How To Induce Mass Hysteria
JohnQ
Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS".
Then the Apple damage control freaks like, hh, Carroll, Hix, Fa-garoon,
Adams, Murray, Mike, Lund will come swarming out to defend their
benefactor Apple, with threats lies and insults. I didn't realize you
could find that many hysterical freaks all in one place. Bye all you
scumbags. This is not a place where I want to be. Your posts will be
read and agonized over by only you. I won't be here.
MuahMan
HAHAHAHA! So true. They are particularly easily upset when you poke
fun at the Power PC Macs. Remember for decades they want on and on
about how much better the Power PC chip was over Intel. Then one day
out of the blue they changed their minds for some reason.
Steve Carroll
1 -
> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new.
2 - Make a questionable (laughable) statement based on what you're
*alleging* an "Apple salesman" said:
"The PPC was touted by the Apple salesman as the latest technology and
would be for many years to come."
And then further allege:
"I didn't expect to be misled by the salesman of a major
corporation."
3 - Be evasive as hell when you are asked about the "needs" you
*claimed* you had for "features" you can't talk about for your "work".
4 - Call everyone who asks you logical followup questions a troll or
*plonk* them (like they care;)
5 - Prompt other well known trolls (Snit, Edwin, Pratt) to get in on
the game.
6 - Post using false info as shown in your header and proved by the
following link:
http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=searchbox.webhome&q=Johnquincygunn%40aol.com
> Total BS".
Yup... what you tried to pull off was "Total BS" ... and quite
amateurish for a troll who once held his head high;)
Sandman
JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
Funny, I've made several such posts over the years, never got the kind
of replies you talk about:
Here is a post I made about how application installation should be:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/257709fe6c32c
e11?hl=en>
This is me complaining about Apple not supporting last-gen hardware
(i.e. even worse than your thread):
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/17cefafed0c20
f98?hl=en>
Me talking about the sorry state of remote controlling (i.e. IR) a Mac:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d3e6972a964b5
7f8?hl=en>
Here is a post I made where I deem a MS product better suited than the
Apple product:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e887aa7c927a3
a24?hl=en&>
Here is a post where I complain about a hardware problem:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/72d719e48f190
381?hl=en&>
Me complaining about a stupid behaviour in the Finder:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7b21c238043a2
b99?hl=en&>
Me talking about a stupid bug in Dashboard:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/677281aa0bb3a
486?hl=en&>
Me talking about how my Mac broke down:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/337317fd15e2b
020?hl=en&>
This is me thinking that Apple screwed up again with the UI in
Garageband:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/95c3752d224cd
667?hl=en&>
Me posting about a HD failure:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/131c102830bb7
543?hl=en&>
Me posting about the same problem as before, that wasn't fixed:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f72d51c23e5e9
3df?hl=en&>
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Murray
> On Aug 21, 9:15ï¿œam, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
>> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
>> Then the Apple damage control freaks like, hh, Carroll, Hix, Fa-garoon,
>> Adams, Murray, Mike, Lund will come swarming out to defend their
>> benefactor Apple, with threats lies and insults. I didn't realize you
>> scumbags. This is not a place where I want to be. ï¿œYour posts will be
>> read and agonized over by only you. ï¿œI won't be here.
>
> HAHAHAHA! So true. They are particularly easily upset when you poke
> fun at the Power PC Macs. Remember for decades they want on and on
> about how much better the Power PC chip was over Intel. Then one day
> out of the blue they changed their minds for some reason.
It is a better chip.
Snit
843a89fb-2c9d-462d...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com on 8/21/09
8:03 AM:
> On Aug 21, 7:15�am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> 1 -
>> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
>> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
>> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new.
>
>
> 2 - Make a questionable (laughable) statement based on what you're
> *alleging* an "Apple salesman" said:
Ah, when Steve has no honest reply, he just assumes everyone is as dishonest
as he is.
> "The PPC was touted by the Apple salesman as the latest technology and
> would be for many years to come."
>
> And then further allege:
>
> "I didn't expect to be misled by the salesman of a major
> corporation."
>
> 3 - Be evasive as hell when you are asked about the "needs" you
> *claimed* you had for "features" you can't talk about for your "work".
He has no obligation to give you fodder for your trolling, Steve. As you
have shown, the reason you ask people about their personal and professional
lives is so you can better target them. Look at how you claim, since I am a
teacher, that teaching is not a "real job" and how you mock clients from
tech business. Look at how you go to my website and hunt down my clients
and look through their sites to dig up dirt. Look at how you track down
ancient posts of mine sent to health support groups and use that in your
trolling.
Now you whine when people do not give you details of their life and their
needs. Right - you are mad he did not make the mistake I made and offer you
ammo for your trolling... to let you make your trolling be more personal.
> 4 - Call everyone who asks you logical followup questions a troll or
> *plonk* them (like they care;)
You have repeatedly claimed to plonk me or say you are done arguing with me.
Even when I go *months* of not replying to your posts, though, it does not
prevent you from trolling me.
> 5 - Prompt other well known trolls (Snit, Edwin, Pratt) to get in on
> the game.
How did he "prompt" anyone? And why the name calling? Yeah, I see where
you list me in your list...
> 6 - Post using false info as shown in your header and proved by the
> following link:
> http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=searchbox.webhome&q=Johnquincygunn%40aol
> .com
What? Are you whining that you do not know if his email address is real?
Do you want to take your trolling to his email as you have taken it to mine?
How many times have you emailed me BS just to get attention?
>> �Total BS".
>
> Yup... what you tried to pull off was "Total BS" ... and quite
> amateurish for a troll who once held his head high;)
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> 8:03 AM:
>
> > On Aug 21, 7:15 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > 1 -
> >> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
> >> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
> >> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new.
>
> > 2 - Make a questionable (laughable) statement based on what you're
> > *alleging* an "Apple salesman" said:
>
> Ah, when Steve has no honest reply, he just assumes everyone is as dishonest
> as he is.
Said the dishonest guy who is always whining how people should
'support their claims'. Just not in this case... right, Snit? LOL!
I'm sure you'll be along to explain the double standard whereby JohnQ
gets a pass to slam an Apple employee who can't defend himself here;)
> > "The PPC was touted by the Apple salesman as the latest technology and
> > would be for many years to come."
>
> > And then further allege:
>
> > "I didn't expect to be misled by the salesman of a major
> > corporation."
>
> > 3 - Be evasive as hell when you are asked about the "needs" you
> > *claimed* you had for "features" you can't talk about for your "work".
>
> He has no obligation to
... tell the truth? Hint: The people of this newsgroup have no
obligation to believe a single word he said. Funny how it works, huh?
(crap snipped)
> > 4 - Call everyone who asks you logical followup questions a troll or
> > *plonk* them (like they care;)
(snip crap... oops! nothing left here;)
> > 5 - Prompt other well known trolls (Snit, Edwin, Pratt) to get in on
> > the game.
>
> How did he "prompt" anyone? And why the name calling? Yeah, I see where
> you list me in your list...
Name calling? LOL! Even you refer to yourself as "Snit"... and you've
admitted you're a troll. What "name calling"?
> > 6 - Post using false info as shown in your header and proved by the
> > following link:
> >http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=searchbox.webhome&q=Johnquincyg...
> > .com
>
> What? Are you whining that you do not know if his email address is real?
No. I just provided evidence that supports his email address isn't
real. You think his email address is real? If so, where is your
evidence that supports it?
(snip crap)
Snit
10:12 AM:
> On Aug 21, 11:00�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Steve Carroll stated in post
>> 843a89fb-2c9d-462d-aab1-842a8731a...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com on 8/21/09
>> 8:03 AM:
>>
>>> On Aug 21, 7:15�am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1 -
>>>> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
>>>> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
>>>> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new.
>>
>>> 2 - Make a questionable (laughable) statement based on what you're
>>> *alleging* an "Apple salesman" said:
>>
>> Ah, when Steve has no honest reply, he just assumes everyone is as dishonest
>> as he is.
>
> Said the dishonest guy who is always whining how people should
> 'support their claims'. Just not in this case... right, Snit? LOL!
Ah, you expect him to track down the salesperson and get a written
statement, eh? Wait - you would deny that, too. So he has to get the guy
on video. But how to prove that is the same salesperson? What do you
suggest?
Come on, Steve, even for you this is asinine.
I note that when you spew lies about me you should try to support them.
People do not owe you proof about things that happen outside of Usenet.
But you will keep harping in him to give you details of his life - that way
you can better target your trolling. Look at how you email me repeatedly -
and now whine you want his email. Look at how you use ancient posts of mine
to health support groups in your trolling and how you mock teachers because
you know I teach. Look at how you belittle my tech skills *not* because you
can find flaw with them [1], but because you know I do tech work.
You are asking him details of his life to be able to focus your trolling.
It is what you do.
[1] The one exception I can think of is when you did catch me saying what
others, I showed, said of a notebook without a user-replaceable battery. I
used the term "disposable", as did others, and you repeated that quote
*thousands* of times. You found one quote you could target and you obsessed
over it for months.
..
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:12 AM:
>> He has no obligation to
>
> ... tell the truth?
I noted, a while back, that Steve Carroll snips the first few words of a
response and then "ends" the sentence "for" someone.
Here is a nice example.
He cannot help himself. He simply cannot stop himself from trolling.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
This is the norm of CSMA... people are mob-attacked and then are chased off.
I, for one, am sorry to see you go. I wish people would stand up to the
trolls of CSMA. If enough people did... their game would be over.
But they know most will be like you - get chased away. Then they have more
energy to target those who stay. Worse yet, even folks who are not habitual
trolls (and some that you list are not), they get sucked into it and just
think since it is a mob against one (or two) that the mob must be right.
Sick.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 8:55 AM:
> In article <R5xjm.110225$8B7....@newsfe20.iad>,
> JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
>> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
>> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS".
>> Then the Apple damage control freaks like, hh, Carroll, Hix, Fa-garoon,
>> Adams, Murray, Mike, Lund will come swarming out to defend their
>> benefactor Apple, with threats lies and insults. I didn't realize you
>> could find that many hysterical freaks all in one place. Bye all you
>> scumbags. This is not a place where I want to be. Your posts will be
>> read and agonized over by only you. I won't be here.
>
> Funny, I've made several such posts over the years, never got the kind
> of replies you talk about:
You often jump in to support the trolling of many of those listed above.
Tit for tat, they support you.
Look at how much support you got in the debate-that-must-not-be-named... the
one we agreed to not talk about but you keep doing so in meta-terms. In any
case, you got lots of support from people and they clearly lied to defend
you. Now you ask why they did not target your posts.
Gee, can anyone figure this out?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> 10:12 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 21, 11:00 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Steve Carroll stated in post
> >> 843a89fb-2c9d-462d-aab1-842a8731a...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com on 8/21/09
> >> 8:03 AM:
>
> >>> On Aug 21, 7:15 am, JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> 1 -
> >>>> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
> >>>> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
> >>>> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new.
>
> >>> 2 - Make a questionable (laughable) statement based on what you're
> >>> *alleging* an "Apple salesman" said:
>
> >> Ah, when Steve has no honest reply, he just assumes everyone is as dishonest
> >> as he is.
>
> > Said the dishonest guy who is always whining how people should
> > 'support their claims'. Just not in this case... right, Snit? LOL!
>
> Ah, you expect him to track down the salesperson and get a written
> statement, eh?
i don't "expect" anything... and neither should he... especially to be
believed on such a bizarre statement like he made.
(snip crap by Snit)
Steve Carroll
> 10:12 AM:
>
> >> He has no obligation to
>
> > ... tell the truth?
>
> I noted, a while back, that Steve Carroll snips
... away crap?
Yes, I do. If you have a problem with it then I suggest you stop
posting crap... it's that simple.
Snit
10:49 AM:
> On Aug 21, 11:29�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Steve Carroll stated in post
>> 285635d5-e868-4740-bfe5-655641f5b...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com on 8/21/09
>> 10:12 AM:
>>
>>>> He has no obligation to
>>
>>> ... tell the truth?
>>
>> I noted, a while back, that Steve Carroll snips the first few words of a
>> response and then "ends" the sentence "for" someone.
>>
>> Here is a nice example.
>>
>> He cannot help himself. He simply cannot stop himself from trolling.
>
> ... away crap?
>
>
> Yes, I do. If you have a problem with it then I suggest you stop
> posting crap... it's that simple.
Steve: you can blame those you troll all you like... and you will. What you
will *not* do is take responsibility for your own actions. You will *never*
admit it is wrong of you to run from facts you do not like and to act as
dishonorably as you do.
You are a lying scumbag who, I suspect, lies to himself.
I gave you another chance, Steve... as I have given you so many in the past.
And you proved, again, you will continue to troll, lie, deny when your lies
are pointed out, etc.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:48 AM:
You are saying you want him to support his claim about what a salesperson
said. How would you expect him, or anyone, to do as you claim to want?
The answer: you know there is no reasonable way. You know you have backed
yourself in a corner - so you make unreasonable and impossible to follow
demands and insist if they are not met that the other person is at fault.
And when faced with such facts you just snip and run - being the coward you
are.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> 10:49 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 21, 11:29 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Steve Carroll stated in post
> >> 285635d5-e868-4740-bfe5-655641f5b...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com on 8/21/09
> >> 10:12 AM:
>
> >>>> He has no obligation to
>
> >>> ... tell the truth?
>
> >> I noted, a while back, that Steve Carroll snips the first few words of a
> >> response and then "ends" the sentence "for" someone.
>
> >> Here is a nice example.
>
> >> He
>
>
> > Yes, I do. If you have a problem with it then I suggest you stop
> > posting crap... it's that simple.
>
> Steve: you can
... snip away any crap that I find? Thanks, Snit... but I don't really
need your permission to snip away your crap or anyone else's.
> I gave you another chance, Steve
OK... see ya next time, pal;)
Steve Carroll
"Actually"... I'm saying it's easy for him to make a ridiculous claim
he knows he won't be supporting (cuz that's what trolls do... as if
you didn't know;)
(snip yet another feeble attempt by Snit to use his "psych degree")
Sermo Malifer
How does any of that change the fact he was treated just as he says he
was treated?
Fa-groon
(in article <0001HW.C6B44378...@nntp.charter.net>):
It is a better chip. I also have reason to believe that PPC Macs are more
reliable than Intel ones as well.
Steve Carroll
> Sandman wrote:
> > In article <R5xjm.110225$8B7.9...@newsfe20.iad>,
It doesn't change it... it exemplifies that a person's credibility is
a part of having a usenet conversation. JohnQ's credibility didn't
hold up to even moderate scrutiny... as expected from a troll. But
I'm preaching to the choir here... who, better than you, knows the
price a troll pays for trolling;)
Fa-groon
(in article <mr-D8CE22.17...@News.Individual.NET>):
There are a couple of reasons for that:
1. Your posts were legitimate complaints about Apple products and/or
policies. Most reasonable people understand the concept that no matter good a
product or brand is, there is always room for improvement.
2. You weren't trolling. I.E. you didn't seize upon some characteristic that
Apple products have and then construct an obviously false scenario where
those characteristics cause the user obvious hardship or extreme
dissatisfaction.
Complaints that aren't reasonable or legitimate will cause the Mac advocates
here to come down on one every time - just as they should. Many Mac advocates
in this group practice a zero tolerance policy for trolls and their bullshit
and that's how it should be.
Fa-groon
(in article <h6morm$fjk$3...@news.albasani.net>):
Easy. JohnQ's scenario was a lie, pure and simple. Sandman's posts were not.
Snit
11:53 AM:
>> How does any of that change the fact he was treated just as he says he
>> was treated?
>
> It doesn't change it... it exemplifies that a person's credibility is
> a part of having a usenet conversation. JohnQ's credibility didn't
> hold up to even moderate scrutiny... as expected from a troll. But
> I'm preaching to the choir here... who, better than you, knows the
> price a troll pays for trolling;)
You did not find him "credible" so that excused you - in your mind - to lie
about him, to demand details about his personal life, and to act like an
ass.
Amazing... is there *any* behavior of yours you will take responsibility
for? Ever?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 11:56 AM:
Seems there are two theories on this:
1) Sandman is given a "pass" because his claims were reasonable and JohnQ
was not because he was lying.
2) Sandman is given a pass because he is known to support other trolls.
Well... let us examine each. Was JohnQ lying about Snow Leopard not
supporting machines sold as recently as three years ago. This has been
covered - no, he was not. I do not believe anyone denies this.
Are clear lies called out from the "regulars" in CSMA who support each
others trolling? Well, few called Steve Carroll out on his BS claims that
his OS and Usenet client are to blame for at least some of his nym-shifting,
so the idea that it is lies that are called out is clearly bogus.
There we have it... clearly it is not lies that are called out. It is
cliques that "rule" CSMA. Sandman supports others who lie...
This is not to say that some or even all of Sandman's complaints are not
real - I did not click on any of the links. Maybe I will later. Might make
for more interesting discussion anyway... an actual discussion about *Macs*.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> 11:53 AM:
>
> >> How does any of that change the fact he was treated just as he says he
> >> was treated?
>
> > It doesn't change it... it exemplifies that a person's credibility is
> > a part of having a usenet conversation. JohnQ's credibility didn't
> > hold up to even moderate scrutiny... as expected from a troll. But
> > I'm preaching to the choir here... who, better than you, knows the
> > price a troll pays for trolling;)
>
> You did not find him "credible" so that excused you - in your mind - to lie
> about him,
Prove I lied about him. Oh, that's right... you can't.
> to demand details about his personal life,
I asked no such thing... you are lying.
Snit
8/21/09 8:55 AM:
> In article <R5xjm.110225$8B7....@newsfe20.iad>,
> JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
>> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
>> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS".
>> Then the Apple damage control freaks like, hh, Carroll, Hix, Fa-garoon,
>> Adams, Murray, Mike, Lund will come swarming out to defend their
>> benefactor Apple, with threats lies and insults. I didn't realize you
>> could find that many hysterical freaks all in one place. Bye all you
>> scumbags. This is not a place where I want to be. Your posts will be
>> read and agonized over by only you. I won't be here.
>
> Funny, I've made several such posts over the years, never got the kind
> of replies you talk about:
>
> Here is a post I made about how application installation should be:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/257709fe6c32c
> e11?hl=en>
Overall a very good idea and well presented... good mockups, too. Notably,
though, I was the only one to comment on the thread... you were ignored by
everyone but me.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/0c16
3a9d26d4d55d/257709fe6c32ce11>
> This is me complaining about Apple not supporting last-gen hardware
> (i.e. even worse than your thread):
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/17cefafed0c20
> f98?hl=en>
Again, one response. You were pretty much ignored.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/cd6d
ce85d83d8f19/17cefafed0c20f98>
> Me talking about the sorry state of remote controlling (i.e. IR) a Mac:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d3e6972a964b5
> 7f8?hl=en>
Completely ignored:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/3aa0
01b7443cabe6/d3e6972a964b57f8>
> Here is a post where I complain about a hardware problem:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/72d719e48f190
> 381?hl=en&>
Responses:
Serves you right, Loopy. As I've always said, there is
*always* something missing in Macs. Always some compromise
built in, whereas you're getting a "better" GUI/OS
experience, but take a hit in performance or some other
thing. Apple should stick to making iPods and iTVs.
-----
According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an
expensive Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
-----
Gotta love that great Apple hardware of superior quality. You
buy their high end PC and you immediately have to replace the
shit Apple drives because it slows the whole system to a
crawl! ROFLCOPTER!!!!
When you get more than a couple of responses they tend to include some that
are not so kind.
> Me complaining about a stupid behaviour in the Finder:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7b21c238043a2
> b99?hl=en&>
Awww, the Maccie Jihad Ad-hominem personal "stupid" attack.
Poor Sandman's out of ammo again, he's been out of a long
time....
------
This must be a lie as Macs, just work.
Hard to say you do not get "bad" responses where you are called names,
etc... just not from your "clique".
Of note, though, I saw few if any posts from me where I lash out at you like
you do against me. Funny that, eh?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Fa-groon stated in post 0001HW.C6B43BD70009A969F0184...@news.giganews.com on
> 8/21/09 11:56 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 05:28:56 -0700, Sermo Malifer wrote
>
> >> Sandman wrote:
> >>> In article <R5xjm.110225$8B7.9...@newsfe20.iad>,
... honest and honorable people doesn't consider him a troll or know
him to be a liar. Easy enough to understand... so where did you go
wrong?
> his claims were reasonable and JohnQ was not because he was lying.
JohnQ was evasive and he made statements that didn't pass the laugh
test.
> 2) Sandman is given a pass because he is known to support other trolls.
I wouldn't use the word "support" to reference Sandman's actions of
exposing and humiliating trolls... I can see why you might, though.
> Well... let us examine each. Was JohnQ lying about Snow Leopard not
> supporting machines sold as recently as three years ago. This has been
> covered - no, he was not. I do not believe anyone denies this.
So why are you talking about it? Oh that's right, you're Snit... you
like to cloud simple issues with your drivel.
> Are clear lies called out from the "regulars" in CSMA who support each
> others trolling? Well, few called Steve Carroll out on his BS claims that
> his OS and Usenet client are to blame for at least some of his nym-shifting,
> so the idea that it is lies that are called out is clearly bogus.
Said the lying hypocrite who has stated, more than once, that no one
reads my posts... the same hypocrite who is now trying to use a post I
wrote as "support" in his little BS scenario here. Too bad, despite
his pressing need to have it both ways, that his ideas contradict each
other... AGAIN.
> There we have it...
Yes, we do... your blatant, disingenuous hypocrisy is now fully
exposed... AGAIN.
> clearly it is not lies that are called out.
Correct... it is the trolls who are doing the lying that are being
called out on their lies.
> It is cliques that "rule" CSMA.
No, you trolls aren't nearly organized well enough for that.
> Sandman supports others who lie...
Time to cap off again, Snit;)
> This is not to say that some or even all of Sandman's complaints are not
> real - I did not click on any of the links. Maybe I will later. Might make
> for more interesting discussion anyway... an actual discussion about *Macs*.
Why are you pretending, once again, to be interested in an "actual"
discussion about Macs?
Snit
12:44 PM:
>> Well... let us examine each. �Was JohnQ lying about Snow Leopard not
>> supporting machines sold as recently as three years ago. �This has been
>> covered - no, he was not. �I do not believe anyone denies this.
>
> So why are you talking about it? Oh that's right, you're Snit... you
> like to cloud simple issues with your drivel.
I talked about it because it was the topic. In reaction to JohnQ commenting
about a fact nobody denies, he was treated poorly: lied about, accused of
lying, having *you* demand he should not be trusted if he did not reveal his
email and other personal data, etc. Even death threats. It was absurd.
Did he respond perfectly in the face of such absurdity... no. But it was
his reaction to such absurdity which you and others used to troll him.
>> Are clear lies called out from the "regulars" in CSMA who support each
>> others trolling? �Well, few called Steve Carroll out on his BS claims that
>> his OS and Usenet client are to blame for at least some of his nym-shifting,
>> so the idea that it is lies that are called out is clearly bogus.
>
> Said the lying hypocrite who has stated, more than once, that no one
> reads my posts... the same hypocrite who is now trying to use a post I
> wrote as "support" in his little BS scenario here. Too bad, despite
> his pressing need to have it both ways, that his ideas contradict each
> other... AGAIN.
Gee, Steve, you do not like when I remind you of your lies. Yeah, you did
blame your OS and Usenet reader in at least some of your nym-shifting. Did
you think your lashing out would obfuscate that fact? Notice - not even you
deny it... you know you did just as I said.
You are an admitted nym-shifter... but you will not take responsibility for
your actions. Your OS / Usenet reader made you do it.
Hogwash. Complete hogwash.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
12:18 PM:
So, IOW, you're pissed because Apple was not able to
retroactively give you what you "want"?
-----
"Actually"... my accurate description shows how stupid and
narrow minded you are.
Now continue on with your feeble shilling for Snit...
-----
Yeah. Are you too drugged out to remember having pretended
doing it?
-----
You're obviously a pretty poor hobbyist in this field if you
couldn't figure out what Apple's announcement of moving to
Intel architecture meant.
-----
If you even own a PPC... I see no reason to believe you are
telling the truth about it.
-----
Prompt other well known trolls (Snit, Edwin, Pratt) to get in
on the game.
You lie so habitually, Steve, you cannot stop yourself. You are a liar.
Period.
Now get the last word as you babble endlessly trying to defend your lies and
spew nonsense about how insinuations you make in questions are not "lies"...
or how you were merely sharing your opinion and since you used waffle words
you were not really, technically, lying... or whatever other excuses you use
to run from the fact you lied.
You lied repeatedly.
And you have been busted.
See how easy it is to find examples of you lying. You and HPT have been
trying so hard to find examples of my acting like you.
And you both fail. How sad.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
C Lund
JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS".
> Then the Apple damage control freaks like, hh, Carroll, Hix, Fa-garoon,
> Adams, Murray, Mike, Lund will come swarming out to defend their
> benefactor Apple, with threats lies and insults. I didn't realize you
> could find that many hysterical freaks all in one place. Bye all you
> scumbags. This is not a place where I want to be. Your posts will be
> read and agonized over by only you. I won't be here.
Please don't mention me in your lies and don't let the door hit your
ass.
--
C Lund
Snit
christopher.lund-23...@adsl-065-015-208-084.sip.ilm.bellsout
h.net on 8/21/09 1:46 PM:
Clearly he is making a valid point.
Clearly.
I did not check every name he lists... if he got a name wrong then he made a
mistake, but the overall message is clearly correct.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
So when do you plan on proving that your allegations above are *my*
lies?
> Period.
>
> Now get the last word as you babble endlessly trying to defend your lies
I guess that answers the question... you don't plan on proving those
allegations are my lies. Figures.
Steve Carroll
> > JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
> >> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
> >> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS".
> >> Then the Apple damage control freaks like, hh, Carroll, Hix, Fa-garoon,
> >> Adams, Murray, Mike, Lund will come swarming out to defend their
> >> benefactor Apple, with threats lies and insults. I didn't realize you
> >> could find that many hysterical freaks all in one place. Bye all you
> >> scumbags. This is not a place where I want to be. Your posts will be
> >> read and agonized over by only you. I won't be here.
>
> > Please don't mention me in your lies and don't let the door hit your
> > ass.
>
> Clearly he is making a valid point.
Clearly he was full of crap about Lund... more than once. The first
time when he wrote all the crap *directly* to Lund... and now here,
where he included Lund in more of his obvious BS.
Clearly.
> Clearly.
>
> I did not check every name he lists... if he got a name wrong then he made a
> mistake,
Here's Snit excusing the actions (done more than once, regarding Lund)
of another troll/shill as a "mistake"... gee, no one could have
predicted that. LOL!
> but the overall message is clearly correct.
His overall message is as much "mistake" as were his inclusions of
Lund.
Jimmyjohn
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6d30d7ba-d704-45ad...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Clearly.
u r a pos.
Snit
PM:
Steve Carroll just lashes out with hatred. It is what he does.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Steve Carroll just lashes out with hatred. It is what he does.
And you constantly beg for his attention. Get help for your obsession.
Sandman
Sermo Malifer <sermom...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't know, I didn't post to change any fact. I posted to
illustrate that one can post negative remarks about Apple without the
result he described, suggesting that the result may not be directly
linked to the fact that one says something negative about Apple.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Fa-groon <fa-g...@mad.com> wrote:
> >> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
> >> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
> >> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS".
> >> Then the Apple damage control freaks like, hh, Carroll, Hix, Fa-garoon,
> >> Adams, Murray, Mike, Lund will come swarming out to defend their
> >> benefactor Apple, with threats lies and insults. I didn't realize you
> >> could find that many hysterical freaks all in one place. Bye all you
> >> scumbags. This is not a place where I want to be. Your posts will be
> >> read and agonized over by only you. I won't be here.
> >
> > Funny, I've made several such posts over the years, never got the kind
> > of replies you talk about:
> >
> > <snip list>
>
> There are a couple of reasons for that:
>
> 1. Your posts were legitimate complaints about Apple products and/or
> policies. Most reasonable people understand the concept that no matter good a
> product or brand is, there is always room for improvement.
>
> 2. You weren't trolling. I.E. you didn't seize upon some characteristic that
> Apple products have and then construct an obviously false scenario where
> those characteristics cause the user obvious hardship or extreme
> dissatisfaction.
>
> Complaints that aren't reasonable or legitimate will cause the Mac advocates
> here to come down on one every time - just as they should. Many Mac advocates
> in this group practice a zero tolerance policy for trolls and their bullshit
> and that's how it should be.
I know this entire troll scenario, obviously. It should be noted that
I wasn't involved in the original thread, nor have any insight in this
JohnQ character. I was merely responding to this particular theory
that saying negative remarks about Apple somehow automatically leads
to someone being treated badly. That's obviously not the case.
In fact, there are people like Snit who speaks positively about the
Mac yet always manages to garner negative remarks about the majority
of the group, further illustrating that computer preference or bias in
no way ensures a treatment from the group as a whole. If any, the
groups treat trolls badly (i.e. the Snit example) regardless of
platform choice.
I'm not saying JohnQ is a troll, don't have enough information about
that to form an opinion, but these people seems rather convinced that
he is.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
> >> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
> >> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS".
> >> Then the Apple damage control freaks like, hh, Carroll, Hix, Fa-garoon,
> >> Adams, Murray, Mike, Lund will come swarming out to defend their
> >> benefactor Apple, with threats lies and insults. I didn't realize you
> >> could find that many hysterical freaks all in one place. Bye all you
> >> scumbags. This is not a place where I want to be. Your posts will be
> >> read and agonized over by only you. I won't be here.
> >
> > Funny, I've made several such posts over the years, never got the kind
> > of replies you talk about:
>
> You often jump in to support the trolling of many of those listed above.
Your lie above disqualified the rest of your post from being read. If
you want me to read your posts, you have to stop lying and trolling.
Thanks.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/21/09 10:21 PM:
Sandman Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [X] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [X] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [X] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [X] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [X] Role Reversal
13 [X] Lying
14 [X] Having an agenda
15 [X] Diversion
16 [X] Misinterpretation
17 [X] Creative snipping
18 [ ] Dig up arguments from the past
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandman's antagonistic, dishonest, trolling website
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 10:12 PM:
>> How does any of that change the fact he was treated just as he says he
>> was treated?
>
> I wouldn't know, I didn't post to change any fact. I posted to
> illustrate that one can post negative remarks about Apple without the
> result he described, suggesting that the result may not be directly
> linked to the fact that one says something negative about Apple.
>
I have shown where you did receive negative comments to many of your
threads... those that were not mostly ignored.
But also keep in mind that you, Carroll, Wally, Adams and others do not
troll each other. You give each other a pass no matter how absurd your
claims are. When Carroll claimed his OS and Usenet client made him
nym-shift, none of the rest said a word of how insane this was. When Tim
Adams insisted the tilde meant the "hard drive only", your gang sat silent.
When Wally made a fool of himself and insisted that subsets could not be
empty not a word was said by your little crew to show how absurd his claims
were. The examples go on and on.
There are cliques in CSMA - and those who are not a part of the cliques are
trolled. I speak the truth: when someone is right I feel free to say so,
but when they are wrong I do not avoid saying so just to be a part of such a
"coalition". You do so, perhaps, less than the people I mentioned above -
but you still sit silent as they spew their inane claims... and even jump
into the debates to nit-pick my comments in reply.
So, no, the people you defend do not speak poorly of you... they do not call
you on your BS trolling. And you do not speak of theirs. This does not
prove a word JohnQ said about anyone in CSMA wrong.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
<C6B4D5BA.431E1%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0161] I have shown where you did receive negative comments to
> [0161] many of your threads.
Incorrect, you have not show that I received negative comments from
Apple advocates due to the fact that I posted negative remarks about
Apple.
> [0165] But also keep in mind that you, Carroll, Wally, Adams and
> [0165] others do not troll (3) each other.
[X] Obfuscation.
> [0166] You give each other a pass no matter how absurd your claims
> [0166] are.
[X] Obfuscation.
> [0167] When Carroll claimed his OS and Usenet client made him
> [0167] nym-shift, none of the rest said a word of how insane this
> [0167] was.
[X] Dragging up issues from the past.
Since he hasn't claimed this, no words needed to be said.
> [0168] When Tim Adams insisted the tilde meant the "hard drive
> [0168] only", your gang sat silent.
[X] Dragging up issues from the past.
Since you're the one claiming he has said that, he probably didn't say
that.
> [0169] When Wally made a fool of himself and insisted that subsets
> [0169] could not be empty not a word was said by your little crew
> [0169] to show how absurd his claims were.
[X] Dragging up issues from the past.
"We" never helped you troll, no.
> [0170] The examples go on and on.
Yet none have been presented here.
> [0171] There are cliques in CSMA - and those who are not a part of
> [0171] the cliques are trolled (4).
There are trolls in csma, those who are trolls are exposed.
> [0172] I speak the truth: when someone is right I feel free to say
> [0172] so, but when they are wrong I do not avoid saying so just to
> [0172] be a part of such a "coalition".
I have never seen you speak the truth.
> [0173] You do so, perhaps, less than the people I mentioned above -
> [0173] but you still sit silent as they spew their inane claims.
All of your examples was about your Snit Circus, and not about any of
these posters. I don't feel obligated to support your insane SNit
Circus, naturally.
> [0176] and even jump into the debates to nit-pick my comments in
> [0176] reply.
I.e expose your trolling.
> [0177] So, no, the people you defend do not speak poorly of you.
[X] Obfuscation
I don't defend anyone. My negative remarks about Apple garnered zero
negative responses from Apple advocates. Not. A. Single. One.
> [0180] they do not call you on your BS trolling (5).
Since there is none to "call me on".
> [0181] And you do not speak of theirs.
Since there is none.
> [0182] This does not prove a word JohnQ said about anyone in CSMA
> [0182] wrong.
Incorrect. My point was direct and to the point. Illsutrated perfectly
that the premise that negative remarks about Apple leads to negative
remarks from Apple advocates is false.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 3 8 | lying 0 18 |
| incest 0 0 | sex 0 0 |
| guilty 0 0 | honorable 0 0 |
| obfuscate 0 0 | run 0 4 |
| dishonest 0 4 | snip 0 4 |
| lol 0 4 | contrived 0 0 |
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
Snitanator v1.1 by Sandman
Snit
8/21/09 11:09 PM:
>> This does not prove a word JohnQ said about anyone in CSMA
>> wrong.
>
> Incorrect. My point was direct and to the point. Illsutrated perfectly
> that the premise that negative remarks about Apple leads to negative
> remarks from Apple advocates is false.
And I responded by explaining why your premise was wrong. You responded by
trolling... but Carroll, Adams and Wally will give you a free pass.
And thus prove my point.
See how easy it is to predict the actions of the cliques in CSMA.
Seriously, do you?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 11:09 PM:
>> I have shown where you did receive negative comments to
>> many of your threads.
>
> Incorrect, you have not show that I received negative comments from
> Apple advocates due to the fact that I posted negative remarks about
> Apple.
You moved goal posts here... I did not say "Apple advocates", nor, before
this, did you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 11:09 PM:
> But also keep in mind that you, Carroll, Wally, Adams and
>> others do not troll each other.
>
> [X] Obfuscation.
You made a claim that JohnQ's claims were not correct. I discussed why you
were wrong... which is not "obfuscation" but "refutation".
Please learn the difference.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 11:09 PM:
>> When Carroll claimed his OS and Usenet client made him nym-shift, none of the
>> rest said a word of how insane this was.
>>
> Since he hasn't claimed this, no words needed to be said.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ddd5f7f282b26254>
Carroll openly admitted to using no less than five "handles", and said that
three of those could be attributed to his Usenet program and Leopard.
Seriously, Sandman, did you think it would be hard to prove he did what I
said? And do you think it is not predictable that you will prove me right
and give him a pass on this?
You cannot help but give him a pass... he has helped you so many times. Tit
for tat - if you were to be honest here, you fear Steve would be honest in
response to your games and trolling. You will not be the first to break the
pact.
Prove me wrong and admit I was right about him... and that his excuse is
absurd. His OS and Usenet reader did not make him change handles... he did
that all by himself.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
<C6B4DAFF.431EA%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0183] And I responded by explaining why your premise was wrong.
Incorrect, you responded by trying to lie and troll me, unsuccessfully.
> [0184] You responded by trolling (9).
Incorect.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 1 10 | lying 0 18 |
Sandman
<C6B4DB61.431ED%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0191] You moved goal posts here.
Incorrect.
> [0194] I did not say "Apple advocates", nor, before this, did you.
That's because you're trying to troll the issue, and hijacking the
thread. And because you realise that your entire premise is destroyed
when we focus on mac advocacy instead of arbitrary negative remarks
from self-admitted trolls.
I'd ay "Nice try" if it was.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 10 | lying 0 18 |
Sandman
<C6B4DB96.431EE%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0195] You made a claim that JohnQ's claims were not correct.
Incorrect, I successfully illustrated that it was incorrect:
"Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
Apple product like, <example> Then the Apple damage control freaks
like <examples> will come swarming out to defend their benefactor
Apple"
I once made a statement pretty much identical to his example:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/17cefafed0c20
f98?hl=en>
Where I remarked that Apple had made last-gen hardware obsolete by
curent-gen (at the time). No one from his list of examples came
swarming to defend Apple.
> [0196] I discussed why you were wrong.
Incorrect.
> [0199] which is not "obfuscation" but "refutation".
The obfuscation you did was to claim that a certain group of people
doesn't troll each other, implying that they troll others, which is a
false and unsubstantiated statement.
> [0200] Please learn the difference.
Ironic.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 10 | lying 0 18 |
Snit
8/21/09 11:09 PM:
>> When Tim Adams insisted the tilde meant the "hard drive only", your gang sat
>> silent.
> Since you're the one claiming he has said that, he probably didn't say
> that.
See: you cannot help but prove me right about you and your clique.
Tim Adams:
-----
YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the
name of the hard drive only. To bad in your reading, your
delusions took over.
-----
Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in
their case ~) /library/widget. NOT the
~/users/username/library/widget as at least one other person
said, and you agreed with a day or so ago.
-----
As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that
widgets were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING
THE ~ AS THE NAME OF THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH
harddrive/user/username/library
-----
You are so beholden to your clique, though, you will not acknowledge that
the person who stated those things is flat out wrong.
Prove me wrong and note how wrong Tim Adams was there.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 11:09 PM:
>> When Wally made a fool of himself and insisted that subsets
>> could not be empty not a word was said by your little crew
>> to show how absurd his claims were.
>
> "We" never helped you troll, no.
My actions are not the topic here. Your actions, and the actions of those
you support in their trolling, is. When Wally spewed the following
nonsense, and trolled me in response to his being called out on it, you
never said a word to note how wrong he was:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
as you have said it would!
your delusion is that something that owes its very existence
to the fact that it contains information can in fact be
...empty!
whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
the answer actually is
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
Come on, prove me wrong and note how wrong those claims of his are.
You know they are... but you will not say it. You are completely
predictable.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
<C6B4E157.43200%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0201] My actions are not the topic here.
So why did you bring your Snit Circus up and asked why "we" didn't
join you in it?
> [0202] Your actions, and the actions of those you support in their
> [0202] trolling (11), is.
[X] Obfuscation
Your lie above disqualified the rest of your post from being read. If
you want me to read your posts, you have to stop lying and trolling.
Thanks.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 2 14 | lying 0 18 |
Sandman
<C6B4E0EA.431FF%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0219] See: you cannot help but prove me right about you and your
> [0219] clique.
The fact that your claims almost always are false is not in contention.
<snip unsubstantiated, unsupported and out of context quotes>
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 14 | lying 0 18 |
Snit
8/21/09 11:32 PM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
> <C6B4DB61.431ED%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
>
>> You moved goal posts here.
>
> Incorrect.
But below I describe where you did... and you make a silly excuse.
>> I did not say "Apple advocates", nor, before this, did you.
>
> That's because you're trying to troll the issue, and hijacking the
> thread. And because you realise that your entire premise is destroyed
> when we focus on mac advocacy instead of arbitrary negative remarks
> from self-admitted trolls.
>
> I'd ay "Nice try" if it was.
You claimed you did not get the type of negative responses JohnQ talked
about. Now I suppose you can weasel out of your claim and say you got some
other type of negative responses, but the fact is you clearly *did* get
negative responses:
-----
Serves you right, Loopy. As I've always said, there is
*always* something missing in Macs. Always some compromise
built in, whereas you're getting a "better" GUI/OS
experience, but take a hit in performance or some other
thing. Apple should stick to making iPods and iTVs.
-----
According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an
expensive Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
-----
Gotta love that great Apple hardware of superior quality. You
buy their high end PC and you immediately have to replace the
shit Apple drives because it slows the whole system to a
crawl! ROFLCOPTER!!!!
-----
Awww, the Maccie Jihad Ad-hominem personal "stupid" attack.
Poor Sandman's out of ammo again, he's been out of a long
time....
------
This must be a lie as Macs, just work.
-----
Now you are moving goal posts and saying *some* people did not give you
negative responses. Gee, as I have said, your clique sticks together. You
are proving me right about you time after time.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 8:55 AM:
> In article <R5xjm.110225$8B7....@newsfe20.iad>,
> JohnQ <Johnqui...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
>> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
>> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total BS".
>> Then the Apple damage control freaks like, hh, Carroll, Hix, Fa-garoon,
>> Adams, Murray, Mike, Lund will come swarming out to defend their
>> benefactor Apple, with threats lies and insults. I didn't realize you
>> could find that many hysterical freaks all in one place. Bye all you
>> scumbags. This is not a place where I want to be. Your posts will be
>> read and agonized over by only you. I won't be here.
>
> Funny, I've made several such posts over the years, never got the kind
> of replies you talk about:
>
> Here is a post I made about how application installation should be:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/257709fe6c32c
> e11?hl=en>
Overall a very good idea and well presented... good mockups, too. Notably,
though, I was the only one to comment on the thread... you were ignored by
everyone but me.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/0c16
3a9d26d4d55d/257709fe6c32ce11>
> This is me complaining about Apple not supporting last-gen hardware
> (i.e. even worse than your thread):
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/17cefafed0c20
> f98?hl=en>
Again, one response. You were pretty much ignored.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/cd6d
ce85d83d8f19/17cefafed0c20f98>
> Me talking about the sorry state of remote controlling (i.e. IR) a Mac:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d3e6972a964b5
> 7f8?hl=en>
Completely ignored:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/3aa0
01b7443cabe6/d3e6972a964b57f8>
> Here is a post where I complain about a hardware problem:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/72d719e48f190
> 381?hl=en&>
Responses:
Serves you right, Loopy. As I've always said, there is
*always* something missing in Macs. Always some compromise
built in, whereas you're getting a "better" GUI/OS
experience, but take a hit in performance or some other
thing. Apple should stick to making iPods and iTVs.
-----
According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an
expensive Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
-----
Gotta love that great Apple hardware of superior quality. You
buy their high end PC and you immediately have to replace the
shit Apple drives because it slows the whole system to a
crawl! ROFLCOPTER!!!!
When you get more than a couple of responses they tend to include some that
are not so kind.
> Me complaining about a stupid behaviour in the Finder:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7b21c238043a2
> b99?hl=en&>
Awww, the Maccie Jihad Ad-hominem personal "stupid" attack.
Poor Sandman's out of ammo again, he's been out of a long
time....
------
This must be a lie as Macs, just work.
Hard to say you do not get "bad" responses where you are called names,
etc... just not from your "clique".
Of note, though, I saw few if any posts from me where I lash out at you like
you do against me. Funny that, eh?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 11:46 PM:
> So why did you bring your Snit Circus up and asked why "we" didn't
> join you in it?
I did no such thing... I noted, correctly, that you would not admit Wally's
clearly absurd and ignorant claims were wrong. And you will not. You
cannot - that would be to go against your clique.
See, Sandman, even when your clique goes to extremes in saying the most
absurd things, you are not willing to speak out against them or their
comments. You simply will not.
And, look, you even tried to turn things around by blaming me, attributing
Wally's absurdly ignorant claims as the a part of the "Snit circus". You
cannot help but prove me right about you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 11:47 PM:
> The fact that your claims almost always are false is not in contention.
If you think my claims are "almost always" false, then show I am wrong
here... note how wrong Tim Adams' claims are.
But you will not.
You will not say one word against your clique. These posts will come in
handy the next time you and your clique target someone else... I will be
able to point to you proving me 100% right. You cannot help yourself... no
matter how absurd the statements of the folks in your clique are, you feel
obligated to defend them or, at best, ignore them and belittle those who
speak honestly about the comments of your "friends". You show no sign of
being willing to think for yourself. How sad.
I do think for myself... and I refused to join any clique... hence the
reason you lash out and lie about me so often. Very, very simple to see.
And this thread is proof. And I love it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
<C6B4E554.43216%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0230] I did no such thing.
Incorrect.
> [0233] I noted, correctly, that you would not admit Wally's clearly
> [0233] absurd and ignorant claims were wrong.
I will not help you troll anyone. You don't seem to have a problem
lying and trolling people all on your own, so I'm not sure why you
would need my help anyway.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 14 | lying 0 18 |
Sandman
<C6B4E62E.4321C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0240] If you think my claims are "almost always" false, then show
> [0240] I am wrong here.
I will not partake in your obsession and trolling when you constantly
try to drag up issues from the past.
> [0243] note how wrong Tim Adams' claims are.
I don't know anything about Tims actual claims. Your out of context,
unsupported and unsubstantiated quotes could very well be forged. You
are known to creatively snip or forge quotes, like you recently did
when lying about Steve Carroll claiming that you shouldn't get an
iMac, a position he never held and supported by you only by a
butchered out of context fragment of a sentence.
Snit
8/22/09 12:18 AM:
> Incorrect.
>> I noted, correctly, that you would not admit Wally's
>> clearly absurd and ignorant claims were wrong. And you will not. You cannot
>> - that would be to go against your clique.
>>
>> See, Sandman, even when your clique goes to extremes in saying the most
>> absurd
>> things, you are not willing to speak out against them or their comments. You
>> simply will not.
>>
>> And, look, you even tried to turn things around by blaming me, attributing
>> Wally's absurdly ignorant claims as the a part of the "Snit circus". You
>> cannot help but prove me right about you.
> I will not help you troll anyone. You don't seem to have a problem
> lying and trolling people all on your own, so I'm not sure why you
> would need my help anyway.
You have now proved me 100% right in my claim that you will not say a single
word against what someone in your clique says, no matter how extremely
ignorant and clearly flat out wrong it is.
These posts will serve as proof the next time you and your crew target
myself or someone else and you insist that you are being honest or
objective. Clearly you are not... you cannot without going against your
clique.
Ah, I love it when I can use your own weakness to manipulate you to prove me
correct. Makes me smile.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
<C6B4EB49.43222%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0266] You have now proved me 100% right in my claim
Incorrect.
> [0267] These posts will serve as proof the next time you and your
> [0267] crew target myself or someone else and you insist that you
> [0267] are being honest or objective.
They are ample proof of your dishonesty, yes.
<snip rest of trolling>
Snit
8/22/09 12:20 AM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
> <C6B4E62E.4321C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
>
>> If you think my claims are "almost always" false, then show
>> I am wrong here.
>
> I will not partake in your obsession and trolling when you constantly
> try to drag up issues from the past.
>
>> note how wrong Tim Adams' claims are.
>
> I don't know anything about Tims actual claims. Your out of context,
> unsupported and unsubstantiated quotes could very well be forged. You
> are known to creatively snip or forge quotes, like you recently did
> when lying about Steve Carroll claiming that you shouldn't get an
> iMac, a position he never held and supported by you only by a
> butchered out of context fragment of a sentence.
See: you will not speak out against your clique, and you will lie about me.
Steve pointed to the post and verified that the context *was* my computer.
I quoted the relevant section - the fact he said I should not get an iMac.
Steve quoted an irrelevant section where he spoke of his reasons... who
cares? But since he brought it up, it was easy to note his reasoning was
absurd: I noted I wanted a new computer and that speed was a large part of
the reason why (though not the only reason). Clearly the aluminum iMac is a
*lot* faster than the G4.
Looking at Geekbench 2 scores:
* the G4: 368
* the iMac: 3199
Now benchmarks are not perfect... but clearly the iMac blows the G4 away in
terms of speed. If speed was my *only* reason (which it was not), getting
an iMac would have been a *huge* benefit. So not only was I right about
Steve telling me not to get the iMac, his reasons (or one of them), which he
(not I) brought up, were absurd.
But, of course, none of this is something you can admit it. Steve is in
your clique and you are beholden to that clique. You *must* support
Steve... for if you do not, Steve will not support you. And if you back out
of the clique, not only will Steve call you on your BS, the rest of the
clique might, too.
And this thread proves me right about you and your clique. It will serve as
an excellent example to anyone you and your clique target in the future.
The sad thing, even with you being told that, you cannot do anything other
than prove me 100% right.
You are damned if you surprise me and act honesty (you would have to speak
against your clique) and you are damned if you do as I predict and refuse to
speak against even the most absurd claims your clique comes up with (you are
proving me right about your clique).
Sandman
<C6B4EE08.43229%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0274] you will lie about me.
Incorrect.
> [0275] Steve pointed to the post and verified that the context
> [0275] *was* my computer.
The lie was the qualifier you snipped out to alter his meaning by
quote forging.
<rest of lies snipped>
Snit
8/22/09 12:42 AM:
>> Steve pointed to the post and verified that the context
>> *was* my computer.
>
> The lie was the qualifier you snipped out to alter his meaning by
> quote forging.
His meaning was clear: he did not think I should get the iMac.
His reasoning was irrelevant - I did not even mention it. Your claim that
by not mentioning his irrelevant reasoning I somehow worked to "alter his
meaning". How?
Of course, you will never answer that question. Nor will you admit that
Steve is the one who brought his reasoning into the current discussions and
that his "reasoning" was clearly wrong. He denied that the iMac would be a
worthy computer based on my having speed as a large part of the reason for
wanting to upgrade from my G4. The iMac, however, is *clearly* much faster
than the G4.
No matter how you slice it:
* I was right in saying Steve tried to talk me out of getting the iMac
* You are wrong in saying I did anything to "alter his meaning"
* Steve was wrong in saying the iMac would not fill me need of higher
speed as a reason to get a new computer.
But, predictably, you will not admit to these very simple and clear facts.
Facts no reasonable person would disagree with. You will not go against
your clique.
100% predictable. And such a good example for anyone who you and your
buddies target.
Ah, such a good example to point to of your disreputable behavior. And it
shall be fun watching you deny it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
<C6B4F793.43235%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0301] His meaning was clear: he did not think I should get the
> [0301] iMac.
What you think is "clear" is irrelevant.
<snip rest of trolling>
Snit
8/22/09 1:44 AM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
> <C6B4F793.43235%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
>
>> His meaning was clear: he did not think I should get the iMac.
>>
>> His reasoning was irrelevant - I did not even mention it. Your claim that by
>> not mentioning his irrelevant reasoning I somehow worked to "alter his
>> meaning". How?
>>
>> Of course, you will never answer that question. Nor will you admit that
>> Steve is the one who brought his reasoning into the current discussions and
>> that his "reasoning" was clearly wrong. He denied that the iMac would be a
>> worthy computer based on my having speed as a large part of the reason for
>> wanting to upgrade from my G4. The iMac, however, is *clearly* much faster
>> than the G4.
>>
>> No matter how you slice it:
>>
>> * I was right in saying Steve tried to talk me out of getting the iMac
>> * You are wrong in saying I did anything to "alter his meaning"
>> * Steve was wrong in saying the iMac would not fill me need of higher
>> speed as a reason to get a new computer.
>>
>> But, predictably, you will not admit to these very simple and clear facts.
>> Facts no reasonable person would disagree with. You will not go against your
>> clique.
>>
>> 100% predictable. And such a good example for anyone who you and your
>> buddies target.
>>
>> Ah, such a good example to point to of your disreputable behavior. And it
>> shall be fun watching you deny it.
>
> What you think is "clear" is irrelevant.
As fun as this has been - and it has been fun - now you are just burying
your head in the sand and refusing to even *try* to support your claims.
You claim I somehow tried to alter the meaning of Steve's comments by
quoting the relevant section of his comments (his claim that I should not
get the iMac) and *not* quoting the irrelevant parts (his ignorant claimed
reasons for his view).
You will not, of course, say why you think I should have quoted the
irrelevant sections of his comments. And had I, of course, you would whine
I was bringing up his absurd "reasoning"... and supported your clique in
that way. You see, it is clear: no matter how wrong you are and how clearly
right I am, you will not admit to it. You *must* support your clique... or
they will not support you.
But now you are just in bury-your-head mode - ignoring the evidence as you
spew accusations and dishonest claims about me.
So get the last word - my posts to this thread have served their purpose
well - proving to anyone who should care what a dishonest little tool you
are... unable to think on your own for fear of breaking the bond you have
with your sick little clique.
And, predictably, at least some of them will jump in to *try* to support
you... and unwittingly show I am right about them as well.
I love it when you dig your own graves...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Sandman stated in post mr-5AEECB.08...@News.Individual.NET on
> 8/21/09 11:09 PM:
>
> >> When Tim Adams insisted the tilde meant the "hard drive only", your gang
> >> sat
> >> silent.
>
> > Since you're the one claiming he has said that, he probably didn't say
> > that.
>
> See:
snit, aka michael glasser is a hypocrite.
Just a day or so ago he said he would drop this topic _again_ but everybody knew
that was aLIE. but, to set the records straight, he leave out the facts that HE
was the one using the tilde in the path name trying to direct people to Apple's
installed widgets. I merely pointed out the path HIS use of the widget would
give a person. Unfortunately he still hasn't found where Apple's widget are
installed and continues trolling because of his stupidly.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Sandman
<C6B5096C.43241%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
> [0317] As fun as this has been - and it has been fun
I agree.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| troll 0 14 | lying 0 18 |
| incest 0 0 | sex 0 0 |
| guilty 0 0 | honorable 0 0 |
| obfuscate 0 0 | run 0 4 |
| dishonest 2 8 | snip 0 4 |
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-1F2C83.07...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
8/22/09 4:59 AM:
> In article <C6B4E0EA.431FF%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Sandman stated in post mr-5AEECB.08...@News.Individual.NET on
>> 8/21/09 11:09 PM:
>>
>>>> When Tim Adams insisted the tilde meant the "hard drive only", your gang
>>>> sat
>>>> silent.
>>
>>> Since you're the one claiming he has said that, he probably didn't say
>>> that.
>>
>> See:
>
> snit, aka michael glasser is a hypocrite.
> Just a day or so ago he said he would drop this topic _again_ but everybody
> knew
> that was aLIE. but, to set the records straight, he leave out the facts that
> HE
> was the one using the tilde in the path name trying to direct people to
> Apple's
> installed widgets. I merely pointed out the path HIS use of the widget would
> give a person. Unfortunately he still hasn't found where Apple's widget are
> installed and continues trolling because of his stupidly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-1F2C83.07...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
8/22/09 4:59 AM:
> In article <C6B4E0EA.431FF%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Sandman stated in post mr-5AEECB.08...@News.Individual.NET on
>> 8/21/09 11:09 PM:
>>
>>>> When Tim Adams insisted the tilde meant the "hard drive only", your gang
>>>> sat
>>>> silent.
>>
>>> Since you're the one claiming he has said that, he probably didn't say
>>> that.
>>
>> See:
>
> snit, aka michael glasser is a hypocrite.
> Just a day or so ago he said he would drop this topic _again_ but everybody
> knew that was aLIE. but, to set the records straight, he leave out the facts
> that HE was the one using the tilde in the path name trying to direct people
> to Apple's installed widgets.
Funny how you cannot quote my doing so.
You see, the topic was the then-true security hole of auto-installed
widgets. These widgets got installed to ~/Library/Widgets. Macslut asked
"How many brain cells" it took to be able to remove those widgets. I noted
it was not a matter of intelligence (brain cells), but a matter of technical
know-how... I pointed to Apple's then-current info on the subject which said
"You cannot remove widgets from the Widget Bar or change their order". All
of this, of course, was in reference to auto-installed widgets... the ones
in the users folder (~/Library/Widgets).
Tim, you then jumped in and said you can remove widgets by opening the hard
drive and going to Library and then Widget.
Daniel corrected you - he noted, correctly, that where you pointed to was
not correct: auto-installed widgets do not go where you pointed people. You
had missed the topic of the thread... I noted:
Where you pointed me to would not let me remove all
Widgets - and none of the ones in question, the
auto-installed ones.
Still, easy enough mistake for you to make... not a
big deal.
Clearly I was not mocking your error... I noted it was not a big deal and an
easy mistake to make. You then started lashing out:
Well; I was able to remove every single widget on my system
without any problem at all. Including auto-installed ones.
Perhaps you need to learn a bit about computers - when doing
something like that, a re-boot often helps. I thought you
taught computers and wouldn't need that simple step.
I then pointed you to sources which showed you where widgets get
installed... all three sources, of course, pointed to the user folder
(~/Library/Widgets), not the folder you pointed people to.
You then showed you did not know what the tilde meant:
Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in
their case ~) /library/widget. NOT the
~/users/username/library/widget as at least one other person
said, and you agreed with a day or so ago.
Please note, it was you who introduced the bizarre path you state there.
On and on... you showed you did not know what the tilde meant. Even when
you were corrected, you kept insisting you were right:
-----
YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the
name of the hard drive only. To bad in your reading, your
delusions took over.
-----
As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that
widgets were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING
THE ~ AS THE NAME OF THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH
harddrive/user/username/library
-----
All a matter of public record, Tim. You were wrong. Oh well. You lashed
out in anger when you were shown to be wrong - poor form.
You are still doing so. How pathetic!
> I merely pointed out the path HIS use of the widget would give a person.
> Unfortunately he still hasn't found where Apple's widget are installed and
> continues trolling because of his stupidly.
See how you continue to lie, years later. But that was not the point of
this thread - the point was your co-trolls would not acknowledge your
obvious and repeated blunder, nor call you out on your poor behavior in
relation to your blunder.
And they will not.
You see, you and your clique *never* call each other out on your blunders,
your lashing out, your obvious anger... you all work to "rescue" each other.
The worse your BS, the more you try to support each other. In the example
of this debate, both Steve Carroll and Wally jumped in to try to rescue you.
All a part of the public record:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/8fbf
2a503554a43a/d18fdd21407495ab>
My claims are proved there. 100%. If you wish to disagree with me you will
have to explain how I got Google in on the "cover".
You blew it. OK. But the point here is that your "crew" refused to side
with truth and honor, they sided instead with you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Jimmyjohn stated in post IQFjm.179038$vp.151...@newsfe12.iad on 8/21/09 4:11
> PM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:6d30d7ba-d704-45ad...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 21, 3:00 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> C Lund stated in post
> >> christopher.lund-23E7AB.22461421082...@adsl-065-015-208-084.sip.ilm.bellsout
> >> h.net on 8/21/09 1:46 PM:
>
> >>> In article <R5xjm.110225$8B7.9...@newsfe20.iad>,
> >>> JohnQ <Johnquincyg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Make a simple statement that remotly expresses disatisfaction with an
> >>>> Apple product like, "I for one don't like the fact that my Power PC is
> >>>> outdated after only the three years that I have owned it new. Total
> >>>> BS".
> >>>> Then the Apple damage control freaks like, hh, Carroll, Hix, Fa-garoon,
> >>>> Adams, Murray, Mike, Lund will come swarming out to defend their
> >>>> benefactor Apple, with threats lies and insults. I didn't realize you
> >>>> could find that many hysterical freaks all in one place. Bye all you
> >>>> scumbags. This is not a place where I want to be. Your posts will be
> >>>> read and agonized over by only you. I won't be here.
>
> >>> ass.
>
> >> Clearly he is making a valid point.
>
> > Clearly he was full of crap about Lund... more than once. The first
> > time when he wrote all the crap *directly* to Lund... and now here,
> > where he included Lund in more of his obvious BS.
>
> > Clearly.
>
> >> Clearly.
>
> >> I did not check every name he lists... if he got a name wrong then he made
> >> a
> >> mistake,
>
> > Here's Snit excusing the actions (done more than once, regarding Lund)
> > of another troll/shill as a "mistake"... gee, no one could have
> > predicted that. LOL!
>
> >> but the overall message is clearly correct.
>
> > His overall message is as much "mistake" as were his inclusions of
> > Lund.
>
> > u r a pos.
>
> Steve Carroll
... pointed out the reality that Snit and his co-troll/shill must deny.
Steve Carroll
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
> <C6B4E62E.4321C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
>
> > [0240] If you think my claims are "almost always" false, then show
> > [0240] I am wrong here.
>
> I will not partake in your obsession and trolling when you constantly
> try to drag up issues from the past.
>
> > [0243] note how wrong Tim Adams' claims are.
>
> I don't know anything about Tims actual claims. Your out of context,
> unsupported and unsubstantiated quotes could very well be forged. You
> are known to creatively snip or forge quotes, like you recently did
> when lying about Steve Carroll claiming that you shouldn't get an
> iMac, a position he never held and supported by you only by a
> butchered out of context fragment of a sentence.
Snit just asked you to show him doing something "wrong"... and you
just did that by mentioning this episode he pulled yesterday. Snit
will either deny this or say his action of disingenuous snipping
wasn't "wrong". Do you think he'd even try something like this if
scores of posters were viewing what he's trying to pull and they were
all commenting on it? I say no... Snit likes small audiences for his
type of trolling work. A large audience would shine too bright a light
for him. Even Snit has his threshold... we just haven't reached it.
Snit recently attacked Dave F. in a similarly disingenuous fashion
when he wrote about "someone" who turned out to be Dave. Notably, Snit
wouldn't even use Dave's name... though, he used mine:
"Well stated... Carroll excuses someone for calling someone a "mama's
boy" as
they take care of their dying mother - part of his "defense": he
thinks it
is fine to say such things to someone Carroll does not like (and hence
calls
names)."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d100b512b60f542d?dmode=source
Along with his hypocrisy about calling Pratt "names" (a thing Snit has
done himself on numerous occasions), Snit knew that Dave wasn't privy
to Pratt's problems (hence my legitimate reason for 'excusing' Dave).
When Dave confronted him with:
"Hey snit, I didn't know about that when I called him that name. You
know that, and you are lying."
Snit's disingenuous reply was:
"I never said you did know. Never."
Snit obviously thinks he's being clever when he plays with context
this way... leaving himself, what only he believes, is an 'out' for
his disingenuous BS. As you are well aware this incident exemplifies
the kind of thing Snit regularly pulls on usenet.
> Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
> +------------------------------+------------------------------+
> | troll 0 14 | lying 0 18 |
> | incest 0 0 | sex 0 0 |
> | guilty 0 0 | honorable 0 0 |
> | obfuscate 0 0 | run 0 4 |
> | dishonest 0 4 | snip 0 4 |
> | lol 0 4 | contrived 0 0 |
> +------------------------------+------------------------------+
> Snitanator v1.1 by Sandman
Snitanator... LOL!
John
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fbf319a3-676d-47d4...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Snitanator... LOL!
Your unhealthy and SICK obsession continues Steve.
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Carroll" <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> Along with his hypocrisy about calling Pratt "names" (a thing Snit has
> done himself on numerous occasions), Snit knew that Dave wasn't privy
> to Pratt's problems (hence my legitimate reason for 'excusing' Dave).
> When Dave confronted him with:
>
> "Hey snit, I didn't know about that when I called him that name. You
> know that, and you are lying."
>
> Snit's disingenuous reply was:
>
> "I never said you did know. Never."
>
> Snit obviously thinks he's being clever when he plays with context
> this way... leaving himself, what only he believes, is an 'out' for
> his disingenuous BS. As you are well aware this incident exemplifies
> the kind of thing Snit regularly pulls on usenet.
>
> > Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2009-01-01):
> > +------------------------------+------------------------------+
> > | troll 0 14 | lying 0 18 |
> > | incest 0 0 | sex 0 0 |
> > | guilty 0 0 | honorable 0 0 |
> > | obfuscate 0 0 | run 0 4 |
> > | dishonest 0 4 | snip 0 4 |
> > | lol 0 4 | contrived 0 0 |
> > +------------------------------+------------------------------+
> > Snitanator v1.1 by Sandman
>
> Snitanator... LOL!
>
> Your unhealthy and SICK obsession continues Steve.
Snit asks to be shown where he's "wrong"... you are whining that
people are complying with Snit's requests.
Poor John;)
Tim Adams
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Adams stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-1F2C83.07...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
> 8/22/09 4:59 AM:
>
> > In article <C6B4E0EA.431FF%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sandman stated in post mr-5AEECB.08...@News.Individual.NET on
> >> 8/21/09 11:09 PM:
> >>
> >>>> When Tim Adams insisted the tilde meant the "hard drive only", your gang
> >>>> sat
> >>>> silent.
> >>
> >>> Since you're the one claiming he has said that, he probably didn't say
> >>> that.
> >>
> >> See:
> >
> > snit, aka michael glasser is a hypocrite.
> > Just a day or so ago he said he would drop this topic _again_ but everybody
> > knew that was aLIE. but, to set the records straight, he leave out the facts
> > that HE was the one using the tilde in the path name trying to direct people
> > to Apple's installed widgets.
>
> Funny how you cannot quote my doing so.
>
funny how I let the google record speak for me instead of mangling quotes and
taking items totally out of context like you do.
~babbling by the trolling idiot michael glasser snipped
Snit
c3be8df3-8bec-4120...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com on 8/22/09
9:17 AM:
You defended name calling - saying it was fine as long as you were calling
the person a troll.
I called you out on your poor morals. And now you whine. And lie about it.
You also mention, above, your denial that you did not want me to get an
iMac. I then pulled up quotes where you specifically told me not to... and
then you whined that I did not show the "context" of *why* you told me what
you did... which was not *relevant*. But, since you brought it up, I showed
why your "reasoning" was absurd.
I was upgrading from a G4. I noted one of my reasons was I needed greater
speed... and you concluded that since speed was a big concern of mine, I
should not get the iMac. Absurd... the iMac is *much* faster than the G4.
I have even pulled up benchmarks which show it as being 9-10x faster.
And yet you will not admit you said what I quoted you saying. You are
obsessing on the fact I did not also quote irrelevancies... and Sandman, of
course, has jumped in to defend you.
Yeah: you lie and Sandman jumps in to defend you. You deny the "coalition",
but you cannot deny the proof of it.
Can you?
Oh.
You are Steve Carroll... you deny clear facts all the time.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
9:12 AM:
> Your unhealthy and SICK obsession continues Steve.
I gave him another chance to show he was willing to move past his hatred and
irrational lashing out.
He failed.
Predictably.
I shall soon go back to not responding to his posts. It is not like he will
grow past his lying, dishonest snipping, forging of "quotes" he attributes
to others, his "translation" trolling, etc.
Steve is just filled with hatred.
The good part about my responding to him and Sandman, though, is beyond
*any* doubt I got Sandman to prove he will accept any lie and any ignorant
claim his "friends" make... look at my back and forth with him last night.
I pointed out some of the most absurd things Carroll, Wally, and Adams have
said, and Sandman not only refused to say they were wrong, he defended them
and lashed out against me.
It was hilarious... Sandman has completely thrown out any pretense of even
trying to be honest.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
(snip)
> See: you will not speak out against your clique, and you will lie about me.
> Steve pointed to the post and verified that the context *was* my computer.
The "context" was, in your recent trolling thread, you took something
I wrote *out* of context and falsely claimed that I "insisted" you not
buy an iMac:
"Still, I am happy with the machine and look forward to Snow
Leopard... and am happy I bought the computer I did and not an older
one as Steve Carroll repeatedly insisted I should."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/97c7c3c692e94a0e?hl=en&dmode=source
> I quoted the relevant section - the fact he said I should not get an iMac.
You disingenuously quoted a portion of a conditional statement I made
based on you talking about "Speed" as one of your "biggies".
You wrote:
"Speed, camera, and ability to run Windows are "biggies" for me."
Proof I made a conditional statement is shown here in my reply:
"The current iMac crop has iSight and runs Windows. My point is... If
speed is
"central" to your "NEEDS" you shouldn't be buying an iMac at all."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fea53d41da5cb151?hl=en&dmode=source
> it was easy to note his reasoning was
> absurd: I noted I wanted a new computer and that speed was a large part of
> the reason why (though not the only reason).
I never said anything about it being your only reason. I recently
quoted you talking about only speed in a couple of other statements
you'd made and I pointed those out to you. Undoubtedly, you got
confused by my doing so. What a shock;)
> Clearly the aluminum iMac is a *lot* faster than the G4.
Irrelevant to your false allegation that I "insisted" you buy an iMac.
> Looking at Geekbench 2 scores:
> * the G4: 368
> * the iMac: 3199
>
> Now benchmarks are not perfect... but clearly the iMac blows the G4 away in
> terms of speed. If speed was my *only* reason (which it was not), getting
> an iMac would have been a *huge* benefit. So not only was I right about
> Steve telling me not to get the iMac,
The google record just proved that I didn't tell you "not to" ... the
record shows I said "... If speed is "central" to your "NEEDS" you
shouldn't...".
> his reasons (or one of them), which he (not I) brought up, were absurd.
I just proved you lied about the "speed" issue, an issue, IIRC, you
brought up before I did in that thread. Further, to a person where
"Speed" is one of the "biggies" it's not "absurd" to suggest something
faster than an iMac. Only an idiot would make such a claim... which is
why we find you making it;)
> But, of course, none of this is something you can admit it.
He can't admit to it because, as I have have just shown, it's either a
lie you are telling and/or it's unreasonable and illogical that you're
being.
> Steve is in your clique
If his ""clique" is to align himself with people who prove that liars
are liars and that trolls are unreasonable for a purpose, then,
yeah... I'm in his "clique".
(snip even more of Snit's crap).
Snit
5:06 PM:
You can play semantic games and other absurd BS all by yourself, Steve. No
interest. Here are the facts. Expect to see them again as you play with
yourself.
You told me to not get the iMac. Repeatedly. I quoted you. You claimed
that to prove you wrong was "disingenuous" because I only quoted the
relevant parts of your comments (the part where you told me not to get the
iMac) and not your irrelevant (and absurd) reasoning.
Knowing you have no leg to stand on, you played games with the word
"central", as in speed being central to my needs. Clearly, though, if the
computer was not faster than my G4 that would be a deal breaker. I do not
care to debate the origins of the word "central" or see what it was used in
3rd century Rome to see if you can find a way to weasel out of what you
said.
And you play semantic games with the word "insisted". You repeatedly pushed
me to other computers. Now you want to deny you "insisted". Whatever.
Your semantic games are pathetic and boring.
You then went off on your "conditional statement". If I said "if 2 + 2 = 4,
then the moon is made of cheese", you would be right to say that I had made
it clear I thought the moon was made of cheese... the "conditional
statement" is not in dispute. Nobody is saying I speed was not a very
important factor in my decision to get a new computer. It is just another
side issue BS issue you tossed in to run from the fact I proved you were
trying to steer me away from the iMac:
Steve Carroll:
If speed is "central" to your "NEEDS" you shouldn't be buying
an iMac at all.
But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
Steve Carroll:
You "need" for a Mac doesn't look like a "need" at all.
But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
Steve Carroll:
Teaching, web design and tech work are performed on non-Mac
PCs all the time.
But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
Steve Carroll:
What things are you "teaching" or do you plan to "teach" on
OSX that can *not* be taught on a PC?
But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
Steve Carroll:
As to other types of showstoppers... v.1 is always a bit of
a crap shoot.
But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
Seriously, Steve... you have been caught lying again. Nothing new for you
though... happens all the time.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
(snip)
> You can play semantic games and other absurd BS all by yourself
(snip more total BS by Snit)
Your claim was that you were:
"...happy I bought the computer I did and not an older one as Steve
Carroll repeatedly insisted I should"
Let's see how your claim holds up to the scrutiny of reality as we
check it against what you've quoted of me below...
> Steve Carroll:
> If speed is "central" to your "NEEDS" you shouldn't be buying
> an iMac at all.
That's certainly not me 'insisting' that you should buy an "older
one" [computer].
> But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
>
> Steve Carroll:
> You "need" for a Mac doesn't look like a "need" at all.
I'm obviously not "insisting" anything here either with respect to an
"older one" [computer].
> But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
>
> Steve Carroll:
> Teaching, web design and tech work are performed on non-Mac
> PCs all the time.
And there's definitely no 'insistence' on my part here that you buy an
"older one" [computer].
> But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
>
> Steve Carroll:
> What things are you "teaching" or do you plan to "teach" on
> OSX that can *not* be taught on a PC?
A question certainly isn't a form of "insisting" that you buy an
"older one" [computer].
> But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
>
> Steve Carroll:
> As to other types of showstoppers... v.1 is always a bit of
> a crap shoot.
My pointing out a potential reality isn't me "insisting" that you buy
an "older one" [computer].
> But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
>
> Seriously, Steve... you have been caught lying again.
Where's the lie here?
Oh... they were all told by you... the guy who claims I was
"repeatedly" "insisting" that you buy an "older one" [computer] but
failed to show a single instance of it.
Poor Snit;)
Tim Murray
>> u r a pos.
>>
Wow. I can't believe you responded positively, if even at all, to zara's
childish post.
Snit
6:38 PM:
From what you snipped:
Knowing you have no leg to stand on, you played games with
the word "central", as in speed being central to my needs.
Clearly, though, if the computer was not faster than my G4
that would be a deal breaker. I do not care to debate the
origins of the word "central" or see what it was used in 3rd
century Rome to see if you can find a way to weasel out of
what you said.
And you play semantic games with the word "insisted". You
repeatedly pushed me to other computers. Now you want to
deny you "insisted". Whatever. Your semantic games are
pathetic and boring.
And you know I am right... hence the reason you snipped. So now with
absolute proof we *know* that not even you believe the BS you are spewing,
Steve, go ahead and get the last word in. You lied. You were busted. You
denied and spewed insults and accusations.
I could complain, but that would be like someone jumping into the leopard
cage and suing when they get bit - I *knew* you would lie and I opted to
respond to you anyway. You are who you are - a lying, hate filled troll.
But, hey, Sandman has your back! LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 8/22/09 6:54 PM:
Say what you will, Steve Carroll is a "pos" (which is not "point of sale" in
this context) :)
I have been giving Steve the gift of some much begged for attention... I
will soon grow weary of him and return to not reading or replying to his
posts again.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Tim Murray stated in post 0001HW.C6B619A1...@nntp.charter.net
> on 8/22/09 6:54 PM:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:54:22 -0400, Snit wrote:
> >>> u r a pos.
> >>>
> >> Steve Carroll just lashes out with hatred. It is what he does.
> >
> > Wow. I can't believe you responded positively, if even at all, to zara's
> > childish post.
>
> Say what you will, Steve Carroll is a "pos" (which is not "point of sale" in
> this context) :)
>
> I have been giving Steve the gift of some much begged for attention, I
> will soon grow weary of him and return to not reading or replying to his
> posts again.
But then you will beg for Steve's attention again.
Steve Carroll
> Tim Murray stated in post 0001HW.C6B619A1000C874DF0182...@nntp.charter.net
> on 8/22/09 6:54 PM:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:54:22 -0400, Snit wrote:
> >>> u r a pos.
>
> >> Steve Carroll just lashes out with hatred. It is what he does.
>
> > Wow. I can't believe you responded positively, if even at all, to zara's
> > childish post.
>
> Say what you will, Steve Carroll is a "pos"
Said the hypocrite who has been seen often riding others about "name
calling".
Snit
5:06 PM:
> On Aug 22, 1:36�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You can play semantic games and other absurd BS all by yourself, Steve. No
interest. Here are the facts. Expect to see them again as you play with
yourself.
You told me to not get the iMac. Repeatedly. I quoted you. You claimed
that to prove you wrong was "disingenuous" because I only quoted the
relevant parts of your comments (the part where you told me not to get the
iMac) and not your irrelevant (and absurd) reasoning.
Knowing you have no leg to stand on, you played games with the word
"central", as in speed being central to my needs. Clearly, though, if the
computer was not faster than my G4 that would be a deal breaker. I do not
care to debate the origins of the word "central" or see what it was used in
3rd century Rome to see if you can find a way to weasel out of what you
said.
And you play semantic games with the word "insisted". You repeatedly pushed
me to other computers. Now you want to deny you "insisted". Whatever.
Your semantic games are pathetic and boring.
You then went off on your "conditional statement". If I said "if 2 + 2 = 4,
then the moon is made of cheese", you would be right to say that I had made
it clear I thought the moon was made of cheese... the "conditional
statement" is not in dispute. Nobody is saying I speed was not a very
important factor in my decision to get a new computer. It is just another
side issue BS issue you tossed in to run from the fact I proved you were
trying to steer me away from the iMac:
Steve Carroll:
If speed is "central" to your "NEEDS" you shouldn't be buying
an iMac at all.
But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
Steve Carroll:
You "need" for a Mac doesn't look like a "need" at all.
But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
Steve Carroll:
Teaching, web design and tech work are performed on non-Mac
PCs all the time.
But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
Steve Carroll:
What things are you "teaching" or do you plan to "teach" on
OSX that can *not* be taught on a PC?
But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
Steve Carroll:
As to other types of showstoppers... v.1 is always a bit of
a crap shoot.
But you deny trying to dissuade me from getting the then-new iMac.
Seriously, Steve... you have been caught lying again. Nothing new for you
Steve Carroll
(snip)
> > (snip even more of Snit's crap).
>
> You can play semantic games and other absurd BS all by yourself, Steve.
It's you who is playing the game here... Google shows your claim was
that you were:
"...happy I bought the computer I did and not an older one as Steve
Carroll repeatedly insisted I should"
You then failed to provide a single quote of me insisting what you've
alleged in your obviously false claim. I've already covered this once,
Mr. 'I have no respect for people's time, bandwith or anything else,
for that matter'... as shown here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/491706516e8ce72f?dmode=source
Instead of doing your usual dance of a thousand posts where you whine
and scream while trying to fight reality, why don't you create a new
delusion?
Snit
8/22/09 1:44 AM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
> <C6B4F793.43235%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
>
>> His meaning was clear: he did not think I should get the iMac.
>>
>> His reasoning was irrelevant - I did not even mention it. Your claim that by
>> not mentioning his irrelevant reasoning I somehow worked to "alter his
>> meaning". How?
>>
>> Of course, you will never answer that question. Nor will you admit that
>> Steve is the one who brought his reasoning into the current discussions and
>> that his "reasoning" was clearly wrong. He denied that the iMac would be a
>> worthy computer based on my having speed as a large part of the reason for
>> wanting to upgrade from my G4. The iMac, however, is *clearly* much faster
>> than the G4.
>>
>> No matter how you slice it:
>>
>> * I was right in saying Steve tried to talk me out of getting the iMac
>> * You are wrong in saying I did anything to "alter his meaning"
>> * Steve was wrong in saying the iMac would not fill me need of higher
>> speed as a reason to get a new computer.
>>
>> But, predictably, you will not admit to these very simple and clear facts.
>> Facts no reasonable person would disagree with. You will not go against your
>> clique.
>>
>> 100% predictable. And such a good example for anyone who you and your
>> buddies target.
>>
>> Ah, such a good example to point to of your disreputable behavior. And it
>> shall be fun watching you deny it.
>
> What you think is "clear" is irrelevant.
As fun as this has been - and it has been fun - now you are just burying
Snit
8/22/09 12:42 AM:
>> Steve pointed to the post and verified that the context
>> *was* my computer.
>
> The lie was the qualifier you snipped out to alter his meaning by
> quote forging.
His meaning was clear: he did not think I should get the iMac.
His reasoning was irrelevant - I did not even mention it. Your claim that
by not mentioning his irrelevant reasoning I somehow worked to "alter his
meaning". How?
Of course, you will never answer that question. Nor will you admit that
Steve is the one who brought his reasoning into the current discussions and
that his "reasoning" was clearly wrong. He denied that the iMac would be a
worthy computer based on my having speed as a large part of the reason for
wanting to upgrade from my G4. The iMac, however, is *clearly* much faster
than the G4.
No matter how you slice it:
* I was right in saying Steve tried to talk me out of getting the iMac
* You are wrong in saying I did anything to "alter his meaning"
* Steve was wrong in saying the iMac would not fill me need of higher
speed as a reason to get a new computer.
But, predictably, you will not admit to these very simple and clear facts.
Facts no reasonable person would disagree with. You will not go against
your clique.
100% predictable. And such a good example for anyone who you and your
buddies target.
Ah, such a good example to point to of your disreputable behavior. And it
shall be fun watching you deny it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 11:47 PM:
>>>> When Tim Adams insisted the tilde meant the "hard drive only", your gang
>>>> sat silent.
>>>>
>>> Since you're the one claiming he has said that, he probably didn't say that.
>>>
>> See: you cannot help but prove me right about you and your clique.
>>
>> Tim Adams:
>> -----
>> YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
>> HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the
>> name of the hard drive only. To bad in your reading, your
>> delusions took over.
>> -----
>> Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in
>> their case ~) /library/widget. NOT the
>> ~/users/username/library/widget as at least one other person
>> said, and you agreed with a day or so ago.
>> -----
>> As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that
>> widgets were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING
>> THE ~ AS THE NAME OF THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH
>> harddrive/user/username/library
>> -----
>>
>> You are so beholden to your clique, though, you will not acknowledge that the
>> person who stated those things is flat out wrong.
>>
>> Prove me wrong and note how wrong Tim Adams was there.
> The fact that your claims almost always are false is not in contention.
If you think my claims are "almost always" false, then show I am wrong
here... note how wrong Tim Adams' claims are.
But you will not.
You will not say one word against your clique. These posts will come in
handy the next time you and your clique target someone else... I will be
able to point to you proving me 100% right. You cannot help yourself... no
matter how absurd the statements of the folks in your clique are, you feel
obligated to defend them or, at best, ignore them and belittle those who
speak honestly about the comments of your "friends". You show no sign of
being willing to think for yourself. How sad.
I do think for myself... and I refused to join any clique... hence the
reason you lash out and lie about me so often. Very, very simple to see.
And this thread is proof. And I love it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 11:46 PM:
>>>> When Wally made a fool of himself and insisted that subsets
>>>> could not be empty not a word was said by your little crew
>>>> to show how absurd his claims were.
>>>
>>> "We" never helped you troll, no.
>>
>> My actions are not the topic here. Your actions, and the actions of those
>> you support in their trolling, is. When Wally spewed the following nonsense,
>> and trolled me in response to his being called out on it, you never said a
>> word to note how wrong he was:
>>
>> I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
>> would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
>>
>> But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
>> as you have said it would!
>>
>> your delusion is that something that owes its very existence
>> to the fact that it contains information can in fact be
>> ...empty!
>>
>> whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
>> the answer actually is
>>
>> it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
>> because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
>>
>> Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
>>
>> Come on, prove me wrong and note how wrong those claims of his are.
>>
>> You know they are... but you will not say it. You are completely
>> predictable.
> So why did you bring your Snit Circus up and asked why "we" didn't
> join you in it?
I did no such thing... I noted, correctly, that you would not admit Wally's
clearly absurd and ignorant claims were wrong. And you will not. You
cannot - that would be to go against your clique.
See, Sandman, even when your clique goes to extremes in saying the most
absurd things, you are not willing to speak out against them or their
comments. You simply will not.
And, look, you even tried to turn things around by blaming me, attributing
Wally's absurdly ignorant claims as the a part of the "Snit circus". You
cannot help but prove me right about you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 11:32 PM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
> <C6B4DB61.431ED%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>:
>
>> You moved goal posts here.
>
> Incorrect.
But below I describe where you did... and you make a silly excuse.
>> I did not say "Apple advocates", nor, before this, did you.
>
> That's because you're trying to troll the issue, and hijacking the
> thread. And because you realise that your entire premise is destroyed
> when we focus on mac advocacy instead of arbitrary negative remarks
> from self-admitted trolls.
>
> I'd ay "Nice try" if it was.
You claimed you did not get the type of negative responses JohnQ talked
about. Now I suppose you can weasel out of your claim and say you got some
other type of negative responses, but the fact is you clearly *did* get
negative responses:
-----
Serves you right, Loopy. As I've always said, there is
*always* something missing in Macs. Always some compromise
built in, whereas you're getting a "better" GUI/OS
experience, but take a hit in performance or some other
thing. Apple should stick to making iPods and iTVs.
-----
According to a loopy idiot that "fixed" a problem with an
expensive Apple computer by throwing a lot more money at it.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
-----
Gotta love that great Apple hardware of superior quality. You
buy their high end PC and you immediately have to replace the
shit Apple drives because it slows the whole system to a
crawl! ROFLCOPTER!!!!
-----
Awww, the Maccie Jihad Ad-hominem personal "stupid" attack.
Poor Sandman's out of ammo again, he's been out of a long
time....
------
This must be a lie as Macs, just work.
-----
Now you are moving goal posts and saying *some* people did not give you
negative responses. Gee, as I have said, your clique sticks together. You
are proving me right about you time after time.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/21/09 11:09 PM:
>> When Carroll claimed his OS and Usenet client made him nym-shift, none of the
>> rest said a word of how insane this was.
>>
> Since he hasn't claimed this, no words needed to be said.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ddd5f7f282b26254>
Carroll openly admitted to using no less than five "handles", and said that
three of those could be attributed to his Usenet program and Leopard.
Seriously, Sandman, did you think it would be hard to prove he did what I
said? And do you think it is not predictable that you will prove me right
and give him a pass on this?
You cannot help but give him a pass... he has helped you so many times. Tit
for tat - if you were to be honest here, you fear Steve would be honest in
response to your games and trolling. You will not be the first to break the
pact.
Prove me wrong and admit I was right about him... and that his excuse is
absurd. His OS and Usenet reader did not make him change handles... he did
that all by himself.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> When Wally made a fool of himself and insisted that subsets
> >>>> could not be empty not a word was said by your little crew
> >>>> to show how absurd his claims were.
> >
> > So why did you bring your Snit Circus up and asked why "we" didn't
> > join you in it?
>
> I did no such thing...
It's still quoted above. The entire "Wally made a fool of himself"
idea exists only in your mind and inside the Snit Circus. You are the
only one that seems to have that opinion. No one seemed to share that
opinion and no one came to your aid when you tried to lie and troll
Wally about it.
Basically, you're whining that the ENTIRE GROUP isn't helping you lie
about others. It's not just me that didn't help you, it's pretty much
everyone else in this group. I can't think of a single person that
came and took your side in that matter, or any issue you've ever had.
I can totally understand why that bothers you, and you want to make it
seem that that reflects badly on OTHERS, but not on you. You're the
only one standing in the corner of a room screaming about a handful of
people and the rest of the room is full of people that either walks
away from your corner or tries their best to ignore you. BUt you can't
have that, if people ignore you, you shout even louder - desperately
trying to make it seem like you're the one that is being honest and
honorable in spite of NO ONE AGREEING WITH YOU IN THE ENTIRE ROOM.
But hey, that's just consensus, right? If everyone calls you a troll,
that says nothing about you. They're all in this supposed "group" of
people that are out to get you and only you.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Steve pointed to the post and verified that the context
> >> *was* my computer.
> >
> > The lie was the qualifier you snipped out to alter his meaning by
> > quote forging.
>
> His meaning was clear
...when the qualifier was included, which you snipped, since you're a
dishonest liar.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> When Carroll claimed his OS and Usenet client made him nym-shift, none of
> >> the
> >> rest said a word of how insane this was.
> >>
> > Since he hasn't claimed this, no words needed to be said.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ddd5f7f282b26254>
>
> Carroll openly admitted to using no less than five "handles", and said that
> three of those could be attributed to his Usenet program and Leopard.
What you won't find in the above quote is Steve Carroll saying that
his usenet client or OS forced or made him nymshift.
Claim status: Still unsubstantiated.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
8/24/09 6:09 AM:
> In article <C6B7CFC4.438B9%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> When Wally made a fool of himself and insisted that subsets
>>>>>> could not be empty not a word was said by your little crew
>>>>>> to show how absurd his claims were.
>>>
>>> So why did you bring your Snit Circus up and asked why "we" didn't
>>> join you in it?
>>
>> I did no such thing...
>
> It's still quoted above. The entire "Wally made a fool of himself"
> idea exists only in your mind and inside the Snit Circus.
The fact you are shilling for Wally proves me correct about you and he
co-trolling. Remember, these are Wally's claims:
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
as you have said it would!
your delusion is that something that owes its very existence
to the fact that it contains information can in fact be
...empty!
whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
the answer actually is
it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!
Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"
You lie to defend your buddies... this is just a fact.
> You are the only one that seems to have that opinion. No one seemed to share
> that opinion and no one came to your aid when you tried to lie and troll Wally
> about it.
See, you claim I am lying to say Wally is clearly and unambiguously wrong.
But he is. And you are not so stupid as to think otherwise. You are lying.
And below you just babble and lie... "helping [me] lie"... "took my side"...
on and on.
The topic is *you* and your lying. You lie to help Wally in his trolling.
Your denials on this are absurd... and your circus on this issue is old.
> Basically, you're whining that the ENTIRE GROUP isn't helping you lie about
> others. It's not just me that didn't help you, it's pretty much everyone else
> in this group. I can't think of a single person that came and took your side
> in that matter, or any issue you've ever had.
>
> I can totally understand why that bothers you, and you want to make it seem
> that that reflects badly on OTHERS, but not on you. You're the only one
> standing in the corner of a room screaming about a handful of people and the
> rest of the room is full of people that either walks away from your corner or
> tries their best to ignore you. BUt you can't have that, if people ignore you,
> you shout even louder - desperately trying to make it seem like you're the one
> that is being honest and honorable in spite of NO ONE AGREEING WITH YOU IN THE
> ENTIRE ROOM.
>
> But hey, that's just consensus, right? If everyone calls you a troll, that
> says nothing about you. They're all in this supposed "group" of people that
> are out to get you and only you.
>
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/24/09 6:12 AM:
See how you snip, run, and lie to defend your buddy Steve Carroll. You are
proving me right about you.
Again.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8/24/09 6:14 AM:
From the link, above:
-----
Gee, in over a decade of my posting you managed to find me
using 5 different handles (mainly based on spam avoiding mail
addresses) 3 of which can be attributed to MTNewswatcher
problems recently... due to my having installed Leopard.
-----
But you deny that he said it was due to his Usenet client and OS.
See: easy to show where you lie to defend Steve Carroll - just as he lies to
defend you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
not wanting me to buy the iMac I have) by quoting the relevant section of
his comments (his claim that I should not get the iMac) and *not* quoting
the irrelevant parts (his ignorant claimed reasons for his view).
Why do you think I should have quoted the irrelevant sections of his
comments?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]