Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club
Peter Köhlmann
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
> ng95ygrpc498$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/27/08 4:41 PM:
>
>> Why, Snit, of course!
>>
>> Come up on the stage and get your membership t-shirt, Snit. You've earned
>> it. Your latest fiasco about EXIF tags that never existed is one of the
>> better whoppers told in this group over the past few years.
>
> Yeah, it was *horrid*, I wrote "28" and you corrected me that the data was
> really "26".
He corrected you since your date was in the future
> I was grossly humiliated by this grievous error I made... I
> went to hide my head in shame.
You should be ashamed, Michael Glasser. Since you are *again* openly lying
here. Your blunder was not the date itself, as you have been told several
times already.
Your blunder was that you lied about the images containing EXIF data.
< snip more Michael Glasser lies >
> Oh, speaking of the EXIF data silliness did you see Peter Köhlmann looking
> for the EXIF data on Usenet messages ... that was just frickin'
> hilarious...
Lying again, Michael Glasser
Msg-ID <48b63e04$0$20712$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
---------------------------
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> stated in post
> 48b5dbe7$0$12955$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net on 8/27/08 3:57 PM:
>
>> The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>> Bottom line, though, as I noted EXIF data contains dates. Seriously, I
>>> am surprised how many people in COLA did not know that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And you can certainly give us the Msg-IDs
>
> LOL! It is not Usenet messages that have EXIF data but images (mostly jpg
> images).
>
> Seriously, Peter, it amuses me to see you try to sound clever. Too funny!
>
>
You can certainly give us the Msg-IDs, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser.
You know, those messages where "people did not know that EXIF contains
data".
But then, you are just a liar. You are extremely dishonest
---------------------------
--
Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a way of life.
chrisv
>The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:
>
>> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
>> ng95ygrpc498$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/27/08 4:41 PM:
>>
>>> Why, Snit, of course!
>>>
>>> Come up on the stage and get your membership t-shirt, Snit. You've earned
>>> it. Your latest fiasco about EXIF tags that never existed is one of the
>>> better whoppers told in this group over the past few years.
>>
>> Yeah, it was *horrid*, I wrote "28" and you corrected me that the data was
>> really "26".
>
>He corrected you since your date was in the future
>
>> I was grossly humiliated by this grievous error I made... I
>> went to hide my head in shame.
>
>You should be ashamed, Michael Glasser. Since you are *again* openly lying
>here. Your blunder was not the date itself, as you have been told several
>times already.
>Your blunder was that you lied about the images containing EXIF data.
>
>< snip more Michael Glasser lies >
>
>> Oh, speaking of the EXIF data silliness did you see Peter Köhlmann looking
>> for the EXIF data on Usenet messages ... that was just frickin'
>> hilarious...
>
>Lying again, Michael Glasser
Shamelessly so.
>Msg-ID <48b63e04$0$20712$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
>---------------------------
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> stated in post
>> 48b5dbe7$0$12955$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net on 8/27/08 3:57 PM:
>>
>>> The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:
>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>>> Bottom line, though, as I noted EXIF data contains dates. Seriously, I
>>>> am surprised how many people in COLA did not know that.
>>>
>>> And you can certainly give us the Msg-IDs
>>
>> LOL! It is not Usenet messages that have EXIF data but images (mostly jpg
>> images).
>>
>> Seriously, Peter, it amuses me to see you try to sound clever. Too funny!
>
>You can certainly give us the Msg-IDs, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser.
>
>You know, those messages where "people did not know that EXIF contains
>data".
>
>But then, you are just a liar. You are extremely dishonest
No one had better ask to "show an example of Sn^Hhit lying" ever
again. Cripes, it's just a steady stream of lies!
Mocassin Joe
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:48b6468a$0$20706$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
Peter,
with all due respect, your obsession with Snit seems to be taking an
unhealthy track.
Snit
a3Atk.18182$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net on 8/28/08 9:10 AM:
> Peter,
>
> with all due respect, your obsession with Snit seems to be taking an
> unhealthy track.
He *hates* how I have pointed out the huge holes in his technical knowledge
- such as when I pointed out his error in confusing my IP address with the
IP address of a web host and later the IP address of an email server.
He now is claiming that the error he made in regards to EXIF data was really
his just looking for a message where the EXIF data was talked about - not
looking for the EXIF data *of* the message. Maybe... re-reading the thread
I will acknowledge it is not clear one way or the other - and while it is
most likely that he just screwed up again I will give him the benefit of the
doubt. *Maybe* he was not as ignorant there as he appeared...
But he *still* screwed up with IP addresses. That was crystal clear. :)
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Tattoo Vampire
> Maybe... re-reading the thread I will acknowledge it is not clear one way
> or the other
In other words, in another attempt to troll, you made yourself look like a
fool. Again.
--
Regards,
[tv]
...If you shoot a mime, should you use a silencer?
Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
Good to the last supper
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Maybe... re-reading the thread I will acknowledge it is not clear one way
>> or the other
>
> In other words, in another attempt to troll, you made yourself look like a
> fool. Again.
Ah, let us see what Tattoo Vampire is trying to get away with:
1) He snipped the context of my admission of possible error.
2) He is pretending that it is a *bad* thing for someone to
acknowledge they might be wrong.
Compare this to my actions where I do not snip the context of the comments I
am responding to (no example will be shown where I have done so). I also
*value* and celebrate when someone is brave enough and honest enough to
admit to a possible error...
So there we have it, two ways in which Tattoo Vampire and I are different.
I value honesty and honor in myself and others - he does not.
--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay
chrisv
> Shit:
>>
>> Maybe... re-reading the thread I will acknowledge it is not clear one
>> way or the other
>
> In other words, in another attempt to troll, you made yourself look like
> a fool. Again.
A "fool"? Shit is *far* worse than a mere "fool". If you're going to
accuse someone else of being a fscking idiot or a fscking liar, you had
better have some solid, logical, evidence.
Otherwise, you're a fscking "asshole".
Snit
6LydnfFDsowR2CrV...@giganews.com on 8/28/08 5:40 PM:
I welcome your "solid, logical, evidence" to support your accusations
against me.
Note: yes, I know you will fail... heck, I doubt you will even try. But
then you will show what a hypocrite you are...
--
The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
offering things that Linux is not.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
chrisv
"You're" meaning "he is", is in "Shit is", of course... 8)
Rex Ballard
> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> stated in post
> The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
> offering things that Linux is not.
> - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Yes, like putting OS/X in all of the iMacs on display in thousands of
Apple stores strategically located in a number of very high traffic
shopping centers. And staffing those stores with people who are
carefully trained to answer questions accurately, and to help people
who are test driving an iMac with OS/X for the very first time.
At least Acer has managed to put a Linux NetBook on display at
thousands of Circuit Cities. That's a pretty good step in the right
direction.
Snit
1038b884-e350-4fd1...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com on 8/28/08
7:39 PM:
There is *no* doubt that OS X has "external" advantages (things not
intrinsic to the OS itself). Apple has massive marketing power and there
are other products that people associate with Apple... this clearly helps
sell OS X (why advertise if it did not work!) And free face-to-face tech
support for people in big cities is something nobody else offers.
OS X also has some very big disadvantages, at least in terms of growing its
market share: it runs on only Apple-provided hardware (with a few legally
questionable and unsupported exceptions) and that hardware, while generally
quite good, is rather limited in its selection. Just try to get a
medium-end Mac without a webcam. No such beast. Apple targets the mid to
high range market... when the low end is, at least for the home market, the
"lions share". OS X is also not free... compared to Linux being free that
is *clearly* a disadvantage.
To summarize:
Linux.
Free.
Runs on almost anything.
Offered as an option by the biggest OEMs
Can be downloaded for free without any OEM support
Less than 1% of the only market Linus really cares about
Compared to:
OS X
Not free.
Runs only on relatively high end proprietary hardware
Offered by only one relatively small OEM
Around 10% of the the same market
So why is Linux not as big or bigger than OS X in terms of home user market
share? My answers are:
* Lack of support from MS, Adobe, Apple, etc.
* The fractured experience on any given desktop distro
* Confusion about what Linux is vs. PCLOS, Ubuntu, etc.
* Lack of support for some peripherals... maybe.
I am sure there are more I am not thinking of now. :)
How to "fix" this - if you even want it fixed:
Well, to get support from the "big boys" you need the market share... so do
not expect Photoshop to be ported to Linux to help get it marketshare unless
it already has made it a long way. The confusion about what the distros are
could be answered, to some extent, by clever marketing... though if
different distros all market their 'wares at the same time it could add to
the confusion. Lack of support for some hardware is a programmer issue... I
do not know enough about driver issues to really speak on it much.
That leaves user experience issues. And that is what I often talk about...
and in my case mostly GUI issues, though the user experience is also tied to
many programmer issues.
Whew... enough for now. Maybe too much. :)
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Peter Köhlmann
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> stated in post
> 48b7c08d$0$11739$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 2:25 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But before you said the voice you heard was "altered" to be high
>>>>> pitch... my voice is anything but high pitch.
>>>>
>>>> I never said it was altered, you idiot. And you hardly have a bass or
>>>> baritone voice, either.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously I can't prove my claim, but that doesn't matter because you
>>>> and I know the truth.
>>>
>>> Yup - we know you are spewing lies into a public forum. You are making
>>> accusations you cannot support, will not support, and know to be utter
>>> BS.
>>>
>>> You are a liar...
>>>
>>>>> Utter BS. You are - flat out - lying.
>>>>
>>>> This from the COLA king of liars. Where's that EXIF data, chump?
>>>
>>> I am *not* going to teach you how to find EXIF data. Go look it up.
>>>
>>
>> You know what EXIF data, ...
>>
>> The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was
>
> One: the topic of this sub-thread was Tattoo's lies about me calling
> him... an accusation he refuses to back away from though he now admits he
> has no
> support for. Yippee... you have let him distract you from that real
> topic.
I don't care a tiny little bit about what you want to make the topic.
And I care even less for your lies.
> Two: I *never* said I even looked for EXIF data in *two* images. You have
> been told this and yet you keep claiming it... thus removing any doubt
> that
> you are merely mistaken: you are lying. Yup, once again Peter Köhlmann
> has proved himself to be a liar.
>
Why did you then bring up "EXIF" in the first place when the date of the
pictures was in "discussion", liar Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser?
The only explanation which makes sense is that you downloaded the pictures
and then mistook the file date (which was the date of the download) for the
date the pictures where taken, and then to make your incompetence even more
visible to claim it was EXIF data.
Every other "explanation" from you is even more lunatic, and your continuous
attempts to put words in peoples mouth make that all the more clear
So, keep on lying, dishonest twit Michael Glasser
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Peter Köhlmann
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> stated in post
> 48b7c692$0$11748$9b4e...@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 2:51 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> You know what EXIF data, ...
>>>>
>>>> The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was
>>>
>>> One: the topic of this sub-thread was Tattoo's lies about me calling
>>> him... an accusation he refuses to back away from though he now admits
>>> he has no
>>> support for. Yippee... you have let him distract you from that real
>>> topic.
>>>
>> I don't care a tiny little bit about what you want to make the topic. And
>> I care even less for your lies.
>
> More accusations by Peter Köhlmann. Yawn.
>
>>> Two: I *never* said I even looked for EXIF data in *two* images. You
>>> have been told this and yet you keep claiming it... thus removing any
>>> doubt that
>>> you are merely mistaken: you are lying. Yup, once again Peter Köhlmann
>>> has proved himself to be a liar.
>>
>> Why did you then bring up "EXIF" in the first place when the date of the
>> pictures was in "discussion",
>
> I made comments about *one* picture. One. You lied and claimed I talked
> about *two* images.
>
> I called you on it and you dodged. Oh well - I, again, have proved you to
> be a liar.
>
> As far as why I brought up the EXIF data for the *one* image: I did so
> because it was relevant to the point I was making. How could you miss
> that?
If that EXIF data was relevant, how come that the picture does not contain
any? And, BTW, the other picture does not contain any EXIF data as well
Do you even recognize how ridiculous you sound, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael
Glasser?
You actually claim that *non-existant* data is relevant to your lies
> I snipped your off-topic fairy tales. I am not interested in them.
>
> So, Peter, when will you stop lying about the one picture I commented on
> being two. Can you not count that high?
>
I don't care if you *again* want to move the topic. The post you responded
to with "EXIF" had links to *two* pictures.
That you now lie about having just viewed / talked about one of them is even
more ridiculous, Michael Glasser.
--
99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Tim Adams
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote:
which is exactly what michael glasseer did. by using one of the methods he
claimed to use, ie photoshop file info, you can see the date (and time) change
using the same picture, depending on when you downloaded the file. ppoor shit,
the prescott computer guy thinks that this is 'EXIF Data' when it clearly is no
such thing.
>
> Every other "explanation" from you is even more lunatic, and your continuous
> attempts to put words in peoples mouth make that all the more clear
>
> So, keep on lying, dishonest twit Michael Glasser
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-6D1481.22...@free.teranews.com on 8/28/08 7:10 PM:
> In article <g95aii$ol7$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "Don Zeigler" <d...@donzeigler.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong about what. Put the context back. Frankly your snipping to run
>>> from
>>> your lies grows old.
>>
>> Context my ass. You claimed the EXIF tags showed that photo was taken on
>> 8/28, a claim you later changed, excusing your original claim as a "typo".
>
> change the date on your computer, download the same file and get yet another
> date.
EXIF data is the date of the image, Tim, not the date of the download.
Really.
Amazing. Just amazing.
> funny how that 'EXIF tag' keep changing.
You are the *only* one claiming EXIF data changes based on the date you
download a file. Well, you and your sock puppet "Why Me". Gee, I thought
you were denying that was your sock puppet but now you have shown - again -
that it *clearly* is.
> perhaps snit could explain why since he's the one claiming EXIF data is
> present in the picture with the calendar.
You, not I, are the one who claimed that the EXIF tag kept changing. And
you are wrong. I am always amazed at how pathetic your errors are.
--
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen
Peter Köhlmann
> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> What a strange idea of honesty The Prescott Computer Guy has.
>
> It makes you wonder how honest he is in his "business" dealings.
What "business" dealings?
Michael Glassers only "business" is trolling usenet 24/7. Around 13.000
posts this year. He is not "working", neither self-employed nor employed.
He is unfit even to sweep parking lots, and so his only occupation is being
glued to the keyboard. As a result his wife has to put the food on the
table and provide the money he is squandering
--
Clippy: "It looks like you're trying to sue us,
would you like me to delete all of your files?"
The Bee
> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> William Poaster wrote:
>>
>>> What a strange idea of honesty The Prescott Computer Guy has.
>> It makes you wonder how honest he is in his "business" dealings.
>
> What "business" dealings?
> Michael Glassers only "business" is trolling usenet 24/7. Around 13.000
> posts this year. He is not "working", neither self-employed nor employed.
> He is unfit even to sweep parking lots, and so his only occupation is being
> glued to the keyboard. As a result his wife has to put the food on the
> table and provide the money he is squandering
>
This is not healthy. Why you are no more than a Linux Nazi Storm Trooper
of the SSS caliber, and the last <S> signifies <stalker>, Kohlmann.
Tattoo Vampire
> What "business" dealings?
> Michael Glassers only "business" is trolling usenet 24/7. Around 13.000
> posts this year. He is not "working", neither self-employed nor employed.
> He is unfit even to sweep parking lots, and so his only occupation is being
> glued to the keyboard. As a result his wife has to put the food on the
> table and provide the money he is squandering
53 posts per day? That's pitiful.
--
Regards,
[tv]
...Politics n. Poly "many" + ticks "blood sucking insects"
Peter Köhlmann
> On 2008-08-29, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>>The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:
>>>>
>>>> I am *not* going to teach you how to find EXIF data. Go look it up.
>>>
>>>You know what EXIF data, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser
>>>
>>>The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was
>>
>> The fsckwit is still pretending that people don't know how to "find
>> EXIF data". Amazing. Even jackasses like Quack usually have some
>> idea when they should stop digging...
>
> You don't even really "know how". If you just use the default
> image viewer in GNOME you will trip over the EXIF data without
> even realizing it.
>
> No arcane commandline utilities required.
>
If you just point with the mouse cursor on a picture with exif data, the
most important ones of that data are displayed without any further action
in Konqueror
That idiotic dishonest twit Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser has not the
tiniest clue about linux and is showing what kind of asshole he really is
by his claims about "people don't know how to find EXIF data"
If he uses substandard Mac software which needs extra clicks it is his
problem, but he should stop pretending that he knows anything at all about
linux. In reality he knows jack shit.
But then, he is a "IT teacher". The most incompetent one in all recorded
history. He has a "business". Yeah, right. Pull another one, Snot Glasser
--
Proposed Additions to the PDP-11 Instruction Set:
CMFRM Come From -- essential for truly structured programming
CPPR Crumple Printer Paper and Rip
Peter Köhlmann
> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> stated in post
> fprfb4la1eij0o1fd...@4ax.com on 8/29/08 5:46 AM:
>
> ...
>>> The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was
>>
>> The fsckwit is still pretending that people don't know how to "find
>> EXIF data". Amazing. Even jackasses like Quack usually have some
>> idea when they should stop digging...
>>
> OK, for the *one* image in question (not the *two* as Peter Köhlmann keeps
> lying about)
Do you actually claim that Tattoo Vampire did not supply *two* URLs with
*two* different JPGs (and both without any EXIF data)?
> tell me what date the EXIF data lists as the creation date.
It tells you nothing. Non-existant EXIF data will tell you zilch
> I first said it was the 28th... Tattoo Vampire corrected me and said it
> was the 26th (he was correct - I made a typo)
He told you that you had a date in the future. He said *nothing* about any
EXIF date.
> and now Peter Köhlmann says he could not even find the EXIF data.
Not "and now", you lying fool. I have said so from the very start when you
made a clown of yourself with that ridiculous "EXIF" claim
> Others have agreed they could not find it.
Right, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser
Nobody except you can find it. Because there is *no* EXIF data in that file.
Face it: You got caught lying again. No way to wiggle out of it
> And, frankly, this *very simple "caper"* is beyond boring.
>
Naturally you find it "boring". Because you have been shown again what
incredibly dishonest twit you are. You lied, plain and simple.
And because you find it so "boring", expect to get hammered with it for the
next 25 years.
--
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow
Peter Köhlmann
> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> stated in post
> slrngbfut...@nomad.mishnet on 8/29/08 6:37 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was
>>>
>>> The fsckwit is still pretending that people don't know how to "find
>>> EXIF data". Amazing. Even jackasses like Quack usually have some
>>> idea when they should stop digging...
>>
>> You don't even really "know how". If you just use the default
>> image viewer in GNOME you will trip over the EXIF data without
>> even realizing it.
>>
>> No arcane commandline utilities required.
>
> Exactly... and yet Peter Köhlmann *denied* EXIF data exists on the very
> file Tattoo Vampire corrected me on (I said the creation date was the 28th
> and he correctly said it was the 26th).
Message-ID: <4mifhhv9i9yp$.dlg@this.domain.or.that>
He said nothing of that sort. He said "How could it be taken on August 28th
when today is only the 26th?"
Notice that he does not mention any creation date or EXIF data, lying fool
Glasser?
You then answered:
Message-ID: <C4D9E768.D27C4%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
--------------
Hmmm, darn good question... and my typo.. it was taken today, on the 26th.
--------------
And he again corrected you:
Message-ID: <17jo33ik...@this.domain.or.that>
--------------
Wrong yet again, idiot. It was taken last month, after I moved into that
office. Last month was July, hence a July magazine schedule on the wall.
Follow that, Prescott Computer Guy?
--------------
Care to misrepresent the thread some more, Liar Glasser?
You cretinous fool. There is no EXIF data in that file.
No matter how much you wish it would materialize out of thin air, it is not
present. You have committed a hilarious blunder and instead of admitting
it, you started lying even worse. And now you find no way out of it,
Michael Liar Glasser
--
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?
Steve de Mena
Steve
Peter Köhlmann
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> stated in post
> 48b827c7$0$20699$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 9:45 AM:
>
> ...
>>>>> The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was
>>>>
>>>> The fsckwit is still pretending that people don't know how to "find
>>>> EXIF data". Amazing. Even jackasses like Quack usually have some
>>>> idea when they should stop digging...
>>>>
>>> OK, for the *one* image in question (not the *two* as Peter Köhlmann
>>> keeps lying about)
>>
>> Do you actually claim that Tattoo Vampire did not supply *two* URLs with
>> *two* different JPGs (and both without any EXIF data)?
>
> He could have posted 1000 images... what would it matter in a discussion
> about the *one* image he posted with a July calendar and EXIF data that
> showed it was taken near the end of Aug (I first said the EXIF data said
> the 28th but Tattoo corrected me and told me it was the 26th).
Message-ID: <4mifhhv9i9yp$.dlg@this.domain.or.that>
He said nothing of that sort. He said "How could it be taken on August 28th
when today is only the 26th?"
Notice that he does not mention any creation date or EXIF data, lying fool
Glasser?
You then answered:
Message-ID: <C4D9E768.D27C4%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
--------------
Hmmm, darn good question... and my typo.. it was taken today, on the 26th.
--------------
And he again corrected you:
Message-ID: <17jo33ik...@this.domain.or.that>
--------------
Wrong yet again, idiot. It was taken last month, after I moved into that
office. Last month was July, hence a July magazine schedule on the wall.
Follow that, Prescott Computer Guy?
--------------
Care to misrepresent the thread some more, Liar Glasser?
> You have since claimed that you could not find the EXIF data at all. OK,
> so
> you do not know how to find EXIF data.... whatever. It is not like there
> was any reason to think you had *any* technical skills.
Well, it is mighty hard to find EXIF data which does not exist, wouldn't you
agree, Fool Michael Glasser?
> Of course, in reaction to your ignorance you lashed out, as you do so
> often. You:
Actually, the only ignorant one was you. You are too incompetent to
recognize when there is no EXIF data present
> * Accused me of posting with the name Rekruled... an outright lie from
> you.
Well, your sock puppets are easy to recognize. Don't blow any gaskets just
because you are too incompetent to invent better socks
> * You have called me names
Poor cretin. You are calling "liar" left and right
> * You have cross-posted your BS to forums that are not involved in your
> circus
I decide what forum is involved. You have no say in that.
And since you are the dumbest CSMA poster (except OxRetard), CSMA is very
much involved. You are in the wrong group in COLA, Snot Glasser, and it
will be hammered into your thick, absolutely empty skull as long as it
needs to
> * You have belittled my family
Actually, no, I have belittled *you*
You are the one trolling usenet 24/7 (13.000 messages this year), doing
absolutely no work at all and squandering the hard earned money of your
wife. You don't put food on the table, you are a leecher
> Seriously, Peter, don't you see how out of control you have become? How
> obsessive and irrational and self-loathing? I shall warn you: Steve
> Carroll
> went down the same path and he had a very public mental break down. You
> and Tattoo Vampire likely will do the same - heck, you and Tattoo are
> already mentally "damaged"... much more than Steve was years ago when he
> freaked out over a disagreement about George W. Bush.
>
Idiot
Peter Köhlmann
> Why don't you take this to private email. No one in these groups cares.
>
> Steve
I will not sully my inbox with Michael Glasser garbage
After all, he will not clean it afterwards
Face it: Michael Glasser is the most dishonest twit ever to post to usenet.
He is a Mac user. So why do you think he should post in COLA or to my
email? He belongs in CSMA, and there he can troll to his hearts content
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad. --- Dave Barry
chrisv
>>
>> You have since claimed that you could not find the EXIF data at all.
>> OK, so you do not know how to find EXIF data....
Bald-faced lie from Shit. Documented.
Peter Köhlmann
> "bugbuster" <bugb...@nowhere.org> stated in post
> pan.2008.08.29....@nowhere.org on 8/29/08 10:15 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> Do you actually claim that Tattoo Vampire did not supply *two* URLs
>>>> with *two* different JPGs (and both without any EXIF data)?
>>>
>>> He could have posted 1000 images... what would it matter in a discussion
>>> about the *one* image he posted with a July calendar and EXIF data that
>>> showed it was taken near the end of Aug (I first said the EXIF data said
>>> the 28th but Tattoo corrected me and told me it was the 26th).
>>
>> What a way to twist someones words. Tattoo said that Todays date is the
>> 26th
>
> I would agree that you have just shown a "way to twist someones (sic)
> words".... Tattoo did not say *Today's* date is the 26th... he said that
> the
> date *on* the 26th was the 26th. Today is the 29th, Peter... and for you
> to claim Tattoo said the 29th was the 26th is dishonest of you.
Too much booze again, Snot Glasser?
> In any case you dodged the point, *again*. You keep talking about
> multiple images when the topic is *one* image with a calendar in the
> background and EXIF data that shows it was taken on 26 August 2008.
>
> One image. Not two. Not 1000. And Tattoo *never* said that *today's*
> date
> - the 29th, was the 26th. You just made that up.
>
>
Message-ID: <4mifhhv9i9yp$.dlg@this.domain.or.that>
How could it be taken on August 28th when today is only the 26th?
>> We all know how to find EXIF data.
>
> So stop bitching about the fact you could not find it.
>
Well, non-existant EXIF data is mightily hard to find, wouldn't you agree,
Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser?
--
Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end
Peter Köhlmann
> "bugbuster" <bugb...@nowhere.org> stated in post
> pan.2008.08.29...@nowhere.org on 8/29/08 9:49 AM:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:47:14 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> stated in post
>>> slrngbfut...@nomad.mishnet on 8/29/08 6:37 AM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>> The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was
>>>>>
>>>>> The fsckwit is still pretending that people don't know how to "find
>>>>> EXIF data". Amazing. Even jackasses like Quack usually have some
>>>>> idea when they should stop digging...
>>>>
>>>> You don't even really "know how". If you just use the default
>>>> image viewer in GNOME you will trip over the EXIF data without even
>>>> realizing it.
>>>>
>>>> No arcane commandline utilities required.
>>>
>>> Exactly... and yet Peter Köhlmann *denied* EXIF data exists on the very
>>> file Tattoo Vampire corrected me on (I said the creation date was the
>>> 28th and he correctly said it was the 26th).
>>
>> And yet there is no EXIF data for that file. Perhaps Photoshop saw there
>> was not EXIF data and decided to be "user friendly" and create some using
>> the file date stamp.
>
> I would have to check to see if it does that. I do wonder if Tattoo
> changed the file he posted.
Certainly. Everybody is out there to prove you wrong. With every means
available
> To be honest it has not interested me enough to check
You don't know what it is to be "honest", Michael Glasser
> but now a number of people have said his posted file lacks EXIF data.
*Everyone* who participated in that thread told you that.
But it was too late for you, since you can't admit making such blunder
> I suspect he saw his mistake, altered the file, and re-posted it.
Naturally, Michael Glasser
Totally disregarding the fact that
a) few people are actually dishonest
b) even fewer people are so dishonest to do that
c) Michael Glasser vastly overstates his importance
d) TV is not a Michael Glasser, forging evidence
e) TV would have to fake not only the creation date, but also the "last
accessed" and "last changed" dates on that "faked" pictures to fool anyone
with more than 3 braincells. Additionally, the (real) file sizes can't
change without giving away the fake.
>> Now you can show us where Tattoo Vampire "correctly said it was the 26th"
>
> I am not digging through the posts to show where he corrected me... let
> him
> do that work for you. I have already agreed I made a mistake when I wrote
> "28"... he corrected me and said, correctly, that it should have been 26.
> That, really, is what this was all about - not a debate as to who could or
> could not find the EXIF data and *certainly* not about if the EXIF data
> existed or not. If people want to show otherwise feel free. Frankly this
> whole thing is silly... so he had a picture with an outdated calendar on
> it
> and I razzed him a bit. Oh well... it is not like it was a big deal.
Message-ID: <4mifhhv9i9yp$.dlg@this.domain.or.that>
He said nothing of that sort. He said "How could it be taken on August 28th
when today is only the 26th?"
Notice that he does not mention any creation date or EXIF data, lying fool
Glasser?
You then answered:
Message-ID: <C4D9E768.D27C4%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
--------------
Hmmm, darn good question... and my typo.. it was taken today, on the 26th.
--------------
And he again corrected you:
Message-ID: <17jo33ik...@this.domain.or.that>
--------------
Wrong yet again, idiot. It was taken last month, after I moved into that
office. Last month was July, hence a July magazine schedule on the wall.
Follow that, Prescott Computer Guy?
--------------
Care to misrepresent the thread some more, Liar Glasser?
> Frankly this circus is boring.
I am certain you feel it is "boring", Michael Glasser.
Because with every post you make (and blatantly lie about the actual facts)
you get slammed with reality. Your problem is that you can't remove the
posts and replace them with your "reality". You have no possible means to
forge your "evidence" as you so very often do
Get ready to face this "circus" for eternity, Michael Glasser
You will be reminded of your lies from now on every day you post in COLA
--
Computers are like air conditioners -
they stop working properly when you open Windows
William Poaster
Good grief. If anyone's having a mental breakdown it's the Prescott
Computer Guy, Michael Snit Glasser. What a f#cked up mess he is.
--
ɐ ɯoɹɟ ʇuǝs sɐʍ ǝƃɐssǝɯ sıɥʇ
pǝǝʇuɐɹɐnƃ sı ɥɔıɥʍ ɹǝʇndɯoɔ
˙snɹıʌ ǝzopuıʍ $ɯ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝǝɹɟ %00⇂
-- sɯǝʇsʎs xnuıl/nuƃ --
Tim Adams
Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote:
poor idiot still doesn't understand that the date he saw and called EXIF date
isn't EXIF data at all, as I have pointed out several times now. If it were EXIF
data, it wouldn't change every time a person downloaded the file.
>
> > To be honest it has not interested me enough to check
>
> You don't know what it is to be "honest", Michael Glasser
>
> > but now a number of people have said his posted file lacks EXIF data.
>
> *Everyone* who participated in that thread told you that.
> But it was too late for you, since you can't admit making such blunder
>
> > I suspect he saw his mistake, altered the file, and re-posted it.
>
> Naturally, Michael Glasser
just like the prescott computer guy, try to drag everybody down to his forging
level of dishonesty.
--
Snit
8/29/08 5:59 PM:
...
> poor idiot still doesn't understand that the date he saw and called EXIF date
> isn't EXIF data at all, as I have pointed out several times now. If it were
> EXIF data, it wouldn't change every time a person downloaded the file.
I never said that the date changed every time a person downloaded the fle.
You made it up. Fabricated it. Showed you were an ignorant fool.
So be it - you made a mistake... and now you are trying to attribute your
mistake to *me*.
...
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
Geoff M. Fitton
> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> Maybe the EXIF data in the pic told him that! ;-)
>
> Well, then it must be true!
>
> Hmm. my X-Header info tells me Snit is a f^cknozzle. That must be true,
> too. ;-)
It's gotta be!
--
? ?o?? ?u?s s?? ???ss?? si??
p???u???n? si ??i?? ???nd?o?
?sn?i? ?zopui? $? ??? ?o ???? %00?
-- s???s?s xnuil/nu? --
Geoff M. Fitton
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I find it funny that neither knows "Snit" is a real word. :)
>
> You don't have any idea what I know, geek.
You see? There goes the troll *again* assuming things about what we know.
I know 'shit' is a word too, which is more apt for Michael Glasser than
him being agitated or irritated.
Geoff M. Fitton
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I have seen some of the pictures of you where your hair is clearly
>> faked. So have you.
>
> LOL
Maybe the EXIF data in the pic told him that! ;-)
--
Geoff M. Fitton
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Reporting someone for targeting one's business is not wrong.
>
> Did someone report your "business" to the Better Business Bureau? File a
> frivolous criminal or civil complaint?
Not that I'm aware of.
> Attempt to prevent you from operating? Pray tell, how were you
> "targeted", Michael "Snot" Glasser?
As has been said before, the Michael Snit Glasser troll has actually
posted the information *himself* & bragged in newsgroups about his
"business". He even has a link in his Snit email, (as anyone with half a
brain can soon work out) to his website!
In short The Prescott Computer Guy provided the information *himself*.
Geoff M. Fitton
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> A psychiatrist would have a field day analysing you two snuggling up to
>> each other displaying the combined I.Q of a lemming.
You have to wonder what a psychiatrist would make of Quack, Flatfish &
Michael Snot Glasser cozying up to each other.
However, it's clear that Quack has NPD & possibly The Prescott Computer
Guy too.
>> You make Beavis and Butthead look positively Oxbridge material.
>
> It's about at this point that Snot will jump in here to tongue your anus
> and tell you how clever you are.
Well Quack is hardly a Rhodes Scholar, which is why the troll is jealous
of anyone with a degree.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> stated in post
> 6LydnfFDsowR2CrV...@giganews.com on 8/28/08 5:40 PM:
>
> > Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> >
> >> Shit:
> >>>
> >>> Maybe... re-reading the thread I will acknowledge it is not clear one
> >>> way or the other
> >>
> >> In other words, in another attempt to troll, you made yourself look like
> >> a fool. Again.
> >
> > A "fool"? Shit is *far* worse than a mere "fool". If you're going to
> > accuse someone else of being a fscking idiot or a fscking liar, you had
> > better have some solid, logical, evidence.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're a fscking "asshole".
>
> I welcome your "solid, logical, evidence" to support your accusations
> against me.
Evidence that you're a fscking "asshole"? Who else but a fscking "asshole" would
go to an anxiety ng and start up with sock puppet based trolling? A poster in an
anxiety ng wrote this after outing you due to your carelessness:
"Good grief, Snit - I would never have thought Brock McNuggets was YOU".
Your reply saw you pretend to make some sort of honest 'mistake' (you know, like
you always claim you've made when you're busted with your trolling). Amazingly,
it's followed by an easily proven lie. Here's the lie you replied with:
"Oops. I am just setting up my new computer and I forgot to change the
name back to snit before posting. But, yes, Brock McNuggets is another
name I sometimes use. I just find it funny".
<gF_C7.53265$W87.3...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
Notably, a google search before the date of this post you're being confronted
over won't produce a single posting event using the name Brock McNuggets. The
reason? On the topic of "posting" you lied about it being a name you "sometimes
use". Obviously, you were preparing to troll in a newsgroup devoted to people
prone to anxiety with a brand new sock puppet (how many did you use in that
ng?), got busted immediately, and then proceeded to lie about it.
(cue up Snit's BS machine... we can probably expect some outrageous
story that will attempt to stretch reality far beyond belief)
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
William Poaster
But of course!
Michael Snit Glasser will probably also deny being "Rekruled" (if he
hasn't already), but it's funny there are no posts before by "Rekruled"
before mid-August 2008. The troll aslo appeared, IIRC just as Glasser said
he was taking a seminar & wouldn't be posting in COLA much. But there were
*too* many similarities between the troll & Glasser's posts.
Coincidence, ya think?
chrisv
> Shit:
>> >
>> > Otherwise, you're a fscking "asshole".
>>
>> I welcome your "solid, logical, evidence" to support your accusations
>> against me.
Did it. Documented it.
>Evidence that you're a fscking "asshole"? Who else but a fscking "asshole" would
>go to an anxiety ng and start up with sock puppet based trolling?
He's a POS.
People may think I use that term lightly. I don't. It's just true
that there's several genuine pieces of shit in here. Quack, Shit,
DumFSck...
Geoff M. Fitton
--