Sandman Trolling FAQ
Snit
Q: What basis should we judge if Sandman is a troll
A: He has been asked to provide "objective criteria" as to what a troll is,
and he, after a while, did finally offer his own "objective criteria". It
seems fair to judge him based on those criteria.
He first would not offer objective criteria:
He then claimed that he had provided such criteria... though he had not.
At one point when Snit asked what his objective critenia was, his answer was
"your replies to this thread" as though a simple reply is his criteria.
That criteria of Sandman's was absurd. He was not able to clarify it.
Later his "objective criteria" to determine trolling he says is
"trolling"... using a meaningless circular definition:
He finally, after many requests, provides some comments about what his
criteria are:
Q: What are those criteria that Sandman agreed to.
A: As seen in the above post (http://smallurl.com/?i=16621). Can be
summarized as:
1) Lying
2) Using information from other groups for dirt on someone
3) Creating a weh page dedicated to trolling... with the purpose to
troll another poster
4) Creating sock puppets
5) dodging questions, and posting gibberish
6) Labeling others as trolls
Q: Which of those definitions does Sandman fit?
A: Let us look at each one. We shall have to find specific examples to
determine that he has.
1) Lying: Undoubtedly he has done this. His "Sigmond FAQ" has been
shown, unequivocally, to have no less than 24 deceptions or outright
lies in it.
While that post shows no less than 24 of Sandman's deceits, perhaps
the easiest to see are the ones where he directly contradicts
himself.
Sandman Deception 3: He claims that sigmond "disappeared quickly when
it was claimed he was a sock puppet of Michael." This is shown, with
links, to be clearly false. He elsewhere
(http://smallurl.com/?i=16623) claims that the evidence was provided
on the first day sigmond posted.
Sandman Deception 24: On one hand, he claims an IP was "later found"
but elsewhere he had claimed it was available "long before". In
fact, as shown in Sandman deception 3, he claims the IP was known
the very first day sigmond posted.
But that is not all Sandman has lies about.
Sandman has called people liars without providing evidence, as
discussed in this post: http://smallurl.com/?i=16625
Sandman claiming that replying to a post is "stalking", as shown
in this post: http://smallurl.com/?i=16626
Other Sandman lying is documented in many posts, such as:
http://smallurl.com/?i=16627
http://smallurl.com/?i=16628
http://smallurl.com/?i=16629
And more... Sanman's lying is well documented and shown to be a
repeated habit.
2) Using information from other groups for dirt on someone
In Sandman's sigmond FAQ he tries to use a post from an anxiety
news group against me.
He is clearly doing what he claims is trolling.
3) Creating a weh page dedicated to trolling... with the purpose to
troll another poster
Sandman has done just that - created a site that is based on bias and
lies to attack others. He will not, for example, post this FAQ, even
though it is based on his actual words. Nor will he post information
that exposed Steve Carroll's many lies.
This has been discussed many times in csma:
http://smallurl.com/?i=16630
http://smallurl.com/?i=16631
http://smallurl.com/?i=16632
http://smallurl.com/?i=16633
http://smallurl.com/?i=16634
Clearly Sandman is fitting his own criteria as a troll here, as well.
4) Creating sock puppets
Unknown at this time if Sandman has done this.
5) dodging questions, and posting gibberish
Sandman has clearly done so, as shown here:
http://smallurl.com/?i=16636
6) Labeling others as trolls
As shown many times, above, he has done just that. There is no doubt
on that one.
Clearly he fits his own criteria yet again.
Q: So, does Sandman frequently troll in csma?
A: Undoubtedly. If he had the habit of doing any one of his trolling
behaviors, it would be easy to see that he as trolling. As it is, he
certainly exhibits almost all, and perhaps all, of the traits he has
deemed to be trolling behaviors.
Sandman is, at least at times, a troll. Of that there can be no doubt.
Note that this is not based on conjecture or insinuation, but on solid
fact based on Sandman's own words. If anyone wants to show this to be
incorrect, one would not have to show an error in one claim, but in all
or at least the majority of the claims. This FAQ shows far, far more
evidence than is needed to conclude that Sandman often trolls csma.
Q: Will this FAQ change Sandman's behavior?
A: Unlikely. He will almost certainly keep trolling. It may even increase
it for a while. :)
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
Snit
Q: What basis should we judge if Sandman regularly trolls in CSMA
Snit
Snit
And more... Sandman's lying is well documented and shown to be a
repeated habit.
2) Using information from other groups for dirt on someone
In Sandman's sigmond FAQ he tries to use a post from an anxiety
news group against me.
He is clearly doing what he claims is trolling.
3) Creating a weh page dedicated to trolling... with the purpose to
troll another poster
Sandman has done just that - created a site that is based on bias and
lies to attack others.
He will not, for example, post this FAQ, even though it is based on
his actual words. Nor will he post information that exposed Steve
Carroll's many lies.
This has been discussed many times in csma:
http://smallurl.com/?i=16630
http://smallurl.com/?i=16631
http://smallurl.com/?i=16632
http://smallurl.com/?i=16633
http://smallurl.com/?i=16634
Clearly Sandman is fitting his own criteria as a troll here, as well.
4) Creating sock puppets
Unknown at this time if Sandman has done this.
5) Dodging questions, and posting gibberish
Sandman has clearly done so, as shown here:
http://smallurl.com/?i=16636
6) Labeling others as trolls
As shown many times, above, he has done just that. There is no doubt
on that one.
Clearly he fits his own criteria yet again.
Q: So, does Sandman frequently troll in csma?
A: Undoubtedly. If he had the habit of doing any one of his trolling
behaviors, it would be easy to see that he as trolling. As it is, he
certainly exhibits almost all, and perhaps all, of the traits he has
deemed to be trolling behaviors.
Sandman is, at least at times, a troll. Of that there can be no doubt.
Note that this is not based on conjecture or insinuation, but on solid
fact based on Sandman's own words. If anyone wants to show this to be
incorrect, one would have to show an error in not just one claim, but in
all or at least most of the claims. This FAQ shows far, far more
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> <snip>
Haha! Good one!
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> <snip again>
I forgot - I like how you post the FAQ -FOUR- time in new threads, just to
troll the group :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
on 8/10/04 11:56 AM:
It was updated... sorry for the errors in the earlier versions. Please note
that I clearly indicated the version... which you snipped.
By the way, one of the updates was based on an e-mail I received. Seems
beyond belief, but people actually read this stuff. :)
Snit
on 8/10/04 11:55 AM:
> In article <BD3E5ACA.5B991%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
> Haha! Good one!
Please note your complete lack of meaningful response. Let me guess,
despite not being able to refute the clear facts in the Sandman Trolling
FAQ, you will not post it to your site.
More evidence that your site is biased - and fits your own criteria for
trolling.
Your lack of willingness to post the FAQ is a sign of your trolling - how
brilliantly ironic. :)
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >> <snip again>
> >
> > I forgot - I like how you post the FAQ -FOUR- time in new threads, just to
> > troll the group :-D
>
> It was updated...
I missed that
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >
> > Haha! Good one!
>
> Please note your complete lack of meaningful response.
Michael - it is quite clear that there is no chance that there ever will be any
meaningful exchange between you and I.
> Let me guess,
> despite not being able to refute the clear facts in the Sandman Trolling
> FAQ, you will not post it to your site.
I told you already - I won't post things from a liar.
> More evidence that your site is biased - and fits your own criteria for
> trolling.
Hehe :)
> Your lack of willingness to post the FAQ is a sign of your trolling - how
> brilliantly ironic. :)
Indeed ironic. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
on 8/10/04 2:17 PM:
Among many, many things. It seems to be one of your habits. :)
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>> <snip again>
> >>>
> >>> I forgot - I like how you post the FAQ -FOUR- time in new threads, just to
> >>> troll the group :-D
> >>
> >> It was updated...
> >
> > I missed that
>
> Among many, many things.
Undoubtedly. Million of things take place around any given person during the
course of a day. One would become insane if you didn't "miss" most of it.
> It seems to be one of your habits.
I can't muster enough interest to really care what things "seem" to you,
Michael :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
on 8/10/04 2:19 PM:
> In article <BD3E72AF.5B9DE%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Haha! Good one!
>>
>> Please note your complete lack of meaningful response.
>
> Michael - it is quite clear that there is no chance that there ever will be
> any meaningful exchange between you and I.
I am open to meaningful exchanges with you. It is a shame you are not.
In any case, I wonder when you will be posting the Sandman Trolling FAQ to
your site? It is based on your comments and is will linked.
>
>> Let me guess, despite not being able to refute the clear facts in the Sandman
>> Trolling FAQ, you will not post it to your site.
>
> I told you already - I won't post things from a liar.
Look at the Sandman Trolling FAQ. It shows, fully linked, some lies from
you. Yet you are posting information from yourself.
You are, again, lying.
>
>> More evidence that your site is biased - and fits your own criteria for
>> trolling.
>
> Hehe :)
>
>> Your lack of willingness to post the FAQ is a sign of your trolling - how
>> brilliantly ironic. :)
>
> Indeed ironic. :)
You have to give me at least some credit for backing you into this corner,
eh? :)
In any case, I did some hunting through my backup drive, and I found the PDF
printout Steve Mackay provided of the e-mail in question. Please note the
word "unverified" appears directly before my IP. What do *you* think the
word "unverified" means in this context? Here is the PDF:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
Based on this image, assuming Steve Mackay did not modify it, it does
suggest he did not just cut and paste text.
I am not sure if Steve has ever stated that this is an unmodified print
image... or how he produced this PDF. I would be interested in hearing his
claims on it.
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> > Michael - it is quite clear that there is no chance that there ever will be
> > any meaningful exchange between you and I.
>
> I am open to meaningful exchanges with you.
Hehe, no you're not. :-D
> > I told you already - I won't post things from a liar.
>
> Look at the Sandman Trolling FAQ. It shows, fully linked, some lies from
> you.
Haha! :-D
> > Indeed ironic. :)
>
> You have to give me at least some credit for backing you into this corner,
> eh? :)
Haha, of course. Where to go, where to go!? :-D
> In any case, I did some hunting through my backup drive, and I found the PDF
> printout Steve Mackay provided of the e-mail in question. Please note the
> word "unverified" appears directly before my IP. What do *you* think the
> word "unverified" means in this context? Here is the PDF:
It means that the IP your computer set when you sent the message was
192.168.0.2, but the IP the email was recieved from was 24.117.214.36, since
that was the IP your router had at the moment.
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
>
> Based on this image, assuming Steve Mackay did not modify it, it does
> suggest he did not just cut and paste text.
Of course he didn't. This PDF is irrelevant, I have pasted the entire mail as
it was in hotmail to this very group.
> I am not sure if Steve has ever stated that this is an unmodified print
> image... or how he produced this PDF. I would be interested in hearing his
> claims on it.
Irrelevant. I have verified it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Elizabot
> In article <BD3E9B07.5BA3B%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Michael - it is quite clear that there is no chance that there ever will be
>>>any meaningful exchange between you and I.
>>
>>I am open to meaningful exchanges with you.
>
>
> Hehe, no you're not. :-D
>
>
>>>I told you already - I won't post things from a liar.
>>
>>Look at the Sandman Trolling FAQ. It shows, fully linked, some lies from
>>you.
>
>
> Haha! :-D
>
>
>>>Indeed ironic. :)
>>
>>You have to give me at least some credit for backing you into this corner,
>>eh? :)
>
>
> Haha, of course. Where to go, where to go!? :-D
>
>
>>In any case, I did some hunting through my backup drive, and I found the PDF
>>printout Steve Mackay provided of the e-mail in question. Please note the
>>word "unverified" appears directly before my IP. What do *you* think the
>>word "unverified" means in this context? Here is the PDF:
>
>
> It means that the IP your computer set when you sent the message was
> 192.168.0.2, but the IP the email was recieved from was 24.117.214.36, since
> that was the IP your router had at the moment.
Here's the IP address for the public library in Snit's hometown:
http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-216-160-210-0-1
Here are the IP addresses for colleges around Snit's hometown including
the one he currently works at:
http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-198-60-121-0-1
http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-198-60-121-0-2
Here's another post that Snit made with sigmond's IP address:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BC060CF1.35F49%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&output=gplain
(Note that Snit was not yet working at the lab due to his lack of a job.
He was posting from home, as he inadvertently admitted when he stated
that sigmond was "Maybe someone who snuck into my house."
In short, Snit is telling lies when he claims the IP address
24.117.214.4 is from the computer lab.
Elizabot
written in this post:
Snit
on 8/10/04 3:41 PM:
> In article <BD3E9B07.5BA3B%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>> Michael - it is quite clear that there is no chance that there ever will be
>>> any meaningful exchange between you and I.
>>
>> I am open to meaningful exchanges with you.
>
> Hehe, no you're not. :-D
Actually, I am. I would welcome one. Instead, however, you have decided to
pursue silly "FAQ" trolling against me - an FAQ I have shown to have at
least 24 deceptive or simply dishonest comments in it. In addition to
showing the errors in your FAQ, I posted an FAQ based on your actual
comments as shown in the Google records. My FAQ about you clearly documents
your lying and trolling.
Your FAQ lacks any comments from me.
My FAQ is based almost entirely on comments from you.
Let me guess, you will now jump the Carrollesque technique of claiming you
must be right because others agree with you, right? When the facts fail
Steve Carroll, as they almost always do, he runs to this. Will you do the
same?
>>> I told you already - I won't post things from a liar.
>>
>> Look at the Sandman Trolling FAQ. It shows, fully linked, some lies from
>> you.
>
> Haha! :-D
I notice you do not even *try* to refute the fact that you lied. Why is
that? Why not comment on your lies?
>
>>> Indeed ironic. :)
>>
>> You have to give me at least some credit for backing you into this corner,
>> eh? :)
>
> Haha, of course. Where to go, where to go!? :-D
Oh, just evade, as you are now. Neither admit nor deny the proof of your
lies and trolling, and hope the issue just goes away. I would be surprised
to see you do anything different than that - even with these comments that
almost surely push you into further action.
>> In any case, I did some hunting through my backup drive, and I found the PDF
>> printout Steve Mackay provided of the e-mail in question. Please note the
>> word "unverified" appears directly before my IP. What do *you* think the
>> word "unverified" means in this context? Here is the PDF:
>
> It means that the IP your computer set when you sent the message was
> 192.168.0.2, but the IP the email was recieved from was 24.117.214.36, since
> that was the IP your router had at the moment.
The word "unverified" does not mean that. Not at all.
You did not answer the question. You evaded.
One of your trolling criteria is evasion. Why are you evading / trolling?
Answer the question: What does the word "unverified" mean to you... in the
above context?
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
>>
>> Based on this image, assuming Steve Mackay did not modify it, it does
>> suggest he did not just cut and paste text.
>
> Of course he didn't. This PDF is irrelevant, I have pasted the entire mail as
> it was in hotmail to this very group.
Or so you claim. Perhaps you did, perhaps not. If so, then the PDF is
probably as it was. I am guessing that it was simply done from Safari on OS
X and was created via the "print" command. Still, I would like to hear
Steve Mackay's take on this.
>> I am not sure if Steve has ever stated that this is an unmodified print
>> image... or how he produced this PDF. I would be interested in hearing his
>> claims on it.
>
> Irrelevant. I have verified it.
How have you "verified" this PDF? How do you think he made it? I give my
guess, above...
You have been shown, in the Sandman Trolling FAQ, to have lied in other
*related* places.
I tend to think you are probably sincere and that the "unverified" IP was
just spoofed for that e-mail... but it is also possible you are just lying.
Cannot say I know, being that Steve Mackay was not willing to let me
actually look at the alleged e-mail. Quite telling and really pretty funny.
Maybe you were lying about this after all...
Snit
4119542f$0$211$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/10/04 4:03 PM:
Um, you do realize your whole "evidence" now comes down to my sarcastic
remark about someone breaking into my house.
I thought you were going to stop attacking me...
I guess you just slipped again.
>
> In short, Snit is telling lies when he claims the IP address
> 24.117.214.4 is from the computer lab.
What lab have I said it is from? I do not believe I have ever stated
anything other than a public lab. Care to check every public lab within a
few hundred miles of me?
Oh, you are just trolling...
Snit
41195437$0$212$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/10/04 4:03 PM:
You did read the whole post, right?
LOL... clearly not. Too funny....
Your attacks against me are becoming less and less coherent.
Here is a hint: read the *whole* post you linked to. Not just the first
couple of lines or whatever lead you to make the attack you just made.
I think you will find you just made a boo-boo.
:)
Snit
on 8/10/04 2:33 PM:
> In article <BD3E8B63.5BA13%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> <snip again>
>>>>>
>>>>> I forgot - I like how you post the FAQ -FOUR- time in new threads, just to
>>>>> troll the group :-D
>>>>
>>>> It was updated...
>>>
>>> I missed that
>>
>> Among many, many things.
>
> Undoubtedly. Million of things take place around any given person during the
> course of a day. One would become insane if you didn't "miss" most of it.
Clearly you missed my meaning. :)
>
>> It seems to be one of your habits.
>
> I can't muster enough interest to really care what things "seem" to you,
> Michael :-D
Yeah... I base my beliefs, mostly, on verifiable facts... not a collection
of 24 deceptions, as you have been shown to do.
Elizabot
I made a separate point. I'm not surprised that you didn't get it.
Elizabot
Wrong again, Snit. I see you missed the hard evidence above concerning
YC's IP address. In fact you completely ignored it. I'm not *at all*
surprised.
> I thought you were going to stop attacking me...
>
> I guess you just slipped again.
Stop telling lies, Snit.
>>In short, Snit is telling lies when he claims the IP address
>>24.117.214.4 is from the computer lab.
>
>
> What lab have I said it is from? I do not believe I have ever stated
> anything other than a public lab.
It's an extremely safe assumption to say that you'd be posting from
either YC where you allegedly taught that Windows class or your home.
> Care to check every public lab within a
> few hundred miles of me?
No, but maybe I'll check out the IP addresses of the psycho wards in
your area later on...
> Oh, you are just trolling...
That's your job, and you're doing it poorly. Again that doesn't surprise me.
Snit
41195ec7$0$202$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/10/04 4:48 PM:
Who cares if he spoofed the IP or did cut and paste? Not I.
Snit
41195ecb$0$202$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/10/04 4:48 PM:
>> Um, you do realize your whole "evidence" now comes down to my sarcastic
>> remark about someone breaking into my house.
>
> Wrong again, Snit. I see you missed the hard evidence above concerning
> YC's IP address. In fact you completely ignored it. I'm not *at all*
> surprised.
What evidence about YC's IP address range? Please, be specific... the fact
that the IP is not from a place that is associated with me? That is your
evidence that it *is* associated with me?
LOL. That is one of the most moronic things you have said or suggested.
>> I thought you were going to stop attacking me...
>>
>> I guess you just slipped again.
>
> Stop telling lies, Snit.
Sigh... I suppose it is clear you have no intention of controlling your
obsession to attack me. Whatever. You are growing boring and irrelevant.
>>> In short, Snit is telling lies when he claims the IP address
>>> 24.117.214.4 is from the computer lab.
>>
>>
>> What lab have I said it is from? I do not believe I have ever stated
>> anything other than a public lab.
>
> It's an extremely safe assumption to say that you'd be posting from
> either YC where you allegedly taught that Windows class or your home.
Nope. You are making assumptions that are simply not correct. You seem to
forget that I do consulting for many places... silly troll... that is all
you are. Your "evidence" is based on silly assumptions you call "safe".
>
>> Care to check every public lab within a
>> few hundred miles of me?
>
> No, but maybe I'll check out the IP addresses of the psycho wards in
> your area later on...
Wow... now just meaningless attacks. When your evidence falls apart you can
always sink to that. Sigh.
>
>> Oh, you are just trolling...
>
> That's your job, and you're doing it poorly. Again that doesn't surprise me.
If you want to entice me to respond to you, please come up with new lies and
insults... the ones you have been telling are getting old. I have
essentially given up on Steve Carroll... he ran out of new material to amuse
me. Seems you are on the verge of doing the same.
Granted, I spent time to compile just a small percentage of his lies ... he
is still amusing enough to warrant my posting of that in response to him.
You ... well ... you are not that amusing. Could be that you are not as
unbelievably stupid as Steve Carroll is, though, so perhaps that is a point
in your favor.
ed
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
<snip>
>> In short, Snit is telling lies when he claims the IP address
>> 24.117.214.4 is from the computer lab.
>
> What lab have I said it is from? I do not believe I have ever stated
> anything other than a public lab. Care to check every public lab
> within a
> few hundred miles of me?
ok, simple enough- what lab were you posting from? if you're NOT just
trolling, you shouldn't have any problem w/ telling us what lab it was.
Snit
c9fSc.5388$8s2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com on 8/10/04 7:04 PM:
I have no desire, obligation, responsibility or need to disclose where I
have been. Too much of my private life has become public in this forum.
Your claim that my desire to not reveal private information is in some way
"trolling" on my part is ludicrous. Nobody in csma is obligated to tell
others where they live, where they work, where they post from, or any other
personal information. This is true even if there are trolls "demanding"
that they release information... perhaps even more true... or at least more
important... in those circumstances.
The point is that an assumption has been made: that the IP in question came
from my house. This claim has not been supported... and it is this claim
that is part of the "evidence" against me... or really, part of the
continued trolling against me. I welcome you finding *anything* to support
the claim that I have ever used that IP from any house I have ever lived in.
Seen from another angle, if I were to tell you (and the rest of csma), what
good would it do? Do you think if I were to reveal where I have worked it
would somehow make the trolls stop lying? Somehow I *strongly* suspect that
is not the case.
If you can provide support for the idea that my revealing this information
would somehow stop - or even greatly reduce - the silly and baseless attacks
against me I might consider it - though I would first have to ask my client.
Not only that, I would have to consider which would please me more - having
the trolling stop or getting the amusement from the trolling. It is really
quite funny to see Sandman try to deny the 24 (or more) lies the sigmond FAQ
is filled with.
ed
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
sooo... it's a public lab, but you need permission from your client to
reveal that the i.p. belongs to them? what kind of "public" lab is this?
and while you have no obligation to reveal where this lab is, given the fact
that the lab is "public", and the amount of time you spent "refuting" the
apparently overwhelming evidence that you are sigmond, it seems that you
would have nothing to lose by revealing the lab, and everything to gain.
Snit
05hSc.5423$R03....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com on 8/10/04 9:17 PM:
It is a public lab where I do whatever it is I do there. I have no desire
or obligation to reveal my clients, my sources, my places of entertainment,
my places of business, or *anything* else about my life to you or anyone
else. Period. If you do not like it... get over it. Not that I need a
reason to keep my "real" life out of csma, but have you not seen Elizabot's
thinly veiled threat to send a bunch of her claims to my current employer?
All I need is to feed some obsessive Usenet troll like her more information
about where I spend my time. No thanks.
Again, the concept is clear. The point is that an assumption has been made:
that the IP in question came from my house. This claim has not been
supported... and it is this claim that is part of the "evidence" against
me... or really, part of the continued trolling against me. I welcome you
finding *anything* to support the claim that I have ever used that IP from
any house I have ever lived in.
I notice you completely avoided that request, above. Let me be very clear
hear: I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the claim
that the IP came from my house. If so share it. If not, will you publicly
state that at least that part of the claim against me is clearly false, or
at least fully and entirely unsupported?
Time to put up or shut up, Ed... is the claim that the IP came from my house
supported or not? You know the answer. I know the answer. The *only*
question left is what trolling method you will use to avoid the question.
Your current method is to focus on the unrelated demand for me to reveal
things about my private life I have no obligation to do, and obvious reasons
to not do. Will you come up with a new avoidance tactic or will you be a
man and just admit that you have seen absolutely, unequivocally, *no*
evidence to support this claim against me.
Elizabot
The only reason I found out your employer is because I ran across my
handle on your bookmark page.
Too bad those bookmarks of yours bit you in your ass like that. You
really should learn about Google and what sorts of information you can
find out there.
> All I need is to feed some obsessive Usenet troll like her more information
> about where I spend my time. No thanks.
Maybe I already know more, Snit. I never reveal all the cards in my
hand! It's more fun to string you along!
> Again, the concept is clear. The point is that an assumption has been made:
> that the IP in question came from my house. This claim has not been
> supported... and it is this claim that is part of the "evidence" against
> me... or really, part of the continued trolling against me. I welcome you
> finding *anything* to support the claim that I have ever used that IP from
> any house I have ever lived in.
If it's not from your house, then it's through work! LOL!! You sound
awfully touchy about your employer knowing what you've been up to. I
wonder why that is. Hmmm. Something else to look into. Thanks for the idea.
(Note to self: I need to check out the psycho wards and see if they have
matching IP addresses to Snit and sigmond's postings.)
> I notice you completely avoided that request, above. Let me be very clear
> hear: I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the claim
> that the IP came from my house. If so share it. If not, will you publicly
> state that at least that part of the claim against me is clearly false, or
> at least fully and entirely unsupported?
>
> Time to put up or shut up, Ed... is the claim that the IP came from my house
> supported or not? You know the answer. I know the answer. The *only*
> question left is what trolling method you will use to avoid the question.
> Your current method is to focus on the unrelated demand for me to reveal
> things about my private life I have no obligation to do, and obvious reasons
> to not do. Will you come up with a new avoidance tactic or will you be a
> man and just admit that you have seen absolutely, unequivocally, *no*
> evidence to support this claim against me.
>
LOL! You are completely rabid! I win!
You seem to be forgetting something: You are the one who originally
claimed that sigmond's posts came from a public lab, Snit.
Why don't you back up that claim of yours?
This is so amusing that I'm considering.... nah, I'll save that for
another day.
Elizabot
More unsubstantiated allegations from Snit.
You have not proven that he did such a thing. I am not surprised.
> Not I.
Apparently you care as you are the one who brings it up.
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 41195ecb$0$202$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/10/04 4:48 PM:
>
>
>>>Um, you do realize your whole "evidence" now comes down to my sarcastic
>>>remark about someone breaking into my house.
>>
>>Wrong again, Snit. I see you missed the hard evidence above concerning
>>YC's IP address. In fact you completely ignored it. I'm not *at all*
>>surprised.
>
>
> What evidence about YC's IP address range?
You, not surprisingly, snipped the IP address link, but I can easily add
that back:
http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-198-60-121-0-2
Note that the IP address that you and sigmond have posted from is not
from YC. Either you are posting from home or when you are doing
consulting jobs. The later is extremely unlikely.
> Please, be specific... the fact
> that the IP is not from a place that is associated with me?
You are associated with YC and if you aren't posting from there, you are
then posting from home or you are posting from your consulting jobs.
> That is your
> evidence that it *is* associated with me?
You mean you don't use the computer lab at the college where you used to
"teach" that Windows class?
> LOL. That is one of the most moronic things you have said or suggested.
Coming from you, such an attempt to discredit me means that I nailed you.
>>>I thought you were going to stop attacking me...
>>>
>>>I guess you just slipped again.
>>
>>Stop telling lies, Snit.
>
>
> Sigh... I suppose it is clear you have no intention of controlling your
> obsession to attack me. Whatever. You are growing boring and irrelevant.
I've NAILED you. Now throw another one of your famous Snit cyber temper
tantrums!
>>>>In short, Snit is telling lies when he claims the IP address
>>>>24.117.214.4 is from the computer lab.
>>>
>>>
>>>What lab have I said it is from? I do not believe I have ever stated
>>>anything other than a public lab.
>>
>>It's an extremely safe assumption to say that you'd be posting from
>>either YC where you allegedly taught that Windows class or your home.
>
>
> Nope. You are making assumptions that are simply not correct. You seem to
> forget that I do consulting for many places... silly troll... that is all
> you are. Your "evidence" is based on silly assumptions you call "safe".
I can't imagine that the places you consult for let both you and sigmond
use their computers to wage your silly flame wars, as I'm sure they
wouldn't include allowing you to do that in their consulting fee.
You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper! Piles on some more lies,
Snit! It's quite amusing!
Places you do consulting work for let you wage flame wars from their
computers! Too funny!
So if I were to some day press charges against you, then I need to have
the police confiscate all your clients' computers so they can check them
for evidence. Thanks for that tidbit.
>>>Care to check every public lab within a
>>>few hundred miles of me?
>>
>>No, but maybe I'll check out the IP addresses of the psycho wards in
>>your area later on...
>
>
> Wow... now just meaningless attacks. When your evidence falls apart you can
> always sink to that. Sigh.
My evidence is very strong.
>>>Oh, you are just trolling...
>>
>>That's your job, and you're doing it poorly. Again that doesn't surprise me.
>
>
> If you want to entice me to respond to you, please come up with new lies and
> insults... the ones you have been telling are getting old. I have
> essentially given up on Steve Carroll... he ran out of new material to amuse
> me. Seems you are on the verge of doing the same.
Poor Snit. Am I hitting a little too close to home?
> Granted, I spent time to compile just a small percentage of his lies ... he
> is still amusing enough to warrant my posting of that in response to him.
> You ... well ... you are not that amusing. Could be that you are not as
> unbelievably stupid as Steve Carroll is, though, so perhaps that is a point
> in your favor.
>
Whatever. You can always stop responding. I'm making you look very
foolish. It's simple to do that when you tell so many lies.
ed
while the claim is not conclusive, the claim *is* supported; it's owned by
the same isp that you use, it appears to be the dynamic, of the sort you'd
likely have from a home connection, and not likely of the sort you'd
normally use in a "public" lab, and it's an ip that your isp uses in the
city you've acknowledged you live in. it's actually pretty damn *good*
support. given how good the support is, the ball is now in your court to
show that it's not yours, and if you'd simply provide a name of the "public"
lab that you claim you posted w/ this isp from, and the ip can be linked to
them, you'd pretty conclusively shoot it down this point.
as far as for *me* "putting up or shutting up", i made no claims whatsoever;
i'm just pointing out that the claims agains you appears to be supported
pretty darn well, and that *you* could easily put up and shut everyone else
up if there is some veracity to your claims. regarding revealing things
about your personal life, i don't see how stating the name of a public lab
does that- here, i'll start; i'm posting from an sbc account, and i've
connected via wi-fi and posted to this group from a starbucks previously.
wow, revealing! =D
Sandman
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
> > It means that the IP your computer set when you sent the message was
> > 192.168.0.2, but the IP the email was recieved from was 24.117.214.36,
> > since
> > that was the IP your router had at the moment.
>
>
> Here's the IP address for the public library in Snit's hometown:
>
> http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-216-160-210-0-1
>
> Here are the IP addresses for colleges around Snit's hometown including
> the one he currently works at:
>
> http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-198-60-121-0-1
> http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-198-60-121-0-2
>
> Here's another post that Snit made with sigmond's IP address:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BC060CF1.35F49%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&
> output=gplain
Elizabot, you are uncrowned queen of research. I really mean that. Not that the
above is conclusive in any way. :)
> (Note that Snit was not yet working at the lab due to his lack of a job.
> He was posting from home, as he inadvertently admitted when he stated
> that sigmond was "Maybe someone who snuck into my house."
The FAQ acknowledges that this was merely a joke, and not a claim. Michael had
probably not even looked up his routers IP at the time, and was just hunting
for a quick comeback as he thought this IP business wasn't conclusive.
> In short, Snit is telling lies when he claims the IP address
> 24.117.214.4 is from the computer lab.
That's your claim, and I won't include it in the FAQ due to the fact that there
is no way to prove it.
I am thinking of adding a "speculations" part to the FAQ, which is clearly
marked as such.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> In short, Snit is telling lies when he claims the IP address
> >>> 24.117.214.4 is from the computer lab.
> >>
> >> What lab have I said it is from? I do not believe I have ever stated
> >> anything other than a public lab. Care to check every public lab within a
> >> few hundred miles of me?
> >
> > ok, simple enough- what lab were you posting from? if you're NOT just
> > trolling, you shouldn't have any problem w/ telling us what lab it was.
>
> I have no desire, obligation, responsibility or need to disclose where I
> have been. Too much of my private life has become public in this forum.
>
> Your claim that my desire to not reveal private information is in some way
> "trolling" on my part is ludicrous. Nobody in csma is obligated to tell
> others where they live, where they work, where they post from, or any other
> personal information. This is true even if there are trolls "demanding"
> that they release information... perhaps even more true... or at least more
> important... in those circumstances.
>
> The point is that an assumption has been made: that the IP in question came
> from my house. This claim has not been supported... and it is this claim
> that is part of the "evidence" against me... or really, part of the
> continued trolling against me. I welcome you finding *anything* to support
> the claim that I have ever used that IP from any house I have ever lived in.
Whether the IP comes from your house or not is irrelevant. It is clear that you
and sigmond has shared IP on several occasions, and at least two different IPs.
That's not a coincidence.
> Seen from another angle, if I were to tell you (and the rest of csma), what
> good would it do? Do you think if I were to reveal where I have worked it
> would somehow make the trolls stop lying? Somehow I *strongly* suspect that
> is not the case.
If you would disclose this secret "public lab" that you post to usenet from it
would one step towards countering the facts in the FAQ. Let's say you could pin
the IP to a public lab, then all you had to do was find a enemy of yours in
that lab that would send false emails in your name and create a sock puppet to
participate in the same discussion as you in the same usenet group as you.
> If you can provide support for the idea that my revealing this information
> would somehow stop - or even greatly reduce - the silly and baseless attacks
> against me I might consider it - though I would first have to ask my client.
> Not only that, I would have to consider which would please me more - having
> the trolling stop or getting the amusement from the trolling. It is really
> quite funny to see Sandman try to deny the 24 (or more) lies the sigmond FAQ
> is filled with.
There is nothing to deny - the sigmond FAQ consists of facts, not claims.
Everything is documented.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip again>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I forgot - I like how you post the FAQ -FOUR- time in new
>>>>>> threads, just to troll the group :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> It was updated...
>>>>
>>>> I missed that
>>>
>>> Among many, many things.
>>
>> Undoubtedly. Million of things take place around any given person
>> during the course of a day. One would become insane if you didn't
>> "miss" most of it.
>
> Clearly you missed my meaning. :)
See above.
>>> It seems to be one of your habits.
>>
>> I can't muster enough interest to really care what things "seem" to
>> you, Michael :-D
>
> Yeah... I base my beliefs, mostly, on verifiable facts... not a
> collection of 24 deceptions, as you have been shown to do.
*yawn*
Are you going to counter anything in the FAQ or not? I was sort of hoping you'd
give it a shot at least.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>> Michael - it is quite clear that there is no chance that there ever
>>>> will be any meaningful exchange between you and I.
>>>
>>> I am open to meaningful exchanges with you.
>>
>> Hehe, no you're not. :-D
>
> Actually, I am.
Hehe, no you're not. :-D
> Your FAQ lacks any comments from me.
Of course it doesn't. It both links to and mentions your "attempts" to counter
the FAQ and how unsuccessful you have been in doing so.
> My FAQ is based almost entirely on comments from you.
The sigmond FAQ isn't based on "comments", it's based on facts.
> Let me guess, you will now jump the Carrollesque technique of claiming
> you must be right because others agree with you, right? When the
> facts fail Steve Carroll, as they almost always do, he runs to this.
> Will you do the same?
No one can "agree" with me, since the FAQ doesn't contain any opinions. It only
contains substantiated facts.
> I notice you do not even *try* to refute the fact that you lied. Why
> is that? Why not comment on your lies?
I never lie.
>>> You have to give me at least some credit for backing you into this
>>> corner, eh? :)
>>
>> Haha, of course. Where to go, where to go!? :-D
>
> Oh, just evade, as you are now. Neither admit nor deny the proof of
> your lies and trolling, and hope the issue just goes away. I would be
> surprised to see you do anything different than that - even with these
> comments that almost surely push you into further action.
Haha! My god, I've fallen and I can't get up! Michael, pleas be gentle with me!
:-D
>> It means that the IP your computer set when you sent the message was
>> 192.168.0.2, but the IP the email was recieved from was
>> 24.117.214.36, since that was the IP your router had at the moment.
>
> The word "unverified" does not mean that. Not at all.
Incorrect. When you send the mail, the SMTP server does (if enabled, which it
was here) a reverse DNS lookup on your machine. Your machine claimed to have
the ip 192.168.0.2, which means that the reverse DNS lookup failed, so the STMP
adds "unverified" to the IP and adds the IP it actually recieved it from. The
"unverified" is in reference to the 192.168.0.2 ip, not the 24.117.214.36 ip,
which is what the STMP adds for verification. If Reverse DNS hadn't been turned
on on the SMTP server, the header would have looked like this:
Received: from [192.168.0.2] by smail1.cableone.net
But, since it was turned on, the server did a reverse DNS lookup on 192.168.0.2
and it failed (naturally) so it added "unverified" to the 192.168.0.2 IP, and
as a service for mail tracing, added the originating IP, like this:
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [24.117.214.36]) by smail1.cableone.net
You're welcome.
>> Of course he didn't. This PDF is irrelevant, I have pasted the entire
>> mail as it was in hotmail to this very group.
>
> Or so you claim.
And I never lie. I have no reason to, the sigmond FAQ doesn't stand and fall
with the email.
>>> I am not sure if Steve has ever stated that this is an unmodified
>>> print image... or how he produced this PDF. I would be interested in
>>> hearing his claims on it.
>>
>> Irrelevant. I have verified it.
>
> How have you "verified" this PDF?
I have verified the email, the PDF is authentic.
> You have been shown, in the Sandman Trolling FAQ, to have lied in
> other *related* places.
I never lie.
> I tend to think you are probably sincere and that the "unverified" IP
> was just spoofed for that e-mail...
Incorrect.
> but it is also possible you are
> just lying. Cannot say I know, being that Steve Mackay was not willing
> to let me actually look at the alleged e-mail. Quite telling and
> really pretty funny. Maybe you were lying about this after all...
I never lie.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> > I made a separate point. I'm not surprised that you didn't get it.
>
> Who cares if he spoofed the IP or did cut and paste? Not I.
He did neither.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
on 8/11/04 3:30 AM:
You never have stated what the word "unverified" means to you in the context
of your e-mail "evidence".
Remember, one of *your* criteria for trolling is evasion. You are evading.
You are not supporting your claim.
Based on *your* criteria, *you* are trolling.
Snit
on 8/11/04 3:28 AM:
> In article <BD3EA7FB.5BA5C%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Michael - it is quite clear that there is no chance that there ever
>>>>> will be any meaningful exchange between you and I.
>>>>
>>>> I am open to meaningful exchanges with you.
>>>
>>> Hehe, no you're not. :-D
>>
>> Actually, I am.
>
> Hehe, no you're not. :-D
Um... this is sinking to insanity. If you wanted a reasonable, meaningful
exchange I would be happy to have one.
Of course, it seems less and less likely you will ever have one.
>
>> Your FAQ lacks any comments from me.
>
> Of course it doesn't. It both links to and mentions your "attempts" to counter
> the FAQ and how unsuccessful you have been in doing so.
I have posted 24 deceptions in the FAQ. Your FAQ is based on lies and
deceit.
>
>> My FAQ is based almost entirely on comments from you.
>
> The sigmond FAQ isn't based on "comments", it's based on facts.
I have posted 24 deceptions in the FAQ. Your FAQ is based on lies and
deceit.
>
>> Let me guess, you will now jump the Carrollesque technique of claiming
>> you must be right because others agree with you, right? When the
>> facts fail Steve Carroll, as they almost always do, he runs to this.
>> Will you do the same?
>
> No one can "agree" with me, since the FAQ doesn't contain any opinions. It
> only contains substantiated facts.
I have posted 24 deceptions in the FAQ. Your FAQ is based on lies and
deceit.
>
>> I notice you do not even *try* to refute the fact that you lied. Why
>> is that? Why not comment on your lies?
>
> I never lie.
Look at the Sandman Trolling FAQ. I will post it again for you. This has
been shown, by your own words, to not be true.
You are, again, lying.
>
>>>> You have to give me at least some credit for backing you into this
>>>> corner, eh? :)
>>>
>>> Haha, of course. Where to go, where to go!? :-D
>>
>> Oh, just evade, as you are now. Neither admit nor deny the proof of
>> your lies and trolling, and hope the issue just goes away. I would be
>> surprised to see you do anything different than that - even with these
>> comments that almost surely push you into further action.
>
> Haha! My god, I've fallen and I can't get up! Michael, pleas be gentle with
> me!
> :-D
Note: no meaningful comment from you. More evasion... which is one of
*your* criteria for trolling.
>
>>> It means that the IP your computer set when you sent the message was
>>> 192.168.0.2, but the IP the email was recieved from was
>>> 24.117.214.36, since that was the IP your router had at the moment.
>>
>> The word "unverified" does not mean that. Not at all.
>
> Incorrect. When you send the mail, the SMTP server does (if enabled, which it
> was here) a reverse DNS lookup on your machine. Your machine claimed to have
> the ip 192.168.0.2, which means that the reverse DNS lookup failed, so the
> STMP adds "unverified" to the IP and adds the IP it actually recieved it from.
> The "unverified" is in reference to the 192.168.0.2 ip, not the 24.117.214.36
> ip, which is what the STMP adds for verification. If Reverse DNS hadn't been
> turned on on the SMTP server, the header would have looked like this:
>
> Received: from [192.168.0.2] by smail1.cableone.net
>
> But, since it was turned on, the server did a reverse DNS lookup on
> 192.168.0.2 and it failed (naturally) so it added "unverified" to the
> 192.168.0.2 IP, and as a service for mail tracing, added the originating IP,
> like this:
>
> Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [24.117.214.36]) by
> smail1.cableone.net
>
> You're welcome.
The "unverified" is in reference to the "24.117.214.36". Period. The
internal IP is not in question.
>
>>> Of course he didn't. This PDF is irrelevant, I have pasted the entire
>>> mail as it was in hotmail to this very group.
>>
>> Or so you claim.
>
> And I never lie. I have no reason to, the sigmond FAQ doesn't stand and fall
> with the email.
I have posted 24 deceptions in the FAQ. Your FAQ is based on lies and
deceit.
>
>>>> I am not sure if Steve has ever stated that this is an unmodified
>>>> print image... or how he produced this PDF. I would be interested in
>>>> hearing his claims on it.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. I have verified it.
>>
>> How have you "verified" this PDF?
>
> I have verified the email, the PDF is authentic.
Support this claim.
>
>> You have been shown, in the Sandman Trolling FAQ, to have lied in
>> other *related* places.
>
> I never lie.
Look at the Sandman Trolling FAQ. I will post it again for you. This has
been shown, by your own words, to not be true.
You are, again, lying.
>
>> I tend to think you are probably sincere and that the "unverified" IP
>> was just spoofed for that e-mail...
>
> Incorrect.
Ok. I will accept your word that you were not sincere. Thank you for
fessing up.
>
>> but it is also possible you are
>> just lying. Cannot say I know, being that Steve Mackay was not willing
>> to let me actually look at the alleged e-mail. Quite telling and
>> really pretty funny. Maybe you were lying about this after all...
>
> I never lie.
Look at the Sandman Trolling FAQ. I will post it again for you. This has
been shown, by your own words, to not be true.
You are, again, lying.
Snit
v1.4
Q: What basis should we judge if Sandman regularly trolls in CSMA
A: He has been asked to provide "objective criteria" as to what a troll is,
and he, after a while, did finally offer his own "objective criteria". It
seems fair to judge him based on those criteria.
He first would not offer objective criteria:
He then claimed that he had provided such criteria... though he had not.
At one point when Snit asked what his objective criteria was, his answer was
"your replies to this thread" as though a simple reply is his criteria.
That criteria of Sandman's was absurd. He was not able to clarify it.
Later his "objective criteria" to determine trolling he says is
"trolling"... using a meaningless circular definition:
He finally, after many requests, provides some comments about what his
criteria are:
Q: What are those criteria that Sandman agreed to.
A: As seen in the above post (http://smallurl.com/?i=16621) his criteria can
be summarized as doing any subset of the following:
1) Lying
2) Using information from other groups for dirt on someone
3) Creating a web page dedicated to trolling... with the purpose to
troll another poster
4) Creating sock puppets
5) Dodging questions / posting gibberish
6) Labeling others as trolls
Q: Which of those definitions does Sandman fit?
A: Let us look at each one. We shall have to find specific examples to
determine that he has.
1) Lying: Undoubtedly he has done this. His "Sigmond FAQ" has been
shown, unequivocally, to have no less than 24 deceptions or outright
lies in it.
While that post shows no less than 24 of Sandman's deceits, perhaps
the easiest to see are the ones where he directly contradicts
himself.
Sandman Deception 3: He claims that sigmond "disappeared quickly when
it was claimed he was a sock puppet of Michael." This is shown, with
links, to be clearly false. He elsewhere
(http://smallurl.com/?i=16623) claims that the evidence was provided
on the first day sigmond posted.
Sandman Deception 24: On one hand, he claims an IP was "later found"
but elsewhere he had claimed it was available "long before". In
fact, as shown in Sandman deception 3, he claims the IP was known
the very first day sigmond posted.
But that is not all Sandman has lies about.
Sandman has called people liars without providing evidence, as
discussed in this post: http://smallurl.com/?i=16625
Sandman claiming that replying to a post is "stalking", as shown
in this post: http://smallurl.com/?i=16626
Other Sandman lying is documented in many posts, such as:
http://smallurl.com/?i=16627
http://smallurl.com/?i=16629
And more... Sandman's lying is well documented and shown to be a
repeated habit.
2) Using information from other groups for dirt on someone
In Sandman's sigmond FAQ he tries to use a post from an anxiety
news group against me.
He is clearly doing what he claims is trolling.
3) Creating a weh page dedicated to trolling... with the purpose to
troll another poster
Sandman has done just that - created a site that is based on bias and
lies to attack others.
He will not, for example, post this FAQ, even though it is based on
his actual words. Nor will he post information that exposed Steve
Carroll's many lies.
This has been discussed many times in csma:
http://smallurl.com/?i=16630
http://smallurl.com/?i=16631
http://smallurl.com/?i=16632
http://smallurl.com/?i=16633
http://smallurl.com/?i=16634
Clearly Sandman is fitting his own criteria as a troll here, as well.
4) Creating sock puppets
Unknown at this time if Sandman has done this.
5) Dodging questions, and posting gibberish
Sandman has clearly done so, as shown here:
http://smallurl.com/?i=16636
6) Labeling others as trolls
As shown many times, above, he has done just that. There is no doubt
on that one.
Clearly he fits his own criteria yet again.
Q: So, does Sandman frequently troll in csma?
A: Undoubtedly. If he had the habit of doing any one of his trolling
behaviors, it would be easy to see that he as trolling. As it is, he
certainly exhibits almost all, and perhaps all, of the traits he has
deemed to be trolling behaviors.
Sandman is, at least at times, a troll. Of that there can be no doubt.
Note that this is not based on conjecture or insinuation, but on solid
fact based on Sandman's own words. If anyone wants to show this to be
incorrect, one would have to show an error in not just one claim, but in
all or at least most of the claims. This FAQ shows far, far more
evidence than is needed to conclude that Sandman often trolls csma.
Q: Will this FAQ change Sandman's behavior?
A: Unlikely. He will almost certainly keep trolling. It may even increase
it for a while. :)
Snit
on 8/11/04 3:01 AM:
I have posted 24 deceptions in the FAQ. Your FAQ is based on lies and
deceit.
--
Snit
on 8/11/04 3:04 AM:
I have posted 24 deceptions in the FAQ. Your FAQ is based on lies and
deceit.
--
Steve Mackay
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in mr-E01F77.00...@individual.net
> on 8/10/04 3:41 PM:
>
>> In article <BD3E9B07.5BA3B%snit-...@cableone.net>,
>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Michael - it is quite clear that there is no chance that there ever will be
>>>> any meaningful exchange between you and I.
>>>
>>> I am open to meaningful exchanges with you.
>>
>> Hehe, no you're not. :-D
>
> Actually, I am. I would welcome one. Instead, however, you have decided to
> pursue silly "FAQ" trolling against me - an FAQ I have shown to have at
> least 24 deceptive or simply dishonest comments in it. In addition to
> showing the errors in your FAQ, I posted an FAQ based on your actual
> comments as shown in the Google records. My FAQ about you clearly documents
> your lying and trolling.
>
> Your FAQ lacks any comments from me.
Of course it doesn't. It contains FACTS!
<snip>
>>> In any case, I did some hunting through my backup drive, and I found
>>> the PDF printout Steve Mackay provided of the e-mail in question.
>>> Please note the word "unverified" appears directly before my IP. What
>>> do *you* think the word "unverified" means in this context? Here is
>>> the PDF:
>>
>> It means that the IP your computer set when you sent the message was
>> 192.168.0.2, but the IP the email was recieved from was 24.117.214.36,
>> since that was the IP your router had at the moment.
>
> The word "unverified" does not mean that. Not at all.
Yes it does.
>
> You did not answer the question. You evaded.
>
> One of your trolling criteria is evasion. Why are you evading /
> trolling? Answer the question: What does the word "unverified" mean to
> you... in the above context?
He's not. You are just denying facts, and trying your 'ole redirection
trick.
>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
>>>
>>> Based on this image, assuming Steve Mackay did not modify it, it does
>>> suggest he did not just cut and paste text.
>>
>> Of course he didn't. This PDF is irrelevant, I have pasted the entire
>> mail as it was in hotmail to this very group.
>
> Or so you claim. Perhaps you did, perhaps not. If so, then the PDF is
> probably as it was. I am guessing that it was simply done from Safari
> on OS X and was created via the "print" command. Still, I would like to
> hear Steve Mackay's take on this.
Sure, *MY* PDF is completely unmodified. Just went to the email, and
clicked print from my Win2K box. Your PDF however, while the content looks
identical, is larger, and is created on a mac.
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf is the original.
>
>>> I am not sure if Steve has ever stated that this is an unmodified
>>> print image... or how he produced this PDF. I would be interested in
>>> hearing his claims on it.
>>
>> Irrelevant. I have verified it.
>
> How have you "verified" this PDF? How do you think he made it? I give
> my guess, above...
>
> You have been shown, in the Sandman Trolling FAQ, to have lied in other
> *related* places.
>
> I tend to think you are probably sincere and that the "unverified" IP
> was just spoofed for that e-mail...
No, it wasn't. And you know it wasn't. It was your IP#.
> but it is also possible you are just
> lying.
No, he's not.
> Cannot say I know, being that Steve Mackay was not willing to let
> me actually look at the alleged e-mail. Quite telling and really pretty
> funny. Maybe you were lying about this after all...
Yeah, uh huh, I'm gonna give *YOU* access to my email account.. Riiiiight!
<eye roll>
I wouldn't trust a well known liar access to *MY* personal email account
by handing over my hotmail password. Sorry, ain't gonna work. I did
however offer your one and only supporter, Nashton access to it. Never got
a response.
Snit
EqjSc.5460$si4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com on 8/10/04 11:56 PM:
Please note that I was *very* specific in my request:
I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the claim
that the IP came from my house.
Please also note that the only "evidence" you provide is to say it appears
to come from a city you believe I live in. You call this "strong support".
It is not.
The time to put up or shut up is over. You showed *no* support for the
claim.
Will you now shut up.
LOL... again, the answer to that is clear. You will keep babbling in a
pathetic attempt to cover up your complete and total lack of support for the
claim.
One last note: this is not something I pushed... this is merely *one* of the
*twenty four* documented deceits in the sigmond FAQ. Look at how much time
has been spent on trying to support this one deceptive point... by no less
than three people.
And so far no support has been offered.
Will you now admit the sigmond FAQ has been debunked?
Sandman
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> I made a separate point. I'm not surprised that you didn't get it.
> >>
> >> Who cares if he spoofed the IP or did cut and paste? Not I.
> >
> > He did neither.
>
> You never have stated what the word "unverified" means to you in the context
> of your e-mail "evidence".
Incorrect, I have explained in detail exactly what it means. I'd be happy to
insert that explanation here as well:
Message-ID: <mr-A71DA8.12...@individual.net>
When you send the mail, the SMTP server does (if enabled, which it
was here) a reverse DNS lookup on your machine. Your machine claimed to have
the ip 192.168.0.2, which means that the reverse DNS lookup failed, so the STMP
adds "unverified" to the IP and adds the IP it actually recieved it from. The
"unverified" is in reference to the 192.168.0.2 ip, not the 24.117.214.36 ip,
which is what the STMP adds for verification. If Reverse DNS hadn't been turned
on on the SMTP server, the header would have looked like this:
Received: from [192.168.0.2] by smail1.cableone.net
But, since it was turned on, the server did a reverse DNS lookup on 192.168.0.2
and it failed (naturally) so it added "unverified" to the 192.168.0.2 IP, and
as a service for mail tracing, added the originating IP, like this:
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [24.117.214.36]) by smail1.cableone.net
You're welcome.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>> Incorrect. When you send the mail, the SMTP server does (if enabled,
>> which it was here) a reverse DNS lookup on your machine. Your machine
>> claimed to have the ip 192.168.0.2, which means that the reverse DNS
>> lookup failed, so the STMP adds "unverified" to the IP and adds the
>> IP it actually recieved it from. The "unverified" is in reference to
>> the 192.168.0.2 ip, not the 24.117.214.36 ip, which is what the STMP
>> adds for verification. If Reverse DNS hadn't been turned on on the
>> SMTP server, the header would have looked like this:
>> Received: from [192.168.0.2] by smail1.cableone.net
>>
>> But, since it was turned on, the server did a reverse DNS lookup on
>> 192.168.0.2 and it failed (naturally) so it added "unverified" to the
>> 192.168.0.2 IP, and as a service for mail tracing, added the
>> originating IP,
>> like this:
>> Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [24.117.214.36]) by
>> smail1.cableone.net
>>
>> You're welcome.
>
> The "unverified" is in reference to the "24.117.214.36". Period. The
> internal IP is not in question.
Incorrect.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
I note the lack of any form of counter of the facts in the FAQ.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
pan.2004.08.11....@hotmail.com on 8/11/04 7:47 AM:
Why the change of PDF's Steve? What I have is the one you used before.
They look the same... why the change? On cursory glance I see no
difference.
>
>>
>>>> I am not sure if Steve has ever stated that this is an unmodified
>>>> print image... or how he produced this PDF. I would be interested in
>>>> hearing his claims on it.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. I have verified it.
>>
>> How have you "verified" this PDF? How do you think he made it? I give
>> my guess, above...
>>
>> You have been shown, in the Sandman Trolling FAQ, to have lied in other
>> *related* places.
>>
>> I tend to think you are probably sincere and that the "unverified" IP
>> was just spoofed for that e-mail...
>
> No, it wasn't. And you know it wasn't. It was your IP#.
>
>> but it is also possible you are just
>> lying.
>
> No, he's not.
>
>> Cannot say I know, being that Steve Mackay was not willing to let
>> me actually look at the alleged e-mail. Quite telling and really pretty
>> funny. Maybe you were lying about this after all...
>
> Yeah, uh huh, I'm gonna give *YOU* access to my email account.. Riiiiight!
> <eye roll>
>
> I wouldn't trust a well known liar access to *MY* personal email account
> by handing over my hotmail password. Sorry, ain't gonna work. I did
> however offer your one and only supporter, Nashton access to it. Never got
> a response.
Read the Sandman Trolling FAQ. Sandman is a known liar and is known to
troll.
Sandman
<snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>> It seems to be one of your habits.
>>>>
>>>> I can't muster enough interest to really care what things "seem" to
>>>> you, Michael :-D
>>>
>>> Yeah... I base my beliefs, mostly, on verifiable facts... not a
>>> collection of 24 deceptions, as you have been shown to do.
>>
>> *yawn*
>>
>> Are you going to counter anything in the FAQ or not? I was sort of
>> hoping you'd give it a shot at least.
>
> I have posted 24 deceptions in the FAQ. Your FAQ is based on lies and
> deceit.
A simple "No, I won't or can't counter the substantiated facts in the FAQ"
would have been enough.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
4119b2c6$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/10/04 10:46 PM:
> Note that the IP address that you and sigmond have posted from is not
> from YC. Either you are posting from home or when you are doing
> consulting jobs. The later is extremely unlikely.
I would like to see this claim supported... the claim that I am *either*
posting from home or when I am doing consulting jobs.
Here is a start for your research:
Ishkabible. Mud Hole. Mad Linguist. Girl Talk Studio. At least 3 public
libraries. Java Hut. Bookman's. Starbuck's. Argosy West. Three J
Computers. Top Dog Technologies. B & W Electronics. A-1 Computer Service.
The Computer Zone. CompuTime. Hell, even Oak Tree Furniture used to have
an open computer people can use to get on-line.
I am sure I am leaving places out, so your research should not be limited to
just those places.
Bottom line: your "conclusion" is not supported by facts.
Will you admit to this?
>> Please, be specific... the fact
>> that the IP is not from a place that is associated with me?
>
> You are associated with YC and if you aren't posting from there, you are
> then posting from home or you are posting from your consulting jobs.
Support this claim.
>
>> That is your
>> evidence that it *is* associated with me?
>
> You mean you don't use the computer lab at the college where you used to
> "teach" that Windows class?
Your claim is that those are the only two places I could have posted from.
Please note how when I say that is not so you change topics to claim I am
suggesting I have not used the computer lab I teach in.
Your evasion is noted.
>
>> LOL. That is one of the most moronic things you have said or suggested.
>
> Coming from you, such an attempt to discredit me means that I nailed you.
You will never, ever "nail" me.
Get over your obsession.
>
>>>> I thought you were going to stop attacking me...
>>>>
>>>> I guess you just slipped again.
>>>
>>> Stop telling lies, Snit.
>>
>>
>> Sigh... I suppose it is clear you have no intention of controlling your
>> obsession to attack me. Whatever. You are growing boring and irrelevant.
>
> I've NAILED you. Now throw another one of your famous Snit cyber temper
> tantrums!
You will never, ever "nail" me.
Get over your obsession.
I also snipped yet another thinly veiled threat from you.
Snit
4119b1cb$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/10/04 10:42 PM:
>> It is a public lab where I do whatever it is I do there. I have no desire
>> or obligation to reveal my clients, my sources, my places of entertainment,
>> my places of business, or *anything* else about my life to you or anyone
>> else. Period. If you do not like it... get over it. Not that I need a
>> reason to keep my "real" life out of csma, but have you not seen Elizabot's
>> thinly veiled threat to send a bunch of her claims to my current employer?
>
> The only reason I found out your employer is because I ran across my
> handle on your bookmark page.
Please note that the comment was about your thinly veiled threats... and you
come to the conclusion that because you were able to *find* where I work in
a reasonable way (which may or may not be true) then it makes it OK for you
to threaten me.
Your defense is laughable.
>
> Too bad those bookmarks of yours bit you in your ass like that. You
> really should learn about Google and what sorts of information you can
> find out there.
The question was not about information. It was about your threats.
Your evasion is noted.
>
>> All I need is to feed some obsessive Usenet troll like her more information
>> about where I spend my time. No thanks.
>
> Maybe I already know more, Snit. I never reveal all the cards in my
> hand! It's more fun to string you along!
Sure... you are jumping up and down doing all you can to support one of the
24 deceptions in the sigmond FAQ, but have now decided to withhold
information.
Either you are lying, acting against your own interests, or the information
debunks your claims.
>
>> Again, the concept is clear. The point is that an assumption has been made:
>> that the IP in question came from my house. This claim has not been
>> supported... and it is this claim that is part of the "evidence" against
>> me... or really, part of the continued trolling against me. I welcome you
>> finding *anything* to support the claim that I have ever used that IP from
>> any house I have ever lived in.
>
> If it's not from your house, then it's through work!
Support this claim.
Note to world: you will not.
> LOL!! You sound awfully touchy about your employer knowing what you've been up
> to. I wonder why that is. Hmmm. Something else to look into. Thanks for the
> idea.
>
> (Note to self: I need to check out the psycho wards and see if they have
> matching IP addresses to Snit and sigmond's postings.)
>
>> I notice you completely avoided that request, above. Let me be very clear
>> hear: I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the claim
>> that the IP came from my house. If so share it. If not, will you publicly
>> state that at least that part of the claim against me is clearly false, or
>> at least fully and entirely unsupported?
>>
>> Time to put up or shut up, Ed... is the claim that the IP came from my house
>> supported or not? You know the answer. I know the answer. The *only*
>> question left is what trolling method you will use to avoid the question.
>> Your current method is to focus on the unrelated demand for me to reveal
>> things about my private life I have no obligation to do, and obvious reasons
>> to not do. Will you come up with a new avoidance tactic or will you be a
>> man and just admit that you have seen absolutely, unequivocally, *no*
>> evidence to support this claim against me.
>>
>
> LOL! You are completely rabid! I win!
Ahhh, you see a complete and total lack of support as a "win".
>
> You seem to be forgetting something: You are the one who originally
> claimed that sigmond's posts came from a public lab, Snit.
No. I claimed *I* posted from a public lab. I have no concern where Steve
posts from.
>
> Why don't you back up that claim of yours?
I have no need to back up *my* claim of where *I* post from.
>
> This is so amusing that I'm considering.... nah, I'll save that for
> another day.
Well, at least you are holding something back so you do not completely slip
into irrelevancy.
Just like I post info about Steve every time he posts lies about me, I think
I will start just posting info about you every time you do. Simply do not
have the time or desire to reply to your every lie / attack / obsessive
tantrum.
Snit
Snit
Steve Mackay
I didn't. You did however.
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/mine.jpg is a screenshot of *MY ORIGINAL*
PDF.
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/snit.jpg is from YOUR PDF.
#1, I printed that at work. No Mac there. Just linux and windows boxen
here.
#2, The created date is August 10, 2004 on yours. Mine is June 13th.
#3, Yours is created with OmniGraffle. Which I didn't, and WOULDN'T use to
create the PDF. I'd do it straight from Safari.
So, again, you're lying. No surprise.
> What I have is the one you used before.
Yeah, uh huh, I must be a time traveler then, traveling into the future to
post it. Bullshit.
take a look at this:
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays
now take a look at the last modified date there on the email.pdf file.
What's the date say? Well, how about that... I uploaded that on
13-Jun-2004 14:17. Why change it, and then LIE about it, mikey?
Snit caught in yet ANOTHER lie. Color me shocked.
Naah, I have no need to read your bullshit. Your long history of lies
and obsfucation is enough to tell me it's purely made up of your opinions
and lies, while the Sigmond FAQ is nothing but the facts.
Tommy
> Sandman Trolling FAQ v1.3
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Q: What basis should we judge if Sandman regularly trolls in CSMA
>
> A: He has been asked to provide "objective criteria" as to what a troll is,
> and he, after a while, did finally offer his own "objective criteria". It
> seems fair to judge him based on those criteria.
>
> He first would not offer objective criteria:
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16614
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16615
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16616
>
> He then claimed that he had provided such criteria... though he had not.
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16617
>
> "your replies to this thread" as though a simple reply is his criteria.
> That criteria of Sandman's was absurd. He was not able to clarify it.
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16619
>
> Later his "objective criteria" to determine trolling he says is
> "trolling"... using a meaningless circular definition:
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16620
>
> He finally, after many requests, provides some comments about what his
> criteria are:
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16621
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Q: What are those criteria that Sandman agreed to.
>
> summarized as:
>
> 1) Lying
> 2) Using information from other groups for dirt on someone
> troll another poster
> 5) dodging questions, and posting gibberish
LIAR!!!
Steve Mackay
> In article <4119542f$0$211$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
>
>> > It means that the IP your computer set when you sent the message was
>> > 192.168.0.2, but the IP the email was recieved from was 24.117.214.36,
>> > since
>> > that was the IP your router had at the moment.
>>
>>
>> Here's the IP address for the public library in Snit's hometown:
>>
>> http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-216-160-210-0-1
>>
>> Here are the IP addresses for colleges around Snit's hometown including
>> the one he currently works at:
>>
>> http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-198-60-121-0-1
>> http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-198-60-121-0-2
>>
>> Here's another post that Snit made with sigmond's IP address:
>>
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BC060CF1.35F49%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&
>> output=gplain
>
> Elizabot, you are uncrowned queen of research. I really mean that. Not that the
> above is conclusive in any way. :)
She is quite good at that, isn't she! :)
>
>> (Note that Snit was not yet working at the lab due to his lack of a job.
>> He was posting from home, as he inadvertently admitted when he stated
>> that sigmond was "Maybe someone who snuck into my house."
>
> The FAQ acknowledges that this was merely a joke, and not a claim. Michael had
> probably not even looked up his routers IP at the time, and was just hunting
> for a quick comeback as he thought this IP business wasn't conclusive.
>
>> In short, Snit is telling lies when he claims the IP address
>> 24.117.214.4 is from the computer lab.
>
> That's your claim, and I won't include it in the FAQ due to the fact that there
> is no way to prove it.
>
> I am thinking of adding a "speculations" part to the FAQ, which is clearly
> marked as such.
Sounds good to me. I think Snit's multiple conspiracy theories would be a
humorous addition to the FAQ.
Snit
>> Why the change of PDF's Steve?
>
> I didn't. You did however.
>
> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/mine.jpg is a screenshot of *MY ORIGINAL*
> PDF.
>
> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/snit.jpg is from YOUR PDF.
>
>
>
> #1, I printed that at work. No Mac there. Just linux and windows boxen
> here.
> #2, The created date is August 10, 2004 on yours. Mine is June 13th.
> #3, Yours is created with OmniGraffle. Which I didn't, and WOULDN'T use to
> create the PDF. I'd do it straight from Safari.
>
> So, again, you're lying. No surprise.
Not sure what you are trying to hide, since both PDF's seem to be the
same... and both have the word "unverified" in them.
So use whichever of your PDF's that you want to. Does not matter to me.
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> pan.2004.08.11....@hotmail.com on 8/11/04 8:54 AM:
>
>>> Why the change of PDF's Steve?
>>
>> I didn't. You did however.
>>
>> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/mine.jpg is a screenshot of *MY ORIGINAL*
>> PDF.
>>
>> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/snit.jpg is from YOUR PDF.
>>
>>
>>
>> #1, I printed that at work. No Mac there. Just linux and windows boxen
>> here.
>> #2, The created date is August 10, 2004 on yours. Mine is June 13th.
>> #3, Yours is created with OmniGraffle. Which I didn't, and WOULDN'T use to
>> create the PDF. I'd do it straight from Safari.
>>
>> So, again, you're lying. No surprise.
>
> Not sure what you are trying to hide, since both PDF's seem to be the
> same... and both have the word "unverified" in them.
The content, at a glance seems the same. However, it does show you will,
and do lie, even when it doesn't matter, by asking me "Why the change of
PDF's Steve?". Are you even capable of telling the truth, mikey?
> So use whichever of your PDF's that you want to. Does not matter to me.
Yup, and they both prove you are sigmond by the IP#.
Snit
>> Not sure what you are trying to hide, since both PDF's seem to be the
>> same... and both have the word "unverified" in them.
>
> The content, at a glance seems the same. However, it does show you will,
> and do lie, even when it doesn't matter, by asking me "Why the change of
> PDF's Steve?". Are you even capable of telling the truth, mikey?
I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site.
The original:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
And the new one from you:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
I did change the name of the new one to add the "new" to it. Other than
that, they are as you posted them.
What you hope to accomplish is beyond me... they both have the word
"unverified" in them, which is the only point of contention I have. As far
as I can tell, at a brief glance, their content are exactly the same...
though the sizes are different. Why the change Steve? I would have
expected that the new one would have had the word "unverified" edited out...
or some other nonsense. The word is still there.
>> So use whichever of your PDF's that you want to. Does not matter to me.
>
> Yup, and they both prove you are sigmond by the IP#.
They both have the word "unverified" in them. You do know what that word
means, right?
Elizabot
> In article <4119542f$0$211$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>It means that the IP your computer set when you sent the message was
>>>192.168.0.2, but the IP the email was recieved from was 24.117.214.36,
>>>since
>>>that was the IP your router had at the moment.
>>
>>
>>Here's the IP address for the public library in Snit's hometown:
>>
>>http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-216-160-210-0-1
>>
>>Here are the IP addresses for colleges around Snit's hometown including
>>the one he currently works at:
>>
>>http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-198-60-121-0-1
>>http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=!%20NET-198-60-121-0-2
>>
>>Here's another post that Snit made with sigmond's IP address:
>>
>>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=BC060CF1.35F49%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&
>>output=gplain
>
>
> Elizabot, you are uncrowned queen of research. I really mean that. Not that the
> above is conclusive in any way. :)
:)
>>(Note that Snit was not yet working at the lab due to his lack of a job.
>>He was posting from home, as he inadvertently admitted when he stated
>>that sigmond was "Maybe someone who snuck into my house."
>
>
> The FAQ acknowledges that this was merely a joke, and not a claim.
Well, Snit said it was a joke, but that does not make it so.
> Michael had
> probably not even looked up his routers IP at the time, and was just hunting
> for a quick comeback as he thought this IP business wasn't conclusive.
To me it was an inadvertant slip of honesty on his part.
>>In short, Snit is telling lies when he claims the IP address
>>24.117.214.4 is from the computer lab.
>
>
> That's your claim, and I won't include it in the FAQ due to the fact that there
> is no way to prove it.
Sure there is. Snit can verify the lab.
> I am thinking of adding a "speculations" part to the FAQ, which is clearly
> marked as such.
OK. That could be fun.
Elizabot
It seems to me that the 24 deceptions are *yours*.
> Your FAQ is based on lies and
> deceit.
Sure it is. You wrote it.
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 4119b2c6$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/10/04 10:46 PM:
>
>
>>Note that the IP address that you and sigmond have posted from is not
>>from YC. Either you are posting from home or when you are doing
>>consulting jobs. The later is extremely unlikely.
>
>
> I would like to see this claim supported... the claim that I am *either*
> posting from home or when I am doing consulting jobs.
It was a claim made based on your comments:
"You list that same IP as mine based on posts I made from a public lab.
When I post from home I use my newsreader and have access to my
SuperNews account."
"You seem to forget that I do consulting for many places..."
> Here is a start for your research:
>
> Ishkabible. Mud Hole. Mad Linguist. Girl Talk Studio. At least 3 public
> libraries. Java Hut. Bookman's. Starbuck's. Argosy West. Three J
> Computers. Top Dog Technologies. B & W Electronics. A-1 Computer Service.
> The Computer Zone. CompuTime. Hell, even Oak Tree Furniture used to have
> an open computer people can use to get on-line.
More misdirection from Snit.
Back up your original claim about your posting from a public lab.
> I am sure I am leaving places out, so your research should not be limited to
> just those places.
>
> Bottom line: your "conclusion" is not supported by facts.
>
> Will you admit to this?
Back up your original claim about your posting from a public lab.
>>>Please, be specific... the fact
>>>that the IP is not from a place that is associated with me?
>>
>>You are associated with YC and if you aren't posting from there, you are
>>then posting from home or you are posting from your consulting jobs.
>
>
> Support this claim.
Back up your original claim about your posting from a public lab.
>>>That is your
>>>evidence that it *is* associated with me?
>>
>>You mean you don't use the computer lab at the college where you used to
>>"teach" that Windows class?
>
>
> Your claim is that those are the only two places I could have posted from.
> Please note how when I say that is not so you change topics to claim I am
> suggesting I have not used the computer lab I teach in.
Those are the only two places you mentioned until now, and, now you're
just spinning.
Back up your original claim about your posting from a public lab.
> Your evasion is noted.
LOL. Says the guy who won't back up his claim about posting in a public lab!
>>>LOL. That is one of the most moronic things you have said or suggested.
>>
>>Coming from you, such an attempt to discredit me means that I nailed you.
>
>
> You will never, ever "nail" me.
Already done. Too late.
> Get over your obsession.
Back up your original claim about your posting from a public lab.
>>>>>I thought you were going to stop attacking me...
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess you just slipped again.
>>>>
>>>>Stop telling lies, Snit.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sigh... I suppose it is clear you have no intention of controlling your
>>>obsession to attack me. Whatever. You are growing boring and irrelevant.
>>
>>I've NAILED you. Now throw another one of your famous Snit cyber temper
>>tantrums!
>
>
> You will never, ever "nail" me.
Already done. Too late.
> Get over your obsession.
Back up your original claim about your posting from a public lab.
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 4119b1cb$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/10/04 10:42 PM:
>
>
>>>It is a public lab where I do whatever it is I do there. I have no desire
>>>or obligation to reveal my clients, my sources, my places of entertainment,
>>>my places of business, or *anything* else about my life to you or anyone
>>>else. Period. If you do not like it... get over it. Not that I need a
>>>reason to keep my "real" life out of csma, but have you not seen Elizabot's
>>>thinly veiled threat to send a bunch of her claims to my current employer?
>>
>>The only reason I found out your employer is because I ran across my
>>handle on your bookmark page.
>
>
> Please note that the comment was about your thinly veiled threats... and you
> come to the conclusion that because you were able to *find* where I work in
> a reasonable way (which may or may not be true) then it makes it OK for you
> to threaten me.
>
> Your defense is laughable.
Back up your original claim about your posting from a public lab.
You won't because you know you'll be found out a liar.
Put up or shut up, Snit.
>>Too bad those bookmarks of yours bit you in your ass like that. You
>>really should learn about Google and what sorts of information you can
>>find out there.
>
>
> The question was not about information. It was about your threats.
Back up your original claim about your posting from a public lab.
> Your evasion is noted.
LOL! Says the guy who won't back up his claim about posting in a public lab.
>>>All I need is to feed some obsessive Usenet troll like her more information
>>>about where I spend my time. No thanks.
>>
>>Maybe I already know more, Snit. I never reveal all the cards in my
>>hand! It's more fun to string you along!
>
>
> Sure... you are jumping up and down doing all you can to support one of the
> 24 deceptions in the sigmond FAQ, but have now decided to withhold
> information.
Poor Snit.
> Either you are lying, acting against your own interests, or the information
> debunks your claims.
Wrong again. I already told you above that it's more fun for me to not
reveal all of my information. This is all about fun, isn't it?
>>>Again, the concept is clear. The point is that an assumption has been made:
>>>that the IP in question came from my house. This claim has not been
>>>supported... and it is this claim that is part of the "evidence" against
>>>me... or really, part of the continued trolling against me. I welcome you
>>>finding *anything* to support the claim that I have ever used that IP from
>>>any house I have ever lived in.
>>
>>If it's not from your house, then it's through work!
>
>
> Support this claim.
Based on your own words:
"You list that same IP as mine based on posts I made from a public lab.
When I post from home I use my newsreader and have access to my
SuperNews account."
"You seem to forget that I do consulting for many places..."
Back up your original claim about your posting from a public lab.
> Note to world: you will not.
CSMA is not the world, Snit. Get over it.
>>LOL!! You sound awfully touchy about your employer knowing what you've been up
>>to. I wonder why that is. Hmmm. Something else to look into. Thanks for the
>>idea.
>>
>>(Note to self: I need to check out the psycho wards and see if they have
>>matching IP addresses to Snit and sigmond's postings.)
>>
>>
>>>I notice you completely avoided that request, above. Let me be very clear
>>>hear: I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the claim
>>>that the IP came from my house. If so share it. If not, will you publicly
>>>state that at least that part of the claim against me is clearly false, or
>>>at least fully and entirely unsupported?
>>>
>>>Time to put up or shut up, Ed... is the claim that the IP came from my house
>>>supported or not? You know the answer. I know the answer. The *only*
>>>question left is what trolling method you will use to avoid the question.
>>>Your current method is to focus on the unrelated demand for me to reveal
>>>things about my private life I have no obligation to do, and obvious reasons
>>>to not do. Will you come up with a new avoidance tactic or will you be a
>>>man and just admit that you have seen absolutely, unequivocally, *no*
>>>evidence to support this claim against me.
>>>
>>
>>LOL! You are completely rabid! I win!
>
>
> Ahhh, you see a complete and total lack of support as a "win".
Reading for comprehension certainly isn't your strong suit, Snit.
>>You seem to be forgetting something: You are the one who originally
>>claimed that sigmond's posts came from a public lab, Snit.
>
>
> No. I claimed *I* posted from a public lab.
Back up your claim. Snit.
> I have no concern where Steve
> posts from.
Side argument.
>>Why don't you back up that claim of yours?
>
>
> I have no need to back up *my* claim of where *I* post from.
Oh, but you do, Snit. Otherwise you continue to make yourself look like
a liar - or are you afraid if you do you'll be proven a liar!
>>This is so amusing that I'm considering.... nah, I'll save that for
>>another day.
>
>
> Well, at least you are holding something back so you do not completely slip
> into irrelevancy.
Incorrect. It's more fun for me to hold back information, silly boy.
> Just like I post info about Steve every time he posts lies about me, I think
> I will start just posting info about you every time you do. Simply do not
> have the time or desire to reply to your every lie / attack / obsessive
> tantrum.
LOL! Is this your way of saying your not having fun anymore? If that's
true, then you need to go find another hobby.
Nashton
> In article <BD3EADBD.5BA75%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>I made a separate point. I'm not surprised that you didn't get it.
>>
>>Who cares if he spoofed the IP or did cut and paste? Not I.
>
>
> He did neither.
>
Get a life/job Sandman. It's pretty obvious you have neither of both.
You *must* have something better to do than to pick on Snit.
Same goes for EBot.
Nicolas
Elizabot
Bossy, bossy.
Snit
7de4cc6c.04081...@posting.google.com on 8/11/04 9:01 AM:
Feel free to support your claim. I am open to making corrections to this
FAQ... in fact, if you look at the version numbers, you can see I have done
so already.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 4119b1cb$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/10/04 10:42 PM:
>
> >> It is a public lab where I do whatever it is I do there. I have no desire
> >> or obligation to reveal my clients, my sources, my places of
> >> entertainment,
> >> my places of business, or *anything* else about my life to you or anyone
> >> else. Period. If you do not like it... get over it. Not that I need a
> >> reason to keep my "real" life out of csma, but have you not seen
> >> Elizabot's
> >> thinly veiled threat to send a bunch of her claims to my current employer?
> >
> > The only reason I found out your employer is because I ran across my
> > handle on your bookmark page.
>
> Please note that the comment was about your thinly veiled threats... and you
> come to the conclusion that because you were able to *find* where I work in
> a reasonable way (which may or may not be true) then it makes it OK for you
> to threaten me.
>
> Your defense is laughable.
What's laughable is that you think she needs a defense. The best defense
is a good offense... right, Snit:)
--
"I may just be the primary topic of this group"
"I am happy to say the overwhelming vast majority
of your posts clearly referenced me"
- Michael Glasser (AKA Snit)
--
Steve C
ed
um, there's more than that.
it's from the same city you live in- a city w/ a population w/ less than 40k
people.
from the same isp.
from the same type of connection.
that's pretty strong support.
Elizabot
> In article <BD3F85C0.5BC67%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>>4119b1cb$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 8/10/04 10:42 PM:
>>
>>
>>>>It is a public lab where I do whatever it is I do there. I have no desire
>>>>or obligation to reveal my clients, my sources, my places of
>>>>entertainment,
>>>>my places of business, or *anything* else about my life to you or anyone
>>>>else. Period. If you do not like it... get over it. Not that I need a
>>>>reason to keep my "real" life out of csma, but have you not seen
>>>>Elizabot's
>>>>thinly veiled threat to send a bunch of her claims to my current employer?
>>>
>>>The only reason I found out your employer is because I ran across my
>>>handle on your bookmark page.
>>
>>Please note that the comment was about your thinly veiled threats... and you
>>come to the conclusion that because you were able to *find* where I work in
>>a reasonable way (which may or may not be true) then it makes it OK for you
>>to threaten me.
>>
>>Your defense is laughable.
>
>
> What's laughable is that you think she needs a defense. The best defense
> is a good offense... right, Snit:)
And Snit thinks a good counter to you is to repost that same tired old
lie-filled crappy post of his!
--
"You see, my invisible green dragon tells me that God is real, and is
even a pretty nice guy, but can not hold his liquor well."
- Snit (aka 尬≡) on 4/27/04
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
Hey, if he wants to continually show the world he has no idea of what
context is... who am I to stop him:)
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> pan.2004.08.11....@hotmail.com on 8/11/04 9:18 AM:
>
>>> Not sure what you are trying to hide, since both PDF's seem to be the
>>> same... and both have the word "unverified" in them.
>>
>> The content, at a glance seems the same. However, it does show you will,
>> and do lie, even when it doesn't matter, by asking me "Why the change of
>> PDF's Steve?". Are you even capable of telling the truth, mikey?
>
> I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site.
No, you have one of your PDFs on your site. I never made one on a Mac. See
you fucked up yet again. The creation date changed yet again, to todays
date. As did the creator. This is all according to Adobe Acrobat Pro 5.
This is easily proven. ANYBODY who downloaded your PDF off your site prior
to this afternoon can easily see you're lying. Why, I don't know. It's
just what you do I guess <shrug>. Everyone has to have a hobby. Yours must
be lying.
Boy you must be slipping trying to keep track of your lies.
>
> The original:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
No, that was made by you today. On a Mac.
>
> And the new one from you:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
New? No, that's the original, made by me on 6/13 on my Win2K box.
>
> I did change the name of the new one to add the "new" to it. Other than
> that, they are as you posted them.
No, they aren't. Why lie about something that is essentially the same? And
something that's so easily provable.
>
> What you hope to accomplish is beyond me... they both have the word
> "unverified" in them, which is the only point of contention I have.
Yes, your 192.168.0.2 address is unverified.
> As
> far as I can tell, at a brief glance, their content are exactly the
> same... though the sizes are different. Why the change Steve?
I didn't. However you keep changing them.
> I would
> have expected that the new one would have had the word "unverified"
> edited out... or some other nonsense. The word is still there.
No, I'm honest, unlike you.
>
>>> So use whichever of your PDF's that you want to. Does not matter to
>>> me.
>>
>> Yup, and they both prove you are sigmond by the IP#.
>
> They both have the word "unverified" in them. You do know what that
> word means, right?
Sure do. But like usual, you're confusing the context of the word.
Snit
PttSc.5527$b77....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com on 8/11/04 11:22 AM:
LOL. There is one major high speed connection for the tri-city area where I
live... where there are far more people than you state, above.
You jump from the idea that it came from a tri-city area where I live and
conclude it *must* come from my house.
That is absurd.
At best.
So, again:
I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the claim
that the IP came from my *HOUSE*.
Snit
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:26:11 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> pan.2004.08.11....@hotmail.com on 8/11/04 9:18 AM:
>>
>>>> Not sure what you are trying to hide, since both PDF's seem to be the
>>>> same... and both have the word "unverified" in them.
>>>
>>> The content, at a glance seems the same. However, it does show you will,
>>> and do lie, even when it doesn't matter, by asking me "Why the change of
>>> PDF's Steve?". Are you even capable of telling the truth, mikey?
>>
>> I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site.
>
> No, you have one of your PDFs on your site. I never made one on a Mac. See
> you fucked up yet again. The creation date changed yet again, to todays
> date. As did the creator. This is all according to Adobe Acrobat Pro 5.
> This is easily proven. ANYBODY who downloaded your PDF off your site prior
> to this afternoon can easily see you're lying. Why, I don't know. It's
> just what you do I guess <shrug>. Everyone has to have a hobby. Yours must
> be lying.
Both PDF's came from you. Both are linked on my site. Both are available
for viewing by anyone. Why you changed them is anyone's guess.
>
> Boy you must be slipping trying to keep track of your lies.
You forgot to remove the word "unverified" in your edit. Do not forget that
is what this is really about.
>
>>
>> The original:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
>
> No, that was made by you today. On a Mac.
That is the one I downloaded from you.
>
>>
>> And the new one from you:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
>
> New? No, that's the original, made by me on 6/13 on my Win2K box.
Wow... you can set a creation date. Who cares?
>
>>
>> I did change the name of the new one to add the "new" to it. Other than
>> that, they are as you posted them.
>
> No, they aren't. Why lie about something that is essentially the same? And
> something that's so easily provable.
I have no idea why you are lying about this. My guess is you forgot to
remove the word "unverified". Just a guess. It appears in both.
>
>>
>> What you hope to accomplish is beyond me... they both have the word
>> "unverified" in them, which is the only point of contention I have.
>
> Yes, your 192.168.0.2 address is unverified.
Hmmm, interesting... my IP on my internal network is 192.168.2.x right now.
My router does not use the 192.168.0.x scheme.
Hmmm, I did change routers at one point... I would have to look up the
date... who knows what it was on the original e-mail.
>
>> As
>> far as I can tell, at a brief glance, their content are exactly the
>> same... though the sizes are different. Why the change Steve?
>
> I didn't. However you keep changing them.
They are posted to my site... and just sitting there. Feel free to make
whatever claim you want.
Might want to go e-mail Steve Carroll the different versions so he can back
up your claims. How about Elizabot or Sandman? Any of them want to get
back at me for exposing their lies.
>
>> I would
>> have expected that the new one would have had the word "unverified"
>> edited out... or some other nonsense. The word is still there.
>
> No, I'm honest, unlike you.
The funny thing is I think you believe that.
>
>>
>>>> So use whichever of your PDF's that you want to. Does not matter to
>>>> me.
>>>
>>> Yup, and they both prove you are sigmond by the IP#.
>>
>> They both have the word "unverified" in them. You do know what that
>> word means, right?
>
> Sure do. But like usual, you're confusing the context of the word.
Look carefully... it modifies the address you claim the e-mail came from.
Steve Mackay
<snip>
>>> Please note that I was *very* specific in my request:
>>>
>>> I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the claim
>>> that the IP came from my house.
>>>
>>> Please also note that the only "evidence" you provide is to say it
>>> appears
>>> to come from a city you believe I live in. You call this "strong
>>> support".
>>>
>>> It is not.
>>
>> um, there's more than that. it's from the same city you live in- a city w/ a
>> population w/ less than 40k people. from the same isp. from the same type of
>> connection. that's pretty strong support.
>
> LOL. There is one major high speed connection for the tri-city area where I
> live... where there are far more people than you state, above.
Ummm, boy, you just can NOT stop lying, can you?
Here's a list of Broadband providers in your zip code.
http://www.dslreports.com/prequal_watch/RRz5ztBeaTXh/4c444b
>
> You jump from the idea that it came from a tri-city area where I live and
> conclude it *must* come from my house.
There is no jumping to any idea. It was your IP#. You are sigmond. Give it
up sockpuppet boy.
Snit
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:28:02 -0700, Snit wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>>> Please note that I was *very* specific in my request:
>>>>
>>>> I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the claim
>>>> that the IP came from my house.
>>>>
>>>> Please also note that the only "evidence" you provide is to say it appears
>>>> to come from a city you believe I live in. You call this "strong support".
>>>>
>>>> It is not.
>>>
>>> um, there's more than that. it's from the same city you live in- a city w/ a
>>> population w/ less than 40k people. from the same isp. from the same type of
>>> connection. that's pretty strong support.
>>
>> LOL. There is one major high speed connection for the tri-city area where I
>> live... where there are far more people than you state, above.
>
> Ummm, boy, you just can NOT stop lying, can you?
> Here's a list of Broadband providers in your zip code.
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/prequal_watch/RRz5ztBeaTXh/4c444b
Sigh... you really are dense... and working to make yourself look completely
stupid. Or maybe you are just so blinded by your insane need to attack me
that you really believe this stuff you spew.
I will humor you with at least one more post after this... to reveal the
errors in your claim there. But first let me give you a chance to correct
your comments. Can you? Do you *really* believe what you wrote? Do you
really believe it shows in *any* way that I was being deceptive about there
being one major broadband ISP in my area? Keep in mind, I did not say
"only", nor did I say my state... just my area... which can reasonably be
assumed to be the tri-city area I live in.
There, now you have some hints. Can you find the flaws in your claim or do
you need help?
>
>>
>> You jump from the idea that it came from a tri-city area where I live and
>> conclude it *must* come from my house.
>
> There is no jumping to any idea. It was your IP#. You are sigmond. Give it
> up sockpuppet boy.
Wow... basing your conclusion on the premise you determine by proclamation.
I notice you want to jump topics and go from the idea of the IP ... which
was presented as evidence of your conclusion but it turns out is not
supportable... to the conclusion even in light of the fact that the premise
has been shown to be unsupported.
You should join the same logic class Elizabot is going to... oh wait.. she
will not take a class no matter how badly she needs it. Neither will you.
In any case, you have yet to explain why you re-saved and perhaps in other
ways modified the PDF about the e-mail in the first place. Makes no sense
to me why you would do this.
Tommy
> Sandman Trolling FAQ
> v1.4
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Q: What basis should we judge if Sandman regularly trolls in CSMA
>
> A: He has been asked to provide "objective criteria" as to what a troll is,
> and he, after a while, did finally offer his own "objective criteria". It
> seems fair to judge him based on those criteria.
>
> He first would not offer objective criteria:
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16614
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16615
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16616
>
> He then claimed that he had provided such criteria... though he had not.
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16617
>
> "your replies to this thread" as though a simple reply is his criteria.
> That criteria of Sandman's was absurd. He was not able to clarify it.
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16619
>
> Later his "objective criteria" to determine trolling he says is
> "trolling"... using a meaningless circular definition:
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16620
>
> He finally, after many requests, provides some comments about what his
> criteria are:
>
> http://smallurl.com/?i=16621
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Q: What are those criteria that Sandman agreed to.
>
> be summarized as doing any subset of the following:
>
> 2) Using information from other groups for dirt on someone
> troll another poster
> 4) Creating sock puppets
Snit
7de4cc6c.04081...@posting.google.com on 8/11/04 2:02 PM:
Please be specific. What are you claiming is a lie?
Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:26:11 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> > "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > pan.2004.08.11....@hotmail.com on 8/11/04 9:18 AM:
> >
> >>> Not sure what you are trying to hide, since both PDF's seem to be the
> >>> same... and both have the word "unverified" in them.
> >>
> >> The content, at a glance seems the same. However, it does show you will,
> >> and do lie, even when it doesn't matter, by asking me "Why the change of
> >> PDF's Steve?". Are you even capable of telling the truth, mikey?
> >
> > I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site.
>
> No, you have one of your PDFs on your site. I never made one on a Mac. See
> you fucked up yet again. The creation date changed yet again, to todays
> date. As did the creator. This is all according to Adobe Acrobat Pro 5.
> This is easily proven. ANYBODY who downloaded your PDF off your site prior
> to this afternoon can easily see you're lying. Why, I don't know. It's
> just what you do I guess <shrug>. Everyone has to have a hobby. Yours must
> be lying.
LOL!
> Boy you must be slipping trying to keep track of your lies.
Slipping? He can't even stand at this point:)
> >
> > The original:
> >
> > http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
>
> No, that was made by you today. On a Mac.
>
> >
> > And the new one from you:
> >
> > http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
>
> New? No, that's the original, made by me on 6/13 on my Win2K box.
>
> >
> > I did change the name of the new one to add the "new" to it. Other than
> > that, they are as you posted them.
>
> No, they aren't. Why lie about something that is essentially the same? And
> something that's so easily provable.
Stupidity. It's the only explanation that makes any sense for him to
keep doing this sort of stuff consistently.
> >
> > What you hope to accomplish is beyond me... they both have the word
> > "unverified" in them, which is the only point of contention I have.
>
> Yes, your 192.168.0.2 address is unverified.
>
> > As
> > far as I can tell, at a brief glance, their content are exactly the
> > same... though the sizes are different. Why the change Steve?
>
> I didn't. However you keep changing them.
>
> > I would
> > have expected that the new one would have had the word "unverified"
> > edited out... or some other nonsense. The word is still there.
>
> No, I'm honest, unlike you.
>
> >
> >>> So use whichever of your PDF's that you want to. Does not matter to
> >>> me.
> >>
> >> Yup, and they both prove you are sigmond by the IP#.
> >
> > They both have the word "unverified" in them. You do know what that
> > word means, right?
>
> Sure do. But like usual, you're confusing the context of the word.
It's not his fault... he has no idea what word context is (and he proves
it on a regular basis). I used to think he purposefully did these things
to get attention. Now, I realize he does want attention but he's also
not very bright. His latest delusion has me working with you on faking
e-mails or some such.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Yeah... several of us spend all day emailing each other back and forth
trying to figure out ways to 'get' you, Snit:)
Snit
fretwizz-4A1923...@netnews.comcast.net on 8/11/04 2:19 PM:
> Yeah... several of us spend all day emailing each other back and forth
> trying to figure out ways to 'get' you, Snit:)
Do you expect me to believe this?
Who knows... could be true... as desperate as you trolls have become of
late.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-4A1923...@netnews.comcast.net on 8/11/04 2:19 PM:
>
> > Yeah... several of us spend all day emailing each other back and forth
> > trying to figure out ways to 'get' you, Snit:)
>
> Do you expect me to believe this?
Do you believe it? To hear you tell it, we are all working together
against you.
> Who knows... could be true... as desperate as you trolls have become of
> late.
Yeah, we're just desperate as we can possibly be:) I doubt you can get
a better focus on your projector, it's working perfectly. LOL!
Nashton
Please. I know of 6 year-olds that would/could behave better.
Nicolas
Snit
oaxSc.92037$Np3.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 8/11/04 3:35 PM:
I don't know... depends on the 6 year old. Some 6 year olds are obsessive
about different things - candy, games, whatever. Elizabot acts much like
them. Even today she has been begging to know about my personal life and,
when I will not tell her, she resorts to name calling, begging, whining, and
even threatening... much like a 6 year old throwing a tantrum.
Then again, you say you know of 6 year olds that could / would behave
better... very possible. There are many 6 year olds who seem to have better
control of themselves and their desires than Elizabot seems to.
If she is not in therapy, she really should be. I do not say that
jokingly... Steve Carroll is just stupid - therapy can not help that. Steve
Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies - he is not obsessed and
begging me for anything... Sandman is just mad I caught him being a Usenet
troll - big deal. Elizabot may very well *really* need therapy. I think
she is a very sick person.
Steve Mackay
<snip>
> Steve
> Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies - he is not obsessed and
> begging me for anything...
Huh? You caught /me/ in lies. Bzzzzt.... try again.
Here is the original PDF.
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf
Here is your 1st one, made with OmniGraffle, created on a Mac, yesterday,
and not by me.
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email_snit_lie1.pdf
Here is your 2nd one, made today by you, with a creator name of M, created
today, again, not by me.
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email_snit_lie2.pdf
that last two PDFs came directly off your site, mikey. Not created by me.
It just shows that you'll lie about anything, and everything.
Now, you can go to my site on wi.rr.com, and see EXACTLY when each of
those were uploaded.
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/
that's not something that can be changed by a non
tech for RoadRunner. I'm sure you'll babble on about some conspiracy
however.
Snit
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:51:26 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Steve
>> Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies - he is not obsessed and
>> begging me for anything...
>
> Huh? You caught /me/ in lies. Bzzzzt.... try again.
Why would I try again to do what I already did?
Your request makes no sense.
Think about it... I did X. Now you want me to do X, when X does not need
doing.
You are like a little kid who wants to hear the same story over and over.
> Here is the original PDF.
>
> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf
>
> Here is your 1st one, made with OmniGraffle, created on a Mac, yesterday,
> and not by me.
>
> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email_snit_lie1.pdf
>
> Here is your 2nd one, made today by you, with a creator name of M, created
> today, again, not by me.
>
> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email_snit_lie2.pdf
>
> that last two PDFs came directly off your site, mikey. Not created by me.
> It just shows that you'll lie about anything, and everything.
The site has not changed. There are two PDF's.
What is the URL of the two PDF's you say you got from my site.
>
> Now, you can go to my site on wi.rr.com, and see EXACTLY when each of
> those were uploaded.
>
> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/
>
> that's not something that can be changed by a non
> tech for RoadRunner. I'm sure you'll babble on about some conspiracy
> however.
Oh my... you know how to change a modification date. You must be a super
computer user.
Then again, you were the one who told me that cut and paste was virtually
impossible.
What a goofball you are.
Listen, if you want to keep playing your silly games, you may need to find
someone new. I am growing weary of you as well. Your lies bore me.
Ok... time for you to jump on the bandwagon and claim if I do not repeatedly
counter your lies then I must be agreeing with them.
ed
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
<snip>
>>> Please note that I was *very* specific in my request:
>>>
>>> I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the
>>> claim that the IP came from my house.
>>>
>>> Please also note that the only "evidence" you provide is to say it
>>> appears
>>> to come from a city you believe I live in. You call this "strong
>>> support".
>>>
>>> It is not.
>>
>> um, there's more than that. it's from the same city you live in- a
>> city w/ a population w/ less than 40k people. from the same isp.
>> from the same type of connection. that's pretty strong support.
>
> LOL. There is one major high speed connection for the tri-city area
> where I live... where there are far more people than you state, above.
>
> You jump from the idea that it came from a tri-city area where I live
> and conclude it *must* come from my house.
- ok, so there's a whopping 110k people in the entire area.
- there may be one "major" isp w/ broadband, but there are *many* broadband
providers, but a "public lab" coincidentally choses the same one as yours,
even though cableone only allows up to 13 "devices" per connection?
still pretty good support, given that you won't even do the bare minimum-
even naming a public lab- to show otherwise.
> That is absurd.
>
> At best.
>
> So, again:
>
> I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the claim
> that the IP came from my *HOUSE*.
the support is above. as i've stated, it's not conclusive, but pretty darn
good given your inability to counter it- simply naming the lab where you
supposedly posted from would be a good start.
Steve Carroll
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Would you actually believe any answer he gave you, ed?
Snit
%gzSc.5612$fe1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com on 8/11/04 5:58 PM:
> In news:BD3FCF62.5BD25%snit-...@cableone.net,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
> <snip>
>>>> Please note that I was *very* specific in my request:
>>>>
>>>> I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the
>>>> claim that the IP came from my house.
>>>>
>>>> Please also note that the only "evidence" you provide is to say it
>>>> appears
>>>> to come from a city you believe I live in. You call this "strong
>>>> support".
>>>>
>>>> It is not.
>>>
>>> um, there's more than that. it's from the same city you live in- a
>>> city w/ a population w/ less than 40k people. from the same isp.
>>> from the same type of connection. that's pretty strong support.
>>
>> LOL. There is one major high speed connection for the tri-city area
>> where I live... where there are far more people than you state, above.
>>
>> You jump from the idea that it came from a tri-city area where I live
>> and conclude it *must* come from my house.
>
> - ok, so there's a whopping 110k people in the entire area.
You do realize that they do not all live at my house.
> - there may be one "major" isp w/ broadband, but there are *many* broadband
> providers, but a "public lab" coincidentally choses the same one as yours,
> even though cableone only allows up to 13 "devices" per connection?
I see you now change your tune? Why is it hard to believe that others would
pick the same *main* broadband ISP that I do? Keep in mind that if it is
one of my clients then they may have picked the same ISP on my suggestion.
Then again, since most people in town go with the same ISP, no connection to
me needs to be assumed at all.
You are really stretching here.
>
> still pretty good support, given that you won't even do the bare minimum-
> even naming a public lab- to show otherwise.
LOL... my not wanting to share parts of my private life you see as support
for someone else's claim! That is funny.
I have no need to share personal information to refute an unsupported and
dishonest claim against me.
>
>> That is absurd.
>>
>> At best.
>>
>> So, again:
>>
>> I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the claim
>> that the IP came from my *HOUSE*.
>
> the support is above.
There is *no* support above. What you claim as support does not logically
lead to your conclusion.
> as i've stated, it's not conclusive,
To put it very mildly.
> but pretty darn good given your inability to counter it- simply naming the
> lab where you supposedly posted from would be a good start.
What would your reaction be if I were to do so?
Would you drop the claim? If not, what is the point?
See, that is yet another flaw in your logic... you want me to X to disprove
the completely unsupported Y (as though I have any need to disprove
something with no support), but will not even say that if I do X you will
admit Y is a lie against me.
At least you are still mildly amusing... thanks. :)
Snit
Unbelievable. After all this time you come around and support me. I must
say, I am quite pleasantly surprised.
This is essentially my point. Even if I had a dated video tape and
notarized statements from 24 people, Ed would *still* not change his tune
and say he agreed the claims against me were bogus. It would not matter.
The only thing sharing parts of my personal life would do would be to feed
Elizabot more information for her obsession.
Again, Steve, thanks for the support... though I am at a loss at what made
you want to jump in and support me.
Let me guess: you are missed the fact that you were supporting my point...
right?
Please tell me I am wrong on this. Please tell me that you are not so
unbelievably stupid that you tried to attack me by agreeing with my point
that no matter what Ed would not believe me... and even if he did believe me
he would not admit that the claim against me was false.
Are you that stupid, Steve? God, I hope not. I have always figured you as
being stupid, but even I have not assumed you were *that* stupid.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
I hear that ruined credibility can be a real problem...
Snit
I assume you hear that a lot.
I do not wonder why.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Really? So you are aware ed isn't likely to believe you? Where did you
make this 'point' in this thread prior to my writing to ed what I did?
Sorry, I wasn't following all your drivel... despite the fact that you
obviously think so much of yourself that you believe I did.
> Even if I had a dated video tape and
> notarized statements from 24 people, Ed would *still* not change his tune
> and say he agreed the claims against me were bogus. It would not matter.
>
> The only thing sharing parts of my personal life would do would be to feed
> Elizabot more information for her obsession.
>
> Again, Steve, thanks for the support... though I am at a loss at what made
> you want to jump in and support me.
>
> Let me guess: you are missed the fact that you were supporting my point...
> right?
Well, I hadn't realized you were aware enough of having ruined your own
credibility with others that you would actually use it as a point in one
of your arguments. Truth really IS stranger than fiction:)
> Please tell me I am wrong on this.
Well of course you're wrong:) Don't worry, your record stays intact.
> Please tell me that you are not so
> unbelievably stupid that you tried to attack me by agreeing with my point
> that no matter what Ed would not believe me... and even if he did believe me
> he would not admit that the claim against me was false.
>
> Are you that stupid, Steve? God, I hope not. I have always figured you as
> being stupid, but even I have not assumed you were *that* stupid.
LOL! They've really gotten to you, haven't they? I guess when you have
several posters on your ass at once you can't be expected to hold out
too long. No one has any reason to believe you Snit. For anyone reading
your frustrated posts as of late, whatever 'point' you think you've made
here underscores only this fact:)
Snit
Read my most recent post about Steve Mackay... grab the files off of *his*
website before he removes or edits them.
He, and by extension Sandman, have been caught red handed as liars.
There is *no* doubt...
Of course, this will not stop them from coming up with some story that I, or
sigmond, broke into Steve M.s account and somehow framed him or something
stupid like that. Now will it stop you from believing them.
I wish I could get them each to respond separately... without being able to
talk first... *that* would be funny.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
I'm glad you don't wonder why I've only heard about it. Anyway...yeah,
I have heard it a bit. Of course, I don't have the firsthand experience
that you do so I forced to go off of hearsay about the topic. Even with
all that I've heard, though, I can't begin to imagine it getting to the
point where even YOU realized your credibility was so bad that you'd use
it as a point in an argument on usenet. I've got to admit... that caught
me off guard... even taking into consideration that it's you we're
talking about here:)
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> pan.2004.08.12....@hotmail.com on 8/11/04 5:01 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:51:26 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Steve
>>> Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies - he is not obsessed and
>>> begging me for anything...
>>
>> Huh? You caught /me/ in lies. Bzzzzt.... try again.
>
> Why would I try again to do what I already did?
Did what? lie? yes, you did, and you do, quite often.
>
> Your request makes no sense.
>
> Think about it... I did X. Now you want me to do X, when X does not need
> doing.
Where X=you lie. Yup, except I don't want you to lie anymore.
Unfortunately that won't be the case. You're sure to lie, and get
caught again.
>
> You are like a little kid who wants to hear the same story over and over.
heh, but your stories always change Mikey :)
>
>> Here is the original PDF.
>>
>> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf
>>
>> Here is your 1st one, made with OmniGraffle, created on a Mac, yesterday,
>> and not by me.
>>
>> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email_snit_lie1.pdf
>>
>> Here is your 2nd one, made today by you, with a creator name of M, created
>> today, again, not by me.
>>
>> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email_snit_lie2.pdf
>>
>> that last two PDFs came directly off your site, mikey. Not created by me.
>> It just shows that you'll lie about anything, and everything.
>
> The site has not changed.
Yes it did.
> There are two PDF's.
Actually, there were 3 altogether. The 2 you made, and my original.
>
> What is the URL of the two PDF's you say you got from my site.
You mean for the PDF you keep on changing for some unknown reason?
>>
>> Now, you can go to my site on wi.rr.com, and see EXACTLY when each of
>> those were uploaded.
>>
>> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/
>>
>> that's not something that can be changed by a non
>> tech for RoadRunner. I'm sure you'll babble on about some conspiracy
>> however.
>
> Oh my... you know how to change a modification date. You must be a super
> computer user.
Notice, no refuting to actual proof. But hey, go right ahead and claim
otherwise. It's another one of you empty victories.
>
> Then again, you were the one who told me that cut and paste was virtually
> impossible.
>
> What a goofball you are.
>
> Listen, if you want to keep playing your silly games, you may need to find
> someone new. I am growing weary of you as well. Your lies bore me.
>
> Ok... time for you to jump on the bandwagon and claim if I do not repeatedly
> counter your lies then I must be agreeing with them.
1st, I'd have to be telling a lie. 2nd, you can't counter them, since
you are lying.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Bullshit. What you are claiming was done by you. You're fooling no one.
Guess who else has an original from your site and guess what it matches?
LOL! You're pathetic.
Sandman
<n...@nospam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>>> I made a separate point. I'm not surprised that you didn't get it.
>>>
>>> Who cares if he spoofed the IP or did cut and paste? Not I.
>>
>> He did neither.
>
> Get a life/job Sandman. It's pretty obvious you have neither of both.
What an cliché. :)
> You *must* have something better to do than to pick on Snit. Same goes
> for EBot.
Hehe, you may have noticed that I often end up arguing with trolls. I make
lengthy post, pretty much in vain, to prove Edwin wrong, to make fun of Tholen
and things like that. Elizabot and I are pretty alike in that we take advantage
of trolls tendency to... claim things, or lie.
This all started because Michael did all he could to obfuscate all the posts
containing actual proof he is sigmond. As time went, several people had
supplied proof he was sigmond, but Michael still tried desperately to deny it.
You tried to push him to the wall as well, but he dodged that too. This is
where I thought it would be easy just to compile a FAQ containing the plain and
simple -facts- in the matter. Which I did.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Let me guess! *You* now have a copy of Steve's PDF and will claim it was
from me... right?
This is getting better by the minute.
Please, Steve, tell me how I pulled this one off... tell me how I got Steve
M. to clearly fake an IP.
Snit
on 8/11/04 10:17 PM:
> In article <YqsSc.91895$Np3.4...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Nashton
> <n...@nospam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>> I made a separate point. I'm not surprised that you didn't get it.
>>>>
>>>> Who cares if he spoofed the IP or did cut and paste? Not I.
>>>
>>> He did neither.
>>
>> Get a life/job Sandman. It's pretty obvious you have neither of both.
>
> What an cliché. :)
*AN* cliché?
>
>> You *must* have something better to do than to pick on Snit. Same goes
>> for EBot.
>
> Hehe, you may have noticed that I often end up arguing with trolls. I make
> lengthy post, pretty much in vain, to prove Edwin wrong, to make fun of Tholen
> and things like that. Elizabot and I are pretty alike in that we take
> advantage of trolls tendency to... claim things, or lie.
>
> This all started because Michael did all he could to obfuscate all the posts
> containing actual proof he is sigmond. As time went, several people had
> supplied proof he was sigmond, but Michael still tried desperately to deny it.
> You tried to push him to the wall as well, but he dodged that too. This is
> where I thought it would be easy just to compile a FAQ containing the plain
> and simple -facts- in the matter. Which I did.
You mean the FAQ that has 24 documented deceptions?
Oh, and if you missed it, Steve Mackay blew it. He is busy playing cover up
now for his major boo-boo. Have not checked his site, so he may have
changed it by now, but check out the post entitled:
Caught Steve Mackay in *another* big lie
Then tell me again how you verified the e-mail. This should be good.
Good day, troll. Steve Mackay just blew it big time.
ed
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in
> %gzSc.5612$fe1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com on 8/11/04 5:58 PM:
>
>> In news:BD3FCF62.5BD25%snit-...@cableone.net,
>> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> typed:
>> <snip>
>>>>> Please note that I was *very* specific in my request:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the
>>>>> claim that the IP came from my house.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please also note that the only "evidence" you provide is to say it
>>>>> appears
>>>>> to come from a city you believe I live in. You call this "strong
>>>>> support".
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not.
>>>>
>>>> um, there's more than that. it's from the same city you live in- a
>>>> city w/ a population w/ less than 40k people. from the same isp.
>>>> from the same type of connection. that's pretty strong support.
>>>
>>> LOL. There is one major high speed connection for the tri-city area
>>> where I live... where there are far more people than you state,
>>> above.
>>>
>>> You jump from the idea that it came from a tri-city area where I
>>> live
>>> and conclude it *must* come from my house.
>>
>> - ok, so there's a whopping 110k people in the entire area.
>
> You do realize that they do not all live at my house.
no, they don't all live in your house, and nobody's claimed they did.
average household size in az- 2.64- so we'll round up to 42000 households.
slightly over 50% of households have internet access- we'll round way up to
60%, or 25,200 households.
about 40% of folks w/ internet access have broadband- about 10000
households.
we'll assume cableone is *really* dominant and has 50% of the market.
leaving a whopping 5000 households. now, given all that, and the relatively
few number of people who post in c.s.m.a., it's NOT a stretch to state that
the evidence is pretty good that 2 postings from the same small metro area,
w/ the same isp, with the same type of connection, are likely from the same
person. as i said, not conclusive, but pretty freakin' good.
>> - there may be one "major" isp w/ broadband, but there are *many*
>> broadband providers, but a "public lab" coincidentally choses the
>> same one as yours, even though cableone only allows up to 13
>> "devices" per connection?
>
> I see you now change your tune?
uh, no, the tune's exactly the same.
> Why is it hard to believe that
> others would pick the same *main* broadband ISP that I do? Keep in
> mind that if it is one of my clients then they may have picked the
> same ISP on my suggestion.
you'd recommend an isp that only allows up to 13 devices (a device includes
a hub according to cableone) to a "public lab"? what kind of two-bit public
lab is this?
> Then again, since most people in town go with the same ISP, no
> connection to me needs to be assumed at all.
>
> You are really stretching here.
nope. until you provide evidence otherwise, the evidence against you is
pretty good.
>> still pretty good support, given that you won't even do the bare
>> minimum- even naming a public lab- to show otherwise.
>
> LOL... my not wanting to share parts of my private life you see as
> support for someone else's claim! That is funny.
>
> I have no need to share personal information to refute an unsupported
> and dishonest claim against me.
the name of a public lab is personal information that you're unwilling to
share? that's hard to believe, given that you publicly publish crap about
your personal life like having phobias about getting your blood pressure
taken!
>>> That is absurd.
>>>
>>> At best.
>>>
>>> So, again:
>>>
>>> I am asking you if you know of *any* evidence to support the
>>> claim that the IP came from my *HOUSE*.
>>
>> the support is above.
>
> There is *no* support above. What you claim as support does not
> logically lead to your conclusion.
>
>> as i've stated, it's not conclusive,
>
> To put it very mildly.
not particularly mild.
>> but pretty darn good given your inability to counter it- simply
>> naming the lab where you supposedly posted from would be a good
>> start.
>
> What would your reaction be if I were to do so?
if one could then verify the ip actually belonged to the lab (wouldn't be
hard to do if it's actually public), my reaction would be that you deserve
more credibility than you're currently getting (virtually none).
> Would you drop the claim? If not, what is the point?
i'd follow up w/ more questions, and if you adequately answered those, then
i'd think you're not really snit. but until you can answer such a simple
inquiry, it's not worth the effort.
> See, that is yet another flaw in your logic... you want me to X to
> disprove the completely unsupported Y (as though I have any need to
> disprove something with no support),
what's w/ the x's and y's? you forget what we're discussing?
> but will not even say that if I
> do X you will admit Y is a lie against me.
a lie? if you can prove a couple points, i would say me and others in here
are mistaken about you being sigmond. i don't think anyone is "lying" about
it.