Quotes! 25-FEB-2006
CSMA_Moderator
Fact is most csma posters have noticed that Snit is different. Many cola
posters have noticed too. Here is what over 70 different posters have to
say about him.
----- NEW CSMA_MODERATOR'S FAVORITES! -----
C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
RichardK: "I have Snit killfiled"
Tom Bates: "Do you have to turn any thread you post in into one of your
Circus acts?"
-------------------------------------------
--------- (DIS)HONORABLE MENTIONS ---------
Greycloud: "It is apparent that you do not understand what a strawman is for
the purposes of argumentation. I think all you are doing is playing head
games with people. Yep, a very enduring quality that people like. NOT!"
Sandman: "I'll take your word for it - you are after all the biggest troll I
ever saw, so I have no problem accepting your expertise in the area."
Sandman: "I don't need your support nor have I asked you for it. Having you
support my posts make them look bad. Please don't "support" me."
TheLetterK: "Like me. He's the only person I have in my killfile, and likely
the only one there will be. I'm usually pretty tolerant of idiots--but Shit
managed to convince even *me* that his bullshit wasn't worth reading."
------------------------------------------------------------
----------- CSMA_MODERATOR'S ALL TIME FAVORITES! -----------
1- Alan Baker: "People's perceptions of you are *formed* by behaviour and
not withstanding your occasional on topic posts, I wish you'd leave too.
Please note that despite the amazing silliness that is Edwin, I have never
made the same wish of him."
2- Andrew J. Brehm: "You are not flamed because you speak the truth, you are
flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the newsgroup."
3- B.B.: "Does the From: header contain the string "Snit"? If yes, then
troll. Otherwise, maybe.
Dunno why I had my KF on you set to expire, but it's fixed now."
4- Bob S: "This has always been pretty much a free-for-all group, but since
Snit showed up, its become almost impossible to have a decent discussion
about anything.
The solution is to NOT REPLY TO SNIT. But for some reason, some people just
can't stop feeding him."
5- °b° unny: "snit makes me sad."
6- buzz off: "Snit is obviously mentally ill..."
7- chrisv (cola): "No, she called him "shit", and rightly so, for they way
he was so ignominiously birthed into a toilet at the bus depot, and simply
refused to die, despite repeated flushes.
It's now far too late to *flush* him, but we can still *plonk* him..."
8- C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
9- Code Orange: "Then why post it? What need is there for you to "win" an
argument? They don't like you, you don't like them. Why must you keep this
up? What results are you expecting?"
10- Dawg Tail: "You've already apologized for having already misread what I
had previously written. What makes you think that you're correctly
understanding what I'm writting now. You've got a history of reading into
things what you wanted people to have said instead of what they really
said. I suggest you get over this limitation of yours. It's making you look
foolish."
Dawg Tail: "PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all of them
are making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many diverse people
who share a common perception where do you think the problem lies? With
Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't require an advanced
degree to figure out."
11- Dave Fritzinger: "Snit, please shut up!
Thank you."
12- ed: "snit, you continually amaze me with how much of a liar and loser
you are. you may notice a semi-regular pattern with me where i stop
responding to your posts for stretches at a time, then start up responding
as if you were a normal person. i suppose it's tough for the magnitude of
your 'loserdom' to stick, so it loses some of it's sharpness when i stop
responding to you. you almost always start responding back in a semi normal
way, but inevitably degenerate. it's once again that time. i can only ask
that you pass my condolences to your wife and unborn child for having to
put up with such a dishonest fool as yourself. (well, if your wife is a
loser as well, just pass those condolences to the rug-rat to be; if not,
double condolences to her). "
13- Edwin: "The worst troll this NG has ever seen is playing the part of the
victim... you can almost hear the violins playing in the background as he
whines... hilarious..."
14- Elijah Baley: "If there's ever been a better example of a sociopath than
this Snit character I haven't seen one."
15- Elizabot v2.0.2: "I see you were unable to respond to the points in my
post and you are back to your repetitious regurgitation mode. How
childishly typical of you, Snit. "
16- fibercut: "That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to CSMA
I have seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides the
typical Mac vs. Windows typical argument. I feel that it is like being in
a room of really young children trying there best to best the other person.
The one common thing among all of this seems to be you. I hate to be like
this, but facts are facts. You seem to be in the middle of a great
percentage of arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs and more about
"look everybody, I think he lied". Is there no end then all this picking at
each other on such a personal level. CSMA has always been al little
adversarial but you have personally crank it up to the point that this
place is no longer fun. Congratulations on stopping CSMA and making this
place your own personal circus."
17- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with the Snit (AKA
Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He will drive you crazy with
his twisted logic, his deep-rooted need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He
will move goalposts, set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his
endless pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger you and
feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!"
18- Greycloud: "I'm beginning to see what you people mean. Are we sure he's
a school teacher?? After all, school has started, so where does he get the
time to blow? "
19- Henry Flam: "Snit, your just a troll. It's irrelevant that you advocate
the Mac. Many folks in this group would be happy if you just disappeared.
But I guess it will never happen. Sigh... "
20- Heywood Mogroot: "*plonk*"
21- Jamie Hart (cola): "I was very deliberate in my choice of words, so far
in our exchange, you have claimed to say something you didn't, accused me
of deliberately removing context and accused me of calling you names.
You don't have a very good record so far, and I don't have the time to put
up with your posting style, so this is the last you will hear from me."
22- Jason McNorton: "You're one of the many, many paranoid people on usenet
that should be confined most likely. You sit there and refresh your screen
endlessly. You post the same nonsense over and over. Either you're a
super troll, or you're a super mess."
23- Jeff B.: "Yo, Snit. We're not pals. I think you're a git."
24- Jeff Hoppe: "This is a Macintosh Advocacy newsgroup. Not a 12-step
recovery plan. Your medical problems or conditions won't help me achieve a
greater understanding of my Mac. In fact, it detracts from it and those
kinds of discussions have no place in a newsgroup such as this."
25- Jim Lee Jr.: "Troll."
26- Jim Polaski: "Thanks for starting a three-ring circus act where it
wasn't indicated."
27- Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo: "and Snithead has even farther to fall - in a
few weeks he'll be out on the street after midnight, yelling at passersby
'sucky sucky, $2...'"
27- John C. Randolph: "You're nothing but a troll yourself. What are you
bitching about?"
29- JohnOfArc (cola): "I'm not sure "troll" does it justice- more like a
black hole! But hey, if we all promise to never again even entertain an
unkind thought re Apple, will you take it back and lock it up? Please??"
30- John Q. Public: "I have not been bothered to read Snit's postings since
I figured out who he is. I don't bother to filter his posts, I just
consider the source and skip to the next one when I see his name."
31- John Slade: "Snit is full of shit and knows little about computers.
However I don't think anyone should leave based on how stupid they are.
Everyone has a right to say whatever they want. If Snit wants to display
his ignorance and lack of knowledge, he should have that right."
32- Ku Karlovsky (cola): "You repeatedly chastise others for ad hominem
attacks while in the same sentence make your own ad hominem attacks.You
make silly claims and then avoid the subject of your silliness. You're a
liar and a hypocrite and you always have been."
33- Lars Träger: "Yes, you are stupid."
34- Lefty Bigfoot: "I am once again amazed at how quickly the mindless
parrots inside the RDF will change direction. You are a caricature of the
typical Apple zealot."
35- Liam Slider (cola): "Maybe he's responding to the fact you've been an
annoying little fuckwit lately. You started out with the pretense of trying
to be fair, but lately all there is from you in COLA is trashtalk about
Linux and you acting every bit the troll."
36- Linønut (cola): "Snit is a Tholenoid."
37- Lloyd Parsons: "Well, I don't know if Oxford is the most cretinous, I
would think that would be reserved for Snit! ;-)"
38- Mark Kent (cola): "Snit is an uber-troll of the worst order... Snit's
as likely to admit error as E.Funkenbusch. If he really teaches (which I
strongly doubt), it must be awful to be taught by someone who cannot accept
when they're wrong, this being one of the fundamental methods for
learning..."
39- Mayor of R'lyeh: "Here's a hint. Whenever Snit is involved double check
everything. He's a major jackass and loves to do things like this."
40- Mike: "The evidence is overwhelming, and self-explanatory. You're not
smart enough to get someone *already there* to press the floppy eject
button - assuming, of course, that this Carefully Contrived Scenario
actually happened. Which we can only assume that it did not. All we
have is your word - hardly compelling."
41- Mike Dee: "I will no longer accuse you of lying here. Instead I can only
say that you are a complete and delusional kook that happens to inhabit
CSMA for the time being. That you are unaware of how deranged you actually
behave further reinforces this notion. Please seek professional help."
42- mmoore321: "Typical Snit response. Since you could not address that my
comment was about your message and not your sig you decided to do some
pedantic reply. This is a common tact you employ. Don't address the intent
of the message, but try to be "clever". It is a shame it is so
transparent."
43- MR_ED_of_Course: "Seriously, spend half a day at any pre-school or
kindergarten and see if the kids there can't teach you a thing or two about
social behavior."
44- Muahman: "Ummm, dude you post 1000 posts a day. 999 of them are trolls,
if anyone here has issues it's not me."
45- Nashton: "This issue was beaten to death. I cannot imagine why Snit is
bringing it up and why anybody would bother to engage in conversation with
him on this topic."
46- Nasht0n: "Oh for crying out loud, if I wasn't convinced that snit is a
total loser, and I rarely call people losers, I certainly am now. Why
bother responding to his stupidities anyway?"
47- news/Andy: "Snit you obviously need to be more precise when you argue
with some people, or are you doing it deliberately?"
48- Oxford: "If you are using MT-Newswatcher:
Select offending Author, example Snit...
Go to the Filters Menu, Choose "Kill this Author"
Click "OK"
Then Repeat with each annoying Author of your choice.
Then to see your work...
Choose the Filter Menu again,
Then "Refilter Articles"...
Bam! No more boring, pointless bickering about nothing.
Enjoy!!!!!"
49- Peter: "I've never felt the need to use the filters in Newswatcher but I
thought Id try the Kill this Author.. option with Snit. Ten seconds later
and he's gone! Amazing."
50- Peter Jensen (cola): "Where has he ever said that they were not
different windowing environments? Message-ID, please. Experience has told
me not to trust you on anything without backing evidence."
51- Peter Köhlmann (cola): "His extremely dishonest way of taking posts out
of context is nothing new, wintrolls have tried this since ages (and failed
miserably)
I don't think that there is a single regular poster in cola thinking that
Snit is *not* a troll"
52- Phil Earnhardt: "You're only interested in trying to get superficial
snipes and extrapolate inappropriate conclusions."
53- Rapskat (cola): "For instance, your sig you reference a long standing
war you have going with some person from csma. It's like you single out
persons to target your attentions upon and then continuously berate them
with constant barbs and goads to perpetuate their acrimonious responses,
which in turn you respond in kind, etc. ad infinitum.
Above all things, your affinity for Macs and your overbearing pompous nature
aside, this is what convinces me that your primary purpose for frequenting
this and other groups is to troll."
54- RichardK: "I have Snit killfiled"
55- Rick (cola): "Snit, you are a liar. And an ignorant one. You trash
people that are trying their level best to cope with a horrendous
situation. And you do it without the slightest idea of what is going on."
56- Rick G.: "Just to be plain here, I have no doubt that he is a troll. I
am tolerant of his nature, not blind to it. However, as a troll, he is ...
somewhat clumsy."
57- Robert F.: "Um, perhaps you misunderstand. I don't care if you quote
Mayor McCheese claiming the Earth is a flat plate perched on the shell of a
tortoise, I was merely pointing out that you run the risk of looking
ridiculous when you quote something patently stupid. If that's your goal,
you're on the right track, and more power to you."
58- Roy Culley (cola): "You appear to be in the latter category. Starting
crossposted threads for the simple purpose of hoping to generate a flame
war. If you truly want to learn more about Linux and how it can help you and
your supposed users why aren't you requesting help from a more
technical Linux newsgroup than an advocacy group?
As the old saying goes, those who can do, those who can't teach. Your posts
seem to confirm that saying IMHO."
59- Sandman: "He is by far the most killfiled person in the -HISTORY- of
csma. I've never seen someone so disliked, almost hated, in a news group
before.
He has the ability to turn just about any person against him in just a few
posts. On usenet, trolls do this daily, but the funny part with Michael is
that I actually think he DOESN'T consider himself be a troll - damn what
-EVERYONE ELSE- is calling him. Obviously they are wrong.
Only Tholen himself can match this behaviour."
60- Sean Burke: If you're dumb enough to respond to snit, you're probably
dumb enough to click on a spam attachment that promises to remove smut from
your harddrive."
61- ShutterBugz: "so snit-zel has some kind of problem expressing anger, i
guess. he has to vent his frustrations in other ways. and he thinks he's
making sense: well the syntax is there and he figures he's pretty smart.
indeed, he tells us, he's done the personality tests and the iq tests and
he's okay! aaaaahhhhh, you see he's soooooooo well adjusted."
62- Steve Carroll: "The only things we are sure about Snit is that he has:
* a monumental reading comprehension problem.
* nym-shifted numerous times to avoid kill-files.
* built too many straw-men to count... some, the size of small cities.
* been labeled a disingenuous liar/troll (or worse) by the vast majority.
* used numerous sock-puppets and admitted to it.
* stolen IDs and admitted to it.
* gotten booted off by ISPs for his behavior.
* twisted more context than all csma posters combined.
* made more unsupported accusations than all csma posters combined.
* virtually no life outside of csma."
63- Steve Mackay: "Just killfile Snit, the dishonest piece of elephant dung,
and all would go away. Sure, I got caught up in the "Snit Circus", but then
the cotton candy began to sour, and CSMA begun to smell like elephant
dung."
64- Steve Travis: "Oh oh... Now look what we've done. Snit has lost all
self respect and has sunk to the point of using words like 'asses' when
referring to others.
Oh, how could the morally superior snit have fallen so low.. Please take a
moment out of your busy schedule to feel embarassed for him. Or perhaps we
should set up a fund to get him more happy glue (and the appropriate
plastic bags)."
65- Stuart Krivis: "Dude, the way you act sometimes makes me think you
_like_ to be fucked with and encourage others to do so."
66- TheLetterK: "I am not confused by your claim (I understand it, and the
fallacious argument that spawned it), but I am indeed frustrated by your
refusal to admit mistake. It's really quite simple--you simply have to
indicate that you were wrong. No shame would come from it, and the issue
would be totally forgotten. However, your instance on proving your own
inaccuracy brings the issue to the forefront and continues to degrade the
tattered remains of whatever credibility you had going into the argument
(which is not much)."
67- Tim Adams: "I'd kill file you but then I'd miss the fun. you see, you
never cease to amaze me at just how stupid you really are. Why just the
other day I had a great laugh when I saw you, the king of liars (in this NG
anyway) calling somebody else a liar."
68- Tim Smith: "Another troll attempt using a random redirector."
69- Timberwoof: "*Plonk!*"
70- Tom Bates: "Do you have to turn any thread you post in into one of your
Circus acts?"
71- Tommy: "LIAR!!!"
72- TravelinMan: "I still can't figure out what's wrong with Snit. Most
people have him kill-filed and the few who don't mostly restrict their
responses to 'why don't you go away, no one wants you here'.
Just what would keep someone in this group with all of that animosity? Must
be some kind of severe mental illness."
73- Wally: "Because by your own admission "honor and honesty" are nothing
more than a "game" to you, as such not only do you wish to define the
rules, but no doubt you will also attempt to alter or bend the rules when
inevitably things do not go to your liking, for this reason I doubt anyone
would be foolish enough to play your game."
74- William R. Walsh: "Now, if you'll excuse me, and accept my sincere
apologies for this, PLONK!
Feel proud about that. You're the first person to be plonked from my new
computer! :-) "
75- Woofbert: "*Plonk*"
76- zara: "ya know Snit, I am one of your fans. I also admit to being a
Troll- why don't you admit to being a Troll also?? That hoilier than thou
bullshit, dosen't flush. "
77- Znu: "I think your 'I'll go start a new thread to try to draw more
people into the debate I'm currently having with Steve/Elizabot/etc' tactic
is fairly trollish."
Steve Carroll
CSMA_Moderator <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> Snit: "I do not believe in consensus reality. I believe in facts."
>
> Fact is most csma posters have noticed that Snit is different. Many cola
> posters have noticed too. Here is what over 70 different posters have to
> say about him.
>
> ----- NEW CSMA_MODERATOR'S FAVORITES! -----
>
> C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
> irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
> actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
Snit... I wrote this one! Can you cut your idiotic sympathy act out now?
--
"I am not fond of "me too" posts..." - Snit
Snit
noone-9A6EBD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/25/06 5:24 PM:
> In article <46blj8F...@individual.net>,
> CSMA_Moderator <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
<SNIP />
> Snit... I wrote this one!
Steve: thank you for finally admitting that CSMA Mod is your sock puppet -
like *anyone* did not know.
--
Sex-based crimes are not synonymous with sex
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Snit
on 2/25/06 11:22 AM:
> Snit: "I do not believe in consensus reality. I believe in facts."
Poor Stevie: I have not been reading and responding to enough of his posts
to keep him happy. LOL!
Snit
C02645B7.4690A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 2/25/06 5:34 PM:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-9A6EBD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/25/06 5:24 PM:
>
>> In article <46blj8F...@individual.net>,
>> CSMA_Moderator <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
> <SNIP />
>
>> Snit... I wrote this one!
>
> Steve: thank you for finally admitting that CSMA Mod is your sock puppet -
> like *anyone* did not know.
Gee, and Steve has *already* gone back into denial mode. What a shock!
LOL!
OK, Steve, you can go back to accusing me of forging your CSMA Mod ID. I am
sure Elizabeth will believe you. Or pretend to... if you are good on your
next little road trip.
Oh, and I see how you are already back to cowardly snipping and running.
Gee, Steve, have you figured out *yet* how much you show off what a
cowardly, stupid troll you are. LOL! Too damned funny.
Don't forget to lie in your response and claim I told you I was currently
not reading your posts. Or do you have a new lie to share?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> stated in post
> C02645B7.4690A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 2/25/06 5:34 PM:
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> > noone-9A6EBD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/25/06 5:24 PM:
> >
> >> In article <46blj8F...@individual.net>,
> >> CSMA_Moderator <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> >
> > <SNIP />
> >
> >> Snit... I wrote this one!
> >
> > Steve: thank you for finally admitting that CSMA Mod is your sock puppet -
> > like *anyone* did not know.
>
> Gee,
... you'll just continue with your circus bullshit and do whatever it
takes to draw attention to yourself? Yes, everyone knows. The people
that wrote these quotes know they wrote them... you don't need to keep
pointing it out just to keep yourself in the spotlight and feebly
attempt to garner sympathy. Trust me, NO ONE has missed your crap.
C Lund
In article <46blj8F...@individual.net>,
CSMA_Moderator <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
> irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
> actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
Don't put your own words in my mouth.
May I assume the rest of your "quotes" are also fictional?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Snit
clund-8E7854....@amstwist00.chello.com on 2/26/06 1:04 AM:
In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
He is now pretending that he has not been the one to have posted them all
along.
Gee, I am sure Steve would not lie about something like that. LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> stated in post
> clund-8E7854....@amstwist00.chello.com on 2/26/06 1:04 AM:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In article <46blj8F...@individual.net>,
> > CSMA_Moderator <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> >
> >> C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
> >> irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
> >> actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
> >
> > Don't put your own words in my mouth.
> >
> > May I assume the rest of your "quotes" are also fictional?
I know not all of them are... some are very real. In any event, this
isn't a fictional quote, it's a misattribution.
> In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
Gee, 'Mr. Faulty Attribution' himself strolls in and tells this lie on
the heels of a faulty attribution by the 'moderator'.
> He is now pretending that he has not been the one to have posted them all
> along.
You really need to get your money back on your psych degree, you
definitely got robbed... any grade school kid does a better job than
this.
> Gee, I am sure Steve would not lie about something like that. LOL!
And I'm sure you wouldn't accuse me with no proof <rolls eyes>
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> stated in post
> clund-8E7854....@amstwist00.chello.com on 2/26/06 1:04 AM:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In article <46blj8F...@individual.net>,
> > CSMA_Moderator <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> >
> >> C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
> >> irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
> >> actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
> >
> > Don't put your own words in my mouth.
> >
> > May I assume the rest of your "quotes" are also fictional?
>
> In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
and snit still proves he doesn't understand the written word. How quaint.
Steve pointed out to YOU, snit, the real CSMA moderator, that YOU, snit, the
real CSMA moderator had given credit to a quote to the wrong person.
> He is now pretending that he has not been the one to have posted them all
> along.
>
> Gee, I am sure Steve would not lie about something like that. LOL!
--
isn't is ashame that michael glasser is unable to tell the difference
between a discussion of synonymous words and sex crimes.
Tim
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-679125.10...@news.east.earthlink.net on 2/26/06
8:52 AM:
>>>> C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
>>>> irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
>>>> actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
>>>
>>> Don't put your own words in my mouth.
>>>
>>> May I assume the rest of your "quotes" are also fictional?
>>
>> In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
>
> and snit still proves he doesn't understand the written word. How quaint.
> Steve pointed out to YOU, snit, the real CSMA moderator, that YOU, snit, the
> real CSMA moderator had given credit to a quote to the wrong person.
For that to be true Steve would have had to have shown where I was forging
his CSMA Mod ID. Despite his claims that where he lies about such
admissions from me, I have never done so nor said I have.
For your interpretation to make *any* sense Steve would have had to have
shown this: please point to where Steve (or anyone) proved I *ever* forged
Steve's CSMA Mod ID. You will, of course, fail.
At that point, Tim, the conversation *should* be over - but you will
repeatedly spew your lie. It is just what you do. Heck, how many times
have you ran from the Google record when you deny Steve admitting to his
other sock puppets and ID forging? I would bet you have done so no less
than 20 times.
Oh, and since you are still trolling me I will post a quote you stated in
CSMA that always embarrasses you:
"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." - Tim Adams
Have you figured out *yet* what the tilde means in a path? Don't forget to
obfuscate and lie in your response by claiming that since you did not know
what files were in question your quote is somehow less stupid. LOL!
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-679125.10...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <C0271098.4698E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > "C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> stated in post
> > clund-8E7854....@amstwist00.chello.com on 2/26/06 1:04 AM:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In article <46blj8F...@individual.net>,
> > > CSMA_Moderator <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > >
> > >> C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
> > >> irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
> > >> actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
> > >
> > > Don't put your own words in my mouth.
> > >
> > > May I assume the rest of your "quotes" are also fictional?
> >
> > In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
>
> and snit still proves he doesn't understand the written word. How quaint.
> Steve pointed out to YOU, snit, the real CSMA moderator, that YOU, snit, the
> real CSMA moderator had given credit to a quote to the wrong person.
Realistically, there's no proof who the moderator is... even Snit knows
this, despite his false claims that it's me. If I wanted to bother, I
could prove it isn't me... there's a particular detail about the
moderator's posts that exonerates me. As I see it, it doesn't matter who
it is... which is why Snit raises such a ruckus over it. It's an
irrelevancy that Snit thinks will make others forget about the content
and focus on me. I'm fine with Snit making an ass of himself and
falsely claiming it's me;)
Snit
>>> In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
>>
>> and snit still proves he doesn't understand the written word. How quaint.
>> Steve pointed out to YOU, snit, the real CSMA moderator, that YOU, snit, the
>> real CSMA moderator had given credit to a quote to the wrong person.
>
> Realistically, there's no proof who the moderator is...
You say this yet repeatedly blame me and have even stated such things as:
"Tell Snit... he's admitted to posting as the moderator."
- Steve Carroll
And then, in reference to one of the CSMA Mod posts, Steve wrote:
"Snit... I wrote this one!"
Being that you have admitted you cannot show how your CSMA Mod ID has ever
been forged by me, you clearly were not suggesting I had written the post,
which was Tim's dishonest interpretation.
You can back pedal all you want. And you will. But you have, again,
clearly been lying about me and about your sock puppetry. Don't worry, Evil
John can back you up. LOL!
Oh, and Steve, if I do not respond to whatever lies you feel the need to
spew that does not imply I agree with them. Just thought you should know.
:)
Sandman
CSMA_Moderator <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> Sandman: "I'll take your word for it - you are after all the biggest troll I
> ever saw, so I have no problem accepting your expertise in the area."
> Sandman: "I don't need your support nor have I asked you for it. Having you
> support my posts make them look bad. Please don't "support" me."
> 59- Sandman: "He is by far the most killfiled person in the -HISTORY- of
> csma. I've never seen someone so disliked, almost hated, in a news group
> before.
>
> He has the ability to turn just about any person against him in just a few
> posts. On usenet, trolls do this daily, but the funny part with Michael is
> that I actually think he DOESN'T consider himself be a troll - damn what
> -EVERYONE ELSE- is calling him. Obviously they are wrong.
>
> Only Tholen himself can match this behaviour."
Three quotes from me? Wee, or something. More than anyone else in this
collection. I'm not sure what that means, though. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
That quote is in one of your posts, but it's clear that it's not you
who is saying it - seems like an honest mistake.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e497478fb910f
e4f>
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "CSMA_Moderator" <x...@yyy.zzz> stated in post 46blj8F...@individual.net
> on 2/25/06 11:22 AM:
>
> > Snit: "I do not believe in consensus reality. I believe in facts."
>
> Poor Stevie: I have not been reading and responding to enough of his posts
> to keep him happy. LOL!
One begins to wonder what kind of scores you think you're scoring if
Steve actually is CSMA_Moderator. It's not like this collection of
quotes wouldn't be as valid or something. It's 78 different posters
that all think you're pretty screwed up to say the least.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
> >> irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
> >> actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
> >
> > Don't put your own words in my mouth.
> >
> > May I assume the rest of your "quotes" are also fictional?
>
> In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
> He is now pretending that he has not been the one to have posted them all
> along.
Obfuscation. One of the main Objective Troll Criteria
> Gee, I am sure Steve would not lie about something like that. LOL!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-1BF4D4.19...@individual.net on 2/26/06 11:30 AM:
Why don't you make a lie-filled FAQ about it? Maybe post a diagram of who
has called who names? LOL!
Snit
> In article <C0271098.4698E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
>>>> irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
>>>> actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
>>>
>>> Don't put your own words in my mouth.
>>>
>>> May I assume the rest of your "quotes" are also fictional?
>>
>> In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
>> He is now pretending that he has not been the one to have posted them all
>> along.
>
> Obfuscation. One of the main Objective Troll Criteria
Then please stop doing so.
>
>> Gee, I am sure Steve would not lie about something like that. LOL!
--
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-679125.10...@news.east.earthlink.net on 2/26/06
> 8:52 AM:
>
> >>>> C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
> >>>> irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
> >>>> actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
> >>>
> >>> Don't put your own words in my mouth.
> >>>
> >>> May I assume the rest of your "quotes" are also fictional?
> >>
> >> In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
> >
> > and snit still proves he doesn't understand the written word. How quaint.
> > Steve pointed out to YOU, snit, the real CSMA moderator, that YOU, snit, the
> > real CSMA moderator had given credit to a quote to the wrong person.
>
> For that to be true Steve would have had to have shown where I was forging
> his CSMA Mod ID.
Actually YOU, snit would need to prove that Steve posted as the CSMA moderator
in the first place. Something you haven't been able to do.
~more babbling by the idiot snit as he tries to change the topic AGAIN snipped
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
~snip
>
> And then, in reference to one of the CSMA Mod posts, Steve wrote:
>
> "Snit... I wrote this one!"
Which clearly referred to an individual quote within the entire post that was
miss attributed. To bad your reading couldn't understand thart simple FACT.
~more babbling snipped
Snit
2:07 PM:
> In article <C0271FA9.469C9%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-679125.10...@news.east.earthlink.net on 2/26/06
>> 8:52 AM:
>>
>>>>>> C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
>>>>>> irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
>>>>>> actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't put your own words in my mouth.
>>>>>
>>>>> May I assume the rest of your "quotes" are also fictional?
>>>>
>>>> In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
>>>
>>> and snit still proves he doesn't understand the written word. How quaint.
>>> Steve pointed out to YOU, snit, the real CSMA moderator, that YOU, snit, the
>>> real CSMA moderator had given credit to a quote to the wrong person.
>>
>> For that to be true Steve would have had to have shown where I was forging
>> his CSMA Mod ID.
>
> Actually YOU, snit would need to prove that Steve posted as the CSMA moderator
Because you do not believe his admission when he claimed to have. While I
can understand why you would not trust Steve I see no reason to doubt his
claim that he posted as CSMA Mod. Face it, it was pretty much common
knowledge before that and he has admitted to nymshifting and forging IDs in
the past.
Snit
2:10 PM:
> In article <C02723D4.469CD%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> ~snip
>
>>
>> And then, in reference to one of the CSMA Mod posts, Steve wrote:
>>
>> "Snit... I wrote this one!"
>
> Which clearly referred to an individual quote within the entire post that was
> miss attributed. To bad your reading couldn't understand thart simple FACT.\
Read all of what Steve wrote. See if you can find your flaw.
Basically you think Steve is a liar and did not do what he admitted to.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-576C67....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/26/06 9:07 AM:
>
> >>> In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
> >>
> >> and snit still proves he doesn't understand the written word. How quaint.
> >> Steve pointed out to YOU, snit, the real CSMA moderator, that YOU, snit,
> >> the
> >> real CSMA moderator had given credit to a quote to the wrong person.
> >
> > Realistically, there's no proof who the moderator is...
>
> You say this yet repeatedly blame me
Of course... and you are where I got the idea from... you've repeatedly
blamed me before I began handing it back to you. Reality shows that you
can't prove I'm writing these posts because:
1 - No proof exists that I'm doing it.
2 - No proof *can* exist that I'm doing it because... I'm not doing it.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-8EE14B.16...@news.east.earthlink.net on 2/26/06
> 2:10 PM:
>
> > In article <C02723D4.469CD%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > ~snip
> >
> >>
> >> And then, in reference to one of the CSMA Mod posts,
Wrong. It was in reference to *one* quote (not one post) included by the
moderator. That you can't tell the difference between one quote (that I
even clearly singled out) and one lengthy post won't surprise anyone.
> Steve wrote:
> >>
> >> "Snit... I wrote this one!"
> >
> > Which clearly referred to an individual quote within the entire post that
> > was
> > miss attributed. To bad your reading couldn't understand thart simple
> > FACT.\
>
> Read all of what Steve wrote.
He did.
> See if you can find your flaw.
The flaw is yours. You are mistakenly assuming I meant the entire post.
Reality shows I singled out the *one* quote that I was referring to that
was included by the moderator.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9f843713b31751a1
?dmode=source&hl=en
> Basically you think Steve is a liar and did not do what he admitted to.
No, basically he can comprehend what he reads... and you just proved,
once again, that you can't. Couple that with your inability to
differentiate between things the rest of us have no trouble with (like a
quote and a post) and we have too much comedy by you;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Switching from glue to crack hasn't made your lies any more convincing;)
Snit
>> Because you do not believe his admission when he claimed to have. While I
>> can understand why you would not trust Steve I see no reason to doubt his
>> claim that he posted as CSMA Mod. Face it, it was pretty much common
>> knowledge before that and he has admitted to nymshifting and forging IDs in
>> the past.
>
> Switching from glue to crack
I do not care what drugs you are using Steve.
TheLetterK
that more than one person could dislike him as much as the whole of CSMA
(and likely the rest of the world) does.
Snit
ttrMf.7884$Pv1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 2/26/06 5:15 PM:
>> Of course... and you are where I got the idea from... you've repeatedly
>> blamed me before I began handing it back to you. Reality shows that you
>> can't prove I'm writing these posts because:
>>
>> 1 - No proof exists that I'm doing it.
>>
>> 2 - No proof *can* exist that I'm doing it because... I'm not doing it.
> I don't think Shit can crap his pathetic little mind around the concept
> that more than one person could dislike him as much as the whole of CSMA
> (and likely the rest of the world) does.
Now you have done it! You have told Steve how he feels about me. LOL!
* OS X is *still* partially based on FreeBSD
* You *still* based your contrary claims on multiple definitions
* You *still* have not shown why other definitions even from
the page you linked to are not acceptable to you
* You *still* are denying the mounds of evidence that have been
shown to you from multiple sources, including many others
using the terms contrary to how you feel it should be used
and a definition *you* pointed to
* You *still* are dishonestly attributing your own quotes to me
* You *still* are name calling and spewing insults instead of
making reasoned arguments
* You *still* are saying that I should trust you for no other
reason that you have stated something.
And you will *always* be the author of the following quotes:
"I don't have anything of value to add and am simply going to
spew another load of shit where I try to obfuscate those clear,
and accurate facts you presented!" - TheLetterK
"Oh, wait: I'm just a lying sack of shit." - TheLetterK
I love seeing how much reality pisses you off. :)
Oh, and I do not care if trolls are not fond of me; I would think less of
myself if some of you were.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
You mean the 'admission' that you took out of context to make it appear as if he
were admitting to posting as CSMA moderator? That 'admission'? Funny how you
fail to post a link to it every time your asked. Wonder why that is. Afraid
somebody will read it in the context of which it was written?
> While I
> can understand why you would not trust Steve I see no reason to doubt his
> claim that he posted as CSMA Mod. Face it, it was pretty much common
> knowledge before that and he has admitted to nymshifting and forging IDs in
> the past.
--
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-8EE14B.16...@news.east.earthlink.net on 2/26/06
> 2:10 PM:
>
> > In article <C02723D4.469CD%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > ~snip
> >
> >>
> >> And then, in reference to one of the CSMA Mod posts, Steve wrote:
> >>
> >> "Snit... I wrote this one!"
> >
> > Which clearly referred to an individual quote within the entire post that
> > was
> > miss attributed. To bad your reading couldn't understand thart simple
> > FACT.\
>
> Read all of what Steve wrote. See if you can find your flaw.
I read what Steve wrote, including the line. attributed to C. Lund that you
snipped to which his comment above referred to. Wonder why you snipped it other
then to take the comment totally out of context and try to use it as something
it wasn't.
>
> Basically you think Steve is a liar and did not do what he admitted to.
YOU are the liar.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
> ttrMf.7884$Pv1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 2/26/06 5:15 PM:
>
> >> Of course... and you are where I got the idea from... you've repeatedly
> >> blamed me before I began handing it back to you. Reality shows that you
> >> can't prove I'm writing these posts because:
> >>
> >> 1 - No proof exists that I'm doing it.
> >>
> >> 2 - No proof *can* exist that I'm doing it because... I'm not doing it.
>
> > I don't think Shit can crap his pathetic little mind around the concept
> > that more than one person could dislike him as much as the whole of CSMA
> > (and likely the rest of the world) does.
>
> Now you have done it!
You've made an asshole out of snit again so he'll try and run away by changing
the subject like he does most of the time. Color me nor surprised.
~off topic babbling by the running away trolling circus clown snit snipped
TheLetterK
> "TheLetterK" <no...@none.net> stated in post
> ttrMf.7884$Pv1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 2/26/06 5:15 PM:
>
>
>>>Of course... and you are where I got the idea from... you've repeatedly
>>>blamed me before I began handing it back to you. Reality shows that you
>>>can't prove I'm writing these posts because:
>>>
>>>1 - No proof exists that I'm doing it.
>>>
>>>2 - No proof *can* exist that I'm doing it because... I'm not doing it.
>
>
>>I don't think Shit can crap his pathetic little mind around the concept
>>that more than one person could dislike him as much as the whole of CSMA
>>(and likely the rest of the world) does.
>
>
> Now you have done it! You have told Steve how he feels about me. LOL!
>
> * You *still* based your contrary claims on a single definition
> * You *still* continue to show why other definitions even from
> the page you linked to are not acceptable to you
> 'evidence' that has been shown to you from multiple ignorant
> hicks, including many others using the terms contrary to how
> you the terms should be used and a definition *someone else*
> misread
> * You *still* are quite honestly attributing my own quotes to me
> * You *still* are name calling and spewing insults after repeatedly
> making reasoned arguments, which I promptly ignored
> * You *still* have never said that I should trust you for no other
> reason that you have stated something.
Shit, even you admit that you are the lowest form of pond scum that has
ever graced the earth.
>
> And I will *always* be the author of the following quotes:
>
> "I don't have anything of value to add and am simply going to
> spew another load of shit where I try to obfuscate those clear,
> and accurate facts you presented!" - Snit
>
> "Oh, wait: I'm just a lying sack of shit." - Snit
>
> I love seeing how grounded you are in reality. :)
Snit
Gee, I point out facts about your trolling and you become upset. How funny.
Please note the above alterations from you (your lies) compared to what I
actually wrote (some truths that piss you off)
* OS X is *still* partially based on FreeBSD
* You *still* based your contrary claims on multiple definitions
* You *still* have not shown why other definitions even from
the page you linked to are not acceptable to you
* You *still* are denying the mounds of evidence that have been
shown to you from multiple sources, including many others
using the terms contrary to how you feel it should be used
and a definition *you* pointed to
* You *still* are dishonestly attributing your own quotes to me
* You *still* are name calling and spewing insults instead of
making reasoned arguments
* You *still* are saying that I should trust you for no other
reason that you have stated something.
> And I will *always* be the author of the following quotes:
>
> "I don't have anything of value to add and am simply going to
> spew another load of shit where I try to obfuscate those clear,
> and accurate facts you presented!" - TheLetterK
>
> "Oh, wait: I'm just a lying sack of shit." - TheLetterK
>
> I love seeing how grounded you are in reality. :)
As long as you leave your quotes properly attributed I have no argument with
you about them.
TheLetterK
I'm doing a lot better than you are, according to the Objective Trolling
Criteria.
>
> Please note the above alterations from you (your lies) compared to what I
> actually wrote (some truths that piss you off)
>
>* OS X is *still* not partially based on FreeBSD
>* You *still* based your contrary claims on a single definition
>* You *still* continue to show why other definitions even from
> the page you linked to are not acceptable to you
>* You *still* are denying the mounds of unreliable and biased
> 'evidence' that has been shown to you from multiple ignorant
> hicks, including many others using the terms contrary to how
> you the terms should be used and a definition *someone else*
> misread
>* You *still* are quite honestly attributing my own quotes to me
>* You *still* are name calling and spewing insults after repeatedly
> making reasoned arguments, which I promptly ignored
>* You *still* have never said that I should trust you for no other
> reason that you have stated something.
>
>
>>And I will *always* be the author of the following quotes:
>>
>> "I don't have anything of value to add and am simply going to
>> spew another load of shit where I try to obfuscate those clear,
>> and accurate facts you presented!" - Snit
>>
>> "Oh, wait: I'm just a lying sack of shit." - Snit
>>
>>I love seeing how grounded you are in reality. :)
>
>
> As long as you leave your quotes properly attributed I have no argument with
> you about them.
Then why do you insist on misattributing them to me? They were, after
all, *your* words.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-1BF4D4.19...@individual.net on 2/26/06 11:30 AM:
>
> > In article <C02645BF.4690B%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "CSMA_Moderator" <x...@yyy.zzz> stated in post 46blj8F...@individual.net
> >> on 2/25/06 11:22 AM:
> >>
> >>> Snit: "I do not believe in consensus reality. I believe in facts."
> >>
> >> Poor Stevie: I have not been reading and responding to enough of his posts
> >> to keep him happy. LOL!
> >
> > One begins to wonder what kind of scores you think you're scoring if
> > Steve actually is CSMA_Moderator. It's not like this collection of
> > quotes wouldn't be as valid or something. It's 78 different posters
> > that all think you're pretty screwed up to say the least.
>
> Why don't you make a lie-filled FAQ about it? Maybe post a diagram of who
> has called who names? LOL!
At least you didn't try to be reasonable.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-7056B8.19...@individual.net on 2/26/06 11:39 AM:
>
> > In article <C0271098.4698E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>>> C Lund: "Snit is a narcissistic lunatic... if you snip out any of his
> >>>> irrelevant drivel, he will obsessively focus on that. Of course, he won't
> >>>> actually address your points whether you snip his crap or not."
> >>>
> >>> Don't put your own words in my mouth.
> >>>
> >>> May I assume the rest of your "quotes" are also fictional?
> >>
> >> In response to this CSMA Mod post Steve admitted to having posted it.
> >> He is now pretending that he has not been the one to have posted them all
> >> along.
> >
> > Obfuscation. One of the main Objective Troll Criteria
>
> Then please stop doing so.
Thanks for the example.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Because you do not believe his admission when he claimed to have. While I
> >> can understand why you would not trust Steve I see no reason to doubt his
> >> claim that he posted as CSMA Mod. Face it, it was pretty much common
> >> knowledge before that and he has admitted to nymshifting and forging IDs in
> >> the past.
> >
> > Switching from glue to crack
>
> I do not care what drugs you are using Steve.
Are you snipping and running, Michael?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Hey, Sandman, speaking of being unreasonable, you never did comment on your
silly "correction" when you told me that packages in OS X were not called
packages. You fell real silent on the issue, actually. Any comment now?
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse.
Snit
No. Why do you ask - other, of course, to further your circus?
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse.
_________________________________________
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<noone-CCC4DC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
> Trust me, NO ONE has missed your crap.
I could be tempted to believe that if you and a very few others
could be convinced to stop feeding him.
As is, those words seem pretty hollow...
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>> Because you do not believe his admission when he claimed to have. While
> >>>> I
> >>>> can understand why you would not trust Steve I see no reason to doubt
> >>>> his
> >>>> claim that he posted as CSMA Mod. Face it, it was pretty much common
> >>>> knowledge before that and he has admitted to nymshifting and forging IDs
> >>>> in
> >>>> the past.
> >>>
> >>> Switching from glue to crack
> >>
> >> I do not care what drugs you are using Steve.
> >
> > Are you snipping and running, Michael?
>
> No.
So when is someone "snipping and running", according to you?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Why don't you make a lie-filled FAQ about it? Maybe post a diagram of who
> >> has called who names? LOL!
> >
> > At least you didn't try to be reasonable.
>
> Hey, Sandman, speaking of being unreasonable, you never did comment on your
> silly "correction" when you told me that packages in OS X were not called
> packages. You fell real silent on the issue, actually. Any comment now?
Eh? I responded to it. Packages are ".pkg", Application Bundles are
".app".
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitectu
re/Concepts/AppContents.html
A .app Application Bundle can, of course, be referred to as a
"package" just like a .zip archive can, since the word "package" isn't
a very specific term.
The term package, however, is generally used for the .pkg files used
by Installer.app
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/Soft
wareDistribution/Concepts/sd_about_pkgs.html
You're welcome.
You will obfuscate, though, so it will be a post in vain, as all
reasonable posts directed at you are. This is the reasonable reply you
should post:
"Oh, so that's what you meant. I see now. I misunderstood your
objection and took it semantically instead of logically."
The bets are in, how will Michael respond.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Look at many of Steve Carroll's posts where he quotes nothing but the first
few words - not even the first sentence - and then spews BS trolling that
has nothing to do with the comments he is theoretically responding to. You,
Tim Adams, and others have used this trolling tactic as well. It is
cowardly and pathetic.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
* Adobe should include an uninstaller for CS2 on OS X
Snit
I am not interested in your trolling. As shown by my image OS X calls the
objects in question "packages". Your correction was in error. Do you need
me to copy and paste your error again for you to run from?
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
* Adobe should include an uninstaller for CS2 on OS X
_________________________________________
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > You will obfuscate, though, so it will be a post in vain, as all
> > reasonable posts directed at you are. This is the reasonable reply you
> > should post:
> >
> > "Oh, so that's what you meant. I see now. I misunderstood your
> > objection and took it semantically instead of logically."
> >
> > The bets are in, how will Michael respond.
>
> I am not interested in your trolling. As shown by my image OS X calls the
> objects in question "packages". Your correction was in error. Do you need
> me to copy and paste your error again for you to run from?
I won! You are unable to be reasonable about anything, Michael.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>>> Because you do not believe his admission when he claimed to have.
> >>>>>> While
> >>>>>> I can understand why you would not trust Steve I see no reason to
> >>>>>> doubt
> >>>>>> his claim that he posted as CSMA Mod. Face it, it was pretty much
> >>>>>> common
> >>>>>> knowledge before that and he has admitted to nymshifting and forging
> >>>>>> IDs
> >>>>>> in the past.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Switching from glue to crack
> >>>>
> >>>> I do not care what drugs you are using Steve.
> >>>
> >>> Are you snipping and running, Michael?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > So when is someone "snipping and running", according to you?
>
> Look at many of Steve Carroll's posts where he quotes nothing but the first
> few words - not even the first sentence - and then spews BS trolling that
> has nothing to do with the comments he is theoretically responding to.
I.e. exactly what you did.
This is the sentence you snipped:
"Switching from glue to crack hasn't made your lies any
more convincing;)"
You quoted a few words, not even the first sentence, and then spewed
"BS trolling" (i.e. your usual obfuscation) that had nothing to do
with the comment you were theoretically responding to.
How's that corner feeling, Michael?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Gee, Sandman, you *do* need me to copy and paste your error. The reasonable
thing to do would be for you to admit to your error when you wrote:
That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
I have proved you incorrect:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>.
You will not, however, admit to your mistake; instead you obfuscate: one of
*you* objective signs of trolling. You will, no doubt, add to your trolling
by lying about the fact that you are trolling.
Do you see how predictable your trolling and lying is?
Steve Mackay
I've really tried to stay out of 'lil Mikey's circus. But this is just
*TOO FUNNY*.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> You will obfuscate, though, so it will be a post in vain, as all
> >>> reasonable posts directed at you are. This is the reasonable reply you
> >>> should post:
> >>>
> >>> "Oh, so that's what you meant. I see now. I misunderstood your
> >>> objection and took it semantically instead of logically."
> >>>
> >>> The bets are in, how will Michael respond.
> >>
> >> I am not interested in your trolling. As shown by my image OS X calls the
> >> objects in question "packages". Your correction was in error. Do you need
> >> me to copy and paste your error again for you to run from?
> >
> > I won! You are unable to be reasonable about anything, Michael.
>
> Gee, Sandman, you *do* need me to copy and paste your error. The reasonable
> thing to do would be for you to admit to your error when you wrote:
>
> That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
Eh? I responded to it. Packages are ".pkg", Application Bundles are
".app".
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitectu
re/Concepts/AppContents.html
A .app Application Bundle can, of course, be referred to as a
"package" just like a .zip archive can, since the word "package" isn't
a very specific term.
The term package, however, is generally used for the .pkg files used
by Installer.app
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/Soft
wareDistribution/Concepts/sd_about_pkgs.html
You're welcome.
You will obfuscate, though, so it will be a post in vain, as all
reasonable posts directed at you are. This is the reasonable reply you
should post:
"Oh, so that's what you meant. I see now. I misunderstood your
objection and took it semantically instead of logically."
The bets are in, how will Michael respond.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0288742.46B82%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Because you do not believe his admission when he claimed to have.
>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>> I can understand why you would not trust Steve I see no reason to
>>>>>>>> doubt
>>>>>>>> his claim that he posted as CSMA Mod. Face it, it was pretty much
>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>> knowledge before that and he has admitted to nymshifting and forging
>>>>>>>> IDs
>>>>>>>> in the past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Switching from glue to crack
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not care what drugs you are using Steve.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you snipping and running, Michael?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> So when is someone "snipping and running", according to you?
>>
>> Look at many of Steve Carroll's posts where he quotes nothing but the first
>> few words - not even the first sentence - and then spews BS trolling that
>> has nothing to do with the comments he is theoretically responding to.
>
> I.e. exactly what you did.
>
> This is the sentence you snipped:
>
> "Switching from glue to crack hasn't made your lies any
> more convincing;)"
Oh no! I snipped a clearly trolling claim! Man oh man, I can see where
that would offend you! LOL! As I said, I am under no obligation to respond
to every lie told about me. For that matter I have made it clear to Steve
that since he sees his posting style as reasonable I will feel free to
respond to him that way.
> You quoted a few words, not even the first sentence, and then spewed
> "BS trolling" (i.e. your usual obfuscation) that had nothing to do
> with the comment you were theoretically responding to.
>
> How's that corner feeling, Michael?
I *still* am under no obligation to respond to every lie told about me. Oh,
but it is good for you to show how much of a troll Steve Carroll is.
Oh wait: you *will* back pedal that part of your claim... you will insist
that when Steve uses a trolling technique on me over and over and over and I
make it clear I will occasionally return the favor (though even then I only
snip his trolling BS, not "real" content if he has any) you will whine about
my actions and support your fellow troll, Steve.
You are so damned predictable.
Snit
tMHMf.5070$iR1....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com on 2/27/06 11:44 AM:
Wow! How do you think I knew that before I even opened your message you
would be jumping in to defend Steve and Sandman's trolling. LOL! It really
is amazing how predictable your trolling is, Mackay.
I know: you have a blurry jpg you can use to defend your actions. LOL!
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Look at many of Steve Carroll's posts where he quotes nothing but the first
> >> few words - not even the first sentence - and then spews BS trolling that
> >> has nothing to do with the comments he is theoretically responding to.
> >
> > I.e. exactly what you did.
> >
> > This is the sentence you snipped:
> >
> > "Switching from glue to crack hasn't made your lies any
> > more convincing;)"
>
> Oh no! I snipped a clearly trolling claim!
So, if one claims that the "claim" one snips is "trolling" the
snipping is ok and isn't considered "snipping and running"? Is this
your rule with regard to this?
> Man oh man, I can see where that would offend you! LOL! As I said,
> I am under no obligation to respond to every lie told about me.
> For that matter I have made it clear to Steve that since he sees his
> posting style as reasonable I will feel free to respond to him that
> way.
But when he does it, it's "snipping and running", and when you do the
exact same things, it's perfectly legit?
> > You quoted a few words, not even the first sentence, and then spewed
> > "BS trolling" (i.e. your usual obfuscation) that had nothing to do
> > with the comment you were theoretically responding to.
> >
> > How's that corner feeling, Michael?
>
> I *still* am under no obligation to respond to every lie told about me.
And Steve is obligated to respond to every lie you tell about him? Why
is it "snipping and running" when he snip your lies and trolling?
> Oh wait: you *will* back pedal that part of your claim... you will insist
> that when Steve uses a trolling technique on me over and over and over and I
> make it clear I will occasionally return the favor (though even then I only
> snip his trolling BS, not "real" content if he has any) you will whine about
> my actions and support your fellow troll, Steve.
No, I will point out when your criteria for "snipping and running"
describes your post 100% and then smile.
> You are so damned predictable.
I see you've picked up the "predictable" retort.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote
> (in article
> <noone-CCC4DC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
>
> > Trust me, NO ONE has missed your crap.
>
> I could be tempted to believe that if you and a very few others
> could be convinced to stop feeding him.
>
> As is, those words seem pretty hollow...
So people *have* missed his crap because I and a very few others
continually confront him with the lies he tells or counter him for his
attempts at trolling? Not sure I agree with that idea... and I think
these Quotes threads back me up pretty well. Snit asks for what he
gets... so why not give it to him?
--
"I am not fond of "me too" posts..." - Snit
Snit
> In article <C0289623.46BAA%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>> You will obfuscate, though, so it will be a post in vain, as all
>>>>> reasonable posts directed at you are. This is the reasonable reply you
>>>>> should post:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Oh, so that's what you meant. I see now. I misunderstood your
>>>>> objection and took it semantically instead of logically."
>>>>>
>>>>> The bets are in, how will Michael respond.
>>>>
>>>> I am not interested in your trolling. As shown by my image OS X calls the
>>>> objects in question "packages". Your correction was in error. Do you need
>>>> me to copy and paste your error again for you to run from?
>>>
>>> I won! You are unable to be reasonable about anything, Michael.
>>
>> Gee, Sandman, you *do* need me to copy and paste your error. The reasonable
>> thing to do would be for you to admit to your error when you wrote:
>>
>> That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
>
> Eh? I responded to it. Packages are ".pkg", Application Bundles are
> ".app".
>
> http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitectu
> re/Concepts/AppContents.html
>
> A .app Application Bundle can, of course, be referred to as a
> "package" just like a .zip archive can, since the word "package" isn't
> a very specific term.
OK, so you admit you were wrong when you stated that the package I was in
reference to was "not a package". OK. You were wrong. It is good to see
you have admitted it. Why all the obfuscation, though?
>
> The term package, however, is generally used for the .pkg files used
> by Installer.app
>
> http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/Soft
> wareDistribution/Concepts/sd_about_pkgs.html
>
> You're welcome.
>
> You will obfuscate, though, so it will be a post in vain, as all
> reasonable posts directed at you are. This is the reasonable reply you
> should post:
>
> "Oh, so that's what you meant. I see now. I misunderstood your
> objection and took it semantically instead of logically."
>
> The bets are in, how will Michael respond.
Can you answer why you felt the need to obfuscate so much? It would have
been easier had you just clearly and concisely admitted you were wrong when
you stated:
That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
You have repeatedly stated that obfuscation is one of your criteria for
trolling. You have defined yourself as on who trolls.
Snit
I believe you when you claim you are not able to figure out the differences
between the following:
Steve's trolling BS such as:
-----
"Switching from glue to crack hasn't made your lies any more convincing;)"
-----
Snit's honest & accurate statements of Steve's flip flopping:
-----
Steve argues (actually guilty = committed the crime)
[Justice Black] is drawing the distinction between legal guilt and
ACTUALLY having committed the crime... the same distinction that
*I* am drawing.
Steve argues (actually guilty <> committed the crime)
The tough part to deal with is that you needn't *actually* have
committed the crime to be *actually* guilty in this context.
Steve argues (actually guilty = found guilty)
Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
"in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
Steve argues (actually guilty DOES NOT EXIST!)
There is no such thing as *actually* guilty in this context.
There is only guilty or not guilty.
LOL! Too damned funny, Steve. You never did decide which of your stated
views you actually want to claim you believe. Oh, and before run to your
normal lies, Steve, *all* of those quotes are in the context of if someone
(specifically Bush) can be actually guilty but not have been tried or
convicted. Of course he can, but you flip flopped on your view and played
stupid games that got you so twisted in your pretzel logic that you spewed
at least 4 different contradictory views. You, Steve, are the king of flip
flopping.
-----
A reasoned and honest response for Steve would be to admit to his inability
to stay consistent. Steve will never do this; instead he snips and runs.
Snit's honest and accurate statement of Steve's lack of reading
comperehension:
-----
What was written:
"he STILL felt the need to go on the attack and prove he
[GreyCloud] IS a liar"
What Steve Carroll concluded:
"you are still not calling Greycloud a liar."
Steve Carroll back pedals in 3... 2... 1... (Or will Steve just snip and
run?) LOL!
-----
A reasoned and honest response for Steve would be to admit that he had made
a mistake in his reading. Instead Steve snipped and ran.
And on and on. There is a huge difference between making a reasoned
argument well supported by specific quotes, as I have done, and Steve's
projection of his drug problems onto others. Steve spews accusations with
no support. I comment on people's actions and generally provide clear and
verifiable support.
Again, Sandman, I believe you when you claim you do not know the difference
between the two concepts. I hope that this post gets you thinking about
your weakness there and starts you toward working on overcoming this flaw in
your reasoning.
More likely, though, it will just lead to more of your trolling and lying.
No doubt you will repeat your now-fully-refuted example of my acting in a
way you *thought* was as despicable as how Steve acts.
Snit
noone-27D2CF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/27/06 2:37 PM:
Not only have I never asked you to lie, troll, and flame me, Steve, I have
repeatedly requested you stop your BS. You can blame me for your actions
all you like but you, and you alone, are responsible for your lying,
dishonest snipping, altering of quotes, sock puppetetry, forging of names,
and all the other BS you do.
Do not blame me for your actions, Steve. Be an adult and take
responsibility for yourself.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > A .app Application Bundle can, of course, be referred to as a
> > "package" just like a .zip archive can, since the word "package" isn't
> > a very specific term.
>
> OK, so you admit you were wrong when you stated that the package I was in
> reference to was "not a package".
No. That's you obfuscating, as usual.
--
Sandman[.net]
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
> In article <0001HW.C02887FB...@news.verizon.net>,
> Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>
>> Steve Carroll wrote
>> (in article
>> <noone-CCC4DC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
>>
>>> Trust me, NO ONE has missed your crap.
>>
>> I could be tempted to believe that if you and a very few others
>> could be convinced to stop feeding him.
>>
>> As is, those words seem pretty hollow...
>
> So people *have* missed his crap because I and a very few others
> continually confront him with the lies he tells or counter him for his
> attempts at trolling? Not sure I agree with that idea...
No, the idea is that by continuing to respond to his gibberish
posts, it just makes it worse.
> Snit asks for what he gets... so why not give it to him?
thanks for admitting that you feed his trolling.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > I see you've picked up the "predictable" retort.
>
> I believe you when you claim you are not able to figure out the differences
> between the following:
I see you were to afraid to reply to my post, Michael. Why is that? I
made reasonable points and you replied to no one. That's just running.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
That was my initial question to you, you silly troll. You have been
avoiding the question with your obfuscation... look at how many facts you
have spewed that were not directly related: things about other names for the
package in question, links to web sites, long explanations that never showed
you were anything but wrong.
You have done all of this to obfuscate the fact that your "correction" of me
was wrong. We all make mistakes, Sandman. The way you are dealing with
yours says a lot about your character. Or lack thereof.
I do not think we will go any further in this discussion, so let's leave it
where it is:
* I listed "Packages" as OS X advantage when compared to Ubuntu.
* I was asked to explain what I meant (a reasonable request).
* I responded with "Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where
an entire program with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and
can, in the vast majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive
and even from one computer to another." When asked to explain it more
I stated "And you still have a folder where on a Mac it is just a
single file to the average user. That is a benefit, esp. for novice
and non-techies."
* Liam Slider stated "It just looks like a single file, it's really a
folder in disguise though." to which I responded "yes".
* Sandman jumped in to "correct" me and tell me such things are *not*
referred to as "packages" but as "application bundles".
* I showed Sandman was incorrect and they they are actually called
"packages" buy OS X. <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
The image makes that very, very clear. Please note I did not say that
other terms might not apply, I only was stating that "package" is *a*
correct term (I state this to head off inevitable trolling where
is is shown that other terms can *also* be used and then declare me
wrong based on such ignorance)
* Sandman obfuscated, ran, and lied in order to not deal with the
fact that he made an error
* GreyCloud lied and stated I did not know what a package was and
demanded I define them for him (even though I already had)
* I gave a more detailed definition.
* GreyCloud lied about it and ran screaming into the hills.
Not sure what else you are hoping to get from the discussion on packages,
Sandman.
Snit
Were you shooting for irony?
-----
Again, Sandman, I believe you when you claim you do not know the difference
between the two concepts. I hope that this post gets you thinking about
your weakness there and starts you toward working on overcoming this flaw in
your reasoning.
More likely, though, it will just lead to more of your trolling and lying.
No doubt you will repeat your now-fully-refuted example of my acting in a
way you *thought* was as despicable as how Steve acts.
-----
And, of course, I was completely right about you. Did you know you were
that predictable?
Snit
0001HW.C028DFC6...@news.verizon.net on 2/27/06 3:56 PM:
> Steve Carroll wrote
> (in article
> <noone-27D2CF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
>
>> In article <0001HW.C02887FB...@news.verizon.net>,
>> Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Carroll wrote
>>> (in article
>>> <noone-CCC4DC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
>>>
>>>> Trust me, NO ONE has missed your crap.
>>>
>>> I could be tempted to believe that if you and a very few others
>>> could be convinced to stop feeding him.
>>>
>>> As is, those words seem pretty hollow...
>>
>> So people *have* missed his crap because I and a very few others
>> continually confront him with the lies he tells or counter him for his
>> attempts at trolling? Not sure I agree with that idea...
>
> No, the idea is that by continuing to respond to his gibberish
> posts, it just makes it worse.
>
>> Snit asks for what he gets... so why not give it to him?
>
> thanks for admitting that you feed his trolling.
More than that Steve is blaming me for his actions. Steve should learn to
be an adult and take responsibility for his own BS.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> A .app Application Bundle can, of course, be referred to as a
> >>> "package" just like a .zip archive can, since the word "package" isn't
> >>> a very specific term.
> >>
> >> OK, so you admit you were wrong when you stated that the package I was in
> >> reference to was "not a package".
> >
> > No. That's you obfuscating, as usual.
>
> That was my initial question to you
No, it wasn't, Michael.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> I see you've picked up the "predictable" retort.
> >>
> >> I believe you when you claim you are not able to figure out the differences
> >> between the following:
> >
> > I see you were to afraid to reply to my post, Michael. Why is that? I
> > made reasonable points and you replied to no one. That's just running.
>
> Were you shooting for irony?
I think it's ironic, yes.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Sigh: I did not use those words, but the *exact* conversation went like
this:
Snit correctly stated:
Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program
with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast
majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one
computer to another.
Sandman incorrectly stated:
That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
[And then included other off-topic info on types of packages,
info that has never been in question]
Snit corrected Sandman's error:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
You were saying?
Sandman obfuscated:
I was saying that a package has a .pkg extension and is used to
install applications with Installer.app
[Sandman focuses on his off topic info instead of the topic at hand]
Snit called Sandman on his obfuscation:
LOL! But you *also* were saying that the packages I was in reference
to were not called packages - which my screenshot clearly shows that
you are wrong.
And your obfuscation has continued.
* Snit made a correct statement.
* Sandman offered an incorrect "correction".
* Snit pointed out Sandman's error.
* Sandman started obfuscating.
Sandman has also listed obfuscation as one of his objective trolling
criteria. Sandman, therefore, is an admitted troll (or at least admittedly
trolls).
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Snit correctly stated:
> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program
> with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast
> majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one
> computer to another.
Which is an application bundle, not a package.
> Sandman incorrectly stated:
> That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
Exactly.
> Snit corrected Sandman's error:
> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
> You were saying?
>
> Sandman obfuscated:
> I was saying that a package has a .pkg extension and is used to
> install applications with Installer.app
I repeated the exact same thing I wrote in the first reply.
> Snit called Sandman on his obfuscation:
> LOL! But you *also* were saying that the packages I was in reference
> to were not called packages - which my screenshot clearly shows that
> you are wrong.
Packages are ".pkg", Application Bundles are ".app".
<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitect
ure/Concepts/AppContents.html>
A .app Application Bundle can, of course, be referred to as a
"package" just like a .zip archive can, since the word "package" isn't
a very specific term.
The term package, however, is generally used for the .pkg files used
by Installer.app
<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/Sof
twareDistribution/Concepts/sd_about_pkgs.html>
You're welcome.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote
> (in article
> <noone-27D2CF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
>
> > In article <0001HW.C02887FB...@news.verizon.net>,
> > Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Carroll wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <noone-CCC4DC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
> >>
> >>> Trust me, NO ONE has missed your crap.
> >>
> >> I could be tempted to believe that if you and a very few others
> >> could be convinced to stop feeding him.
> >>
> >> As is, those words seem pretty hollow...
> >
> > So people *have* missed his crap because I and a very few others
> > continually confront him with the lies he tells or counter him for his
> > attempts at trolling? Not sure I agree with that idea...
>
> No, the idea is that by continuing to respond to his gibberish
> posts, it just makes it worse.
Boy do you have the wrong troll.
> > Snit asks for what he gets... so why not give it to him?
>
> thanks for admitting that you feed his trolling.
LOL! If trolls bother you, you're definitely in the wrong newsgroup.
Snit
> In article <C028E3F6.46C49%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> Snit correctly stated:
>> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program
>> with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast
>> majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one
>> computer to another.
>
> Which is an application bundle, not a package.
Except my image proves you incorrect:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
You can obfuscate all you wish, but the packages I was in reference to *are*
packages, even if they *also* have other names.
>
>> Sandman incorrectly stated:
>> That's not a "package", that's a "bundle".
>
> Exactly.
>
>> Snit corrected Sandman's error:
>> <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
>> You were saying?
>>
>> Sandman obfuscated:
>> I was saying that a package has a .pkg extension and is used to
>> install applications with Installer.app
>
> I repeated the exact same thing I wrote in the first reply.
Which was as off topic then as it was the second time you wrote it. That is
*a* form of package, but it is not *the* form that was being referenced.
>
>> Snit called Sandman on his obfuscation:
>> LOL! But you *also* were saying that the packages I was in reference
>> to were not called packages - which my screenshot clearly shows that
>> you are wrong.
>
> Packages are ".pkg", Application Bundles are ".app".
>
> <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitect
> ure/Concepts/AppContents.html>
>
> A .app Application Bundle can, of course, be referred to as a
> "package" just like a .zip archive can, since the word "package" isn't
> a very specific term.
>
> The term package, however, is generally used for the .pkg files used
> by Installer.app
>
> <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/Sof
> twareDistribution/Concepts/sd_about_pkgs.html>
>
> You're welcome.
None of that has anything to do with the fact that what I referred to as a
package is, in deed, a package. You were wrong. Your obfuscation does not
change that.
The facts remain the same:
* Snit made a correct statement.
* Sandman offered an incorrect "correction".
* Snit pointed out Sandman's error.
* Sandman started obfuscating.
Keep in mind, Sandman, that your obfuscation is one of your Objective
Trolling Criteria. You have defined yourself as a troll, or at least as one
who trolls.
PS: when I start snipping your repeated obfuscations it will not be at all
dishonest. It is not as though you have not been repeatedly posting them.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-27D2CF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/27/06 2:37 PM:
>
> > In article <0001HW.C02887FB...@news.verizon.net>,
> > Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Carroll wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <noone-CCC4DC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):
> >>
> >>> Trust me, NO ONE has missed your crap.
> >>
> >> I could be tempted to believe that if you and a very few others
> >> could be convinced to stop feeding him.
> >>
> >> As is, those words seem pretty hollow...
> >
> > So people *have* missed his crap because I and a very few others
> > continually confront him with the lies he tells or counter him for his
> > attempts at trolling? Not sure I agree with that idea... and I think
> > these Quotes threads back me up pretty well. Snit asks for what he
> > gets... so why not give it to him?
>
> Not only have I
... lied and written "gibberish posts", you can't stop yourself from
doing so? Yes, everyone knows.
Snit
Sandman: you were looking for examples of Steve's dishonest snipping. He
has just provided another perfect example. He snipped some completely
honest and accurate comments for the sole reason that he is not able to
handle reality. Here is what he ran from:
-----
Not only have I never asked you to lie, troll, and flame me, Steve, I have
repeatedly requested you stop your BS. You can blame me for your actions
all you like but you, and you alone, are responsible for your lying,
dishonest snipping, altering of quotes, sock puppetetry, forging of names,
and all the other BS you do.
Do not blame me for your actions, Steve. Be an adult and take
responsibility for yourself.
-----
Please note Steve's actions are very different to my snipping his BS
accusations of drug abuse.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Snit's (snip) statements
"Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
Regarding your evidence for that guilt allegation, you stated:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof."
You also wrote:
"He [Bush] has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that
makes him a war criminal."
You later wrote:
"Right: I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal."
In other words, if you're not on glue or crack, something is seriously
fucked up in your head. Of course, even you recognize what's obvious to
the rest of us:
"I, too, feel that my symptoms are mostly biological, though I
recognise a growing psychological aspect of it."
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
The only thing predictable here is you labeling virtually everyone in
the ng a troll but yourself.
> I know: you have a blurry jpg you can use to defend your actions. LOL!
OK, I was wrong... this dig at Mackay was predictable on your part, too.
Snit
>>> I've really tried to stay out of 'lil Mikey's circus. But this is just
>>> *TOO FUNNY*.
>>
>> Wow! How do you think I knew that before I even opened your message you
>> would be jumping in to defend Steve and Sandman's trolling. LOL! It really
>> is amazing how predictable your trolling is, Mackay.
>
> The only thing predictable here is you labeling virtually everyone in
> the ng a troll but yourself.
Wow, Steve, look at you place words into my mouth.
Of course one need not do that to show how you have said *everyone* who
regularly post in CSMA is a moron and an asshole. Yourself included. LOL!
"everyone that regularly posts here is a moron and an asshole
in some respect, myself included. That's why we come here, to
seek our own kind." - Steve Carroll
Oh, and I actually bothered to skim one of your long rambling posts. I note
how you are *again* (still?) trying to equate my health concerns with your
lying, trolling, nymshifting, and other BS. LOL! Poor Stevie... just can't
stop using his bigotry to excuse his own actions.
>> I know: you have a blurry jpg you can use to defend your actions. LOL!
>
> OK, I was wrong...
You usually are.
> this dig at Mackay was predictable on your part, too.
He made his bed and he lies in it every day.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Snit correctly stated:
> >> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program
> >> with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast
> >> majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one
> >> computer to another.
> >
> > Which is an application bundle, not a package.
>
> Except my image proves you incorrect:
No, it doesn't.
> You can obfuscate all you wish, but the packages I was in reference to *are*
> packages, even if they *also* have other names.
It's the other way around. They are Application Bundles that are
referred to as "packages" for normal people, since "Application
Bundle" doesn't tell the user what it is at all.
> > I repeated the exact same thing I wrote in the first reply.
>
> Which was as off topic then as it was the second time you wrote it.
A correction isn't off topic.
> > Packages are ".pkg", Application Bundles are ".app".
> >
> > <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitect
> > ure/Concepts/AppContents.html>
> >
> > A .app Application Bundle can, of course, be referred to as a
> > "package" just like a .zip archive can, since the word "package" isn't
> > a very specific term.
> >
> > The term package, however, is generally used for the .pkg files used
> > by Installer.app
> >
> > <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/Sof
> > twareDistribution/Concepts/sd_about_pkgs.html>
> >
> > You're welcome.
>
> None of that has anything to do with the fact that what I referred to as a
> package is, in deed, a package.
Just like a .zip file is a package. But not the kind of package that
the name generally refers to in OSX. I must be speaking Japanese.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
... Snit pretending his bullshit isn't bullshit? I highly doubt it.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-822983....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/27/06 11:43 PM:
>
> >>> I've really tried to stay out of 'lil Mikey's circus. But this is just
> >>> *TOO FUNNY*.
> >>
> >> Wow! How do you think I knew that before I even opened your message you
> >> would be jumping in to defend Steve and Sandman's trolling. LOL! It
> >> really
> >> is amazing how predictable your trolling is, Mackay.
> >
> > The only thing predictable here is you labeling virtually everyone in
> > the ng a troll but yourself.
>
> Wow, Steve, look at you
... pointing out realities you are forced to ignore because they
interfere with your delusions? Yes, I see... everyone sees.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Not only have I
> >
> > ... lied and written "gibberish posts", you can't stop yourself from
> >
> > doing so? Yes, everyone knows.
>
> Sandman: you were looking for examples of Steve's dishonest snipping.
No I wasn't.
And maybe he's just "returning the favor"?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0293A8B.46D09%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> Snit correctly stated:
>>>> Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where an entire program
>>>> with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and can, in the vast
>>>> majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive and even from one
>>>> computer to another.
>>>
>>> Which is an application bundle, not a package.
>>
>> Except my image proves you incorrect:
>
> No, it doesn't.
I look forward to how you think a menu that refers to what I was referring
to and calls it what I called it does not prove that what I called it was
correct.
This should be amusing.
In the end, though, you will not change the facts:
* Snit made a correct statement.
* Sandman offered an incorrect "correction".
* Snit pointed out Sandman's error.
* Sandman started obfuscating.
* Sandman started dishonestly snipping these facts.
>
>> You can obfuscate all you wish, but the packages I was in reference to *are*
>> packages, even if they *also* have other names.
>
> It's the other way around. They are Application Bundles that are
> referred to as "packages" for normal people, since "Application
> Bundle" doesn't tell the user what it is at all.
You admit that they are 'referred to as "packages" for normal people' but
still deny that they are called packages. Did it occur to you how twisted
your BS is becoming? Just curious.
Let us compare your statements about what I referred to as packages:
Sandman claim 1
Which is an application bundle, not a package.
Sandman claim 2
They are Application Bundles that are referred to as "packages"
LOL! Too damned funny. Oh, and my screen shot *still* proves that the
packages in question are called packages.
>
>>> I repeated the exact same thing I wrote in the first reply.
>>
>> Which was as off topic then as it was the second time you wrote it.
>
> A correction isn't off topic.
>
>>> Packages are ".pkg", Application Bundles are ".app".
>>>
>>> <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitect
>>> ure/Concepts/AppContents.html>
>>>
>>> A .app Application Bundle can, of course, be referred to as a
>>> "package" just like a .zip archive can, since the word "package" isn't
>>> a very specific term.
>>>
>>> The term package, however, is generally used for the .pkg files used
>>> by Installer.app
>>>
>>> <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/Sof
>>> twareDistribution/Concepts/sd_about_pkgs.html>
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>
>> None of that has anything to do with the fact that what I referred to as a
>> package is, in deed, a package.
>
> Just like a .zip file is a package.
It is: but not the one that I was in reference to.
> But not the kind of package that the name generally refers to in OSX. I must
> be speaking Japanese.
From a previous post:
----
* I listed "Packages" as OS X advantage when compared to Ubuntu.
* I was asked to explain what I meant (a reasonable request).
* I responded with "Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where
an entire program with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and
can, in the vast majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive
and even from one computer to another." When asked to explain it more
I stated "And you still have a folder where on a Mac it is just a
single file to the average user. That is a benefit, esp. for novice
and non-techies."
* Liam Slider stated "It just looks like a single file, it's really a
folder in disguise though." to which I responded "yes".
* Sandman jumped in to "correct" me and tell me such things are *not*
referred to as "packages" but as "application bundles".
* I showed Sandman was incorrect and they they are actually called
"packages" buy OS X. <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
The image makes that very, very clear. Please note I did not say that
other terms might not apply, I only was stating that "package" is *a*
correct term (I state this to head off inevitable trolling where
is is shown that other terms can *also* be used and then declare me
wrong based on such ignorance)
-----
See if you can understand the second and third bullet points. They are in
English, not Japanese, so you may need someone to read them to you.
Also note the final bullet where I predicted your trolling. Too damned
funny, eh?
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
_________________________________________
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> Which is an application bundle, not a package.
> >>
> >> Except my image proves you incorrect:
> >
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> I look forward to how you think a menu that refers to what I was referring
> to and calls it what I called it does not prove that what I called it was
> correct.
Sure:
<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitect
ure/Concepts/AppContents.html>
> > It's the other way around. They are Application Bundles that are
> > referred to as "packages" for normal people, since "Application
> > Bundle" doesn't tell the user what it is at all.
>
> You admit that they are 'referred to as "packages" for normal people' but
> still deny that they are called packages.
You are obfuscating, Michael. I have never denied any such thing. This
is your circus in full effect.
> >> None of that has anything to do with the fact that what I referred to as a
> >> package is, in deed, a package.
> >
> > Just like a .zip file is a package.
>
> It is
Which should lead you to understand that the word "package" isn't a
specific term. Just like the action to create a zip file is actually
just called "Archive X" in the menu. But zip files real names aren't
"Archives". They are ZIP files, but are called archives in the menu.
Snit
> In article <C0293DA9.46D11%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> Not only have I
>>>
>>> ... lied and written "gibberish posts", you can't stop yourself from
>>>
>>> doing so? Yes, everyone knows.
>>
>> Sandman: you were looking for examples of Steve's dishonest snipping.
>
> No I wasn't.
You were trying to equate my actions with his dishonest snipping. If you
were not looking to his behavior how could you possibly make the comparison?
Oh, you were not - you were just trolling. Thanks for making it clear.
> And maybe he's just "returning the favor"?
>
I look forward to you supporting that BS idea! LOL!
Being that I simply do not snip in the Carrollesque way you will find your
job impossible.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
_________________________________________
Snit
> In article <C02948AE.46D27%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>> Which is an application bundle, not a package.
>>>>
>>>> Except my image proves you incorrect:
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>> I look forward to how you think a menu that refers to what I was referring
>> to and calls it what I called it does not prove that what I called it was
>> correct.
>
> Sure:
>
> <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitect
> ure/Concepts/AppContents.html>
Nothing there says packages are not called packages.
>
>>> It's the other way around. They are Application Bundles that are
>>> referred to as "packages" for normal people, since "Application
>>> Bundle" doesn't tell the user what it is at all.
>>
>> You admit that they are 'referred to as "packages" for normal people' but
>> still deny that they are called packages.
>
> You are obfuscating, Michael. I have never denied any such thing. This
> is your circus in full effect.
You stated: "Which is an application bundle, not a package."
Now you deny you ever denied what you denied. Do you live in Egypt? :)
Oh, you dishonestly snipped the quotes that proved my points:
Sandman claim 1
Which is an application bundle, not a package.
Sandman claim 2
They are Application Bundles that are referred to as "packages"
>
>>>> None of that has anything to do with the fact that what I referred to as a
>>>> package is, in deed, a package.
>>>
>>> Just like a .zip file is a package.
>>
>> It is
>
> Which should lead you to understand that the word "package" isn't a
> specific term. Just like the action to create a zip file is actually
> just called "Archive X" in the menu. But zip files real names aren't
> "Archives". They are ZIP files, but are called archives in the menu.
>
> You're welcome.
None of your obfuscations, lies, or dishonest snipping alter the facts:
1 I listed "Packages" as OS X advantage when compared to Ubuntu.
2 I was asked to explain what I meant (a reasonable request).
3 I responded with "Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where
an entire program with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and
can, in the vast majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive
and even from one computer to another." When asked to explain it more
I stated "And you still have a folder where on a Mac it is just a
single file to the average user. That is a benefit, esp. for novice
and non-techies."
4 Liam Slider stated "It just looks like a single file, it's really a
folder in disguise though." to which I responded "yes".
5 Sandman jumped in to "correct" me and tell me such things are *not*
referred to as "packages" but as "application bundles".
6 I showed Sandman was incorrect and they they are actually called
"packages" buy OS X. <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
The image makes that very, very clear. Please note I did not say that
other terms might not apply, I only was stating that "package" is *a*
correct term (I state this to head off inevitable trolling where
is is shown that other terms can *also* be used and then declare me
wrong based on such ignorance)
7 Sandman started dishonestly snipping, obfuscating, and outright lying.
[including using the very trolling I predicted in #6)
Those fact, Sandman, are all that really matter in this discussion. Your
obfuscation does not change that.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Sandman: you were looking for examples of Steve's dishonest snipping.
> >
> > No I wasn't.
>
> You were trying to equate my actions with his dishonest snipping.
No, I wasn't. I was trying to show your hypocrisy by claiming his
actions constitute "snipping and running" but when you do the *exact*
*same* *thing* it's suddenly perfectly valid.
> If you were not looking to his behavior how could you possibly make
> the comparison?
I have seen his "behaviour" and I have done the comparison. I was not
"looking for examples".
> > And maybe he's just "returning the favor"?
>
> I look forward to you supporting that BS idea!
What support does a "maybe" need, Michael?
> Being that I simply do not snip in the Carrollesque way you will find your
> job impossible.
I just pointed out when you snipped in the *exact* *same* *way* that
you have labeled as "snipping and running".
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Sure:
> >
> > <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitect
> > ure/Concepts/AppContents.html>
>
> Nothing there says packages are not called packages.
Indeed - it says that .app are Application Bundles, which is what I've
said all along.
> >> You admit that they are 'referred to as "packages" for normal people' but
> >> still deny that they are called packages.
> >
> > You are obfuscating, Michael. I have never denied any such thing. This
> > is your circus in full effect.
>
> You stated: "Which is an application bundle, not a package."
Indeed - I clarified your statement since it could be interpreted
incorrectly since Packages are a different thing both in OSX and in
Linux, and since you were talking to a Linux user, the clarification
seemed necessary.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
You think I'm being dishonest when I state my belief that Snit has
earned what he's asked for?
Snit
> In article <C0294AE1.46D31%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> Sandman: you were looking for examples of Steve's dishonest snipping.
>>>
>>> No I wasn't.
>>
>> You were trying to equate my actions with his dishonest snipping.
>
> No, I wasn't. I was trying to show your hypocrisy by claiming his
> actions constitute "snipping and running" but when you do the *exact*
> *same* *thing* it's suddenly perfectly valid.
How can you say I do the exact same thing when you do not look at the thing
you think I am doing? Your lie has been exposed: if you are not looking at
Steve's actions you cannot say I am acting as Steve.
>
>> If you were not looking to his behavior how could you possibly make
>> the comparison?
>
> I have seen his "behaviour" and I have done the comparison. I was not
> "looking for examples".
If you have seen his behavior then please show so by describing his snip and
run trolling.
>
>>> And maybe he's just "returning the favor"?
>>
>> I look forward to you supporting that BS idea!
>
> What support does a "maybe" need, Michael?
Ah, so you are just making things up. OK. Maybe you are 6 inch tall furry
blue turtle. That was fun!
>
>> Being that I simply do not snip in the Carrollesque way you will find your
>> job impossible.
>
> I just pointed out when you snipped in the *exact* *same* *way* that
> you have labeled as "snipping and running".
Incorrect.
Snit
> In article <C0294D24.46D38%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> Sure:
>>>
>>> <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitect
>>> ure/Concepts/AppContents.html>
>>
>> Nothing there says packages are not called packages.
>
> Indeed - it says that .app are Application Bundles, which is what I've
> said all along.
That claim of yours has not been in question.
The claim of yours I have been questioning is your denial that the packages
in question are packages.
Please note how you obfuscate repeatedly.
>
>>>> You admit that they are 'referred to as "packages" for normal people' but
>>>> still deny that they are called packages.
>>>
>>> You are obfuscating, Michael. I have never denied any such thing. This
>>> is your circus in full effect.
>>
>> You stated: "Which is an application bundle, not a package."
>>
>> Now you deny you ever denied what you denied. Do you live in Egypt? :)
>>
>> Oh, you dishonestly snipped the quotes that proved my points:
>>
>> Sandman claim 1
>> Which is an application bundle, not a package.
>> Sandman claim 2
>> They are Application Bundles that are referred to as "packages"
You dishonestly snipped and ran from the above. You have obfuscated and
dishonestly snipped. You are trolling.
Snit
What, Steve, do you think I have asked for? Please be specific with quotes.
LOL! We *both* know you will run from that question.
Do you ever do anything but run and spew lies?
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
_________________________________________
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>> Sandman: you were looking for examples of Steve's dishonest snipping.
> >>>
> >>> No I wasn't.
> >>
> >> You were trying to equate my actions with his dishonest snipping.
> >
> > No, I wasn't. I was trying to show your hypocrisy by claiming his
> > actions constitute "snipping and running" but when you do the *exact*
> > *same* *thing* it's suddenly perfectly valid.
>
> How can you say I do the exact same thing when you do not look at the thing
> you think I am doing?
False logic. I have looked.
> > I have seen his "behaviour" and I have done the comparison. I was not
> > "looking for examples".
>
> If you have seen his behavior then please show so by describing his snip and
> run trolling.
That is your description, not mine. I have noted a behaviour of Steve
that you call "snip and run" and that you yourself is doing. My
description of Steves action isn't "snip and run".
> >>> And maybe he's just "returning the favor"?
> >>
> >> I look forward to you supporting that BS idea!
> >
> > What support does a "maybe" need, Michael?
>
> Ah, so you are just making things up. OK.
Sure, speculation are thoughts that not necessarily match up with
actual facts.
> Maybe you are 6 inch tall furry blue turtle.
And maybe you are an intelligent person.
> >> Being that I simply do not snip in the Carrollesque way you will find your
> >> job impossible.
> >
> > I just pointed out when you snipped in the *exact* *same* *way* that
> > you have labeled as "snipping and running".
>
> Incorrect.
You even admitted it by justifying it:
"Oh no! I snipped a clearly trolling claim! Man oh man, I can see
where that would offend you!"
You didn't try to counter the fact that you did the exact same thing
that you label "snipping and running" when Steve does it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitect
> >>> ure/Concepts/AppContents.html>
> >>
> >> Nothing there says packages are not called packages.
> >
> > Indeed - it says that .app are Application Bundles, which is what I've
> > said all along.
>
> That claim of yours has not been in question.
>
> The claim of yours I have been questioning is your denial that the packages
> in question are packages.
You're obfuscating. I have never said that packages aren't called
packages. I have correctly told you that .app are called application
bundles, not packages. Packages are .pkg files.
You're welcome. Have a nice and productive day!
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > >> Not only have I
> > > >
> > > > ... lied and written "gibberish posts", you can't stop yourself from
> > > >
> > > > doing so? Yes, everyone knows.
> > >
> > > Sandman: you were looking for examples of Steve's dishonest snipping.
> >
> > No I wasn't.
> >
> > And maybe he's just "returning the favor"?
>
> You think I'm being dishonest when I state my belief that Snit has
> earned what he's asked for?
No, I am pointing to the fact that Michael justified his "snipping and
running" by him only "returning the favor". I just said that perhaps
you were returning the favor as well - I see no reason why that
justification only could apply to him.
--
Sandman[.net]
Elizabot v2.0.3
> *TOO FUNNY*.
It's all part of Snit being the narcissistic lunatic, of course.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> And maybe he's just "returning the favor"?
> >
> > You think I'm being dishonest when I state my belief that Snit has
> > earned what he's asked for?
>
> What, Steve, do you think I have asked for?
There is an old saying here in sweden, which I'm sure there is an
american version of:
"The things you shout in the forest will be returned as a reply"
So, with that in mind; a unusually large number of people treat you
badly, wouldn't you say? They don't give you any respect, credibility
and they usually just make fun of you.
Of course, all of these people are "idiots" according to you. But
somehow these people doesn't end up in lengthy arguments with lots of
other people. Steve Carroll trolls you, according to you - but yet he
doesn't "troll" anyone else. I troll you, but somehow I don't troll
anyone else. All of these people seem to have - to you - agendas
towards you and only you.
Sure, they have disagreements with other people, and you'll probably
want to justify your position and claim that a single agreement
between me and, say, David means that we have the same relation that
you and I do - but that's just not true.
Another interesting fact is that a common factor amongst these people
is that they are often found in arguments with other trolls - only
that they are aware that they are trolls. People like Edwin, zara,
Muahman.
Maybe the term "have asked for" is in reference to the fact that you
are a troll and people treat you like a troll? Just maybe, of course.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C029C026.46D84%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Sandman: you were looking for examples of Steve's dishonest snipping.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> You were trying to equate my actions with his dishonest snipping.
>>>
>>> No, I wasn't. I was trying to show your hypocrisy by claiming his
>>> actions constitute "snipping and running" but when you do the *exact*
>>> *same* *thing* it's suddenly perfectly valid.
>>
>> How can you say I do the exact same thing when you do not look at the thing
>> you think I am doing?
>
> False logic. I have looked.
Prove it: describe the differences between what Steve does and I do using
examples from both of us.
You know and I know you will fail to do so.
<SNIP REASON="Sandman's obfuscating and snipping is getting old" />
Snit
> In article <C029C0DB.46D86%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>> <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitect
>>>>> ure/Concepts/AppContents.html>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing there says packages are not called packages.
>>>
>>> Indeed - it says that .app are Application Bundles, which is what I've
>>> said all along.
>>
>> That claim of yours has not been in question.
>>
>> The claim of yours I have been questioning is your denial that the packages
>> in question are packages.
>
> You're obfuscating. I have never said that packages aren't called
> packages.
Sandman claim 1
Which is an application bundle, not a package.
Sandman claim 2
They are Application Bundles that are referred to as "packages"
None of your obfuscations, lies, or dishonest snipping alter the facts:
1 I listed "Packages" as OS X advantage when compared to Ubuntu.
2 I was asked to explain what I meant (a reasonable request).
3 I responded with "Ubuntu does not have the OS X style packages where
an entire program with all of its subfolders appears as one icon and
can, in the vast majority of cases, be moved around the hard drive
and even from one computer to another." When asked to explain it more
I stated "And you still have a folder where on a Mac it is just a
single file to the average user. That is a benefit, esp. for novice
and non-techies."
4 Liam Slider stated "It just looks like a single file, it's really a
folder in disguise though." to which I responded "yes".
5 Sandman jumped in to "correct" me and tell me such things are *not*
referred to as "packages" but as "application bundles".
6 I showed Sandman was incorrect and they they are actually called
"packages" buy OS X. <http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/tmp/package.jpg>
The image makes that very, very clear. Please note I did not say that
other terms might not apply, I only was stating that "package" is *a*
correct term (I state this to head off inevitable trolling where
is is shown that other terms can *also* be used and then declare me
wrong based on such ignorance)
7 Sandman started dishonestly snipping, obfuscating, and outright lying.
[including using the very trolling I predicted in #6)
Those facts, Sandman, are all that really matter in this discussion. Your
Snit
> In article <C029C404.46D8C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> And maybe he's just "returning the favor"?
>>>
>>> You think I'm being dishonest when I state my belief that Snit has
>>> earned what he's asked for?
>>
>> What, Steve, do you think I have asked for?
>
> There is an old saying here in sweden, which I'm sure there is an
> american version of:
>
> "The things you shout in the forest will be returned as a reply"
>
> So, with that in mind; a unusually large number of people treat you
> badly, wouldn't you say?
People. No. Actually people, in general, treat me with great respect, are
generally honest to me, and act in honorable ways. There are, of course,
some exceptions, but as a rule people I interact with treat me well. This
includes my family, my students, my employers, my co-workers, my friends,
and even folks I talk to who I hardly know such as check-out folks at
grocery stores, people where I have my car worked on, etc.
There are some trolls in CSMA who are angry I have pointed out their lies
and they use every opportunity to try to get revenge. I suppose they will
stop when they actually feel they have made a point... which, sadly, likely
will be never. But I most certainly do not believe the ramblings of some
online trolls represents "an unusually large number of people". Sorry to
disappoint you, Sandman, but you and your fellow trolls are just not that
important to me. I hope you take the blow to your ego well. :)
of course, if you want to look at CSMA quotes as being important, I have
posted a large number of quotes about Steve. Would you say that those
quotes say the same thing about him?
<http://snit.atspace.com/troll_info/quotes_about.html>
My guess: you will suddenly flip flop or evade.
I have snipped your comments based on your false premise.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> How can you say I do the exact same thing when you do not look at the thing
> >> you think I am doing?
> >
> > False logic. I have looked.
>
> Prove it: describe the differences between what Steve does and I do using
> examples from both of us.
No need - you have already provided the definition of "snipping of
running" which described your post 100%:
"quotes nothing but the first few words - not even the first
sentence - and then spews BS trolling that has nothing to do with
the comments he is theoretically responding to."
That describes this post 100%:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3c103c4023a88
ac3>
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>> And maybe he's just "returning the favor"?
> >>>
> >>> You think I'm being dishonest when I state my belief that Snit has
> >>> earned what he's asked for?
> >>
> >> What, Steve, do you think I have asked for?
> >
> > There is an old saying here in sweden, which I'm sure there is an
> > american version of:
> >
> > "The things you shout in the forest will be returned as a reply"
> >
> > So, with that in mind; a unusually large number of people treat you
> > badly, wouldn't you say?
>
> People. No. Actually people, in general, treat me with great respect, are
> generally honest to me, and act in honorable ways.
So now the bulk of posters in csma aren't people?
> There are, of course,
> some exceptions, but as a rule people I interact with treat me well. This
> includes my family, my students, my employers, my co-workers, my friends,
> and even folks I talk to who I hardly know such as check-out folks at
> grocery stores, people where I have my car worked on, etc.
I'm glad you didn't try to include "usenet posters" on that list. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>> <http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/AppArchitect
> >>>>> ure/Concepts/AppContents.html>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing there says packages are not called packages.
> >>>
> >>> Indeed - it says that .app are Application Bundles, which is what I've
> >>> said all along.
> >>
> >> That claim of yours has not been in question.
> >>
> >> The claim of yours I have been questioning is your denial that the packages
> >> in question are packages.
> >
> > You're obfuscating. I have never said that packages aren't called
> > packages.
>
> <snip circus>
You're obfuscating. I have never said that packages aren't called
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Yeah, I realize all that... I'm just curious if you see that belief of
mine as a lie. As you can see, Snit was forced to play games with it:
"Not only have I never asked you to lie, troll, and flame me, Steve, I
have repeatedly requested you stop your BS." etc.
While Snit may have "repeatedly requested" me to stop something or other
here or there, the remainder of his actions show his requests are quite
disingenuous. If he really wanted me to stop, he wouldn't provoke me...
same goes for all the others he claims 'won't stop' that he's busy
provoking. Of course... as a parent I've watch my kids do this crap for
years. The difference here is that I generally only engage in this sort
of garbage with Snit... Snit does it with numerous posters every day,
week in and week out.