OT: A question for Sandman

Snit

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 3:54:03 AM8/3/09

to

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6dec244207bfe35e>
-----
>> How did your CSS code "magically" change - keep in
>> mind the Google cache proved it did not validate .
Because it is dynamically created. I've already said that.
Plus, it's your claim that it didn't validate, and we know
you're a proven liar, so chances are you've dug up some old,
unrelated, cached version that may have not validated for
other reasons, when it did at the time. I'm saying that
because you're a liar, but I also acknowledge that it could
be due to the way the stylesheets are constructed.
-----

At that time you openly acknowledged the possibility that your CSS did not
validate. Why have you changed your story?

And, no, that is not a rhetorical question. Seriously, why have you changed
your story on this?

Keep in mind: I have made it clear that having non-valid CSS is not that big
of a deal (I noted it initially because you were belittling others skills
and I pointed out some flaws with your site). I have even said I do not
really care if your pride or whatever leads you to dishonestly insisting it
validated... what I *do* have a problem with is your lashing out for *years*
against me merely for noting what you made clear you initially saw as at
least something that "could be"! Heck, look above at your absurd lashing
out against me... wow... such anger. All because I noted some problems with
your site - many of which you fixed shortly after.

Just amazing.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 4:18:58 AM8/3/09

to

In article <C69BE5AB.3F86B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6dec244207bfe35e>
> -----
> >> How did your CSS code "magically" change - keep in
> >> mind the Google cache proved it did not validate .
> Because it is dynamically created. I've already said that.
> Plus, it's your claim that it didn't validate, and we know
> you're a proven liar, so chances are you've dug up some old,
> unrelated, cached version that may have not validated for
> other reasons, when it did at the time. I'm saying that
> because you're a liar, but I also acknowledge that it could
> be due to the way the stylesheets are constructed.
> -----
>
> At that time you openly acknowledged the possibility that your CSS did not
> validate. Why have you changed your story?

Huh? I am clearly stating that you dug up a non-validating cached
version that may or may not have validated when "it did at the time".
When you claimed it did not validate, it did in fact validate. This is
a known fact and an old lie on your part. I have no idea why this lie
of yours bothers you so much and you keep dragging it up again and
again.

You lied, get over it. I have no idea who you're trying to convince
here. No one in csma has ever came to your aid, no one has replied to
these anatgonizing threads of yours and sais "Yeah, I see now -
Sandman must be lying, what you say Snit makes perfect sense".

Actually, no one ever says that about any of your posts. The only
supporters you would ever find in csma are from the trolls and they're
just cheering you because you're the biggest troll and they envy you.

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 4:35:13 AM8/3/09

to

Sandman stated in post mr-37CFC0.10...@News.Individual.NET on
8/3/09 1:18 AM:

Sandman, speaking about his invalid CSS:
... I also acknowledge that it could be due to the way the
stylesheets are constructed.

Your story has changed.

Why?

Keep in mind: I have made it clear that having non-valid CSS is not that big
of a deal (I noted it initially because you were belittling others skills

and I pointed out some flaws with your site). I will even say that at times
it is better to have non-valid CSS... though some of your errors were just
silly ones.

Sandman

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 5:07:21 AM8/3/09

to

In article <C69BEF51.3F894%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> > Actually, no one ever says that about any of your posts. The only
> > supporters you would ever find in csma are from the trolls and they're
> > just cheering you because you're the biggest troll and they envy you.
>
> Sandman, speaking about his invalid CSS:
> ... I also acknowledge that it could be due to the way the
> stylesheets are constructed.
>
> Your story has changed.

No it hasn't.

"Once someone clarifies their views it should be accepted"
- Snit

Sandman, speaking of his valid CSS:

"Are you drunk? It validates perfectly."

Sandman, speaking about his CSS system
... I also acknowledge that [any non-validating issue]could be

due to the way the stylesheets are constructed.

"Once someone clarifies their views it should be accepted"
- Snit

It is clear that I was talking about when and if it doesn't validate,
it could be due to how the system is constructed, that rules out the
possibility that this was about May 31 2006, since it validated at the
time.

Occams Razor. You're welcome.

"Once someone clarifies their views it should be accepted"
- Snit

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 5:53:54 AM8/3/09

to

Sandman stated in post mr-45318E.11...@News.Individual.NET on
8/3/09 2:07 AM:

You lied, Sandman. Period.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Chance Furlong

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 5:56:08 AM8/3/09

to

In article <C69BE5AB.3F86B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6dec244207bfe35e>
> -----
> >> How did your CSS code "magically" change, keep in

> >> mind the Google cache proved it did not validate .
> Because it is dynamically created. I've already said that.
> Plus, it's your claim that it didn't validate, and we know
> you're a proven liar, so chances are you've dug up some old,
> unrelated, cached version that may have not validated for
> other reasons, when it did at the time. I'm saying that
> because you're a liar, but I also acknowledge that it could
> be due to the way the stylesheets are constructed.
> -----
>
> At that time you openly acknowledged the possibility that your CSS did not
> validate. Why have you changed your story?
>
> And, no, that is not a rhetorical question. Seriously, why have you changed
> your story on this?
>

> Keep in mind: I have made it clear that having non valid CSS is not that big

> of a deal (I noted it initially because you were belittling others skills
> and I pointed out some flaws with your site). I have even said I do not
> really care if your pride or whatever leads you to dishonestly insisting it

> validated, what I *do* have a problem with is your lashing out for *years*

> against me merely for noting what you made clear you initially saw as at

> least something that "could be!" Heck, look above at your absurd lashing
> out against me, wow, such anger. All because I noted some problems with
> your site, many of which you fixed shortly after.
>
> Just amazing.

It is amazing that you keep begging for Sandman's attention. Are you an
attention whore? It looks like it to me. Perhaps "Mr. Attention Whore"
should be your new nickname.

Chance Furlong

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 5:57:29 AM8/3/09

to

In article <mr-37CFC0.10...@News.Individual.NET>,
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

Sandman, you are beating a dead horse, it is obvious you cannot get
through to Mr. Attention Whore.

Snit

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 6:01:08 AM8/3/09

to

Chance Furlong stated in post
T-Bone-6DE17A....@unlimited.newshosting.com on 8/3/09 2:56 AM:

Jonas Eklundh lied about his CSS and was busted. Years ago. He is *still*
lashing out and lying about me over it.

I reserve the right to respond to his lies about me.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 6:21:07 AM8/3/09

to

Chance Furlong stated in post

T-Bone-454B91....@unlimited.newshosting.com on 8/3/09 2:57 AM:

Are you saying you are not aware of how Jonas Eklundh lied about his CSS and
then freaked out over being called on it - to the point he is *still*
lashing out years later with lies, accusations, dishonest snipping, etc?

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 6:42:03 AM8/3/09

to

In article <T-Bone-454B91....@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Chance Furlong <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote:

I know, that was never my intention. There is no way I, you or anyone
else can stop him from trolling csma. Requests has been made to make
everyone ignore him 100%, but that has yet to happen. That would be
the only way to make him stop trolling. But many here, me included,
likes to poke fun at his trolling and his lies. We don't do it because
we think he'll change - he will never. We're doing it because it's fun.

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 6:42:37 AM8/3/09

to

In article <C69C0823.3F8BF%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> > Sandman, you are beating a dead horse, it is obvious you cannot get
> > through to Mr. Attention Whore.
>
> Are you saying you are not aware of how Jonas Eklundh lied about his CSS and
> then freaked out over being called on it - to the point he is *still*
> lashing out years later with lies, accusations, dishonest snipping, etc?

That's exactly what he's saying. He is not aware of things you only
made up and lied about. How could he? :)

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 6:51:03 AM8/3/09

to

Sandman stated in post mr-FF052F.12...@News.Individual.NET on
8/3/09 3:42 AM:

I have repeatedly posted absolute proof of how you lied. Period. And you
have admitted to being a liar. Why deny it now?

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 6:52:22 AM8/3/09

to

Sandman stated in post mr-F2A5E1.12...@News.Individual.NET on
8/3/09 3:42 AM:

> In article <T-Bone-454B91....@unlimited.newshosting.com>,

Both you, Jonas Eklundh, and your buddy Steve Carroll have begged others to
not respond to me... but you both lie about me repeatedly... begging for my
attention.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 7:15:41 AM8/3/09

to

In article <C69C0F76.3F8D2%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> > I know, that was never my intention. There is no way I, you or anyone
> > else can stop him from trolling csma. Requests has been made to make
> > everyone ignore him 100%, but that has yet to happen. That would be
> > the only way to make him stop trolling. But many here, me included,
> > likes to poke fun at his trolling and his lies. We don't do it because
> > we think he'll change - he will never. We're doing it because it's fun.
> >
> Both you, Jonas Eklundh, and your buddy Steve Carroll have begged others to
> not respond to me... but you both lie about me repeatedly... begging for my
> attention.

Exposing your lies is not begging for your attention, it's ridiculing
you. We're not the ones that post new threads daily about other
posters. That would be you.

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 7:16:05 AM8/3/09

to

In article <C69C0F27.3F8D1%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >> Are you saying you are not aware of how Jonas Eklundh lied about his CSS
> >> and
> >> then freaked out over being called on it - to the point he is *still*
> >> lashing out years later with lies, accusations, dishonest snipping, etc?
> >
> > That's exactly what he's saying. He is not aware of things you only
> > made up and lied about. How could he? :)
> >
> I have repeatedly posted absolute proof of how you lied.

You have repeatedly posted absolut lies, yes.

--
Sandman[.net]

Steve Mackay

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 7:42:25 AM8/3/09

to

Repeating your same lies, wont make them truthful. No matter HOW many
times you repeat them. Give it up. NOBODY believes you.

Snit

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 12:51:51 PM8/3/09

to

Steve Mackay stated in post h56ijk$o6m$1...@news.albasani.net on 8/3/09 4:42
AM:

Be specific: where do you think I lied. Quote the alleged lie and show
support that it is as you say.

But you will not. I have proved Jonas Eklundh lied. He - and you - have
*no* support for your accusations against me. None.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Me

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 1:33:45 PM8/3/09

to

"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C69C01C2.3F8AC%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...

Tardzilla out tards MechTardzilla

MechaTardzilla retreats for repair

Me

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 2:05:25 PM8/3/09

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-F2A5E1.12...@News.Individual.NET...

mactard has fun playing in the shit

Chance Furlong

unread,

Aug 3, 2009, 4:54:36 PM8/3/09

to

In article <SFFdm.102050$qx1....@newsfe04.iad>, "Me" <m...@mine.com>
wrote:

> Mactard has fun playing in the shit.

Coprophile

Me

unread,

Aug 4, 2009, 11:00:45 AM8/4/09

to

"Chance Furlong" <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
news:T-Bone-B75FF3....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

gay mactard

Me

unread,

Aug 4, 2009, 1:06:41 PM8/4/09

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message

news:mr-AC2252.13...@News.Individual.NET...

absolut is vodka mactard

Snit

unread,

Aug 4, 2009, 1:30:08 PM8/4/09

to

Me stated in post FUZdm.33499$8B7....@newsfe20.iad on 8/4/09 10:06 AM:

Sandman's buddy Carroll made it very clear he had a drug problem... maybe
Jonas Eklundh has a drinking problem. Maybe not. But it would help to
explain his irrationality.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Chance Furlong

unread,

Aug 4, 2009, 5:11:55 PM8/4/09

to

In article <A2Ydm.78255$BP6....@newsfe24.iad>, "Me" <m...@mine.com>
wrote:

> > Coprophile.
>
> Gay Mactard.

In your fantasies, twat.

Snit

unread,

Aug 4, 2009, 5:59:50 PM8/4/09

to

Chance Furlong stated in post

T-Bone-3E7573....@unlimited.newshosting.com on 8/4/09 2:11 PM:

Why do threads about Jonas Eklundh always end up heading to such topics?

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Chance Furlong

unread,

Aug 4, 2009, 6:07:48 PM8/4/09

to

In article <C69DFD66.3FD0F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

Direct your question to Me.

Sandman

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 2:41:15 AM8/5/09

to

In article <C69DFD66.3FD0F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

Why do threads you started always end up heading to such topics? :-D

--
Sandman[.net]

Me

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 2:18:34 PM8/5/09

to

"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message

news:C69DBE30.3FC6B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...

STFU, homo

>
> --
> [INSERT .SIG HERE]
>
>

Snit

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 2:20:16 PM8/5/09

to

Sandman stated in post mr-B803A8.08...@News.Individual.NET on
8/4/09 11:41 PM:

...

>> Why do threads about Jonas Eklundh always end up heading to such topics?
>
> Why do threads you started always end up heading to such topics? :-D

Ok, I guess that was fair. :)

Seriously: I would love to see the back and forth BS just stop. Can we both
agree to just let the CSS issue *go* and to not lash out based on it? It
really is silly. How about this, starting now I shall not mention it again
unless you do. The only exception might be if your "friends" keep pushing
the issue I might respond to them... just as I would expect you to possibly
respond to people other than me who harp on the issue.

Deal? Are you willing to let it go? Keep in mind: this means no lashing
out based on it... even without mentioning the issue at all. Just let it
go. And, of course, that goes for both of us.

Also note I placed no blame nor had any insults in my comments here...
hopefully you can do the same.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Me

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 2:33:07 PM8/5/09

to

"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message

news:C69F1B70.3FEA6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...

Tardzilla sets a tard trap for MechaTardzilla

Me

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 2:47:32 PM8/5/09

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message

news:mr-B803A8.08...@News.Individual.NET...

a tard touche

> --
> Sandman[.net]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 2:56:34 PM8/5/09

to

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
<C69F1B70.3FEA6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:

> [0141] :) Seriously: I would love to see the back and forth BS just
> [0141] stop.

You have made it crystal clear that this isn't your wish. You even
entered an agreement called Code of Honesty which you were eager to
break.

> [0142] Can we both agree to just let the CSS issue *go* and to not
> [0142] lash out based on it?

I have no idea why you are asking me this, since it is you, not I,
that keep posting entire new threads on this one over three year old
issue. Since the issue was created in 2006, you have created 36
threads because of it. That's a number I can substantiated as usual,
of course, with message-ID's and all.

> [0144] How about this, starting now I shall not mention it again
> [0144] unless you do.

That's pretty messed up. As it is - *I'm* not mentioning it unless you
drag it up. I don't need an agreement to do that. That's just my level
of interest in this matter. Unless you bring it up, I have no need.
That's the entire point of this.

> [0145] The only exception might be if your "friends" keep pushing
> [0145] the issue I might respond to them.

I.e. you need a bail-out of being honest and honorable. I know. That's
also already what I'm doing, I don't bringit up unless one of your
'"friends"' drag it up... Oh wait, you don't have any '"friends"' that
agree with you on this issue... Or any issue when I think about it.

If you *really* wanted to let this issue "go", then all you would do
is not talk about it - just as you let the PDF's you forged "go" and
never bring them up again since you were busted.

See how I'm not bringing up your CSS lies in new threads and as
replies to you all the time? I know what the facts are and I know that
you will never see them, I'm ok with that, that's who you are.

> [0148] just as I would expect you to possibly respond to people
> [0148] other than me who harp on the issue.

I wouldn't know - no one but you ever drag this up.

> [0149] Deal?

Your honesty shouldn't require a deal, Snit. It should be by default.

> [0150] Are you willing to let it go?

36 threads, Snit. 0 from me.

> [0157] Also note I placed no blame nor had any insults in my
> [0157] comments here.

Only you referred to some people as my '"friends"'

> [0160] hopefully you can do the same.

I'm sure you'll be able to claim that me pointing to the antagonizing
threads you've made as placing blame, proceed to snip this entire post
and respond to something out of context either way.

Snit

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 3:04:51 PM8/5/09

to

Sandman stated in post mr-571D9C.20...@News.Individual.NET on
8/5/09 11:56 AM:

> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
> <C69F1B70.3FEA6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:

...

You keep lashing out in anger over the issue of your CSS. Do you need
message IDs of posts where you have done so? It is not like you have to
even mention the issue to see how angry and upset you are. You just cannot
let it go. I am giving you a chance to redeem yourself and let the past go,
Sandman... and instead of trying to work toward peace, you spew lies and
absurd accusations against me.

In any case: even though you will not act honestly nor honorable, I shall
continue to. You cannot make me sink to your level.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Me

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 3:05:09 PM8/5/09

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message

news:mr-571D9C.20...@News.Individual.NET...

MechaTardzilla fell into Tardzilla's tard trap

Sandman

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 3:15:30 PM8/5/09

to

In article <C69F25E3.3FEBE%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

As predicted:

Sandman:

I'm sure you'll be able to claim that me pointing to the
antagonizing threads you've made as placing blame, proceed
to snip this entire post and respond to something out of
context either way.

Like clockwork

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 3:29:37 PM8/5/09

to

Sandman stated in post mr-0EC076.21...@News.Individual.NET on
8/5/09 12:15 PM:

I have no obligation to quote your trolling. Do you need me to point to
examples of your lashing out in obvious anger... spewing absurd accusations
and outright lies? You have been doing so ever since you got mad about my
reaction to your trolling over web site quality and my reaction of pointing
out some areas of growth for your own web site. Heck, you even took many of
my comments to heart and made your site better. Still, years later you are
still angry.

Let it go. I am giving you an out. My advice: take it. Your actions
simply are not healthy.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 3:33:31 PM8/5/09

to

Me stated in post XJkem.88661$FP2....@newsfe05.iad on 8/5/09 12:05 PM:

>
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-571D9C.20...@News.Individual.NET...

...

> MechaTardzilla fell into Tardzilla's tard trap

Unlike me, Sandman *wants* absurd debates to go on forever. He will not
stop lashing out over his anger from *years* ago.

Simple sickness on his part. Even when I make it clear I *want* the silly
back-and-forth repetition to end, he cannot let it go.

Then he acts like I have an obligation to quote his trolling.

For a while he figured out his only way to stop trolling me was to not
respond to me at all. It worked to at least some extent for a while... but
he could not maintain it. Heck, he even pretended his reduction in trolling
me was somehow something that would offend me.

Public request: Sandman - go back to *not* trolling me so much. You "win"
in thinking you are offending me... I and the rest of CSMA win in that we
are not treated to your anger and humiliation based lies and accusations.

We all win. Why not do it, Sandman? Why not keep doing what you said you
would?

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 3:41:21 PM8/5/09

to

In article <C69F2BB1.3FEC6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >> In any case: even though you will not act honestly nor honorable, I shall
> >> continue to. You cannot make me sink to your level.
> >
> > As predicted:
> >
> > Sandman:
> > I'm sure you'll be able to claim that me pointing to the
> > antagonizing threads you've made as placing blame, proceed
> > to snip this entire post and respond to something out of
> > context either way.
> >
> > Like clockwork
>
> I have no obligation to quote your trolling.

I have no obligation to quote your trolling, no.

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 3:53:49 PM8/5/09

to

In article <C69F2C9B.3FEC8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> > MechaTardzilla fell into Tardzilla's tard trap
>
> Unlike me, Sandman *wants* absurd debates to go on forever.

Unlike me, Snits posts new threads about old issues forever and ever...

--
Sandman[.net]

Me

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 3:58:41 PM8/5/09

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message

news:mr-172EF8.21...@News.Individual.NET...

MechaTardzilla trys to blast free with tard jets

Snit

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 4:01:21 PM8/5/09

to

Sandman stated in post mr-172EF8.21...@News.Individual.NET on
8/5/09 12:53 PM:

Seriously, Jonas Eklundh, it is long past time to end this BS. Look at the
start of this thread, for example: I asked you a question and you refused to
answer. You just lied and pretended you had not done what I quoted you
doing. It is beyond stupid. I want this silly "battle" to end. You want
it to go on and are lashing out. You do that a lot. You run in other
threads because questions are "off topic", then you whine when I start new
threads to ask you the questions you run from.

Just let it go. Work toward peace. Stop lashing out with your lies and
absurd accusations and just let it go.

If you can.

Feel free to get the last word in.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 4:07:40 PM8/5/09

to

In article <C69F3321.3FED6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >>> MechaTardzilla fell into Tardzilla's tard trap
> >>
> >> Unlike me, Sandman *wants* absurd debates to go on forever.
> >
> > Unlike me, Snits posts new threads about old issues forever and ever...
> >
> Seriously, Jonas Eklundh, it is long past time to end this BS.

This "BS":

2006-06-01: Friendly request for Sandman
2006-06-02: Friendly request for Sandman
2006-06-02: Friendly request for Sandman
2006-06-04: Friendly request for Sandman
2006-08-19: Kudos to Sandman
2006-08-31: Public notice to Sandman: Your code is screwed ...
2006-09-03: Wishing Sandman well
2006-09-05: Wishing Sandman well
2006-09-05: Public notice to Sandman: Your code is screwed ...
2006-11-25: A challenge for Sandman
2006-11-27: A challenge for Sandman
2007-01-02: OT: Question about CSS on sandman.net
2007-01-05: OT: Giving Sandman one more chance to explain w...
2007-01-05: OT: Sandman adds robot.txt to his site to hide ...
2007-01-09: OT: Examples of Sandman's lovely design abilities
2007-02-13: A post to point to in response to Carroll's tro...
2007-04-26: Question for Sandman about web design
2007-04-27: Helping each other in CSMA
2007-05-17: Another attempt to bring peace to CSMA (I would...
2007-06-28: Question for Sandman about web design
2008-04-13: OT: CSS question
2008-04-15: Question for Sandman about web design
2008-04-16: Sandman.net back on line at the WayBackMachine
2008-04-17: OT: Gee, why can't they prove me wrong?
2008-05-07: Congrats to Sandman on his redesign
2008-06-12: OT: Gee, why can't they prove me wrong?
2008-06-22: Is there any depth Sandman will not sink to
2008-08-18: The silly PDF forgery accusation that keep comi...
2008-08-18: The silly PDF forgery accusation that keep comi...
2008-08-21: The silly PDF forgery accusation that keep comi...
2008-08-21: The silly PDF forgery accusation that keep comi...
2008-12-18: End of the stupid PDF debate
2009-07-30: Proof Sandman keeps running from.
2009-07-31: Proof Sandman keeps running from.
2009-08-01: OT: Reinventing the wheel
2009-08-03: Proof Sandman keeps running from.

36 threads on this issue alone. 36 threads you've started about an
issue you seem to want to claim that you want to "let go".

--
Sandman[.net]

Me

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 4:12:47 PM8/5/09

to

"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message

news:C69F3321.3FED6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...

Tardzilla is too tired to keep MechaTardzilla in its tard trap

MechaTardzilla flies out with its tard jets

Snit

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 5:04:55 PM8/5/09

to

Sandman stated in post mr-A3E601.22...@News.Individual.NET on
8/5/09 1:07 PM:

The following message IDs, all from you, are almost all filled with examples
of you lashing out against me. It is not an all-inclusive list, but I admit
some false-positives might be in there. Can you find, say, three posts in a
row, though, were you do not lash out against me in some dishonest and
dishonorable way? I bet not.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 5:23:00 PM8/5/09

to

In article <C69F4207.3FEF6%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

Whatever you call "lashing out" is irrelevant. All of those are in
response to you, none of the above is in response to me - they are
threads you created in order to keep the "debate" (if you could call
it that) alive, resurrecting it again and again over the course of
three years.

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 5:30:15 PM8/5/09

to

Sandman stated in post mr-112736.23...@News.Individual.NET on
8/5/09 2:23 PM:

...

>> The following message IDs, all from you, are almost all filled with examples
>> of you lashing out against me.
>
> Whatever you call "lashing out" is irrelevant.

Note: you were *not* able to find three posts in a row where you did not
lash out in a dishonest / dishonorable way.

Come on, Sandman, three posts in a row where you do not lie about me, lash
out against me, or spew some absurd accusation against me. With all your
high-tech database capabilities can't you find that?

LOL! No... you cannot.

Now will you be able to. You lash out in anger and humiliation and then
whine when I ask you questions about your lies. You snip questions you
claim are not relevant to the thread... so I start new threads. Then you
whine that I call you out on your BS - *responding* to you - in new threads.

Look below for an example:

> All of those are in
> response to you, none of the above is in response to me - they are
> threads you created in order to keep the "debate" (if you could call
> it that) alive, resurrecting it again and again over the course of
> three years.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

ed

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 5:38:41 PM8/5/09

to

On Aug 5, 1:01 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Sandman stated in post mr-172EF8.21534905082...@News.Individual.NET on
<snip>

> Feel free to get the last word in.

usually when someone posts something like this, they stop posting to
that thread. or at least that sub thread. so stop.

Sandman

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 5:38:44 PM8/5/09

to

In article <C69F47F7.3FF0F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >> The following message IDs, all from you, are almost all filled with
> >> examples
> >> of you lashing out against me.
> >
> > Whatever you call "lashing out" is irrelevant.
>
> Note: you were *not* able to find three posts in a row where you did not
> lash out in a dishonest / dishonorable way.

Any three posts, Snit. You will not accept that, though, since
"lashing out" is a matter of definition. You see it your way, I see it
my way. You can't show me three posts in a row where I was lashing out
according to me.

I *CAN* however, show you 36 threads you've created to bring up this
issue again and again over the last three years, which goes contrary
to your claim that you want to "let go" of this.

Here's a hint for you - if you want to let go of it, just do it. Don't
claim you will only do it under certain circumstances. Stop posting
threads about it, stop dragging it up in unrelated discussions. Unless
you do this, you never really wanted to let go of it.

> Come on, Sandman, three posts in a row where you do not lie about me, lash
> out against me, or spew some absurd accusation against me. With all your
> high-tech database capabilities can't you find that?

MySQL is high-tech for you? Well, ok, I suppose that makes sense in a
sad kind of way.

> Now will you be able to. You lash out in anger and humiliation and then
> whine when I ask you questions about your lies. You snip questions you
> claim are not relevant to the thread

"I have no obligation to quote your trolling."
- Snit

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 5:43:28 PM8/5/09

to

In article
<99ca7ba1-5798-4f06...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

Oops, I even missed that.

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 5:49:51 PM8/5/09

to

ed stated in post
99ca7ba1-5798-4f06...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com on 8/5/09
2:38 PM:

Done. Sandman countered with a new absurd claim... so I countered it.
Pretty much shoved his nose in the mess of his claim. And he then ran.
Nothing more to add to the thread.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Sandman

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 5:54:09 PM8/5/09

to

In article <C69F4C8F.3FF26%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >> Feel free to get the last word in.
> >
> > usually when someone posts something like this, they stop posting to
> > that thread. or at least that sub thread. so stop.
>
> Done. Sandman countered with a new absurd claim... so I countered it.
> Pretty much shoved his nose in the mess of his claim. And he then ran.
> Nothing more to add to the thread.

Phew, so could you finally stop posting these threads then? That would
be a huge relief. Thanks in advance!

--
Sandman[.net]

Wally

unread,

Aug 5, 2009, 8:50:02 PM8/5/09

to

On 6/8/09 2:56 AM, in article mr-571D9C.20...@News.Individual.NET,
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:

<snip>

>
> I.e. you need a bail-out of being honest and honorable. I know. That's
> also already what I'm doing, I don't bringit up unless one of your
> '"friends"' drag it up... Oh wait, you don't have any '"friends"' that
> agree with you on this issue... Or any issue when I think about it.

Well he does have some! And he even built a 'home' for them!

http://tinyurl.com/nhfdkl

<snip>

Sandman

unread,

Aug 6, 2009, 2:54:25 AM8/6/09

to

In article <C6A049BA.18AF3%Wa...@wally.world.net>,
Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:

> > I.e. you need a bail-out of being honest and honorable. I know. That's
> > also already what I'm doing, I don't bringit up unless one of your
> > '"friends"' drag it up... Oh wait, you don't have any '"friends"' that
> > agree with you on this issue... Or any issue when I think about it.
>
> Well he does have some! And he even built a 'home' for them!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nhfdkl

Whoa, is that Michael? Ehm... I don't know what to say, really...

--
Sandman[.net]

Steve Carroll

unread,

Aug 6, 2009, 11:09:58 AM8/6/09

to

This is Snit... who lives in a fantasy world of his own creation where
such adult cues are meaningless... as are most things to do with
reality.

Steve Carroll

unread,

Aug 6, 2009, 11:13:16 AM8/6/09

to

Hey... don't make fun of Snit's friends! LOL!

I didn't see "Toasty" in there... hmmm;)

Steve Carroll

unread,

Aug 6, 2009, 11:28:40 AM8/6/09

to

On Aug 5, 1:33 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Me stated in post XJkem.88661$FP2.16...@newsfe05.iad on 8/5/09 12:05 PM:

>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> >news:mr-571D9C.20...@News.Individual.NET...
> ...
> > MechaTardzilla fell into Tardzilla's tard trap
>
> Unlike me, Sandman *wants* absurd debates to go on forever.

Translation: Snit has purposefully avoided the reality that it is
Snit, not Sandman, who has continually posted, for "*years*", his BS
about Sandman's site. Snit does this in the face of the reality that
Sandman has posted concrete proof from google of Snit doing so... as
shown here... AGAIN... in this very thread:

[begin quote of Sandman]

"This "BS":

issue you seem to want to claim that you want to "let go".

[end quote of Sandman]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8bd8fa53b8827d76?dmode=source

> He will not stop lashing out over his anger from *years* ago.
>
> Simple sickness on his part. Even when I make it clear I *want* the silly
> back-and-forth repetition to end, he cannot let it go.

Translation: Snit is projecting his own behavior onto Sandman, as
evidenced by Snit posting continually about this for "*years*" on
end.

The facts from google show that it is Snit (the lying hypocrite that
keeps claiming to "*want* the silly back-and-forth repetition to end")
who keeps the BS alive.

(snip Snit's other feeble attempts to further use his "psych degree"
in pursuit of his grand delusion)

Steve Carroll

unread,

Aug 6, 2009, 11:38:39 AM8/6/09

to

On Aug 5, 2:01 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Sandman stated in post mr-172EF8.21534905082...@News.Individual.NET on

> 8/5/09 12:53 PM:
>
> > In article <C69F2C9B.3FEC8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>> MechaTardzilla fell into Tardzilla's tard trap
>
> >> Unlike me, Sandman *wants* absurd debates to go on forever.
>
> > Unlike me, Snits posts new threads about old issues forever and ever...
>
> Seriously, Jonas Eklundh, it is long past time to end this BS. Look at the
> start of this thread, for example:

He did... and he also listed numerous other examples of you not
letting this issue go.

[begin quote of Sandman]

This "BS":

> I asked you a question and you refused to
> answer. You just lied and pretended you had not done what I quoted you
> doing. It is beyond stupid. I want this silly "battle" to end.

Why do you believe people are as stupid as you need them to be, Snit?
They obviously aren't. One would tend to think you'd have learned at
least this much in 5+ years, but you haven't. What the hell is wrong
with you?

> You want
> it to go on and are lashing out. You do that a lot. You run in other
> threads because questions are "off topic", then you whine when I start new
> threads to ask you the questions you run from.
>
> Just let it go. Work toward peace.

Lied the liar who started this thread for the same reason he started
all the other threads Sandman pointed to.