anatomy of a snit-zel
ShutterBugz
arguments between various members of this group.
i always get a little offended when people start accusing each other of
being mentally ill. as i'm bipolar. and i have been certifiably insane
in my time.
i know a lot about various mental illnesses, and i don't think our
friend snit-zel is quite ready for the nut house, as some suggest.
i only pop into csma every now and then, so it's hard to keep up with
what's happening, particularly as some debates become not only
internecine but also incredibly complex.
but i do notice some patterns in peep's behaviour.
take snit-zel
ol' snit loves to get the ball rolling with some disingenuous topic.
well, this snit-zel basically likes to argue. fullstop. but he's gotta
start with some all nicey-nicey "aren't i reasonable" topic. unlike
john, who just says "Macs are crap". oh, no, snit-zel must appear
reasonable.
and then the "debate" gets juicy and he loves it. he can obfuscate,
misquote, deceive, and ramble on and on... rambling on and on is very
important. and if you glance casually, it's making sense in that the
sentences are well-structured, but it's just waffle. it's the principle
of, well, if i bang on for long enough, everyone will believe what i say.
last time i was here, he was attacking the character of elizabot, and
had got to the point where he was magnanimously suggesting all involved
should drop the topic.
but he waits... and then i come back and, yes, he's been at it again.
so snit-zel has some kind of problem expressing anger, i guess. he has
to vent his frustrations in other ways. and he thinks he's making sense:
well the syntax is there and he figures he's pretty smart. indeed, he
tells us, he's done the personality tests and the iq tests and he's
okay! aaaaahhhhh, you see he's soooooooo well adjusted.
really folks, these long discussions aren't doing much good. what
worries me is he's *slandered* elizabot from what i can tell. all in the
guise of "aren't i reasonable?" and "isn't this person [elizabot]
unreasonable?". obsessive wasn't it? some amateur psychology diagnosis
on his part. but what he has done has gone beyond just the normal
mud-slinging of a usenet group.
maybe everybody should cut the amateur diagnoses. there's a lot of
pot... kettle... black... going on. what's more obsessive than a group
of mac advocates banging on about their platform of choice: and a bunch
of trolls trying to counter those mac advocates' "delusions".
so snit-zel, leave it alone, mate. if you tried that number on me that
you did on elizabot, i'd have your guts for garters and i'm not talking
about flaming you on usenet. so, follow your resolution to *leave it alone*.
next time you're feeling frustrated, do something constructive...
like kick the cat.
Elizabot
> well, i've just spent a fascinating evening trying to follow some of the
> arguments between various members of this group.
>
> i always get a little offended when people start accusing each other of
> being mentally ill. as i'm bipolar. and i have been certifiably insane
> in my time.
>
> i know a lot about various mental illnesses, and i don't think our
> friend snit-zel is quite ready for the nut house, as some suggest.
>
> i only pop into csma every now and then, so it's hard to keep up with
> what's happening, particularly as some debates become not only
> internecine but also incredibly complex.
>
> but i do notice some patterns in peep's behaviour.
>
> take snit-zel
>
> ol' snit loves to get the ball rolling with some disingenuous topic.
>
> well, this snit-zel basically likes to argue. fullstop. but he's gotta
> start with some all nicey-nicey "aren't i reasonable" topic. unlike
> john, who just says "Macs are crap". oh, no, snit-zel must appear
> reasonable.
>
> and then the "debate" gets juicy and he loves it. he can obfuscate,
> misquote, deceive, and ramble on and on... rambling on and on is very
> important. and if you glance casually, it's making sense in that the
> sentences are well-structured, but it's just waffle. it's the principle
> of, well, if i bang on for long enough, everyone will believe what i say.
Yep. You got him pegged.
> last time i was here, he was attacking the character of elizabot, and
> had got to the point where he was magnanimously suggesting all involved
> should drop the topic.
Yep. I did not answer or respond to any of his posts, nor did I
encourage others against him for 2 1/2 weeks.
When he started his smears against me in 2 other newsgroups. He even
went so far as to tell the other poster he had to get legal aid because
of me. That's when I decided he was fair game again.
I started a thread called Snit's Harassment of Elizabot Digest where I
pointed out the posts.
> but he waits... and then i come back and, yes, he's been at it again.
>
> so snit-zel has some kind of problem expressing anger, i guess. he has
> to vent his frustrations in other ways. and he thinks he's making sense:
> well the syntax is there and he figures he's pretty smart. indeed, he
> tells us, he's done the personality tests and the iq tests and he's
> okay! aaaaahhhhh, you see he's soooooooo well adjusted.
Have you seen some of the threads he's started? One was called "Super
Powers."
> really folks, these long discussions aren't doing much good. what
> worries me is he's *slandered* elizabot from what i can tell. all in the
> guise of "aren't i reasonable?" and "isn't this person [elizabot]
> unreasonable?". obsessive wasn't it? some amateur psychology diagnosis
> on his part. but what he has done has gone beyond just the normal
> mud-slinging of a usenet group.
It's gotten a bit bizarre....
> maybe everybody should cut the amateur diagnoses. there's a lot of
> pot... kettle... black... going on. what's more obsessive than a group
> of mac advocates banging on about their platform of choice: and a bunch
> of trolls trying to counter those mac advocates' "delusions".
>
> so snit-zel, leave it alone, mate. if you tried that number on me that
> you did on elizabot, i'd have your guts for garters and i'm not talking
> about flaming you on usenet. so, follow your resolution to *leave it
> alone*.
Heh, heh. What would you do?
Nashton
You're obsessed. Let it rest.
Nicolas
Snit
original post, so I suppose I should...
"ShutterBugz" <might...@shutterbugz.info> wrote in
40449...@news.iprimus.com.au on 3/2/04 7:40 AM:
> well, i've just spent a fascinating evening trying to follow some of the
> arguments between various members of this group.
Your idea of fascinating and mine might not be the same. :)
>
> i always get a little offended when people start accusing each other of
> being mentally ill. as i'm bipolar. and i have been certifiably insane
> in my time.
I can certainly understand your taking offense at such claims; I share your
frustration with people doing that. I have been struggling with an anxiety
disorder most of my life, and maintain a website for people with similar
health concerns:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/anxiety/index.html
I have had many psychological tests done and have repeatedly been found to
*not* have a primarily psychological reason for my health problems. This is
not to say that my psychology does not affect my health, but that my health
problems (or other problems, for that matter) do not revolve around the
psychological aspects. Some people make the assumption that anyone with an
anxiety disorder must be mentally ill, and, furthermore, incorrect and
offensive assumptions about the mentally ill are tossed about. Steve has
done this repeatedly toward me, and I believe Elizabot has hinted. It is
disingenuous, touches on bigotry, and shows a possible lack of compassion
for people with illnesses of any sort. If I have said anything that you see
as belittling the mentally ill, I am truly sorry. I do not place Steve's or
Elizabot's poor character traits on mentally illness. I can see where one
may see that in my words; but, for example, when I talk about Elizabot's
obsession with me, I do not mean to connect it with such things as an
obsessive compulsive disorder or any other diagnosed mental illness. With
both of them, I see their behavior as simple character defects, though I
have never really considered other ways of looking at it. If someone can
show a reasoned argument that they are mentally ill and unable to control
their lies and other irresponsible behavior, perhaps I would be more
understanding.
On the other hand, if you look at the Google history, Steve has made all
sorts of suggestions about me having my mental health checked, and he and
Elizabot have made references to items that are on my site, and have tried
to use those things to embarrass or insult me. Steve even commented "I
don't care how ill his mental health is ... ".
Check out more of Steve's comments here:
http://www.google.com/groups?q=anxiety+author:carroll&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=
UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=fretwizz-2D4B04.10460924022004%40netnews.comcast.net&rn
um=1
"These are classic symptoms of a paranoid delusional, something that is
clinically associated with many of the symptoms you exhibit, at least, the
ones you were willing to talk about in the anxiety NG (there may be many
others). I'm not going to get into a protracted argument over whether you,
or I, know more about your symptoms, condition or treatment as I'm sure you
know far more. However, I know enough to realize that they have effected
your ability to concentrate to a degree that you often don't comprehend what
you read in c.s.m.a.. You're not likely to believe this but I feel for you,
I really do...(I have a good friend with a similar condition) and I strongly
suggest you not subject yourself to an environment where your condition is
likely to be exacerbated."
It is truly despicable behavior on his part to try to insinuate some sort of
mental health disorder, and shows an extreme lack of understanding for
anxiety disorders.
> i know a lot about various mental illnesses, and i don't think our
> friend snit-zel is quite ready for the nut house, as some suggest.
The very fact that Steve would suggest such a thing, likely with the sole
purpose to attack, is offensive, not just to me, but to people who truly are
mentally ill or have other health problems that are often grouped with
mental illnesses.
So far, I think we are in agreement. Using someone's mental illness or
simply claiming someone has one as a form of insult is not a reasonable
thing to do. Again, if I have done so, I have meant no offense. If you can
find them, I would like to see the quotes you believe show me doing this. I
think if you look you will see that if I have done this, I have done this
less than Steve and Elizabot have done this to me. That does not excuse my
actions if I have done it, just makes me wonder why you seem to be targeting
me instead of them.
> i only pop into csma every now and then, so it's hard to keep up with
> what's happening, particularly as some debates become not only
> internecine but also incredibly complex.
>
> but i do notice some patterns in peep's behaviour.
>
> take snit-zel
I think this is where we will start to disagree. :)
> ol' snit loves to get the ball rolling with some disingenuous topic.
Let us look at my recent topics that I have started:
* Favorite Posts:
hmmm, could lead to debates, but so far has not. So far I have not
commented on any of my favorite posts, and I am not sure I will.
* Scroll Wheel Volume:
Well, anything can lead to debates in csma, but this was just a
real-world question. Several people have answered for Mac and XP.
No arguments that I know of.
* 5 minute timer:
Very real world question. So far a few good responses and no real
debates. Seems that the request is easy on OS X, and possible on
XP.
* DOS and Unix Shell commands:
Same idea.... just a question. So far people have replied with some
very good examples. I have thanked them. No arguments there.
* OT: Gay Marriage:
OK. Clearly a controversial topic, but one that I pretty much jumped out
of when it became clear no reasoned discussion was going to come from
it. I did mark it as off topic in the title. Please note though, that
when the thread started sinking to insults, I left (at least those sub-
threads). As long as people are not making direct and absurd attacks
against me, I just left.
* Apple Computer tops customer service report:
Certainly on topic and no more divisive than other topics. Also shows a
point that has been looked at in other threads quite a few times.
* XP Appearances:
A request for help. Never got it, really, but a few people tried. Again
I thanked them.
The facts do not seem to support your observation. I tend to start a fair
number of threads. Some of them "take off". Some do not. As a whole, they
are not filled with mindless attacks. Care to support your claim better?
Keep in mind as you do this that *your* topic is *clearly* designed to start
debate, and is quite possibly disingenuous, though I suppose I can wait for
your support before concluding that (or not, of course).
> well, this snit-zel basically likes to argue. fullstop. but he's gotta
> start with some all nicey-nicey "aren't i reasonable" topic. unlike
> john, who just says "Macs are crap". oh, no, snit-zel must appear
> reasonable.
I generally am reasonable - though I do enjoy debates, even some not so
reasoned ones. Not too many reasoned ones in here, anyway. :)
Even when I am a part of an "unreasonable" debate, like my recent one with
Steve, I support my view with accurate and on-topic quotes. Recently I have
been trying to get Steve to answer some questions. He will not do so, of
course, because the premises of the questions, fully supported, show his
character (or lack thereof) quite well. I repeatedly posted my support for
the questions, or links to the posts that clearly supports them. So far he
has neither answered the questions nor shown the premises to be faulty. To
the contrary, he has shown support of the premises.
> and then the "debate" gets juicy and he loves it. he can obfuscate,
> misquote, deceive, and ramble on and on... rambling on and on is very
> important. and if you glance casually, it's making sense in that the
> sentences are well-structured, but it's just waffle. it's the principle
> of, well, if i bang on for long enough, everyone will believe what i say.
This is clearly unsupported and seems disingenuous. I welcome your support,
though. As with the example above, my support has yet to be questioned in
any reasoned way. I welcome you to look at it. Here are the two posts in
question :
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1311303569d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe
=UTF-8&selm=BC5BAC46.3F6E8%25snit%40nospam-cableone.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1311303569d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe
=UTF-8&selm=BC5C3E56.3F7D6%25snit%40nospam-cableone.net
Can you answer for Steve:
* How can someone be guilty of breaking a law, but not in a legal way?
* Why did he act against his own best interests?
* Why did he lie about his free flights?
* Why did he lie about not trusting me?
The only one he has touched on, really, is the question about flights. But,
even that is a silly argument from him - if he was willing to use miles to
hear me tell him 2+2=4, he would have been more willing to do so to prove me
wrong. Since I brought this to his attention, instead of answering the
question, he has tried to head off on a side issue and claim that he never
wanted to meet me for the above stated reason. Even if that were the case,
it changes *nothing* about my argument showing him to either be lying or
acting against his own best interests. And, for that matter, he has yet to
state his *new* reason for having wanted to meet with me in person. Yet
another question he evades. His lies have piled on top of each other. In
order to defend one lie he must create another and another and another
and...
While Steve refuses to say *why* he wants to meet me, he has repeatedly
tried to claim my having no desire to meet him is some sort of weakness on
my part. Again, this makes no sense and is clearly a meaningless attack.
Look to see when he uses it. He does it, in almost all cases, when I have
asked him a question or made a comment he does not want to be focused on.
He uses this exact same flawed argument repeatedly to try to weasel out of
answering questions or facing the clear lies in his own words.
His arguments fall apart on any honest inspection. He is clearly
disingenuous as shown by his unwillingness to answer questions about his
comments, though he will respond in length, with lies, trying to change the
topic (as described in the above example). That is the complete opposite of
what I tend to do - I generally either respond or point to links (like the
two above) where I have already responded. When Steve attacks me, he tends
to just make claims without support. Certainly without the type of support
I have made for my claims above.
If you wish to take Steve's side and claim I am what he states, please see
if you can, based on his posts, answer those questions about him. I think
you will see that the answers to those questions, the premises the questions
are based on, and the support for those premises, clearly support my points.
If you cannot not answer those questions about him, then I suggest you have
not looked into our far-too-long debates to be able to reasonably take a
side. Please, if you want to take sides, answer those questions, and listen
to Steve as he asks similar questions of you (I am sure he will jump in with
similar requests if he believes he truly is in the right).
-----
The rest of your post is mostly about Elizabot. I try not to bring up
specifics about the past problems with her without good reason... so it has
been snipped. Suffice it to say that if you check Google and read my posts,
I have fully accounted for my comments to her and about her, and have
previously commented on my choice not to post added support for my claims:
partly to protect her, but, to be honest, more to protect anyone she may
seek to victimize in the future.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Hey, professor... do you really think this woman cares about your insane
ramblings and your obsession with people that expose all your bullshit
for what it is? Why do you suppose she wrote the original post that she
did? Geez... talk about clueless:) All you've done is foam at the mouth
here and, once again... I find you asking others to answer your strawman
arguments for me on my behalf? LOL! Like I said... I'm so far under your
skin you can't scratch me away:)
Steve
Snit
fretwizz-09FC21...@netnews.comcast.net on 4/2/04 8:55 AM:
Note: no link to any quotes of my doing what you claim (sexually harassing
anyone)
You have been caught in your lies.
Again.
Nash*ton
<snip>
>
> Note: no link to any quotes of my doing what you claim (sexually harassing
> anyone)
>
> You have been caught in your lies.
>
> Again.
Caroll displays another one of his obsessions. A+ for consistency;)
Nicolas
Snit
qEgbc.8478$Np3.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 4/2/04 9:36 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Note: no link to any quotes of my doing what you claim (sexually harassing
>> anyone)
>>
>> You have been caught in your lies.
>>
>> Again.
>>
> Caroll displays another one of his obsessions. A+ for consistency;)
>
There are times Steve is almost clever. His recent tries have not been. He
is sinking to new cowardly and mental lows even for him (well, recent lows -
he has a pattern of sinking this low and then saying he will KF me - he
*always* comes back though).
I have been repeatedly challenging him to show *any* quote from me to
support his claims. He has not shown any support... though you can bet he
is wasting lots of time digging through Google desperately trying something
- anything - he can take out of context and call it "proof".
I bet he will try to get Elizabot to find some quote to pull out of context.
Notice how when he backs himself into these corners, that is how it usually
ends up. He finds nothing, but Elizabot comes in for the rescue.
She is rarely right, of course, but at least she tries.
And then, to top it all off, he calls *others* cowardly! LOL. I wonder if
he gets the irony?