
>
> Lets face it, even if he wasn't the pathalogical liar, that he most
> certainly is, Snit's type is far too cowardly to actually have done
> ANYTHING like this. So like usual, Snit has reality confused with his
> fantasy world.
Oh, you just wanted to toss around insults. Did this make you feel better
about yourself?
Steve Carroll
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
(snip)
> > > >> Why do I not believe that this actually happened?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Because anyone who has been "'round the block" a couple of times know
> > > > Snit's type. He's a sniveling little coward, and would do no such
> > > > thing.
> > > > I
> > > > highly doubt he even watched the movie.
> > > >
> > > > It could also have to do with Snit's glaring, pathalogical dishonesty?
> > > > :)
> > >
> > > Care to be specific with your accusations, or do you prefer to hide
> > > behind
> > > unclear accusations with no evidence?
> >
> > No evidence? That 4 posters have now responded to this thread and all feel
> > the
> > same way is some evidence, Snit. Does it prove you are dishonest? Of course
> > not... but a more pertinent question in a NG forum might be:
> >
> > Do most of the posters in csma feel it is any longer necessary to prove
> > dishonesty where Snit is concerned?
>
> No. he proves it himself daily, and did so WRT me earlier today. I said
> one thing in one post, and he twisted it around to have me saying
> something that I most assuredly did not say in another. He can't use
> reading comprehension problems as an excuse either, because his response
> to my original post showed that he understood EXACTLY what I was saying,
> but that didn't stop him from twisting my words into vicious lies for
> his own self aggrandizement. I say hound the bastard out of this NG!
This leads to the question:
Do you think *every* occasion of a Snit reading problem is staged?
There is no question that he uses what comes from his misinterpretations to
blame things on people or hold them accountable in some way. I believe he does
this for the purpose that I stated in the fetal alcohol post. We have to open
our minds to the possibility that he may not be totally aware he is doing it all
the time. Some evidence of this is that he is currently pretending that I am
arguing solely about his anxiety disorder as a reason for his reading problem. I
clearly am not as my theory's main focus is that it's connected to fetal alcohol
effects. I think there is a possibility that he is unintentionally creating this
argument for me so he can compare himself to things like skin color and call me
a bigot with some justification (in his mind). Of course, this position makes no
sense, either... but If I'm right on this, it underscores an illness for which
even he may not be aware of the extent. Snit may be a disingenuous liar, too,
but it's evident to me that he attempts to get away with things the ordinary
person would not even attempt and this raises the flag for me. It would be all
too easy for me to simply agree that Snit is just a disingenuous liar and that's
the end of it... but his lies are so bizarre and so frequent that I felt there
had to be more to it. As is often the case with things right in front of your
face, Snit himself provides the clues.
> > Snit, do you still not see what Bob Fovell, George Graves and I were trying
> > to
> > tell you long ago... before you totally trashed your credibility in the
> > eyes
> > of
> > so many regulars?
>
> He sees. But he doesn't care.
Snit
> itself, isn't an excuse for his behavior.
Error 1: Steve assumes he knows my medical condition.
Error 2: Steve insinuates that my behavior needs an "excuse". I so doing,
he has deemed me guilty of something, though he does not even say what.
Error 3: Steve implies that having my medical condition is a partial
"excuse" for some behavior that he does not specify - as though my medical
condition would have an affect on this unspecified area he has assumed guilt
for.
> I'm at the point where I believe a year is long enough, Snit can no longer
> hide his disingenuous behavior behind his health problems.
Error 4: Steve now makes the accusation ... of the type he has called an
"absolute statement" that there I am hiding some "disingenuous behavior".
Error 5: Steve has claimed that others also see what he says I "hide"... his
accusations are self contradictory.
Error 6: Steve claims that I have ever suggested my health problems offer
some excuse for some behavior he accuses me of.
This error on Steve's part is bigoted - he implies that health problems
lead to some sort of undefined "disingenuous behavior". This is absurd.
For the record: I owe nobody, especially a bigot such as Steve, any
description of my health concerns. Since Steve has brought my health
concerns to csma, I am happy to respond to reasoned discussion on anxiety
disorders and even, perhaps, specifics about my own health. This is, of
course, all very personal information, and I reserve the right to *not*
discuss any health problem.
If people are interested in anxiety disorders in general, I strongly suggest
they post questions to alt.support.anxiery-panic or the .moderated version
of that forum. There are people there with vast amounts of information on
the topic, including doctors and other professionals who frequent the
groups. While I can not vouch for all information you may get there, I can
be relatively sure the bigotry that Steve shows will not be shown there by
anyone... especially in the moderated group. I even welcome Steve to post
to those groups if he really wants to educate himself on the topic - I
seriously doubt he does. Steve's goal is to offend and to troll - and to
change the topic from his own actions. Steve will sink to any level, even
open bigotry, to do so.
> When I bring it up he suggests I'm a health problem bigot.
Error 7: I do not suggest Steve's bigoted comments are bigoted, I clearly
point them out. Picking an arbitrary and unrelated aspect of a person, such
as skin color, race, religion, or health concern, and then implying that
this creates some sort of "disingenuous behavior" is a bigoted view point.
Even if you can point out some actual behavior you disagree with, to try to
connect it to a persons skin color, etc. in such a way is a bigoted thing to
do. If some were to catch someone lying in csma and then claim that the
person's lie was connected to the person's skin color - that would be
clearly bigoted. There is no difference to what Steve has done.
> It's a touchy subject for sure... but now I'm saying screw that, his activity
> is his fault, not mine.
Error 8: Steve states their is a "fault" with my actions - showing he has
again deemed this to be the case without providing any evidence other than
his view of my health problems.
Error 9: Steve claimed that he posted this bigoted accusation as a "defense"
against his own actions... showing he things *I* am responsible for his
actions.
> I'm sure you'll agree that Snit often has a noticeable problem with reading
> comprehension.
Opinion. No support given, but Steve has a right to an opinion, even one he
can not and does not support.
> Below is a bit of info on Snit you may not be aware of that is the likely
> cause.
Error 10: Steve pointes to a post where I was doing research on possible
causes of some of my health concerns. While Steve has no idea what the
outcome of this research was, has no clue what my doctors said, and does not
even know what or who prompted me to post the message, he comes to the
faulty conclusion that this is the "likely cause" for something he does not
even demonstrate.
> for what so many have seen. I've known about all this for almost a year but
> now I'm going to start letting others know when I see them encounter problems
> with him.
Wow, Steve is going to spew bigoted ideas whenever he is mad at me or I show
his trolling, silly semantic games, or the evidence of his sock puppet use
such as when he was caught posting as John (see these two threads:
> Due to his health problems, Snit has admitted to using drugs that make
> him feel "drugged".
Error 11: While this is a nit, my health problems have nothing to do with
any admission I make. My health problems do not connect with my honesty.
Many people are honest who do not have health problems.
Error 12: Steve is trying to connect some unspecified use of prescribed
medication and some side affect that I once had with some unspecified attack
he is making in his post about my behavior.
Error 13: Steve has made claims that I sniff glue, take red and green pills,
and use other illegal substances. This is his only "support", and even then
he does not post any specific quote from me or direct evidence.
> Because there was something unquestionably wrong with him,
Error 14: Steve again makes an accusation in the form of an "absolute
statement". He provides no support nor suggests what he means by something
being "wrong".
> I did a few minutes research on these drugs. It became obvious they are of a
> type that have a potential to produce an effect on his ability to post
> coherently, (Paxil, Ativan/Lorazepam, Lexapro).
Error 15: Steve here is pretending he knows what medications I am currently
taking and what affect they might have on me. He offers no support.
> This may be the answer to his bizarre posting,
Error 16: Steve again makes an accusation in the form of an "absolute
statement". He provides no support nor suggests what he means by "bizarre
posting".
> though, he's recently tried to convince me he has stopped the drug use.
Error 17: I have neither suggested I am or am not on any medication at the
current time.
> Whatever... but it's evident that something is still wrong.
Error 18: Steve again makes an accusation in the form of an "absolute
statement". He provides no support nor suggests what he means by something
"wrong".
> Another plausible explanation is Snit's mother's, who drank while pregnant
> with him.
Error 19: Steve again makes an accusation in the form of an "absolute
statement". He provides no support nor suggests what he needs an
explanation.
> As shown in the post below, Snit feels this only occurred during the
> first trimester but he wasn't there and alcoholics often lie effectively to
> conceal the extent of their disease.
Error 20: Steve again makes an accusation in the form of an "absolute
statement". He has concluded that my mother is or was an alcoholic. He has
no information as to any habits of my mother, other than the post he points
to... which neither states nor suggests that.
> Only a person who had a problem with alcohol would drink during this crucial
> time period.
Error 21: Steve again makes an accusation in the form of an "absolute
statement". He has concluded that my mother is or was an alcoholic. He has
no information as to any habits of my mother, other than the post he points
to... which neither states nor suggests that.
> Here is a post that was shown to me, from a thread created by
> Snit (under the name of Brock McNuggets) explaining that his mother continued
> to drink... but the main point here is that Snit himself chose the name of the
> thread's title:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=BB8E885B.27C90%25kra
> ppe%40cableone.net
Error 22: Steve pretends that he knows the outcome of any of the research
that I have ever conducted into my health history.
> If alcohol use wasn't an issue on Snit's mind, he would have no reason
> to bring it up, much less entitle a thread based on it.
Error 22: Steve pretends that he knows the outcome or reason of any of the
research that I have ever conducted into my health history.
> The symptoms Snit talks about in that post can be attributed to FAS... but
> Snit exhibits other well known FAS symptoms, too... the most noticeable to
> this NG being - learning problems and memory loss.
Error 23: Steve tries to equate the symptoms discussed in that post:
an anxiety disorder and a "short palette and oddities with my throat and
tongue muscles. I also have a dual (split) uvula
with learning problems and memory loss. The two sets of symptoms are not
connected.
Error 24: Steve again makes an accusation in the form of an "absolute
statement". He provides no support for his accusation of symptoms.
> A theory for Snit's behavior CAN be as simple as:
>
> Snit's mother is an alcoholic who, in his mind, has not taken
> responsibility for her actions and what they have done to his health.
Error 25: While worded as a "theory", it is not. To call it such shows a
poor understanding of what a theory is. It is a absurd accusation based on
no reasonable information. Nothing more. To pretend otherwise is
dishonest.
>
> It's a short hop to the idea that Snit is left with filling this void in
> the only way he knows how... to lash out at others.
Error 26: Steve jumps from his absurd accusations to other accusations.
> I have little doubt that he incites people for the sole purpose of blame and
> guilt.
An opinion Steve expresses... he is welcome to it, but provides absolutely
no support. Keep in mind that Steve is doing exactly as he claims I do - he
stated he posted this accusation as a "defense" for his own actions of
trolling and posting as "John".
> IMO he is extremely obsessed with guilt and having people admit to
> whatever he accuses them of.
Again, another opinion from Steve based on his bigotry. He is welcome to
his opinion.
> On this NG, it is often some delusional argument he has created for them...
> that he claims they haven't supported.
Error 27: Perhaps the most ironic of Steve's errors. He posts this
accusation against me with no support and then complains when I point out
how he posts accusations without support. Funny, Steve.
Error 28: Steve fails to take responsibility for his arguments that he posts
without support.
> There is little point in arguing with Snit over this because he will deny the
> entire thing as a possibility...
Correct Point 1: Wow... ya' think! Steve posts a set of absurd and bigoted
accusations against me and I do not accept his bigotry. He must be proud to
have predicted that one. :)
> I consider it a likelihood. I have now decided to let others be the judge.
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
fretwizz-ABEBFA...@netnews.comcast.net on 10/31/04 4:28 PM:
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> For the record: I owe nobody, especially a bigot such as Steve, any
> description of my health concerns.
Reality check: You already have discussed your health problems and concerns...
it is this objective information YOU provided that I used.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Reality check: Also based on your comments, like everyone else in this thread
thus far, he doesn't state that he believes you, either.
Snit
> In article <BDAAC7C7.E510%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> For the record: I owe nobody, especially a bigot such as Steve, any
>> description of my health concerns.
>
> Reality check: You already have discussed your health problems and concerns...
> it is this objective information YOU provided that I used.
---------
> Snit has PAD (Panic Anxiety Disorder) but an illness like this, by
> itself, isn't an excuse for his behavior.
Error 1: Steve assumes he knows my medical condition.
Error 2: Steve insinuates that my behavior needs an "excuse". I so doing,
he has deemed me guilty of something, though he does not even say what.
Error 3: Steve implies that having my medical condition is a partial
"excuse" for some behavior that he does not specify - as though my medical
condition would have an affect on this unspecified area he has assumed guilt
for.
> I'm at the point where I believe a year is long enough, Snit can no longer
> hide his disingenuous behavior behind his health problems.
Error 4: Steve now makes the accusation ... of the type he has called an
"absolute statement" that there I am hiding some "disingenuous behavior".
Error 5: Steve has claimed that others also see what he says I "hide"... his
accusations are self contradictory.
Error 6: Steve claims that I have ever suggested my health problems offer
some excuse for some behavior he accuses me of.
This error on Steve's part is bigoted - he implies that health problems
lead to some sort of undefined "disingenuous behavior". This is absurd.
For the record: I owe nobody, especially a bigot such as Steve, any
that I have ever conducted into my health history. His Å‚evidenceË› is that I
asked a question. He has no clue as to the answer... he merely pretends he
does.
Wally
----------
In article <BDAA62E4.E418%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Be specific? try looking and this time try real hard to understand what is
written to you, it really shouldn't be too hard, I only mention "reality"
once and the sentence I mention it in is quite specific! how you can be so
confused is astounding.
> I am talking about an
> event that nobody in the newsgroup was present at other than myself.
And I used the word "reality" in relation to a situation that all the ng was
privy to.
>>> It would be one thing to have no opinion on such an event -
>>>
>> You expected comments from people on your 'story' that had no opinion on it?
>
> Not reasoned ones... and you have proven that point. Thanks!
Comments that you are lying about this 'story' are not "reasoned ones"? you
have provided ample evidence in the past why you are wrong about that.
>>> I do not expect people to accept anyone's word as gospel...
>>>
>> There are people here that if they were to tell a similar 'story' to you they
>> would have been believed,
>
> So to you it is about personalities and not data. OK.
The data becomes immaterial in respect to the likelihood as to whether the
poster is probably lying or not, with you it is a strong probability that
you are lying given your past behavior wrt altering quotes etc, the way the
data is provided in this case further reinforces that likelihood!
>> but here is the difference, they would not have had the *need* to have made
>> the story so obviously unbelievable, that was deliberate on your part your
>> intention was to be able to dismiss your detractors knowing that they would
>> obviously be the same as those that failed to offer you any support
previously
>> when you said.....
>
> Funny how you call a real event "obviously unbelievable". Shows how closely
> tied to reality you are... or are not ...
Firstly please show where I said the "event" was unbelievable, I said your
"story" was unbelievable, whether the "event" really happened is not the
point, the point is how you interpret events imaginary or not, for example..
"now I was in front of a moderate sized audience........... I was happy to
see the rest of the audience following me."
Now anybody reading your story would, you hope, be left with the impression
that this exodus was caused because this "moderate audience" followed you
out the door because they were in agreement with you wrt what ensued between
you and the "ex-special forces idiot" why else would you say......
"I was happy to see the rest of the audience following me."
But what could be a more plausible explanation for this "moderate audience"
leaving en masse? is it likely that you just happened to have stumbled upon
a "moderate audience" that all shared your views? or could there be a more
rational explanation?
It's pretty simple really you said ...
"At the end of the movie some yahoo military type......"
Does "end of the movie" give you a clue? LOL
> Again, I do not expect you or anyone to stake their life on some event they
> read about in a Usenet group... that would be silly. But to actively deny
> what you have no direct knowledge of... and even claim that on one hand it
> "would have been believed" while on the other saying it is "obviously
> unbelievable" shows what a fool you are.
Wrong again, I never said your story under any circumstance "would have
been believed" I said...
"There are people here that if they were to tell a similar 'story' to you
they would have been believed,"
Another example as to why every thing you say should never at first glance
be considered truthful, you simply lack the ability to quote accurately You
only see what you need to see and truth becomes a casualty in your hands.
> Please, keep talking.
I've said all that is necessary
<usual Steve tirade snipped>
Snit
If all you wanted to do was prove you are a troll, you could have done so in
fewer words.
Wally
----------
In article <BDAAFDF4.E586%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
It wasn't!
> you could have done so in fewer words.
The same way you treat peoples actual quotes...no thanks!
ROTFL ;=)
Snit
>> If all you wanted to do was prove you are a troll,
>
> It wasn't!
What else did you hope to prove?
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
YOU are all the support needed.
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry - Betraying America Since 1971
George Graves
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
I'm not dismissing that possibility out of hand, certainly. I wouldn't
put it past him.
>
> There is no question that he uses what comes from his misinterpretations to
> blame things on people or hold them accountable in some way. I believe he
> does
> this for the purpose that I stated in the fetal alcohol post. We have to
> open
> our minds to the possibility that he may not be totally aware he is doing it
> all
> the time. Some evidence of this is that he is currently pretending that I am
> arguing solely about his anxiety disorder as a reason for his reading
> problem.
Well, he has certainly seized upon that and has ignored (conveniently?)
everything else said on the subject.
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry  Betraying America Since 1971
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Snit has PAD (Panic Anxiety Disorder) but an illness like this, by
> > itself, isn't an excuse for his behavior.
>
> Error 1: Steve assumes he knows my medical condition.
Snit. Nobody cares.
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry - Betraying America Since 1971
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
> fretwizz-64E437...@netnews.comcast.net on 10/31/04 5:14 PM:
>
> > In article <BDAAC7C7.E510%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> For the record: I owe nobody, especially a bigot such as Steve, any
> >> description of my health concerns.
> >
> > Reality check: You already have discussed your health problems and
> > concerns...
> > it is this objective information YOU provided that I used.
>
> ---------
>
> > Snit has PAD (Panic Anxiety Disorder) but an illness like this, by
> > itself, isn't an excuse for his behavior.
>
> Error 1: Steve assumes he knows my medical condition.
Nobody gives a shit, Snit. The boys are laughing at you. You are just
making a fool out of yourself.
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry  Betraying America Since 1971
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-4E6285.11...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/31/04
> 9:51 AM:
>
> >>>>>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to know?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
> >>>>
> >>>> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
> >>>> unsupported accusations from you:
> >>>
> >>> Except I supported them.
> >>
> >> As shown by... ?
> >
> > Posts in several different threads that you were either a) to lazy to
> > read fully or b) to ignorant to understand or c) so stupid that the
> > point went over your head.
>
> And you will be posing quotes / links to support your claim when? Should I
> expect them this week, next? Maybe six months from now? Just when do you
> plan on ending your silly game and actually trying to support your
> accusations?
Snit. Lemme ask you a few questions. When people refuse to play your
silly game and you berate them for not providing proof/links/quotes,
what good do you think that beratement does? Do you believe that people
cannot see that this proof you ask for is simply not necessary and that
every post you write contains ample proof of people's complaints about
you, and that those complaints have been fairly universal in their
agreement and condemnation of you? Do you think that you are making
points here by endlessly asking for this "proof"?
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry - Betraying America Since 1971
George Graves
<teadams$2$0$0$3-922D30.17...@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
This is what Snit refuses to acknowledge. He has proven over and over
and over again that his call for proof is just a bluff. When his bluff
is called and the proof posted, he either ignores it or twists it into
something else because he really doesn't WANT the proof. Yet he
continues to believe (apparently) that people don't notice this all too
transparent device.
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry  Betraying America Since 1971
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
And when it is presented you either twist it into a lie or ignore it.
That's the reason many of us don't bother to do it any more. You made
your bed wrt this, now lay in it.
> > It's fortunate that most in CSMA are far smarter than he is, and will never
> > fall for his BS. Much the reason I doubt anyone believes this "story" of
> > his.
> >
> > Lets face it, even if he wasn't the pathalogical liar, that he most
> > certainly is, Snit's type is far too cowardly to actually have done
> > ANYTHING like this. So like usual, Snit has reality confused with his
> > fantasy world.
>
> Oh, you just wanted to toss around insults. Did this make you feel better
> about yourself?
Truth cannot be, by definition, an insult.
--
George Graves
------------------
John Kerry - Betraying America Since 1971
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-922D30.17...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/31/04
> 3:21 PM:
>
> > In article <BDAA6A07.E42E%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$3-4E6285.11...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/31/04
> >> 9:51 AM:
> >>
> >>>>>>>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to
> >>>>>>>> know?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
> >>>>>> unsupported accusations from you:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Except I supported them.
> >>>>
> >>>> As shown by... ?
> >>>
> >>> Posts in several different threads that you were either a) to lazy to
> >>> read fully or b) to ignorant to understand or c) so stupid that the
> >>> point went over your head.
> >>
> >> And you will be posing quotes / links to support your claim when?
> >
> > I've done that in the past with you either totally ignoring them OR
> > removing them from your replies. Why waste more of my time on posting
> > them again?
>
> Oh. In other words you got nothin'.
Do you honestly think this bluff gets you anywhere in this argument? Do
you think that your opponents are THAT naive? Think again, please.
> If you did, let's face it, you would have posted a link... or a quote...
> or... well something of value.
Why? So that you can ignore it or twist it into a lie? I don't think so.
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
> gmgravesnos-CEEF...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com on 10/31/04
> 9:48 AM:
>
> > In article <BDAA6058.E413%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$3-03C3A9.08...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/31/04
> >> 6:31 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <BDA9AEE8.E37D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in post
> >>>> BDA9A6E7.E374%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 10/30/04 8:15 PM:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> >>>>> teadams$2$0$0$3-04B387.23...@news1.east.earthlink.net on
> >>>>> 10/30/04
> >>>>> 8:01 PM:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article <BDA97A7C.E329%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> >>>>>>> pan.2004.10.30....@hotmail.com on 10/30/04 4:47 PM:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:22:11 -0400, MuahMan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I call Bullshit!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Of course it is. Snit would *NEVER* do something like that. It's
> >>>>>>>> doubtful
> >>>>>>>> he even saw the movie.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is clear that the same people who make outrageous claims about my
> >>>>>>> posting
> >>>>>>> in csma *also* show they know me very, very poorly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to
> >>>>>> know?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
> >>>>
> >>>> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
> >>>> unsupported accusations from you:
> >>>
> >>> Except I supported them.
> >>
> >> As shown by... ?
> >
> > Oh, just everything you've ever posted here.
>
> Sigh... if you have nothing to support a claim, just say so...
>
> If you *have* something to support a claim, well, then, by all means support
> it!
We're not playing your game any more, Snit. You are playing OUR game by
OUR rules now.
Snit
1:03 AM:
Can you point to any support of your accusation?
Snit
1:06 AM:
I notice you make this accusation but offer no support. Why is that? Can
you not support your claims?
>
>>> It's fortunate that most in CSMA are far smarter than he is, and will never
>>> fall for his BS. Much the reason I doubt anyone believes this "story" of
>>> his.
>>>
>>> Lets face it, even if he wasn't the pathalogical liar, that he most
>>> certainly is, Snit's type is far too cowardly to actually have done
>>> ANYTHING like this. So like usual, Snit has reality confused with his
>>> fantasy world.
>>
>> Oh, you just wanted to toss around insults. Did this make you feel better
>> about yourself?
>
> Truth cannot be, by definition, an insult.
I have not suggested it can be. Why the dishonest insinuation?
Snit
12:59 AM:
I notice you make all sorts of accusations... but supply no support. Why is
that?
Snit
12:48 AM:
> In article <BDAAC7C7.E510%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> Snit has PAD (Panic Anxiety Disorder) but an illness like this, by
>>> itself, isn't an excuse for his behavior.
>>
>> Error 1: Steve assumes he knows my medical condition.
>
> Snit. Nobody cares.
The fact that you do not care about Steve's lies is not of my concern.
Snit
1:12 AM:
Yeah, your game is called makes accusations with no support.
Do you find it to be a fun game?
Snit
1:08 AM:
Do you honestly believe you have offered any support for your accusations?
>
>> If you did, let's face it, you would have posted a link... or a quote...
>> or... well something of value.
>
> Why? So that you can ignore it or twist it into a lie? I don't think so.
Yawn. Let us look at your support, point by point:
Well, that's it...
Clever of you. Thanks.
Jason McNorton
SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID says...
You're one of the many, many paranoid people on usenet that should be
confined most likely. You sit there and refresh your screen endlessly.
You post the same nonsense over and over. Either you're a super troll,
or you're a super mess.
My claims are backed up by your posts, btw.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-922D30.17...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/31/04
> 3:21 PM:
>
> > In article <BDAA6A07.E42E%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$3-4E6285.11...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/31/04
> >> 9:51 AM:
> >>
> >>>>>>>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to
> >>>>>>>> know?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
> >>>>>> unsupported accusations from you:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Except I supported them.
> >>>>
> >>>> As shown by... ?
> >>>
> >>> Posts in several different threads that you were either a) to lazy to
> >>> read fully or b) to ignorant to understand or c) so stupid that the
> >>> point went over your head.
> >>
> >> And you will be posing quotes / links to support your claim when?
> >
> > I've done that in the past with you either totally ignoring them OR
> > removing them from your replies. Why waste more of my time on posting
> > them again?
>
> Oh. In other words you got nothin'.
Liar
>
> If you did, let's face it, you would have posted a link... or a quote...
> or... well something of value.
I have but you ignored it.
--
Tim
Tim Adams
<gmgravesnos-F04B...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
You've got that right.
Last week for example, Steve C. mentioned he 'took some time off as his
wife and kids had a four day weekend.
Snit changed that to 'Steve took a 4 day vacation'
THEN
Snit called Steve a liar when Steve posted within those 4 'vacation'
days.
When I pointed this out to snit it went totally over his head OR he just
ignored the fact that it happened.
Typical snit.
--
Tim
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
> gmgravesnos-9EDB...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com on 11/1/04
> 12:48 AM:
>
> > In article <BDAAC7C7.E510%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>> Snit has PAD (Panic Anxiety Disorder) but an illness like this, by
> >>> itself, isn't an excuse for his behavior.
> >>
> >> Error 1: Steve assumes he knows my medical condition.
> >
> > Snit. Nobody cares.
>
> The fact that you do not care about Steve's lies is not of my concern.
If there is a lie here, it's yours... and it's all to easy to prove. Take a look
up there, Snit (yes, in THIS post)... I clearly state that your anxiety disorder
alone is *not* an excuse for your behavior. So why are you trying to pretend
that is what I focused on in order to call me a bigot? Reality shows I provided
another explanation (fetal alcohol effects), yet, you are writing REAMS of
strawmen focusing on what I just proved you a liar over with one simple
sentence, the first sentence of my post you found offensive. See? Proving you a
liar is child's play. What's wrong, Snit? Don't like posts that lack thousands
of words? Yeah... nowhere to hide with such a scant post, huh:)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
> gmgravesnos-FC09...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com on 10/31/04
> 12:09 AM:
>
> > In article <BDA9AEE8.E37D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in post
> >> BDA9A6E7.E374%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 10/30/04 8:15 PM:
> >>
> >>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> >>> teadams$2$0$0$3-04B387.23...@news1.east.earthlink.net on
> >>> 10/30/04
> >>> 8:01 PM:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <BDA97A7C.E329%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> >>>>> pan.2004.10.30....@hotmail.com on 10/30/04 4:47 PM:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:22:11 -0400, MuahMan wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I call Bullshit!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course it is. Snit would *NEVER* do something like that. It's
> >>>>>> doubtful
> >>>>>> he even saw the movie.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is clear that the same people who make outrageous claims about my
> >>>>> posting
> >>>>> in csma *also* show they know me very, very poorly.
> >>>>
> >>>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to know?
> >>>
> >>> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
> >>
> >> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
> >> unsupported accusations from you:
> >>
> >> Not here: http://snipurl.com/a6ne where you have no problem with my
> >> questions about slot loading iMacs
> >>
> >> Not here: http://snipurl.com/a6ng where you seem to have no problem with
> >> my
> >> assessment of MS Office UI oddities.
> >>
> >> Not here: http://snipurl.com/a6nh where I was talking about a Win 98
> >> problem
> >>
> >> Not here: http://snipurl.com/a6nj where you offer a slight correction to
> >> my
> >> comments on DW800 drives
> >>
> >> Not here: http://snipurl.com/a6nm when we discuss the price of PC's
> >>
> >> But here: http://snipurl.com/a6ns you jump in to a political discussion
> >> making a silly joke about John Kerry.... no big deal, we seem to disagree
> >> about politics...
> >>
> >> But then you go back to seeming to agree with me here:
> >> http://snipurl.com/a6nv about Windows screen shots...
> >>
> >> And here: http://snipurl.com/a6nw you suggest I stop responding to Steve
> >> to
> >> stop him from turning every thread into a flame thread...
> >>
> >> And here you go back to being down right chummy with me:
> >> http://snipurl.com/a6ny
> >>
> >> So just where did you decide to be against me? I must not have been
> >> paying
> >> attention to that episode of the csma soap opera... :)
> >
> > Do you fucking believe this guy? What the hell does he think he's going
> > to prove with all this? Snit, get a life, man!
>
> Prove? What do I think I am going to prove?
>
> See the little squiggly thing at the end of the sentence where I *ask*:
>
> So just where did you decide to be against me?
>
> That is generally not a sign of trying to *prove* anything. I was asking a
> question.
>
> Geez...
You ask Tim a question and you actually expect him to read 8 or 9 links (that
are undoubtedly loaded with your delusions, probably spanning thousands of
words) in order to answer it?
Snit
> In article <BDAB60D1.E5EA%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
>> gmgravesnos-9EDB...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com on 11/1/04
>> 12:48 AM:
>>
>>> In article <BDAAC7C7.E510%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Snit has PAD (Panic Anxiety Disorder) but an illness like this, by
>>>>> itself, isn't an excuse for his behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Error 1: Steve assumes he knows my medical condition.
>>>
>>> Snit. Nobody cares.
>>
>> The fact that you do not care about Steve's lies is not of my concern.
>
> If there is a lie here, it's yours... and it's all to easy to prove. Take a
> look up there, Snit (yes, in THIS post)... I clearly state that your anxiety
> disorder alone is *not* an excuse for your behavior. So why are you trying to
> pretend that is what I focused on in order to call me a bigot? Reality shows I
> provided another explanation (fetal alcohol effects), yet, you are writing
> REAMS of strawmen focusing on what I just proved you a liar over with one
> simple sentence, the first sentence of my post you found offensive. See?
> Proving you a liar is child's play. What's wrong, Snit? Don't like posts that
> lack thousands of words? Yeah... nowhere to hide with such a scant post, huh:)
Steve, you miss a few important points:
1) I owe you, of all people, no explanation for any research I have ever
done for my health concerns.
2) Talking to you about my health concerns and how your accusations are
outrageous would be like a black man talking to a card carrying KKK
member about the "theory" of how his being black affects his posts. It
is an exercise in futility. You, like the KKK member, are a bigot.
Do you think a black man would be able to convince a KKK member to
drop his bigotry - all based on a Usenet discussion. Not a chance.
3) Even if your bigoted "theory" had any value... which it does not...
it would make no sense in the *context* that you claimed to post it,
as a "defense" for your actions of playing silly semantic games
and posting as "John" (see these two threads: http://snipurl.com/a54w
and http://snipurl.com/a2wt )
You see, Steve, it is clear what you are doing. You are frustrated that
your games have been pointed out, repeatedly by me - most recently in the
above to threads (note a fundamental difference between you and I: I support
my claims with links and evidence).
You have no reasonable defense for your actions, so, when your obfuscations
and general name calling failed to get you off the hook, , you resorted to
making absurd "theories" about me as your "defense" - a completely
irrational, bigoted attempt at a Å‚defenseË› on your part.
Yes, Steve, I have health concerns. Yes, Steve, as you were able to find I
have looked at all sorts of ideas as to how to deal with some of the affects
of the health concerns and have even looked into the idea that it was
possible there was a fetal developmental problem - one of the theories as to
Mitral Valve Prolapse Syndrome. So what?
You post a load of bigoted BS and then try to claim you are not a bigot
because it is a "theory". Sorry, Steve, your bigoted comments are not
shoved under the rug so easily. You posted bigoted comments, and you show
no remorse. You are, Steve, a bigot.
By the way, do you have any clue what a theory even is? Your bigoted
comments do not even rise to the level of a reasonable hypothesis, no less a
"theory". So what are they: a pile of bigoted accusations you posted in
order to try to turn the attentions away from your trolling, playing of
absurd semantic games, and posting as "John".
> Snit has PAD (Panic Anxiety Disorder) but an illness like this, by itself,
> isn't an excuse for his behavior.
Error 1: Steve assumes he knows my medical condition.
Error 2: Steve insinuates that my behavior needs an "excuse". I so doing,
he has deemed me guilty of something, though he does not even say what.
Error 3: Steve implies that having my medical condition is a partial
"excuse" for some behavior that he does not specify - as though my medical
condition would have an affect on this unspecified area he has assumed guilt
for.
> I'm at the point where I believe a year is long enough, Snit can no longer
> hide his disingenuous behavior behind his health problems.
Error 4: Steve now makes the accusation ... of the type he has called an
"absolute statement" that there I am hiding some "disingenuous behavior".
Error 5: Steve has claimed that others also see what he says I "hide"... his
accusations are self contradictory.
Error 6: Steve claims that I have ever suggested my health problems offer
some excuse for some behavior he accuses me of.
This error on Steve's part is bigoted - he implies that health problems
lead to some sort of undefined "disingenuous behavior". This is absurd.
For the record: I owe nobody, especially a bigot such as Steve, any
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
The game is all yours and it's called 'deny any reality Snit cannot deal with'.
George and too many others have seen you deny the reality of proof. That's why I
(and others) think you have a mental illness. No one can deny what you deny, to
the extent that you deny it, and still expect to be taken seriously... that's
why you aren't. Note: no smiley. Sometimes the messenger IS the message, Snit.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote in post
> 0kjhd.4282266$6p.7...@news.easynews.com on 10/31/04 9:54 PM:
>
> >> If all you wanted to do was prove you are a troll,
> >
> > It wasn't!
>
> What else did you hope to prove?
What else did you hope to deny?
Snit
6:00 AM:
Is this the same "proof" you posted recently where you claimed I was making
an argument I never made... the one where you claimed:
Snit called Steve a liar when Steve posted within those 4 'vacation'
days.
Is that the accusation you are talking about? If so, please show where I
ever suggested Steve posted during those 4 days... or suggested he lied
about that?
Snit
6:06 AM:
>>> I've done that in the past with you either totally ignoring them OR
>>> removing them from your replies. Why waste more of my time on posting
>>> them again?
>>
>> This is what Snit refuses to acknowledge. He has proven over and over
>> and over again that his call for proof is just a bluff. When his bluff
>> is called and the proof posted, he either ignores it or twists it into
>> something else because he really doesn't WANT the proof. Yet he
>> continues to believe (apparently) that people don't notice this all too
>> transparent device.
>
> You've got that right.
>
> Last week for example, Steve C. mentioned he 'took some time off as his
> wife and kids had a four day weekend.
> Snit changed that to 'Steve took a 4 day vacation'
LOL... yeah, it was a business trip... right?
I was showing how Steve/John posted with this pattern
Steve posts: 8:56, 8:58, 9:03, 9:05, 9:06, 9:10, 9:16, 9:33,
9:35, 9:52, 9:59, 10:00
"John" posts: 10:05
Steve posts: 10:10 and then stops
(but not for 4 days, as his reply implied)
Steve brought in the completely off topic "4 day weekend" ... and you have
no problem with that... but you get all silly over my calling it a 4 day
vacation... as though there were something dishonest about it. This is the
type "proof" you have against me? Sigh...
At least you presented *something* ... more than most of the trolls have
been able to.
> THEN
> Snit called Steve a liar when Steve posted within those 4 'vacation'
> days.
Um, no... you have no clue what you are talking about. The times listed
above are not a part of the four days in question... however you want to
call them.
Those times are from a completely unrelated day.
Steve did not, as far as I know, post during his four day weekend /
vacation. I never suggested he did, he never suggested he did... nobody but
you has suggested he did.
So how do you describe your error when you claim:
Snit called Steve a liar when Steve posted within those 4 'vacation'
days.
Again: I never suggested Steve posted within those 4 days. I never
suggested he lied about posting during those 4 days.
Will you apologize for your error?
This will be a good test of your sincerity... you just made a completely off
the wall accusation against me ... one where you claim I stated things I did
not state. You clearly were not understanding what was clearly written.
You did not ask questions to clarify what was meant to make sure you
understood... you just make accusations against me as if your error were
accurate.
As I said: this will be a good test of your sincerity. If you apologize for
your error you will at least show you have some morals.
> When I pointed this out to snit it went totally over his head OR he just
> ignored the fact that it happened.
Well, now that you have described what you are talking about - it is clear
you have no clue what I had written... you are arguing against an argument I
never made. Why is that? Seems it went "totally over [your] head"
>
> Typical snit.
Yup... typical... there is not a single about my claim that was dishonest or
inaccurate in any way.
Snit
MPG.1befdc321...@news-40.giganews.com on 11/1/04 4:38 AM:
And you will be quoting from them or posting links when?
Snit
I take nothing from you seriously. You have shown you are a bigot. You
will stop at nothing to attack me, as a KKK member would stop at nothing to
attack a black man.
Steve Carroll
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <BDAA6A07.E42E%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$3-4E6285.11...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/31/04
> > 9:51 AM:
> >
> > >>>>>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to
> > >>>>>> know?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
> > >>>> unsupported accusations from you:
> > >>>
> > >>> Except I supported them.
> > >>
> > >> As shown by... ?
> > >
> > > Posts in several different threads that you were either a) to lazy to
> > > read fully or b) to ignorant to understand or c) so stupid that the
> > > point went over your head.
> >
> > And you will be posing quotes / links to support your claim when? Should I
> > expect them this week, next? Maybe six months from now? Just when do you
> > plan on ending your silly game and actually trying to support your
> > accusations?
>
> Snit. Lemme ask you a few questions. When people refuse to play your
> silly game and you berate them for not providing proof/links/quotes,
> what good do you think that beratement does?
Sorry, George... I hope you don't mind this correction. It should have asked:
When people refuse to play your silly game and you berate them for not providing
proof/links/quotes over and over and over, what good do you think that
beratement does?
Many have commented on Snit lying (and being and asshole)... Tim has obviously
observed these comments and he pointed it out to Snit:
"They know you as a liar and an asshole'
Reality check for Snit: Snit has a big problem telling Tim this statement is
'unsupported' when it is based on Tim's observation of the observations others
have had regarding Snit. Snit must now prove that Tim's observation is
unsupported. How? There's only one way to do it... by asking the people that
Tim observed:)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Virtually every regular poster in here has posted comments regarding your
disingenuous, lying behavior. It's now to the point that, when you post a story
about an event you claim to have been to, no one automatically believes you, in
fact, the majority respond by stating they don't believe you. Only one guy said
it *may* have happened... but it may *not* have. Why is that?
Snit
>> I notice you make all sorts of accusations... but supply no support. Why is
>> that?
>
> Virtually every regular poster in here has posted comments regarding your
> disingenuous, lying behavior. It's now to the point that, when you post a
> story about an event you claim to have been to, no one automatically believes
> you, in fact, the majority respond by stating they don't believe you. Only one
> guy said it *may* have happened... but it may *not* have. Why is that?
Steve, please note there is no smiley in this post.
My having any type of discussion with you has always been an effort in
futility... you have clearly been unhappy when I pointed out your lies and
your games, as I did when I pointed out your silly semantic games and your
posting as "John". See these two threads: http://snipurl.com/a54w and
http://snipurl.com/a2wt
Unable to come up with any real defense of your actions in those posts, you
posted a bigoted attack against me and claimed that was your "defense".
You see, Steve, it is clear what you are doing. You are frustrated that
your games have been pointed out, repeatedly by me - most recently in the
above to threads (note a fundamental difference between you and I: I support
my claims with links and evidence).
You have no reasonable defense for your actions, so, when your obfuscations
and general name calling failed to get you off the hook, you resorted to
making absurd "theories" about me as your "defense" - a completely
irrational, bigoted attempt at a Å‚defenseË› on your part.
Yes, Steve, I have health concerns. Yes, Steve, as you were able to find I
have looked at all sorts of ideas as to how to deal with some of the affects
of the health concerns and have even looked into the idea that it was
possible there was a fetal developmental problem - one of the theories as to
Mitral Valve Prolapse Syndrome. So what?
You post a load of bigoted BS and then try to claim you are not a bigot
because it is a "theory". Sorry, Steve, your bigoted comments are not
shoved under the rug so easily. You posted bigoted comments, and you show
no remorse. You are, Steve, a bigot.
By the way, do you have any clue what a theory even is? Your bigoted
comments do not even rise to the level of a reasonable hypothesis, no less a
"theory". So what are they: a pile of bigoted accusations you posted in
order to try to turn the attentions away from your trolling, playing of
absurd semantic games, and posting as "John".
Again, Steve, no smiley.
You are a bigot. You are use your bigotry as a "defense" against your own
actions.
Even if every bigoted word you wrote against me was true, that would not
serve your stated purpose of posting those bigoted words - as a defense to
your actions.
You are pushing responsibility for your actions onto me... and in so doing
sinking to a depth that I had not expected, even from you.
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Our game doesn't have a name, but the rules are that YOU don't get to
make them any more. Your calls for "support" (which you ignore or twist
into lies when it's posted) fall of deaf ears. You might as well stop
asking.
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Don't you EVER stop lying? EVER?
George Graves
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
He won't accept that.... but he's going to have to from now on!
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
You don't get it, do you? NEVER!
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Do you think I need to? If so YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE. At any rate, you've
shit in your mess kit wrt to this subject. You get no support
> >
> >> If you did, let's face it, you would have posted a link... or a quote...
> >> or... well something of value.
> >
> > Why? So that you can ignore it or twist it into a lie? I don't think so.
>
> Yawn. Let us look at your support, point by point:
You STILL don't get it?
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
See above.
> >
> >>> It's fortunate that most in CSMA are far smarter than he is, and will
> >>> never
> >>> fall for his BS. Much the reason I doubt anyone believes this "story" of
> >>> his.
> >>>
> >>> Lets face it, even if he wasn't the pathalogical liar, that he most
> >>> certainly is, Snit's type is far too cowardly to actually have done
> >>> ANYTHING like this. So like usual, Snit has reality confused with his
> >>> fantasy world.
> >>
> >> Oh, you just wanted to toss around insults. Did this make you feel better
> >> about yourself?
> >
> > Truth cannot be, by definition, an insult.
>
> I have not suggested it can be. Why the dishonest insinuation?
Pot, kettle, black.
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Everything you post is dishonest, Snit. That's what we're trying to get
through your thick skull.
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
> gmgravesnos-F04B...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com on 11/1/04
> 1:03 AM:
>
> > In article
> > <teadams$2$0$0$3-922D30.17...@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
> > Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <BDAA6A07.E42E%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$3-4E6285.11...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/31/04
> >>> 9:51 AM:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to
> >>>>>>>>> know?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
> >>>>>>> unsupported accusations from you:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Except I supported them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As shown by... ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Posts in several different threads that you were either a) to lazy to
> >>>> read fully or b) to ignorant to understand or c) so stupid that the
> >>>> point went over your head.
> >>>
> >>> And you will be posing quotes / links to support your claim when?
> >>
> >> I've done that in the past with you either totally ignoring them OR
> >> removing them from your replies. Why waste more of my time on posting
> >> them again?
> >
> > This is what Snit refuses to acknowledge. He has proven over and over
> > and over again that his call for proof is just a bluff. When his bluff
> > is called and the proof posted, he either ignores it or twists it into
> > something else because he really doesn't WANT the proof. Yet he
> > continues to believe (apparently) that people don't notice this all too
> > transparent device.
>
> Can you point to any support of your accusation?
You like irony, don't you?
George Graves
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "George Graves" <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
> gmgravesnos-1CD5...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com on 11/1/04
> 12:59 AM:
>
> > In article <BDAA6A07.E42E%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$3-4E6285.11...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 10/31/04
> >> 9:51 AM:
> >>
> >>>>>>>> They know you as a liar and an asshole. What more do they need to
> >>>>>>>> know?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That people like you make silly accusations and supply zero support.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Got to wondering, where did you, Tim, decide I was worthy of such
> >>>>>> unsupported accusations from you:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Except I supported them.
> >>>>
> >>>> As shown by... ?
> >>>
> >>> Posts in several different threads that you were either a) to lazy to
> >>> read fully or b) to ignorant to understand or c) so stupid that the
> >>> point went over your head.
> >>
> >> And you will be posing quotes / links to support your claim when? Should
> >> I
> >> expect them this week, next? Maybe six months from now? Just when do you
> >> plan on ending your silly game and actually trying to support your
> >> accusations?
> >
> > Snit. Lemme ask you a few questions. When people refuse to play your
> > silly game and you berate them for not providing proof/links/quotes,
> > what good do you think that beratement does? Do you believe that people
> > cannot see that this proof you ask for is simply not necessary and that
> > every post you write contains ample proof of people's complaints about
> > you, and that those complaints have been fairly universal in their
> > agreement and condemnation of you? Do you think that you are making
> > points here by endlessly asking for this "proof"?
>
> I notice you make all sorts of accusations... but supply no support. Why is
> that?
Learn to read, Snit. There are no accusations in the above, merely
questions.