Stop letting Snit ruin CSMA. Seriously.
ZnU
filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
this group is now related to Snit insanity.
I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching
*other people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts
are not like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same
material and/or arguments dating back *years* about who said what.
They are utterly uninteresting.
And they are now half of the traffic in this group!
Stop. Just stop. If Snit repeats a claim you've already responded to,
don't post the same material again. Just don't reply. If Snit starts
some new thread to troll on an old issue, ignore him. If four or five
key people in this group simply killfiled Snit, this entire problem
would be gone in a week. Everyone will thank you.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
Snit
znu-8178BC.1...@news.individual.net on 4/20/08 2:27 PM:
> The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I set up my
> filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
> is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
> 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
> Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
> themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
> this group is now related to Snit insanity.
>
> I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
> with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching
> *other people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts
> are not like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same
> material and/or arguments dating back *years* about who said what.
>
> They are utterly uninteresting.
>
> And they are now half of the traffic in this group!
>
> Stop. Just stop. If Snit repeats a claim you've already responded to,
> don't post the same material again. Just don't reply. If Snit starts
> some new thread to troll on an old issue, ignore him. If four or five
> key people in this group simply killfiled Snit, this entire problem
> would be gone in a week. Everyone will thank you.
I do not ask people to respond to something multiple times... just once is
fine.
But they won't.
Sandman will not, for example, talk about the fact he lied about his CSS...
not the fact he dishonestly accused me about forging a PDF that shows the
proof he lied.
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolution had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I set up my
> filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
> is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
> 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
> Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
> themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
> this group is now related to Snit insanity.
>
> I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
> with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching
> *other people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts
> are not like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same
> material and/or arguments dating back *years* about who said what.
>
> They are utterly uninteresting.
Agreed. He's in my killfile from now.
--
Sandman[.net]
Mitch
<z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I set up my
> filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
> is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
> 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
> Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
> themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
> this group is now related to Snit insanity.
>
> I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
> with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching
> *other people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts
> are not like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same
> material and/or arguments dating back *years* about who said what.
>
> They are utterly uninteresting.
>
> And they are now half of the traffic in this group!
>
> Stop. Just stop. If Snit repeats a claim you've already responded to,
> don't post the same material again. Just don't reply. If Snit starts
> some new thread to troll on an old issue, ignore him. If four or five
> key people in this group simply killfiled Snit, this entire problem
> would be gone in a week. Everyone will thank you.
Seconded, but without the suggestion that this is Snit's doing, or that
Snit has the worst posts or least to contribute to the group.
That whole conflict is tiring, childish and stupid.
I'd like to say it is also dumb.
John
> The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I set up my
> filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
> is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
> 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
> Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
> themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
> this group is now related to Snit insanity.
>
> I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
> with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching
> *other people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts
> are not like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same
> material and/or arguments dating back *years* about who said what.
>
> They are utterly uninteresting.
>
> And they are now half of the traffic in this group!
>
> Stop. Just stop. If Snit repeats a claim you've already responded to,
> don't post the same material again. Just don't reply. If Snit starts
> some new thread to troll on an old issue, ignore him. If four or five
> key people in this group simply killfiled Snit, this entire problem
> would be gone in a week. Everyone will thank you.
>
You must not have read very carefully over the years Znu. When
Carroll, Adams, Sandaman and a couple of other nutjobs are not taunting
Snit he sticks to the subject of computing. Its those nutjobs that are
the problem.
Mayor Of R'lyeh
> The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I set up my
> filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
> is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
> 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
> Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
> themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
> this group is now related to Snit insanity.
>
> I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
> with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching
> *other people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts
> are not like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same
> material and/or arguments dating back *years* about who said what.
>
> They are utterly uninteresting.
>
> And they are now half of the traffic in this group!
>
> Stop. Just stop. If Snit repeats a claim you've already responded to,
> don't post the same material again. Just don't reply. If Snit starts
> some new thread to troll on an old issue, ignore him. If four or five
> key people in this group simply killfiled Snit, this entire problem
> would be gone in a week. Everyone will thank you.
>
Good luck with that. Steve Carroll has the idea that Snit is so
enamored with this group that if we all said 'Bad Snit! No biscuit!'
in unison he would suddenly see the error of his ways.
It looks like the majority of threads are going to be Snit/ Wally/
Steve Carroll/ Sandman layer cakes for the foreseeable future.
Alan Baker
<1fac221d-a6d8-4716...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Snit is easily killfiled and it's not much harder to kill any post that
references any post of his.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Snit
mr-0B0368.00...@News.Individual.NET on 4/20/08 3:14 PM:
From now on.
BS. Utter BS.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Snit
on 4/20/08 3:34 PM:
Now your post I can agree to.
I admit I refute the lies Sandman and Carroll and gang tell about me... and
I do so over and over as they run.
And, yes, as they target my personal and business life I will point out
their lies more. Oh well.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Snit
VZOdnfEEnp_KWpbV...@netlojix.com on 4/20/08 3:44 PM:
Exactly... and when I smack Carroll and Sandman and Adams lies down they
target my business with their trolling... and Sandman harasses my wife via
email.
They are despicable.
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein
ZnU
ZnU
<alangbaker-4BA5DC.17571720042008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <1fac221d-a6d8-4716...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> "Mayor Of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Good luck with that. Steve Carroll has the idea that Snit is so
> > enamored with this group that if we all said 'Bad Snit! No biscuit!'
> > in unison he would suddenly see the error of his ways.
> > It looks like the majority of threads are going to be Snit/ Wally/
> > Steve Carroll/ Sandman layer cakes for the foreseeable future.
>
> Snit is easily killfiled and it's not much harder to kill any post that
> references any post of his.
If you kill everything that mentions him anywhere in the references you
sometimes lose worthwhile posts; a post five levels removed from one of
Snit's, particularly if it's in one of the occasional on-topic threads
he posts in, often isn't a Snit Circus post. On the other hand, if you
only kill direct responses to him, you end up still getting dozens of
random fragments of Snit Circus sub-threads.
The bigger issue, though, is that it hurts a group generally when
there's nonsense like this going on at this sort of scale. It's the same
thing as having 50% of a group's traffic be spam. It scares off new
posters, and generally creates a more hostile environment.
Alan Baker
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <mr-0B0368.00...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <znu-8178BC.1...@news.individual.net>,
> > ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I set up my
> > > filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
> > > is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
> > > 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
> > > Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
> > > themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
> > > this group is now related to Snit insanity.
> > >
> > > I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
> > > with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching
> > > *other people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts
> > > are not like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same
> > > material and/or arguments dating back *years* about who said what.
> > >
> > > They are utterly uninteresting.
> >
> > Agreed. He's in my killfile from now.
>
> Thank you.
Not only has Snit gone back in my killfile, all posts that reference his
posts are now filtered as well.
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Exactly, and when I smack Carroll's and Sandman's and Adams' lies down they
> target my business with their trolling. And Sandman harasses my wife via
> email.
If you smack them, be sure not use a limp wrist.
Snit
alangbaker-1C06D5.20462420042008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net] on 4/20/08
8:46 PM:
> In article <znu-01F24D.2...@news.individual.net>,
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <mr-0B0368.00...@News.Individual.NET>,
>> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <znu-8178BC.1...@news.individual.net>,
>>> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I set up my
>>>> filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
>>>> is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
>>>> 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
>>>> Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
>>>> themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
>>>> this group is now related to Snit insanity.
>>>>
>>>> I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
>>>> with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching
>>>> *other people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts
>>>> are not like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same
>>>> material and/or arguments dating back *years* about who said what.
>>>>
>>>> They are utterly uninteresting.
>>>
>>> Agreed. He's in my killfile from now.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> Not only has Snit gone back in my killfile, all posts that reference his
> posts are now filtered as well.
So you do not want to see the references to your lies about my forging PDFs.
OK. But let us be very clear: you lied. Period. And instead of
apologizing or even acknowledging your lies you simply walked away.
You are a liar and a coward.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Snit
> In article
> <alangbaker-4BA5DC.17571720042008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <1fac221d-a6d8-4716...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Mayor Of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Good luck with that. Steve Carroll has the idea that Snit is so
>>> enamored with this group that if we all said 'Bad Snit! No biscuit!'
>>> in unison he would suddenly see the error of his ways.
>>> It looks like the majority of threads are going to be Snit/ Wally/
>>> Steve Carroll/ Sandman layer cakes for the foreseeable future.
>>
>> Snit is easily killfiled and it's not much harder to kill any post that
>> references any post of his.
>
> If you kill everything that mentions him anywhere in the references you
> sometimes lose worthwhile posts; a post five levels removed from one of
> Snit's, particularly if it's in one of the occasional on-topic threads
> he posts in, often isn't a Snit Circus post. On the other hand, if you
> only kill direct responses to him, you end up still getting dozens of
> random fragments of Snit Circus sub-threads.
>
> The bigger issue, though, is that it hurts a group generally when
> there's nonsense like this going on at this sort of scale. It's the same
> thing as having 50% of a group's traffic be spam. It scares off new
> posters, and generally creates a more hostile environment.
Hostile environment is right... frankly CSMA has been destroyed by Carroll,
Adams, Sandman, -hh and the others who have shown they will stop at nothing
- not even attacking someone's business - just to try to obfuscate their
lies and the lies of the gang of trolls.
Keep in mind that the current silliness is based on my proving - absolutely
- that Sandman lies about his CSS and the lied about me forging PDFs. The
above listed trolls, and Wally as well, joined in to defend their lying
buddy Sandman.
Sandman
<1fac221d-a6d8-4716...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Mayor Of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, remove Sandman from that equation.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > Good luck with that. Steve Carroll has the idea that Snit is so
> > > enamored with this group that if we all said 'Bad Snit! No biscuit!'
> > > in unison he would suddenly see the error of his ways.
> > > It looks like the majority of threads are going to be Snit/ Wally/
> > > Steve Carroll/ Sandman layer cakes for the foreseeable future.
> >
> > Snit is easily killfiled and it's not much harder to kill any post that
> > references any post of his.
>
> If you kill everything that mentions him anywhere in the references you
> sometimes lose worthwhile posts; a post five levels removed from one of
> Snit's, particularly if it's in one of the occasional on-topic threads
> he posts in, often isn't a Snit Circus post. On the other hand, if you
> only kill direct responses to him, you end up still getting dozens of
> random fragments of Snit Circus sub-threads.
>
> The bigger issue, though, is that it hurts a group generally when
> there's nonsense like this going on at this sort of scale. It's the same
> thing as having 50% of a group's traffic be spam. It scares off new
> posters, and generally creates a more hostile environment.
The Tholen Digests had the same effect. I've said it many times, Snit
is very much like Tholen.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Good!
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Snit
You can say what you want... does not change the fact you are a liar.
--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.
Snit
> In article <znu-8178BC.1...@news.individual.net>,
Ah, you and Carroll have both claimed to have kill filed me forever.
Why don't I believe either of you. Snicker.
In any case I would be happy if you did - it is likely the only way you can
stop yourself from lying about me. Perhaps your ISP finally contacted you?
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Wally
On 21/4/08 5:27 AM, in article
znu-8178BC.1...@news.individual.net, "ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid>
wrote:
> The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I set up my
> filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
> is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
> 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
> Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
> themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
> this group is now related to Snit insanity.
>
> I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
> with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching
> *other people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts
> are not like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same
> material and/or arguments dating back *years* about who said what.
>
> They are utterly uninteresting.
>
> And they are now half of the traffic in this group!
>
> Stop. Just stop. If Snit repeats a claim you've already responded to,
> don't post the same material again. Just don't reply. If Snit starts
> some new thread to troll on an old issue, ignore him. If four or five
> key people in this group simply killfiled Snit, this entire problem
> would be gone in a week. Everyone will thank you.
OK! no kf, but I will not respond to Snit on any issue previously discussed
or indeed on any topic not strictly computer related for a period of....well
let's just see how it's gonna work out for a while anyway!
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Forging NNTP posting IDs is smacking down lies?
Hosting disparaging webpages is smacking down lies?
Mining data on people from other newsgroups for the purpose of trolling
in this one is smacking down lies?
Purposefully mangling context is smacking down lies?
Purposefully misquoting people is smacking down lies?
Making references to people's neighbors that you have researched is
smacking down lies?
Making references to people's children to instigate trouble with is
smacking down lies?
Using sock puppets to troll with is smacking down lies?
Repeatedly (15 times in less than a year) changing your posting handle
to avoid killfilters is smacking down lies?
Attacking a person's professionalism (i.e. Slade, Sandman) is smacking
down lies?
Making false claims about what a person has said is smacking down lies?
Denying concrete proof of all of the above (and more), all of which have
been repeatedly documented by numerous posters, is smacking down lies?
Snit goes into denial mode in 3... 2... 1...
--
"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
nospamatall
> The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I set up my
> filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
> is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
> 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
> Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
> themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
> this group is now related to Snit insanity.
I agree except I don't think snit is the only perp. The whole thing is
stupid and I don't give a shit if the pdf was forged or not.
Hey, you'll have to killfile yourself now too!
nospamatall
>> Good luck with that. Steve Carroll has the idea that Snit is so
>> enamored with this group that if we all said 'Bad Snit! No biscuit!'
>> in unison he would suddenly see the error of his ways.
>> It looks like the majority of threads are going to be Snit/ Wally/
>> Steve Carroll/ Sandman layer cakes for the foreseeable future.
>
> Snit is easily killfiled and it's not much harder to kill any post that
> references any post of his.
>
The whole thing reminds me of a bar fight. Why can't they go outside?
That's what people used to do.
nospamatall
> So you do not want to see the references to your lies about my forging PDFs.
None of us do. Or if anyone did, they already have. You have the power
to stop this, whether it's your fault or not.
> OK. But let us be very clear: you lied. Period. And instead of
> apologizing or even acknowledging your lies you simply walked away.
>
> You are a liar and a coward.
There's no point in saying it again and again. If you think you are
being baited, ignore the bait. There is no other course of action that
will cause you less bother. It's like trying to fight gravity. Don't bother.
Snit
trollkiller-78DA...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/21/08 6:48 AM:
Denial? You offered not a shred of *evidence*. You merely described your
accusations you use to excuse your own behavior... and you did so as you
snipped all but the first few words of the post you responded to... one of
your normal trolling habits.
Keep in mind that I prove my claims: I proved where Sandman lied about his
CSS and the forging of the PDF with the proof of that... I proved where Tim
Adams used a sock puppet... I proved where you posted the link to the "sex
based" webpage you have claimed was so horrid...
And in response you run from those topics and ask me if I remember the
details of a debate from 2003 that you were not even a part of.
Not even you believe your BS, Steve. Really - you are that transparent.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
4/21/08 8:00 AM:
The fact of the PDF, itself, is not that big of a deal.
I do want people to know, though, that it has now been absolutely proved
that Baker, Adams, Carroll, Sandman, Wally, and Mackay all "tag-team" in
their trolling and lying. This is not conjecture or guesswork... it is now
a proved fact.
>
> Hey, you'll have to killfile yourself now too!
--
ZnU
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
> In article <C4314E68.B4C27%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Exactly... and when I smack Carroll and Sandman and Adams lies down
>
> Forging NNTP posting IDs is smacking down lies?
Not planning on stopping then, Steve?
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
We'll go one at a time on these so as to give anyone who might ever read
this a good opportunity to closely watch how you respond. According to
you, it should be with honesty and honor... let's test that idea.
Regarding the forging of NNTP posting IDs, the fact is, you didn't even
deny doing it... and below you are shown flatly admitting it to Sandman.
While listing several of the trolling criteria that Sandman questioned
you about engaging in... Sandman mentioned:
"Attempting to forge a NNTP-posting-host in an attempt to antagonize
another poster"
Your responded with:
"Well, he did dare me... but yeah..."
<BCCA6EBF.4FD99%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>
Do you deny that Sandman, confronting you with what he believes
happened, and your admission that it did happen, constitutes... "a shred
of *evidence*"?
Steve Carroll
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <trollkiller-78DA...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <C4314E68.B4C27%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > Exactly... and when I smack Carroll and Sandman and Adams lies down
> >
> > Forging NNTP posting IDs is smacking down lies?
>
> Not planning on stopping then, Steve?
Stop confronting Snit on his lies, forgeries, delusions etc. with my
name in them? As this is a public, unmoderated newsgroup for which you
can simply killfile those you don't want to read, I'm a bit offended
that you would ask me to compromise my principle of confronting someone
who does the things Snit does while using my name. In any event, I
thought you said you believed nothing's off topic in here? Is that not
truly the case?
Snit
AM:
So I did what one of your gang asked me to do and you now chastise me for
it.
How clever of you... in your silly mind.
The fact is you are just spewing accusation after accusation after
accusation... and yet you cannot point to me actually doing anything wrong.
Sure, you will eventually find some minor examples - in years of responding
to your BS I have not been perfect.
Oh well.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
Snit
AM:
> In article <znu-7BFE9A.1...@news.individual.net>,
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <trollkiller-78DA...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <C4314E68.B4C27%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Exactly... and when I smack Carroll and Sandman and Adams lies down
>>>
>>> Forging NNTP posting IDs is smacking down lies?
>>
>> Not planning on stopping then, Steve?
>
> Stop confronting Snit on his lies, forgeries, delusions etc. with my
> name in them? As this is a public, unmoderated newsgroup for which you
> can simply killfile those you don't want to read, I'm a bit offended
> that you would ask me to compromise my principle of confronting someone
> who does the things Snit does while using my name. In any event, I
> thought you said you believed nothing's off topic in here? Is that not
> truly the case?
Just because any topic, pretty much, is OK in CSMA does not make it right
for you and your merry band of trolls to rampage and spew lies about me...
or anyone.
Remember: with the PDF you and Adams and Mackay and Baker and Sandman and
Wally claimed I "forged", it is true that *all* of the data is completely
verifiable...
You lied. This is proved, Steve... no matter how many accusations you spew
about me.
--
BU__SH__
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You forged *my* name, Snit. Which member of my alleged "gang" asked you
to break your TOS with your ISP by forging a NNTP posting ID? If it
exists, point to the post were this alleged 'gangmember "asked" you to
forge a post and use *my* name.
If you can't produce the post then explain why the words of an admitted
forger should be believed with respect to having been "asked" to break
his TOS with his ISP.
ZnU
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
> In article <znu-7BFE9A.1...@news.individual.net>,
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <trollkiller-78DA...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <C4314E68.B4C27%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Exactly... and when I smack Carroll and Sandman and Adams lies
> > > > down
> > >
> > > Forging NNTP posting IDs is smacking down lies?
> >
> > Not planning on stopping then, Steve?
>
> Stop confronting Snit on his lies, forgeries, delusions etc. with my
> name in them?
Yes. It's the most likely way to get him to stop.
> As this is a public, unmoderated newsgroup for which you can simply
> killfile those you don't want to read, I'm a bit offended that you
> would ask me to compromise my principle of confronting someone who
> does the things Snit does while using my name.
It doesn't appear to be doing you (or anyone else) any good.
> In any event, I thought you said you believed nothing's off topic in
> here? Is that not truly the case?
My issue with the Snit posts isn't that they're off-topic. It's that
they're redundant, contain no meaningful discussion (about *any* topic),
and now comprise nearly half the traffic in this group.
Snit
> In article <trollkiller-CFD7...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <znu-7BFE9A.1...@news.individual.net>,
>> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <trollkiller-78DA...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>>> Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <C4314E68.B4C27%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>>>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Exactly... and when I smack Carroll and Sandman and Adams lies
>>>>> down
>>>>
>>>> Forging NNTP posting IDs is smacking down lies?
>>>
>>> Not planning on stopping then, Steve?
>>
>> Stop confronting Snit on his lies, forgeries, delusions etc. with my
>> name in them?
>
> Yes. It's the most likely way to get him to stop.
Stop what? If Carroll were to stop spewing lies about me I would not
respond to the lies (and I have gone extended times of not responding
anyway).
I am having fun pointing out the lie of his claim of "forgeries"... the fact
is the PDF I have been accused of forging has data that is 100%
verifiable... and I even went so far as to provide every link required to
verify it if someone wanted to.
The claim it is a "forgery" is an outright lie. Steve Carroll is flat out
lying.
>> As this is a public, unmoderated newsgroup for which you can simply
>> killfile those you don't want to read, I'm a bit offended that you
>> would ask me to compromise my principle of confronting someone who
>> does the things Snit does while using my name.
>
> It doesn't appear to be doing you (or anyone else) any good.
I would love to see Steve show what he thinks I am doing - be specific and
show the quotes of exactly what he thinks I am doing... just as I am happy
to do when I talk about his lies.
Note that he will not. He can't. He simply is a liar. He might point to
comments of mine from 2003 and ask me if I recall the details of debates
from back then or other idiotic attempts to "prove" his claims... that is
just what he did recently... though the debate he dredged up was not even
related to the current accusation of his!
>> In any event, I thought you said you believed nothing's off topic in
>> here? Is that not truly the case?
>
> My issue with the Snit posts isn't that they're off-topic. It's that
> they're redundant, contain no meaningful discussion (about *any* topic),
> and now comprise nearly half the traffic in this group.
Oh, they do show something meaningful:
* Steve Carroll is a liar.
* Steve Mackay is a liar.
* Tim Adams is a liar.
* Alan Baker is a liar.
* Sandman is a liar.
* Wally is a liar.
And, more than that, they work together to support each others lies. This
is a proven fact.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Nashton
> The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I set up my
> filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
> is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
> 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
> Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
> themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
> this group is now related to Snit insanity.
>
> I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
> with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching
> *other people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts
> are not like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same
> material and/or arguments dating back *years* about who said what.
>
> They are utterly uninteresting.
>
> And they are now half of the traffic in this group!
>
> Stop. Just stop. If Snit repeats a claim you've already responded to,
> don't post the same material again. Just don't reply. If Snit starts
> some new thread to troll on an old issue, ignore him. If four or five
> key people in this group simply killfiled Snit, this entire problem
> would be gone in a week. Everyone will thank you.
>
I was one of the first to killfile him, and never looked back. Don't
forget that this is not just a Snot thing, it's a Sandman, Carroll,
Wally, Murray phenomenon. As much as Snot is a silly little PITA that is
literally starving for attention, what with all the infantile, bordering
stupid threads he initiates, so are the people that follow him around
and even give him the time of day.
And don't expect Carroll to stop any time soon though, and I'm not
saying this to be mean or as a dig, he needs help to overcome his
addiction to Snot. Hope you're reading this, Steve.
Nashton
Get help Carroll.
-hh
>
> * Steve Carroll is a liar.
> * Steve Mackay is a liar.
> * Tim Adams is a liar.
> * Alan Baker is a liar.
> * Sandman is a liar.
> * Wally is a liar.
<http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2008/prescott_computer_guy.jpg> :-P
-hh
Snit
AM:
I would love to see you try to support your accusations.
You will, of course, fail.
> And don't expect Carroll to stop any time soon though, and I'm not
> saying this to be mean or as a dig, he needs help to overcome his
> addiction to Snot. Hope you're reading this, Steve.
Steve needs to overcome his addiction with lying. Not that he will, but he
should try.
Snit
> ZnU wrote:
If you kill filed me how would you know I started threads?
Oops. Your story makes no sense.
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
Snit
AM:
>> You forged *my* name, Snit. Which member of my alleged "gang" asked you
>> to break your TOS with your ISP by forging a NNTP posting ID? If it
>> exists, point to the post were this alleged 'gangmember "asked" you to
>> forge a post and use *my* name.
>>
>> If you can't produce the post then explain why the words of an admitted
>> forger should be believed with respect to having been "asked" to break
>> his TOS with his ISP.
>>
>
>
> Get help Carroll.
Steve needs help in a big, big way.
Snit
9d145347-c498-4899...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/22/08
3:49 AM:
What I have stated is not conjecture nor guess work... it is a proven fact
that each of those people lied about me forging a PDF. Oh, and yes, your
ISP shall know you are using my business name again.
Steve Carroll
<9d145347-c498-4899...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
Hehe;) I doubt he'll get it.
Steve Carroll
> ZnU wrote:
> > The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I set up my
> > filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them (which
> > is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most recent
> > 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. Many posts further removed from
> > Snit's are about him as well -- Steve and Wally discussing Snit between
> > themselves or whatever. In all, something like 50% of the traffic in
> > this group is now related to Snit insanity.
> >
> > I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
> > with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching
> > *other people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts
> > are not like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same
> > material and/or arguments dating back *years* about who said what.
> >
> > They are utterly uninteresting.
> >
> > And they are now half of the traffic in this group!
> >
> > Stop. Just stop. If Snit repeats a claim you've already responded to,
> > don't post the same material again. Just don't reply. If Snit starts
> > some new thread to troll on an old issue, ignore him. If four or five
> > key people in this group simply killfiled Snit, this entire problem
> > would be gone in a week. Everyone will thank you.
> >
>
> I was one of the first to killfile him
...you were also one of the first to egg him on:
"Don't know what kind of chord Snit hit with you guys, but I'm glad he
exposed you for the bullying, ultra-zealot Mac dickheads you are.
Keep up the good work, Snit;)"
It takes a newsgroup;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Nah, I can handle you easily... watch. In this subthread (that I
renamed) I listed numerous things you have done, the first in the list
being the forging of NNTP posting IDs. In your response you claimed:
"You offered not a shred of *evidence*". - as shown here:
Message-ID: <C432062B.B4DAD%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
I was expecting you to ask for evidence and provided it in the followup
where I quoted an exchange between you and Sandman... as shown here:
--
"While listing several of the trolling criteria that Sandman questioned
you about engaging in... Sandman mentioned:
"Attempting to forge a NNTP-posting-host in an attempt to antagonize
another poster"
You responded with:
"Well, he did dare me... but yeah..."
<BCCA6EBF.4FD99%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>
--
I also asked you the following question regarding the above exchange:
"Do you deny that Sandman, confronting you with what he believes
happened, and your admission that it did happen, constitutes... "a shred
of *evidence*"?"
Message-ID: <trollkiller-D4D7...@newsgroups.comcast.net>
You responded with:
"So I did what one of your gang asked me to do..."
Message-ID: <C43231A3.B4E3A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
The above constitutes proof that you have twice admitted you engaged in
ID forgery. Notably, you tried to pin the responsibility on a person you
referred to as a member of my "gang", but you've shown no proof of that.
---------------------------------------------------------------
We can now move on to the second item in the list. You wrote about me:
"In any case I am happy to know that my web pages about Steve annoy him".
Message-ID: <BFE8655D.40D54%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Is your admission that you have written "web pages about Steve" to
"annoy him", a thing you make clear you are "happy" about, not
considered "*evidence*" in your mind of you writing such a "web pages"?
Snit
PM:
So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you asked me to
do... and then you are claiming that a webpage with facts that annoy you
*must* be made *to* annoy you. Ah, then every webpage with facts must, in
your mind, be made to annoy you... since you are so offended by facts.
Frankly, Steve... you really, really need to seek help. Instead of
admitting to your problem, though, you will continue to lie about me.
Whatever - it has been proved that you are a liar: a liar about me
"creating" the "sex based webpage" that I pointed to the post where you
"created" it (really, just linked to the make-a-wish site), I have shown
where you have nymshifted (you said your OS made you do it... well, your OS
and and your Usenet reader - I suppose it was a conspiracy), and as your
.sig proves you are obsessed with me.
Get over it or I will torture as I did before... when I ignored you for a
while and you ended up having one of your little break downs. Really,
Steve, you need to seek help with your problems.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I asked you to write disparaging webpages about me so you wrote them? Is
that your claim? Show the link to me asking you to write these webpages.
Do you claim the same for Elizabot? Did she also ask you to write
disparaging webpages about her?
Snit
>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you asked me to
>> do
>
> I asked you to write disparaging webpages about me so you wrote them? Is
> that your claim? Show the link to me asking you to write these webpages.
> Do you claim the same for Elizabot? Did she also ask you to write
> disparaging webpages about her?
What you snipped:
-----
So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you
asked me to do... and then you are claiming that a webpage
with facts that annoy you *must* be made *to* annoy you. Ah,
then every webpage with facts must, in your mind, be made to
annoy you... since you are so offended by facts.
Frankly, Steve... you really, really need to seek help.
Instead of admitting to your problem, though, you will
continue to lie about me.
Whatever - it has been proved that you are a liar: a liar
about me "creating" the "sex based webpage" that I pointed to
the post where you "created" it (really, just linked to the
make-a-wish site), I have shown where you have nymshifted
(you said your OS made you do it... well, your OS and and
your Usenet reader - I suppose it was a conspiracy), and as
your .sig proves you are obsessed with me.
Get over it or I will torture as I did before... when I
ignored you for a while and you ended up having one of your
little break downs. Really, Steve, you need to seek help
with your problems.
-----
Can you respond without running like a coward? Keep in mind, Steve, if you
don't I may very well go back to ignoring your BS... and you will likely
have another break down if I do. You sure did last time!
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> trollkiller-78D4...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/22/08 1:15 PM:
>
> >> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you asked me to
> >> do
> >
> > I asked you to write disparaging webpages about me so you wrote them? Is
> > that your claim? Show the link to me asking you to write these webpages.
> > Do you claim the same for Elizabot? Did she also ask you to write
> > disparaging webpages about her?
>
> What you snipped
...has nothing to do with you not addressing the evidence you asked me
for. You're already on record admitting you wrote such webpages... I
don't need you to admit it again... now I just want to know if you
believe your admissions are "*evidence*" of you having done what I'm
accusing you of. From a previous post in this subthread you tole me:
"You offered not a shred of *evidence*". - as shown here:
Message-ID: <C432062B.B4DAD%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Well... here is one piece of evidence (your admission that you've
written webpages about me that you are happy knowing annoyed me):
"In any case I am happy to know that my web pages about Steve annoy him".
Message-ID: <BFE8655D.40D54%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Is your admission "*evidence*" or not?
If you keep evading it will be obvious.
Snit
>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you asked me to
>> do
>
> I asked you to write disparaging webpages about me so you wrote them? Is
> that your claim? Show the link to me asking you to write these webpages.
> Do you claim the same for Elizabot? Did she also ask you to write
> disparaging webpages about her?
What you snipped:
-----
So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you
asked me to do... and then you are claiming that a webpage
with facts that annoy you *must* be made *to* annoy you. Ah,
then every webpage with facts must, in your mind, be made to
annoy you... since you are so offended by facts.
Frankly, Steve... you really, really need to seek help.
Instead of admitting to your problem, though, you will
continue to lie about me.
Whatever - it has been proved that you are a liar: a liar
about me "creating" the "sex based webpage" that I pointed to
the post where you "created" it (really, just linked to the
make-a-wish site), I have shown where you have nymshifted
(you said your OS made you do it... well, your OS and and
your Usenet reader - I suppose it was a conspiracy), and as
your .sig proves you are obsessed with me.
Get over it or I will torture as I did before... when I
ignored you for a while and you ended up having one of your
little break downs. Really, Steve, you need to seek help
with your problems.
-----
Can you respond without running like a coward? Keep in mind, Steve, if you
don't I may very well go back to ignoring your BS... and you will likely
have another break down if I do. You sure did last time!
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> trollkiller-8D69...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/22/08 1:45 PM:
>
> >> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you asked me to
> >> do
> >
> > I asked you to write disparaging webpages about me so you wrote them? Is
> > that your claim? Show the link to me asking you to write these webpages.
> > Do you claim the same for Elizabot? Did she also ask you to write
> > disparaging webpages about her?
>
> What you snipped:
>
> -----
> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you
> asked me to do... and then you are claiming that a webpage
> with facts that annoy you *must* be made *to* annoy you.
You're the guy who *claimed* the webpages annoyed me in the quote I
provided as evidence, not me. That means *you believe* I was being
annoyed... and you were "happy" with that.
"In any case I am happy to know that my web pages about Steve annoy him".
Message-ID: <BFE8655D.40D54%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Whether or not I was actually annoyed isn't the question here... your
belief that I was annoyed is... that and the fact that you created the
web pages in the first place. Do you think that your creation of those
pages went against your TOS with cableone? Do you think if you could
prove your (as of yet, unsupported) allegation that Elizabot or myself
asked you to create disparaging web pages about us that it would then
not break your TOS?
> Ah,
> then every webpage with facts must, in your mind, be made to
> annoy you... since you are so offended by facts.
>
> Frankly, Steve... you really, really need to seek help.
> Instead of admitting to your problem, though, you will
> continue to lie about me.
You asked for evidence and I gave it... the quote of your admission is
no lie... that statement tells anyone reading all they need to know
about item #2.
>
> Whatever - it has been proved that you are a liar: a liar
> about me "creating" the "sex based webpage" that I pointed to
> the post where you "created" it (really, just linked to the
> make-a-wish site), I have shown where you have nymshifted
> (you said your OS made you do it... well, your OS and and
> your Usenet reader - I suppose it was a conspiracy), and as
> your .sig proves you are obsessed with me.
>
> Get over it or I will torture as I did before... when I
> ignored you for a while and you ended up having one of your
> little break downs. Really, Steve, you need to seek help
> with your problems.
> -----
>
> Can you respond without running like a coward?
Can you? You claimed I offered no evidence... well now I have done so.
Are you claiming that my quoting an admission by you isn't evidence?
> Keep in mind, Steve, if you
> don't I may very well go back to ignoring your BS...
Go back to? You're already ignoring evidence that you asked me for
here... and it isn't pretty on your end.
> and you will likely
> have another break down if I do. You sure did last time!
--
Snit
> In article <C4339E41.B5111%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
>> trollkiller-8D69...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/22/08 1:45 PM:
>>
>>>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you asked me to
>>>> do
>>>
>>> I asked you to write disparaging webpages about me so you wrote them? Is
>>> that your claim? Show the link to me asking you to write these webpages.
>>> Do you claim the same for Elizabot? Did she also ask you to write
>>> disparaging webpages about her?
>>
>> What you snipped:
>>
>> -----
>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you
>> asked me to do... and then you are claiming that a webpage
>> with facts that annoy you *must* be made *to* annoy you.
>
> You're the guy who *claimed* the webpages annoyed me in the quote I
> provided as evidence, not me. That means *you believe* I was being
> annoyed... and you were "happy" with that.
If you were annoyed that is splendid. So?
> "In any case I am happy to know that my web pages about Steve annoy him".
> Message-ID: <BFE8655D.40D54%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> Whether or not I was actually annoyed isn't the question here... your
> belief that I was annoyed is... that and the fact that you created the
> web pages in the first place. Do you think that your creation of those
> pages went against your TOS with cableone? Do you think if you could
> prove your (as of yet, unsupported) allegation that Elizabot or myself
> asked you to create disparaging web pages about us that it would then
> not break your TOS?
You are clearly annoyed by many things, Steve. The fact that you find, say,
a web page with facts about Bush to be annoying is fine with me... but that
does not imply I created it *to* annoy you. And, no, there is nothing in my
agreement with my ISP that I have to check to see if something annoys you
before I post it.
>> Ah,
>> then every webpage with facts must, in your mind, be made to
>> annoy you... since you are so offended by facts.
>>
>> Frankly, Steve... you really, really need to seek help.
>> Instead of admitting to your problem, though, you will
>> continue to lie about me.
>
> You asked for evidence and I gave it... the quote of your admission is
> no lie... that statement tells anyone reading all they need to know
> about item #2.
What do you think you supported? That facts annoy you? That my stating
facts annoy you? So what?
The comment of mine you replied to with your rant::
Steve needs help in a big, big way.
This is a clearly true statement... it needs no added "support" from you...
though you gave it.
>> Whatever - it has been proved that you are a liar: a liar
>> about me "creating" the "sex based webpage" that I pointed to
>> the post where you "created" it (really, just linked to the
>> make-a-wish site), I have shown where you have nymshifted
>> (you said your OS made you do it... well, your OS and and
>> your Usenet reader - I suppose it was a conspiracy), and as
>> your .sig proves you are obsessed with me.
>>
>> Get over it or I will torture as I did before... when I
>> ignored you for a while and you ended up having one of your
>> little break downs. Really, Steve, you need to seek help
>> with your problems.
>> -----
>>
>> Can you respond without running like a coward?
>
> Can you? You claimed I offered no evidence... well now I have done so.
> Are you claiming that my quoting an admission by you isn't evidence?
The fact I "admit" you are annoyed by reality is hardly evidence of me doing
something wrong.
>> Keep in mind, Steve, if you
>> don't I may very well go back to ignoring your BS...
>
> Go back to? You're already ignoring evidence that you asked me for
> here... and it isn't pretty on your end.
You are babbling... you snip, run, lie... and then accuse me of running.
What a coward you are... but at least you did not snip this time.
>> and you will likely
>> have another break down if I do. You sure did last time!
--
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen
-hh
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > * Steve Carroll is a liar.
> > > * Steve Mackay is a liar.
> > > * Tim Adams is a liar.
> > > * Alan Baker is a liar.
> > > * Sandman is a liar.
> > > * Wally is a liar.
>
> > <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2008/prescott_computer_guy.jpg> :-P
>
> Hehe;) I doubt he'll get it.
Glad to see that someone else here recognizes the sailboat. It does
appear that there are quite a few similarities between Michael and
Donald, aren't there?
BTW, the United States Patent and Trademark Office says that there's
no TradeMark on "Prescott Computer Guy", so Michael Glasser doesn't
own it. I've saved the search result as a PDF, which is located here:
<http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2008/TESS_search_PC_secured.pdf>
BTW, don't bother trying to open the above, as the file has been
encrypted. One won't be able to see the results without hacking
Adobe's security, or purchasing a Certificate at a fair and reasonable
price.
-hh
Snit
3:33 AM:
<http://whois.domaintools.com/huntzinger.com>
Wow... tied to Fort Collins Colorado. What a coincidence!
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Steve Carroll
<0bceeae2-2497-4f29...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
The fact that he can possibly show DBA status may suffice in a given
state. That said, any suit he attempts to file has much bigger problems.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
What person posting from Colorado (and numerous other states) has not
noticed and commented on your bizarre behavior? Feel free to point to
this "coincidence!" any time you'd like to.
Snit
>> <http://whois.domaintools.com/huntzinger.com>
>>
>> Wow... tied to Fort Collins Colorado. What a coincidence!
>
> What person posting from Colorado (and numerous other states) has not
> noticed and commented on your bizarre behavior? Feel free to point to
> this "coincidence!" any time you'd like to.
Er? What are you babbling about?
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> trollkiller-E5A8...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/23/08 9:39 AM:
>
> >> <http://whois.domaintools.com/huntzinger.com>
> >>
> >> Wow... tied to Fort Collins Colorado. What a coincidence!
> >
> > What person posting from Colorado (and numerous other states) has not
> > noticed and commented on your bizarre behavior? Feel free to point to
> > this "coincidence!" any time you'd like to.
>
> Er? What are you babbling about?
That "coincidence" that so many people from so many different states,
including Colorado, have noticed and commented on your bizarre behavior.
Snit
> In article <C434D4BD.B5418%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
>> trollkiller-E5A8...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/23/08 9:39 AM:
>>
>>>> <http://whois.domaintools.com/huntzinger.com>
>>>>
>>>> Wow... tied to Fort Collins Colorado. What a coincidence!
>>>
>>> What person posting from Colorado (and numerous other states) has not
>>> noticed and commented on your bizarre behavior? Feel free to point to
>>> this "coincidence!" any time you'd like to.
>>
>> Er? What are you babbling about?
>
> That "coincidence" that so many people from so many different states,
> including Colorado, have noticed and commented on your bizarre behavior.
You are babbling.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> trollkiller-53C4...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/23/08 9:31 PM:
>
> > In article <C434D4BD.B5418%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> >> trollkiller-E5A8...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/23/08 9:39
> >> AM:
> >>
> >>>> <http://whois.domaintools.com/huntzinger.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Wow... tied to Fort Collins Colorado. What a coincidence!
> >>>
> >>> What person posting from Colorado (and numerous other states) has not
> >>> noticed and commented on your bizarre behavior? Feel free to point to
> >>> this "coincidence!" any time you'd like to.
> >>
> >> Er? What are you babbling about?
> >
> > That "coincidence" that so many people from so many different states,
> > including Colorado, have noticed and commented on your bizarre behavior.
>
> You are babbling.
Your monumental reading comprehension problem rears its ugly head again.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
What you allege to be clear is not relevant. Whether or not anyone was
ever actually annoyed by the webpages you have authored about them is
not relevant.
What is relevant is the fact that you authored webpages which you are
happy to believe you have annoyed people with. Your problem is that
people spotted what you were doing, here is proof:
Steve Mackay:
"You're doing much of what you did on your little shrine to Steve C.
Just out of context quotes."
My "shrine", as you know, refers to the webpages you authored about
me... I'm sure Steve Mackay would still attest to that fact and the fact
that he saw enough of it to recognize what you were doing to have made
his comment quoted above. Tell me, if I authored a webpage and
attributed things like the following text of yours to your name:
"I have no sister... but my wife is my father's daughter"
Would you be OK with that? After all, it is "reality" that you wrote
those words in that sequence, right?
Snit
> In article <C4339E41.B5111%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
>> trollkiller-8D69...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/22/08 1:45 PM:
>>
>>>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you asked me to
>>>> do
>>>
>>> I asked you to write disparaging webpages about me so you wrote them? Is
>>> that your claim? Show the link to me asking you to write these webpages.
>>> Do you claim the same for Elizabot? Did she also ask you to write
>>> disparaging webpages about her?
>>
>> What you snipped:
>>
>> -----
>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you
>> asked me to do... and then you are claiming that a webpage
>> with facts that annoy you *must* be made *to* annoy you.
>
> You're the guy who *claimed* the webpages annoyed me in the quote I
> provided as evidence, not me. That means *you believe* I was being
> annoyed... and you were "happy" with that.
If you were annoyed that is splendid. So?
> "In any case I am happy to know that my web pages about Steve annoy him".
> Message-ID: <BFE8655D.40D54%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> Whether or not I was actually annoyed isn't the question here... your
> belief that I was annoyed is... that and the fact that you created the
> web pages in the first place. Do you think that your creation of those
> pages went against your TOS with cableone? Do you think if you could
> prove your (as of yet, unsupported) allegation that Elizabot or myself
> asked you to create disparaging web pages about us that it would then
> not break your TOS?
You are clearly annoyed by many things, Steve. The fact that you find, say,
a web page with facts about Bush to be annoying is fine with me... but that
does not imply I created it *to* annoy you. And, no, there is nothing in my
agreement with my ISP that I have to check to see if something annoys you
before I post it.
>> Ah,
>> then every webpage with facts must, in your mind, be made to
>> annoy you... since you are so offended by facts.
>>
>> Frankly, Steve... you really, really need to seek help.
>> Instead of admitting to your problem, though, you will
>> continue to lie about me.
>
> You asked for evidence and I gave it... the quote of your admission is
> no lie... that statement tells anyone reading all they need to know
> about item #2.
What do you think you supported? That facts annoy you? That my stating
facts annoy you? So what?
The comment of mine you replied to with your rant::
Steve needs help in a big, big way.
This is a clearly true statement... it needs no added "support" from you...
though you gave it.
>> Whatever - it has been proved that you are a liar: a liar
>> about me "creating" the "sex based webpage" that I pointed to
>> the post where you "created" it (really, just linked to the
>> make-a-wish site), I have shown where you have nymshifted
>> (you said your OS made you do it... well, your OS and and
>> your Usenet reader - I suppose it was a conspiracy), and as
>> your .sig proves you are obsessed with me.
>>
>> Get over it or I will torture as I did before... when I
>> ignored you for a while and you ended up having one of your
>> little break downs. Really, Steve, you need to seek help
>> with your problems.
>> -----
>>
>> Can you respond without running like a coward?
>
> Can you? You claimed I offered no evidence... well now I have done so.
> Are you claiming that my quoting an admission by you isn't evidence?
The fact I "admit" you are annoyed by reality is hardly evidence of me doing
something wrong.
>> Keep in mind, Steve, if you
>> don't I may very well go back to ignoring your BS...
>
> Go back to? You're already ignoring evidence that you asked me for
> here... and it isn't pretty on your end.
You are babbling... you snip, run, lie... and then accuse me of running.
What a coward you are... but at least you did not snip this time.
>> and you will likely
>> have another break down if I do. You sure did last time!
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
As I said... I can handle you easily. Today I'll address the 3rd item on
the list: "Mining data on people from other newsgroups for the purpose
of trolling". While I don't expect you to admit to having done item #3
the way you just admitted to items #1 and #2, the proof here is
undeniable, though, you will undoubtedly attempt to deny it. In your
usual manner, in the post I first link to here, you falsely claimed this
quote (among others, as shown below) was written to me:
"Why are you always arguing with people and I am not? Why is that?"
Message-ID: <BC7BEC75.43926%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>
This quote wasn't written to me, it was written to Sandman, who, upon
being made aware of your lie, wrote:
"That's a post made by C'Pi and is a reply to me and it is in the group
rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with either
Steve or csma. I can't begin to understand how this quote ended up in
your post and how you googled in order to end up with that as a result.
It has been suggested that you've spent your free time trying to dig up
negative quotes about all regulars "just in case" which would be the
only logical explanation for this quote to be anywhere near you".
Message-ID: <mr-D113A9.21...@news.fu-berlin.de>
--
You clearly mined data from another newsgroup to tell a lie about me...
unquestionably a form of trolling. You claimed it was a "mistake",
but... notably, that wasn't the only "mistake" about me you told in that
post, you also listed the following quotes and falsely claimed they were
written either to me or about me:
"Now, you have shown that you are not anly an idiot, but a liar as well.
No surprize there". - Dave Fritzinger
Message-ID: <dfritzin-6C1B61...@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com>
Reality shows that Dave was responding to John's comment: "He can no
longer in good conscience advocate Mac after his excellent experience
with Windows XP". - John
Message-ID: <vt5btoo...@news.supernews.com>
You falsely claimed that Flip wrote this about me:
"It's hard to believe that there are people as stupid as him
around, but apparently, Pikey and ted are, too".
Message-ID: <flippo-3E47DF....@nnrp06.earthlink.net>
You falsely inserted "[Steve]" into that quote so as to mislead the
reader. Anyone reading can plainly see that Flip (Joe Ragosta) was
writing the above quote to me... about another poster.
My proof here is concrete... with several of your proven lies written in
one post, it's obvious you were lying your ass off for trolling
purposes, with one of the items coming from another newsgroup where you
were obviously mining data on Sandman.
(cue up predictable denial by you that this isn't "*evidence*" of you
mining data for trolling purposes).
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> trollkiller-947D...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/22/08 3:56 PM:
>
>
> > You asked for evidence and I gave it... the quote of your admission is
> > no lie... that statement tells anyone reading all they need to know
> > about item #2.
>
> What do you think you supported?
I know I have supported that you have done what I stated in items 1,2
and 3. Notably, you claim to have done the first two as the result of a
dare and a request respectively... two statements you have yet to back
up. Funny how you attempt to push the responsibility of your actions
onto others but show no proof for it. Even if you could prove your
unsupported statements, how do you figure that you aren't hypocritical
and, in the case of item #1 (forging posting IDs) didn't break your TOS?
I don't expect you to be honest or honorable in your reply, in fact, I
am counting on you not being so... if you bother to reply at all. I
guess there's no point in going on to item #4, you know, being that you
have shown you couldn't cope with the first few items without resorting
to lies.
Snit
> In article <C4339E41.B5111%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
>> trollkiller-8D69...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/22/08 1:45 PM:
>>
>>>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you asked me to
>>>> do
>>>
>>> I asked you to write disparaging webpages about me so you wrote them? Is
>>> that your claim? Show the link to me asking you to write these webpages.
>>> Do you claim the same for Elizabot? Did she also ask you to write
>>> disparaging webpages about her?
>>
>> What you snipped:
>>
>> -----
>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you
>> asked me to do... and then you are claiming that a webpage
>> with facts that annoy you *must* be made *to* annoy you.
>
> You're the guy who *claimed* the webpages annoyed me in the quote I
> provided as evidence, not me. That means *you believe* I was being
> annoyed... and you were "happy" with that.
If you were annoyed that is splendid. So?
> "In any case I am happy to know that my web pages about Steve annoy him".
> Message-ID: <BFE8655D.40D54%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> Whether or not I was actually annoyed isn't the question here... your
> belief that I was annoyed is... that and the fact that you created the
> web pages in the first place. Do you think that your creation of those
> pages went against your TOS with cableone? Do you think if you could
> prove your (as of yet, unsupported) allegation that Elizabot or myself
> asked you to create disparaging web pages about us that it would then
> not break your TOS?
You are clearly annoyed by many things, Steve. The fact that you find, say,
a web page with facts about Bush to be annoying is fine with me... but that
does not imply I created it *to* annoy you. And, no, there is nothing in my
agreement with my ISP that I have to check to see if something annoys you
before I post it.
>> Ah,
>> then every webpage with facts must, in your mind, be made to
>> annoy you... since you are so offended by facts.
>>
>> Frankly, Steve... you really, really need to seek help.
>> Instead of admitting to your problem, though, you will
>> continue to lie about me.
>
> You asked for evidence and I gave it... the quote of your admission is
> no lie... that statement tells anyone reading all they need to know
> about item #2.
What do you think you supported? That facts annoy you? That my stating
facts annoy you? So what?
The comment of mine you replied to with your rant::
Steve needs help in a big, big way.
This is a clearly true statement... it needs no added "support" from you...
though you gave it.
>> Whatever - it has been proved that you are a liar: a liar
>> about me "creating" the "sex based webpage" that I pointed to
>> the post where you "created" it (really, just linked to the
>> make-a-wish site), I have shown where you have nymshifted
>> (you said your OS made you do it... well, your OS and and
>> your Usenet reader - I suppose it was a conspiracy), and as
>> your .sig proves you are obsessed with me.
>>
>> Get over it or I will torture as I did before... when I
>> ignored you for a while and you ended up having one of your
>> little break downs. Really, Steve, you need to seek help
>> with your problems.
>> -----
>>
>> Can you respond without running like a coward?
>
> Can you? You claimed I offered no evidence... well now I have done so.
> Are you claiming that my quoting an admission by you isn't evidence?
The fact I "admit" you are annoyed by reality is hardly evidence of me doing
something wrong.
>> Keep in mind, Steve, if you
>> don't I may very well go back to ignoring your BS...
>
> Go back to? You're already ignoring evidence that you asked me for
> here... and it isn't pretty on your end.
You are babbling... you snip, run, lie... and then accuse me of running.
What a coward you are... but at least you did not snip this time.
>> and you will likely
>> have another break down if I do. You sure did last time!
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> trollkiller-947D...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/22/08 3:56 PM:
>
> > In article <C4339E41.B5111%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> >> trollkiller-8D69...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/22/08 1:45
> >> PM:
> >>
> >>>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you asked me
> >>>> to
> >>>> do
> >>>
> >>> I asked you to write disparaging webpages about me so you wrote them? Is
> >>> that your claim? Show the link to me asking you to write these webpages.
> >>> Do you claim the same for Elizabot? Did she also ask you to write
> >>> disparaging webpages about her?
> >>
> >> What you snipped:
> >>
> >> -----
> >> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you
> >> asked me to do... and then you are claiming that a webpage
> >> with facts that annoy you *must* be made *to* annoy you.
> >
> > You're the guy who *claimed* the webpages annoyed me in the quote I
> > provided as evidence, not me. That means *you believe* I was being
> > annoyed... and you were "happy" with that.
>
> If you were annoyed that is splendid.
"In any case I am happy to know that my web pages about Steve annoy him".
Message-ID: <BFE8655D.40D54%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
There is no if here, you claimed to "know" I was annoyed. Like most
everything you write, you were unable to show proof for your assertion.
For my part, I know I have supported that you have done what I stated in
items 1,2 and 3. Notably, you claim to have done the first two as the
result of a dare and a request respectively... two statements you have
yet to back up. Funny how you attempt to push the responsibility of your
actions onto others but show no proof for it. Even if you could prove
your unsupported statements, how do you figure that you aren't
hypocritical and, in the case of item #1 (forging posting IDs) didn't
break your TOS?
I don't expect you to be honest or honorable in your reply, in fact, I
am counting on you not being so... if you bother to reply at all. I
guess there's no point in going on to item #4, you know, being that you
have shown you couldn't cope with the first few items without resorting
to lies.
--
Snit
> In article <C4339E41.B5111%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
>> trollkiller-8D69...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/22/08 1:45 PM:
>>
>>>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you asked me to
>>>> do
>>>
>>> I asked you to write disparaging webpages about me so you wrote them? Is
>>> that your claim? Show the link to me asking you to write these webpages.
>>> Do you claim the same for Elizabot? Did she also ask you to write
>>> disparaging webpages about her?
>>
>> What you snipped:
>>
>> -----
>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you
>> asked me to do... and then you are claiming that a webpage
>> with facts that annoy you *must* be made *to* annoy you.
>
> You're the guy who *claimed* the webpages annoyed me in the quote I
> provided as evidence, not me. That means *you believe* I was being
> annoyed... and you were "happy" with that.
If you were annoyed that is splendid. So?
> "In any case I am happy to know that my web pages about Steve annoy him".
> Message-ID: <BFE8655D.40D54%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> Whether or not I was actually annoyed isn't the question here... your
> belief that I was annoyed is... that and the fact that you created the
> web pages in the first place. Do you think that your creation of those
> pages went against your TOS with cableone? Do you think if you could
> prove your (as of yet, unsupported) allegation that Elizabot or myself
> asked you to create disparaging web pages about us that it would then
> not break your TOS?
You are clearly annoyed by many things, Steve. The fact that you find, say,
a web page with facts about Bush to be annoying is fine with me... but that
does not imply I created it *to* annoy you. And, no, there is nothing in my
agreement with my ISP that I have to check to see if something annoys you
before I post it.
>> Ah,
>> then every webpage with facts must, in your mind, be made to
>> annoy you... since you are so offended by facts.
>>
>> Frankly, Steve... you really, really need to seek help.
>> Instead of admitting to your problem, though, you will
>> continue to lie about me.
>
> You asked for evidence and I gave it... the quote of your admission is
> no lie... that statement tells anyone reading all they need to know
> about item #2.
What do you think you supported? That facts annoy you? That my stating
facts annoy you? So what?
The comment of mine you replied to with your rant::
Steve needs help in a big, big way.
This is a clearly true statement... it needs no added "support" from you...
though you gave it.
>> Whatever - it has been proved that you are a liar: a liar
>> about me "creating" the "sex based webpage" that I pointed to
>> the post where you "created" it (really, just linked to the
>> make-a-wish site), I have shown where you have nymshifted
>> (you said your OS made you do it... well, your OS and and
>> your Usenet reader - I suppose it was a conspiracy), and as
>> your .sig proves you are obsessed with me.
>>
>> Get over it or I will torture as I did before... when I
>> ignored you for a while and you ended up having one of your
>> little break downs. Really, Steve, you need to seek help
>> with your problems.
>> -----
>>
>> Can you respond without running like a coward?
>
> Can you? You claimed I offered no evidence... well now I have done so.
> Are you claiming that my quoting an admission by you isn't evidence?
The fact I "admit" you are annoyed by reality is hardly evidence of me doing
something wrong.
>> Keep in mind, Steve, if you
>> don't I may very well go back to ignoring your BS...
>
> Go back to? You're already ignoring evidence that you asked me for
> here... and it isn't pretty on your end.
You are babbling... you snip, run, lie... and then accuse me of running.
What a coward you are... but at least you did not snip this time.
>> and you will likely
>> have another break down if I do. You sure did last time!
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> trollkiller-947D...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/22/08 3:56 PM:
>
> > In article <C4339E41.B5111%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <troll...@TK.com> stated in post
> >> trollkiller-8D69...@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/22/08 1:45
> >> PM:
> >>
> >>>> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you asked me
> >>>> to
> >>>> do
> >>>
> >>> I asked you to write disparaging webpages about me so you wrote them? Is
> >>> that your claim? Show the link to me asking you to write these webpages.
> >>> Do you claim the same for Elizabot? Did she also ask you to write
> >>> disparaging webpages about her?
> >>
> >> What you snipped:
> >>
> >> -----
> >> So let's get this straight - you are blaming for doing as you
> >> asked me to do... and then you are claiming that a webpage
> >> with facts that annoy you *must* be made *to* annoy you.
> >
> > You're the guy who *claimed* the webpages annoyed me in the quote I
> > provided as evidence, not me. That means *you believe* I was being
> > annoyed... and you were "happy" with that.
>
> If you were annoyed that is splendid.
You wrote:
"In any case I am happy to know that my web pages about Steve annoy him".
Message-ID: <BFE8655D.40D54%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
As I previously stated, there is no if here, you claimed to "know" I was
annoyed. Like most everything you write, you were unable to show proof
for your assertion.
I have fully supported that you have done what I stated in items 1,2 and
3. Notably, you claim to have done the first two as the result of a dare
and a request respectively... two statements you have yet to back up.
Funny how you attempt to push the responsibility of your actions onto
others but show no proof for it. Even if you could prove your
unsupported statements, how do you figure that you aren't hypocritical
and, in the case of item #1 (forging posting IDs) didn't break your TOS?
Once again, I don't expect you to be honest or honorable in your reply,
in fact, I am counting on you not being so... if you bother to reply at
all. I guess there's no point in going on to item #4, you know, being
that you have shown you couldn't cope with the first few items without
resorting to lies. Time to lace up... again;)