Why I am a good mark for the trolls
Snit
Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan Baker, Peter
Köhlmann, High Plains Thumper, Tattoo Vampire and other trolls target me?
Certainly there are other marks for their bullying.
A number of reasons.
1) I post a lot. That puts me in their targets.
2) When they post even outrageous accusations and lies about me I often take
the time to give the greatest benefit of doubt that they might actually
*believe* what they are saying... and I defend myself by showing the truth.
Over and over I will do this. It becomes annoying, and others associate me
with the trolls. It is self-defeating but I am also someone who believes in
people, so I give them chance after chance after chance to do the right
thing. While this *has* occasionally worked - some people who used to troll
Usenet now post much more reasonably - it is rare that this actually works.
For an example of trolls who target me on this, look at Wally and Tim Adams
and Steve Carroll... even though the have lost the arguments they have with
me *years* ago they cannot let go and spew the same absurd accusations over
and over and over and over. I generally respond and point to the facts that
show they are wrong. In many cases the facts are as clear as noting the
empty set is written as {} and not as {0}. It is not like most of these are
debates with gray areas!
3) My personal information is not hard to find. Bullies know they can use
that against me. And they do.
For examples of trolls who have focused on this, look at Tim Adams, William
"Geoff M. Fitton" Poaster, Sandman, and others.
4) While I make mistakes, as we all do, I am knowledgeable about computer
topics, especially in the areas I generally talk about. My views do not go
with the "party line": I think the best form of advocacy is to be honest
about a product - warts and all. Both OS X and Linux are well worth
advocating, and I do, but both also have problems I have discussed in some
depth in the respective forums. The die-hard "advocates" who see advocacy
as lying about the product they like do not like my honest and honorable
approach to advocacy.
As an example of how trolls have a party when I do make a mistake in terms
of technology, look at how Steve freaked out for *months* when I made a
comment about the MacBook Air that he was able to take out of context to
make it look bad. He knows I am knowledgeable, so he tried to kick me
where he thought it would hurt.
5) I do not back down from pointing out the lies of others.
For an example of this, note Peter Köhlmann's obvious hatred of me... he
denied posting to CSMA and I pointed to the posts where he clearly did so.
No gray area. He denied it still. No doubt he was not mistaken, he was
lying. I called him on his lie. I called him on some others. He freaked
out and is still freaking out.
While the above people, and some others, will continue to make accusations
against me of being dishonest or of twisting words (which, really, is a form
of dishonesty), notice how they cannot find any examples. I have been
challenging them to do so for some time now... and they cannot. Steve
Carroll tried - by pointing to a comment of mine from 2004 where he thinks
someone jumped from one topic to anther for a different reason than I do
(though he cannot explain his reasoning with anything nearing coherence).
Sandman tried: he pointed to his own site and failed to point to any
comments by me. Wally and Tim Adams tried... but they showed they were not
up to 3rd grade levels of comprehension levels (literally... I am not
exaggerating with that). As far as I know nobody else even tried (High
Plains Thumper quoted Wally's clearly inaccurate accusations).
In response, of course, there will be some "clever" troll who snips my post
and gives an unsupported accusations or just sinks to name calling. What
there will *not* be is *any* reasonable support for the accusations they
spew about me.
Which will just show support for my points, above. They will not be able to
help it - they *will* support my above claims.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Steve Carroll
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently. Why do
> Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan Baker, Peter
> Köhlmann, High Plains Thumper, Tattoo Vampire and other trolls target me?
> Certainly there are other marks for their bullying.
>
> A number of reasons.
And all of them are created out of a delusion you are having. No one,
but you, has called all the people you have just listed "trolls". OTOH
virtually every poster in csma and many in cola have labeled you a
liar, troll or worse.
(snip Snit's delusions)
Don Zeigler
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently.
[snip lunacy]
Michael "Messiah Complex" Glasser.
--
Regards,
[dmz]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
...I can keep a secret, it's the people I tell who can't.
Snit
C585783C.E8255%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 1/3/09 8:17 PM:
Reply 1: Steve Carroll. As predicted - snipped my post, gave unsupported
accusations, and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
support for his accusations.
Score: Snit 1, Trolls 0
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
High Plains Thumper
There is no targeting. People get tired of Michael Glasser's
continuous Snit Circus gross cut and pasting, denials even with
evidence shown, off-topic rants, redirecting a discussion that
originated as an on topic post into a post about him. These 121
posters have captured in all their glory their disdain for him.
List was originated by CSMA Moderator and continued by others:
1- Adam Kesher: "Steve, IIRC Sandman's website has a member area
and a login. If you forget your password, you can ask it to
e-mail it to you, and a bot will send an e-mail.
*That* is the e-mail Snit got from Sandman's website, and yes
he's that fucked in the head and starved for attention that he'd
claim it to be an e-mail from Sandman himself. So, don't get
sucked into his little circus.
The e-mail, in this particular instance, did probably originate
from Sandman.net."
2- 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."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/4a7c3ebf3fc10221
3- 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."
4- AZ Nomad: "The fact that you routinely change your headers to
weasel out of killfiles proves that you're an asshole."
5- Andy/news/nospam: "Why do you keep these things up, Snit? Why
not just let them go away and show how responsible a member of
CSMA you are? You could show your enemies up by being better than
then, rise above the low level you so obviously dislike.
Anything, just stop...."
6- 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."
7- bobinnv: "I learned some time ago how much better this group
can be if you kill file Snit. I have never understood why more
people don't do the same.."
8- 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."
9- [b]unny: "snit makes me sad."
10- buzz off: "Snit is obviously mentally ill..."
11- 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..."
12- C Lund: "Snit is not my responsibility. Maybe it's time for
you to learn how to use your kill-filter. I am assuming, of
course, that your Usenet browser has a kill-filter."
13- 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?"
14- 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."
15- Dave Fritzinger: "Snit, please go away. Get a life, meet a
woman, do something, but please, please, please, GO AWAY!!!!"
16- Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought
you knew what a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was
presented to you. I guess I had too much confidence in you."
17- 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). "
18- Edwin: "You've got to be out of your mind, Snit. You're the
worst troll this group has ever seen. You're a liar and a forger,
and you've almost destroyed this group single-handedly. For you
to post a list of out of context arguments, and lies, and
forgeries about your enemies labled as a "peace effort" has to be
one of the craziest stunts you've pulled. It's all about your
sick need for attention, your need to be center stage at all
times. You'd publicly eat dog turd if you thought it would make
people look at you."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/37e4a720619642a0
19- Elijah Baley: "Seriously, Snit, you need psychiatric help. Go
see a doctor."
20- 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."
21- 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."
22- 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!"
23- gimme_this_gimme_t...@yahoo.com: "Hitting the vodka tonight
Snit?"
24- Greycloud: "You really shouldn't lie like that. Everyone else
notices that you are not honest and you have no honor."
25- Henry Flam: "Who gives a damn about this shit? Snit, once in
a while, I make the mistake in thinking that that you are
starting to make sense in your posts; I tend to agree with your
politics. Then you post stuff like this and it destroys any
respect that I have for you."
26- Heywood Mogroot: "*plonk*"
27- Jamie Hart (cola): "It seems that since you are unable to
offer support for your statements, you're reduced to personal
attacks on me. Incidentally, anyone reading this post can see
that I have offered no straw men, and have only asked you to
explain how the things you state as facts can be true. I'm really
sorry that you're taking this attitude, the topic is an
interesting one and I thought you might have some insights. I've
snipped the rest, since you dislike long posts and avoid
answering any of the questions I asked by saying everything was
just repeated. "
28- 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."
29- JEDIDIAH (cola): "You're simply full of shit."
30- Jeff B.: "Yo, Snit. We're not pals. I think you're a git."
31- 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."
32- Jesus: "Really, Snit. It's annoying. What are you
accomplishing besides being annoying? Is that your goal?"
33- Jim Lee Jr.: "Snit, read the thread's title, is Bush
mentioned in it? You (and Carroll) ought to learn to stay on
topic and not hijack threads."
34- Jim Polaski: "Why is it that nearly every thread you're
involved in seems like it turns into some tit-for-tat, dozens of
responses to OT things and garbage?"
35- Jim Richardson (cola): "And yet again, Snit runs away, rather
than actually provide evidence for his claims. Par for the course
I suppose."
36- 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...'"
37- John C. Randolph: "You're nothing but a troll yourself. What
are you bitching about?"
38- 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??"
39- 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."
40- John Slade: "I don't get posts from Snit. I wouldn't be
shocked that he has some kind of disorder. He made up stuff about
being a computer repairman and teacher. He's just plain loony and
best ignored. Let him deal with his disorder by medication. He's
here to do one thing, get attention from people. He says the
crazy stuff just to get a reaction.
You say you like to beat him over the head. Well that's what he's
counting on, he says stuff he knows isn't true in hopes to get a
rise out of people like you. Ignore him, you won't regret it."
John Slade: "Snit, you have a enough problems as it is without
adding drinking booze to the list. How the hell did you manage to
get out of my killfile? Oh well back into the cage you go, PLONK."
41- Josh McKee: "Snit, I assume there was some point to this
posting? Because I certainly cannot find it."
42- K E: "I haven't read this board for awhile but I see that
even though the trolls still roam free at least the worst troll
of the lot is mostly being ignored by readers on this bb. If the
few stragglers that keep replying to him would just stop
responding to Snit at all this place could be worth coming back
to. There's a good chance he'll pack up and take his trolling to
more fertile ground."
43- Kelsey Bjarnason (cola): "Funny how you simply don't bother
reading the posts that rip your entire thesis to bleeding gobbets
of putrid excrescence. Maybe some day you'll learn how to support
your position, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and
humming, hoping it'll all go away."
44- 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."
45- Lars Trager: "Yes, you are stupid."
46- Lefty Bigfoot: "Okay, I tried to put up with it for a long
time, but the few times you post something worth reading just
aren't worth it anymore. *plonk*"
47- 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."
48- Linonut (cola): "Snit is a Tholenoid."
"Indeed. Snit may be the first retraction of my general killfile
amnesty. The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping,
back-tracking, goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by
that effete candy-ass beggars belief".
49- Lloyd Parsons: "Well, I don't know if Oxford is the most
cretinous, I would think that would be reserved for Snit! ;-)"
50- Mark Kent (cola): "The problem with someone like Mr Glasser
is the same as it is with Mr Wong, even if he were to be honest
now, it would be impossible to determine where the honesty starts
and the usual dishonesty ends. In my primary school, one of the
teachers was very keen on proverbs, and I recall her going over
the "cry wolf" story. Mr Glasser could "cry wolf" over and over
now, and I would not come to help him with his sheep, because I
do not know any way of determining if he's ever telling the
truth, or indeed, if he ever has."
51- Mayor of R'lyeh: "The fact is that he's probably pulling it
to this post since its all about him and he managed to make me
think about him today. A friend of mine has a toddler. I went
over to her house and videotaped her kid doing a bunch of cute
toddler stuff then burned a DVD of it for her. While we were
watching the DVD her kid got mad. He got mad because we quit
making him the center of attention and made that kid on the tv
the center of attention. He even ran up to the tv and tried to
block our view of it. That's how Snit lives his whole life."
52- Michelle Ronn: "The real topic here is that one someone
refutes your "facts", you run away and ignore them. Refuting your
"facts" is easily done in this case. I did it, and you ignored it. "
53- Mike: "Nonsense. I never see you "advocate" anything. All I
see you doing is engage in endless semantic arguments with
everyone. You're the TholenBot of CSMA. BTW, that's *not* a
compliment!"
54- 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."
55- mmoore321: "Snit is a human car-accident and we are all
rubbernecking. We know it is bad form, but yet strangely curious.
Treat him the same way, look but just keep moving on."
56- Mojo: "Actually, these facts piss everybody off because they
are off-topic, unnecessarily confrontational, extremely boring
and clearly show that you are crying out for attention."
57- Mr. Blonde: "Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact
that your obsession with Sandman has actually grown since you
claimed to KF him. Killfilling someone generally implies you're
ignoring that person, yet you piggyback onto virtually every
reply to him here and and check his website's validation status
more often than most people check their e-mail. These are not the
actions of a mentally balanced individual."
58- 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."
59- Muahman: "Ummm, dude you post 1000 posts a day. 999 of them
are trolls, if anyone here has issues it's not me."
60- Nashton/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?"
61- New Bee: "Honest and honorable? You? You've either got a wry
sense of humor, or you're completely nuts. Either way you're just
a waste of time, and you've done more than anybody to make this
group a cesspool. Then you revel in wallowing in your own filth."
62- Not Important: "I get this mental image of you and a sibling
as children in the back seat of the family car saying:
Mom, 'snits' touching me ... and you responding much as you do
now ... I'm not touching you, you're touching me! The problem is
that by now you should've grown out of that type of poke and
complain interaction with others. But, of course, you've haven't
learned how to interact with others in a more 'constructive' and
mutually beneficial manner even now."
63- OldCSMAer: "What's he been doing? Am I going to be sorry I
killfiled him?"
64- OldSage: "What drives me nuts is your unrelenting ability and
desire to argue on the head of a pin about the most trivial of
things."
65- 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!!!!!"
66- Patrick Nihill: "I mean, honestly, who would you rather
discuss something with; Dan, or someone like Zara? Or, for that
matter, Snit, for whom the work 'troll' seems so painfully
inadequate?"
67- Pawel Wojciak: "Jesus Christ, snit... <plonk> "
68- PC Guy: "Forget it Snit, you're a waste of time. For someone
who talks about everyone else not being "honest and honorable"
you appear to be the least honest and honorable of anyone here."
69- 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."
70- Peter Bjorn Perlso: "Plonked for 60 days. Now stfu and take
your argument with sandman into the private room."
71- Peter Hayes: "True, but that removes Snit completely, and
someti... err..... occasiona.... errrrr..... once in a blue moon
he has something useful to say."
72- 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."
73- Peter Kohlmann (cola): "Snot is a hideous troll. Nobody is as
dishonest as that piece of unadultered garbage. There are csma
posters even more stupid than Snot. Oxford comes to mind. There
are certainly other csma posters who lie nearly as much. But no
others are so intent on trolling in whatever way possible as Snot"
74- Phil Earnhardt: "You're only interested in trying to get
superficial snipes and extrapolate inappropriate conclusions."
75- 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."
76- RichardK: "Just killfile him already."
77- 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."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fcad2955ac5cb03b
78- 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."
79- 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."
80- 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."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d521a80051e24d08
81- 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."
82- sav: "You really need to take a rest somewhere nice.
Honestly, even the nutters who hang out down on Brighton seafront
made more sense than this. You been doing drugs or something?"
83- 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."
84- 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."
85- 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."
86- 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."
87- Steven de Mena: "Sorry, you have now lost all credibility with me
for your rediculous argument regarding this."
88- 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)."
89- Stuart Krivis: "You might as well just give up and plonk him
then. A snit is a snit is a snit and always will be."
90- TheLetterK: "That is merely your perception, Shit. You're the
one lacking counter evidence, and your arguments basically amount
to "I'm right, nya nya nya." No matter how many examples someone
points at to demonstrate their claim, you blindly continue to
insist that they provide no evidence, or that the evidence given
is irrelevant. Worse still, you fall back on straw men and
disingenuous quote mangling to portray the argument in your
favor. You are one of the worst trolls that inhabit CSMA, Shit.
*Edwin* is more prone to fits of reason than you are. "
91-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."
92- Tim Crowley: "I don't know - I think you might have more
compassion. Snit is sick. He needs help. This is the only way the
poor sick fool can get attention. My fucking God, he's taken to
hanging out with and supporting racist pig fuckers like MuahMuah.
It is true that no-one likes him and those that pretend they do
are just using him or don't know him - but come on- it's not his
fault. He's sick. Have some compassion, eh? All these idiot
trolls, Zara, Stew, Tommy, MuaaaahMuaaah, and Snit - they are all
so alike. I pity each and every one of them"
93- Tim Smith: "No, he didn't, and there is no reasonable way you
could actually believe he lied. You are purely trying to troll here."
94- Timberwoof: "*Plonk!*"
95- Tom Bates: "Do you have to turn any thread you post in into
one of your Circus acts?"
96- Tommy: "In case you did not get it, I think the moral was:
Stop polluting the world with your infantile and obsessive
"writings". You give Mac advocacy a bad name. If that was your
goal you have succeeded! That also goes for all that bullshit on
your website"
97- 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."
98- 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."
99- 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! :-) "
100- Woofbert: "*Plonk*"
101- zara: "Look - I'm not into combing through thousands of
posts, to prove what was said or not said - I leave stuff like
that to people without lives, like Snit. But it is assuredly, in
the record. Ping Snit to do a search - you will flatter him, and
give meaning to his tawdry little life."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a1d4fc7120a6a538
102- 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."
103- High Plains Thumper: "Well, for one who is trolling this
group, those were extremely poorly done examples, making problems
that do not exist except an invention of Snit's own mind."
104- Geoff M. Fitton: "The Prescott Computer Guy *still* showing
how stupid he is... What a mar00n".
105- William Poaster: "Good grief. If anyone's having a mental
breakdown it's the Prescott Computer Guy, Michael Snit Glasser.
What a f#cked up mess he is'.
106- Tattoo Vampire: "In other words, in another attempt to
troll, you made yourself look like a fool. Again".
107- Mr. Blonde: "Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact
that your obsession with Sandman has actually grown since you
claimed to KF him. Killfilling someone generally implies you're
ignoring that person, yet you piggyback onto virtually every
reply to him here and and check his website's validation status
more often than most people check their e-mail. These are not the
actions of a mentally balanced individual".
108- CozmicDebris: "I'm done with your three year old games. The
archives show my answers and your inability to process them. Keep
posting your list and proving that you are an idiot troll. I will
not address it any further- you being too stupid to realize and
accept that is not my problem".
109- WhoMe: "F michael IS a teacher, it's no wonder he's home
more than he's anywhere near a classroom".
110- spike1: "The thought is probably to show everyone here just
how bad a troll snit is".
111- Carlo Coggi: "He must believe he is surrounded by 'trolls'
... in the groups he trolls in, that is. I wondered if the
idiotrollers like snit would reply to this thread. Of course, I
didn't see his posts, only your reply".
112- bobinv: "I learned some time ago how much better this group
can be if you kill file Snit. I have never understood why more
people don't do the same".
113- Zaren Ankleweed: "And with that, Snit goes in the global
killfile. No subject, no author, no nothing. Buh-bye".
114- H: "Your crappy posts are still showing up in seperate
threads, are you doing this on purpose to piss people off? I dont
ever censor people cause that's just retarded but if you dont fix
it I'm gonna have to cause I dont wanna see your
name 40 times in a row. So uh, change your client or something".
115- PeterBP: "Oh will you stfu".
116- S'mee (Keith, rec.motorcycles): "Liar...forger and
worthless. You must be related to our resident racist troll, he
lies as much as you."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ab08c00330c8b58d
117- BaJoRi:
Snit: "You are, of course, lying."
BaJoRi: "No, I am not. You know it, and I know it, and everyone
else who has read your idiocy knows it. I took your statement,
showed it to be wrong, then added even more, just to be a dick
and REALLY show you to be a fool. You need to judiciously snip
out pertinent points because you are an intellectually dwarfed
turd-burglar."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.vacation.las-vegas/msg/647944511b74b82f
118- KK: 'Whoa there, ad hominem man. You started off your
sentence with "Ah" like you'd just realized something profound.'
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.howard-stern/msg/6a89029a5b5be5f8
119- -hh: 'Perversion has utterly nothing to do with the
definition of "synonymous". It is, however, a very clear example
of how you attempt to maliciously debase against anyone who
disagrees with you. As such, I consider this to be a purposeful
attempt by you to try to libel me. This is your only warning to
consider rescinding your remark, with the reminder that you, and
you alone are responsible for that accusation, both in the
ethical as well as the full legal meaning of the word "responsible".'
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5496641a3426293a
120- Geezer:
Snit: "Steve Carroll has no sense of morality"
Geezer: "Whined the guy who cannot directly address those who
uncover his lies and deceit;)"
Snit: "and no clue about the law."
Geezer: 'Said the guy who believes his unsupported opinions are
"proof". LOL! (snip more of Snit's unsupported lies)'
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d0517ced5134934d
121- RonB: "Snit is a crank fixated on one issue, who's thing is
twisting your words so he can win an argument against a straw
man. That's enough to killfile him."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/ce8550d4cc5b1b42
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently.
Your wife has started 2009 talking to you? She has a big heart!
> Why do
> Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan Baker, Peter
> Köhlmann, High Plains Thumper, Tattoo Vampire and other trolls target me?
Karma?
> Certainly there are other marks for their bullying.
Name one.
> A number of reasons.
>
> 1) I post a lot. That puts me in their targets.
Many people post a lot, It's clearly not that, you lie a lot? Yup that'll do
it!
>
> 2) When they post even outrageous accusations and lies about me I often take
> the time to give the greatest benefit of doubt that they might actually
> *believe* what they are saying... and I defend myself by showing the truth.
See ... Bulls eye!
> Over and over I will do this. It becomes annoying,
Now *that* is true, you do repeat yourself a lot, and it is annoying!
> and others associate me with the trolls.
So you use sock puppets in an effort to break that association? Hhmmmm!
> It is self-defeating
Of course, But that won't deter you from doing it!
> but I am also someone who believes in people,
Then you should listen to them more and ignore the 'voices'..
"The wee little elephants that whisper in my ear disagree. Therefore you
are wrong."-Snit
> so I give them chance after chance after chance to do the right
> thing.
> While this *has* occasionally worked - some people who used to troll
> Usenet now post much more reasonably - it is rare that this actually works.
Ignoring you is posting more reasonably? ... OK!
>
> For an example of trolls who target me on this, look at Wally and Tim Adams
> and Steve Carroll... even though the have lost the arguments they have with
> me *years* ago they cannot let go and spew the same absurd accusations over
> and over and over and over. I generally respond and point to the facts that
> show they are wrong. In many cases the facts are as clear as noting the
> empty set is written as {} and not as {0}. It is not like most of these are
> debates with gray areas!
"With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
>
> 3) My personal information is not hard to find. Bullies know they can use
> that against me. And they do.
"I live a fairly conservative life style - one wife... no drugs...
heterosexual... would never support my wife having an abortion..."-Snit
Ever considered keeping some information to yourself Snit?
>
> For examples of trolls who have focused on this, look at Tim Adams, William
> "Geoff M. Fitton" Poaster, Sandman, and others.
"It should be illegal to point guns at (and therefore threaten) innocent
people."-Snit
"To give everyone a nuke (with the ability to USE it) would be a huge
danger."-Snit
Gee! there's no pulling the wool over Snits eyes, such amazing insight!
>
> 4) While I make mistakes, as we all do, I am knowledgeable about computer
> topics, especially in the areas I generally talk about. My views do not go
> with the "party line": I think the best form of advocacy is to be honest
> about a product - warts and all. Both OS X and Linux are well worth
> advocating, and I do, but both also have problems I have discussed in some
> depth in the respective forums. The die-hard "advocates" who see advocacy
> as lying about the product they like do not like my honest and honorable
> approach to advocacy.
Honest and honorable approach to advocacy.?
"I have become very cautious in my wording - to the point of including
enough disclaimers as to make the actual point harder to see."-Snit
Hhhhmmmmmmmm!
>
> As an example of how trolls have a party when I do make a mistake in terms
> of technology, look at how Steve freaked out for *months* when I made a
> comment about the MacBook Air that he was able to take out of context to
> make it look bad. He knows I am knowledgeable, so he tried to kick me
> where he thought it would hurt.
"Yes. Well... maybe. What do you mean by "psychosomatic complaints"?
Don't be discouraged when you find out that our details differ, but you
could be describing me quite accurately."-Snit
>
> 5) I do not back down from pointing out the lies of others.
>
> For an example of this, note Peter Köhlmann's obvious hatred of me... he
> denied posting to CSMA and I pointed to the posts where he clearly did so.
> No gray area. He denied it still. No doubt he was not mistaken, he was
> lying. I called him on his lie. I called him on some others. He freaked
> out and is still freaking out.
"Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did state that you
did not agree with it "at all". Please remember I pointed out a a partial
part of it, and you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown
that when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you might agree
with parts of it."-Snit
Stop confusing ridiculing your <cough-cough> logic with freaking out Snit!
>
> While the above people, and some others, will continue to make accusations
> against me of being dishonest or of twisting words
Gee I wonder why? LOL
> (which, really, is a form of dishonesty),
Then why do you do it?
> notice how they cannot find any examples. I have been
> challenging them to do so for some time now... and they cannot.
"it is not a full complete quote. I will correct it."-Snit
LOL
> Steve
> Carroll tried - by pointing to a comment of mine from 2004 where he thinks
> someone jumped from one topic to anther for a different reason than I do
> (though he cannot explain his reasoning with anything nearing coherence).
> Sandman tried: he pointed to his own site and failed to point to any
> comments by me. Wally and Tim Adams tried... but they showed they were not
> up to 3rd grade levels of comprehension levels (literally... I am not
> exaggerating with that). As far as I know nobody else even tried (High
> Plains Thumper quoted Wally's clearly inaccurate accusations).
>
> In response, of course, there will be some "clever" troll who snips my post
> and gives an unsupported accusations or just sinks to name calling. What
> there will *not* be is *any* reasonable support for the accusations they
> spew about me.
>
> Which will just show support for my points, above. They will not be able to
> help it - they *will* support my above claims.
"And I cry when there is nobody who understands that."- Snit
Wanna tissue Snit?
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Reply 1: Steve Carroll. As predicted - snipped my post, gave unsupported
> accusations, and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
> support for his accusations.
>
> Score: Snit 1, Trolls 0
>
Steve Wrote...
"And all of them are created out of a delusion you are having. No one,
but you, has called all the people you have just listed "trolls"."
Absolutely true and easily verified!
"OTOH virtually every poster in csma and many in cola have labeled you a
liar, troll or worse."
Absolutely true and common knowledge!
"Many people post a lot, It's clearly not that, you lie a lot? Yup that'll
do it!"-Wally
Score: Snit takes a dope test..... and proves he *is* one!
Lusotec
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently. Why
> do Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, Steve Mackay, Alan Baker,
> Peter Köhlmann, High Plains Thumper, Tattoo Vampire and other trolls
> target me? Certainly there are other marks for their bullying.
I have a rule in knode to ignore threads with the word "Snit" in the
subject. Some people have nothing better to do than post insults. My advice
is to just ignore them.
Regards.
William Poaster
You can add attempted blackmailer too, to that list about Michael Snit
"Prescott Computer Guy" Glasser.
Message-ID: <C4B9FA34.CD1AA%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
--
No room for the horrors
of Micro$oft here!
-- Stephen Fry - Room 101 --
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently.
It is because you talk like a little girly in your youtube videos.
Seriously, I think you should get a decent PC, and install Linux
and compiz and then your eyes will be opened. And you will stop
being a girlie. Besides Appil are BSD Pirates ;)
Please try some Linux and give your anti-Linux rants a rest.
Its all free http://www.livecdlist.com
http://www.distrowatch.com
100 Days of 3D Desktop - Ubuntu Compiz
--------------------------------------
1. Do you want to go back to 2D desktop after 100 days on 3D Compiz Linux ?
NO THANK YOU!!!
2. Has your productivity gone through the roof?
YES THANKS!!!
3. What of the appil/windummy retards who fluff about on 2D?
HOORA! GOOD LUCK TO THOSE RETARTDS!!!!
4. So what holds you back from improving productivity?
a) - Disk speed! Disk speed! Disk speed!
SSDs MUST improve their speed x10 to gain ANY further advantages
b) - Suite Catasrophe
Todays suites are the catastrophic failure points
for productivity loss. A productivity suite like Open Office
contain a handful of members that provide various functions
word processing and spreadsheet.
New suite building application framework
for suite builders that allows
functions to be dropped in from ALL GPL'd applications.
A suite builder application will glue relevant applications
into one application that can be opened once to process one
kind of job. For example a embedded electronic project development
kit and html documention suit could improve my productivity.
I would open the suit builder, drop in Konqueror for HTML
viewing, Seamonkey composer for HTML editing,
Eagle CAD for PCB schematic, Gambas for RS232 communications and
data gathering, SQL Server for data processing,
Open Office Calc for spreadsheet analysis and graphing tools.
The purpose of suit builder is to facilitate rapid
creation of work and its communication.
With GLP's code, this is entirely feasible.
With proprietory code, this is entirely IMPOSSIBLE.
5. Anything missing?
Post processing free drop in of audio and video clips.
Don't want to spend time converting audio to mp3/ogg/proprietory etc.
Don't want to spend time cleaning up and compressing videos.
Just want to take the best compressed, noise eliminated
license free format ogg and theora and drop it in directly from
recorder/video camera/web cam directly into HTML documentation
and suite built applications to widely distribute and communicate.
6. Any final parting insults to the COLA-TROLLs?
Yes - up yours!
3D desktops and free software delivers power
that proprietory WILL NEVER DELIVER.
Use it for 100 days and your brain will start to take advantage
of 3D working and you will never go back to the 2D desktop again.
Wally
pan.2009.01.04....@ubuntu-intrepid.eu, "William Poaster"
<w...@ubuntu-intrepid.eu> wrote:
My oh my! what a treasure trove of Snit contradictions that short thread is,
I don't know how I missed it ... But I surely thank you for the link.
Phil Da Lick!
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:15:10 +0900, Wally wrote:
>
>
>>> 1) I post a lot. That puts me in their targets.
>> Many people post a lot, It's clearly not that, you lie a lot? Yup that'll do
>> it!
>
> out a negative aspect of Linux, no matter how true and no matter how much
> credibility it has the Linux loons will label you a troll and tar and
> feather you.
Untrue. What will get you labelled, tarred and feathered is banging on
and on about how crap linux is without stating anything positive. Ever.
Hadron
Rubbish. See the attempted discussions on the benefits of a consistent
UI over the entire desktop suite for an example. We actually had posters
here telling us that a good consistent UI was a waste of a programmers
time and only retards needed one. Hard to believe I know, but true.
--
"Hey, who needs mp3, wma, acc when we can have ogg?"
-- "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_...@gmail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Snit
C585783C.E8255%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 1/3/09 8:17 PM:
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently. Why do
Reply 1: Steve Carroll.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ca4a215831c0c9f5>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations, and sank to
name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at support for his
accusations.
Score: Snit 1, Trolls 0
Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations, and sank to
name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at support for his
accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list of scavenged and forged
"quotes", but *none* from me. Not one.
Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
Reply 3: William Geoff M. Fitton Poaster
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/70ef35e0d0ad8656>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations (of blackmail!),
and sank to trying to tie his BS to my business name to pull Google
searchers of people looking for me to *his* BS. He did post a message ID,
but it did not in any way, shape, or form support his bizarre and delusional
accusation of *blackmail*. Where did he even come up with that? Just a
plea for attention?
Score: Snit 3, Trolls 0
Reply 4: Wally - responding to Poaster
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/70ef35e0d0ad8656>
As predicted: Made am accusation of "contradictions" but did not even try to
support his claim. Later:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa93eae84730a761>
Freaks out completely, posting a bunch of quotes taken completely out of
context and attributing Steve Carroll's quotes to *me*. Specifically:
"With enough glue... anything is possible". Also posts quotes he has
completely fabricated, as far as I can tell. They do not appear to be in
the Google archive, but the search is being flakey there again.
Score: Snit 4, Trolls 0
Reply 5: Don Zeigler
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ab7e2357a484c45b>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave an unsupported accusation, and even
changed the name of the the subject line in his response (hey, I forgot to
predict that one!)
Score: Snit 5, Trolls 0
Reply 6: 7
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b43100a0f694946a>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported personal attacks (about my
voice in videos... what???), and then posted information on things other
than the topic. Not sure he even understood what he read. Just weird.
Score: Snit 6, Trolls 0
I wonder how many more will go out of their way to prove me correct? In any
case, please note I predicted they would... they are very, very predictable.
I will not be adding comments from those who have already proved me
correct... even if they post more. I will update this list if other trolls
opt to jump in and prove me correct or, as if, refute my claims and actually
support their BS. LOL. *Not* going to happen, even with my taunting of
them.
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
Steve Carroll
>
> 78- 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."
>
> 79- 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."
>
> 80- 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."
>
>
> 117- BaJoRi:
> Snit: "You are, of course, lying."
> BaJoRi: "No, I am not. You know it, and I know it, and everyone
> else who has read your idiocy knows it. I took your statement,
> showed it to be wrong, then added even more, just to be a dick
> and REALLY show you to be a fool. You need to judiciously snip
> out pertinent points because you are an intellectually dwarfed
> turd-burglar."
>
>
> 118- KK: 'Whoa there, ad hominem man. You started off your
> sentence with "Ah" like you'd just realized something profound.'
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.howard-stern/msg/6a89029a5b5be5f8
>
> 119- -hh: 'Perversion has utterly nothing to do with the
> definition of "synonymous". It is, however, a very clear example
> of how you attempt to maliciously debase against anyone who
> disagrees with you. As such, I consider this to be a purposeful
> attempt by you to try to libel me. This is your only warning to
> consider rescinding your remark, with the reminder that you, and
> you alone are responsible for that accusation, both in the
> ethical as well as the full legal meaning of the word "responsible".'
>
>
> 120- Geezer:
> Snit: "Steve Carroll has no sense of morality"
> Geezer: "Whined the guy who cannot directly address those who
> uncover his lies and deceit;)"
> Snit: "and no clue about the law."
> Geezer: 'Said the guy who believes his unsupported opinions are
> "proof". LOL! (snip more of Snit's unsupported lies)'
>
>
> 121- RonB: "Snit is a crank fixated on one issue, who's thing is
> twisting your words so he can win an argument against a straw
> man. That's enough to killfile him."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/ce8550d4cc5b1b42
You forgot another one found in this very thread (I think it sums
things up nicely;)
Don Ziegler: "Michael "Messiah Complex" Glasser".
Google Message-ID: <1e645q58...@this.domain.or.that>
And here's a thread just for Snit (appropriately entitled: Snit -
Disruptive Troll)
George Orwell: "COLA has been infested with what we call wintrolls for
years.
These are posters whose sole purpose is to incite flame wars. A nasty
development
a year or so ago was for some of these wintrolls to crosspost to other
newsgroups in
the hope of causing more disruption.
You appear to be in the latter category. Starting crossposted threads
for the simple
purpose of hoping to generate a flame war".
By the way... the material you've attributed to Geezer was actually
written by me... so I guess we're back to 122. Snit absolutely *hates*
this list with a passion... he's whined about it constantly. Look for
him to try and focus on you instead of the list's content... as if
doing so diminishes that content in any way... too funny. He has a
"psych degree", you know;)
Peter Köhlmann
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickRE...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Gary M. Stewart wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:15:10 +0900, Wally wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 1) I post a lot. That puts me in their targets.
>>>> Many people post a lot, It's clearly not that, you lie a lot? Yup
>>>> that'll do it!
>>>
>>> As far as comp.os.linux.advocacy is concerned, all you have to do is
>>> point out a negative aspect of Linux, no matter how true and no matter
>>> how much credibility it has the Linux loons will label you a troll and
>>> tar and feather you.
>>
>>
>> Untrue. What will get you labelled, tarred and feathered is banging on
>> and on about how crap linux is without stating anything
>> positive. Ever.
>
> Rubbish. See the attempted discussions on the benefits of a consistent
> UI over the entire desktop suite for an example. We actually had posters
> here telling us that a good consistent UI was a waste of a programmers
> time and only retards needed one. Hard to believe I know, but true.
>
If it is true, you certainly will be able to show us some MSg-IDs, right,
liar Hadron Quark?
It isn't true. As usual you distort and misrepresent what really was
written.
Come on, you lying POS, prove your claims. After all, it would be for the
very first time.
You are just as bad as Snot Michael Glasser, who never is able to actually
point to posts he says "prove what he claims". You are just a dishonest
POS like that cretinous twit
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> As predicted: Made am accusation of "contradictions" but did not even try to
> support his claim.
Why do you think that I used the quote below Snit? LOL
Because I knew that I would not need to dredge up an old contradiction from
you Snit, I deliberately chose that one because I knew you could not resist
supplying a nice fresh one!
As I have told you Snit ... You are *that* predictable!
Do you remember this exchange Snit?...
Steve Carroll wrote...
"With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
Snit then responded...
"Great quote... just added it to my sigs.
"With enough glue... anything is possible" -- Steve Carroll"-Snit
I then asked Snit...
"And you don't find removing the smiley dishonest? ...Shame on you!"-Wally
To which Snit replied...
"I can see the concern... while it is *undoubtedly* far, far more honest
than Steve repeatedly attributing his own quotes to me (as he has done) it
is not a full complete quote. I will correct it."-Snit
Snit admits that there *was* a concern with the way he was portraying the
quote that he supplied and attributed to Steve Carroll .. the exact same one
that I posted in this later post and that Snit had again attributed to Steve
Carroll!
And just for good measure it can be plainly seen that Snit lied when he
said..
"I will correct it."-Snit
As can be seen by this latest reply from him ... He hasnšt, he is *still*
posting....
"With enough glue... anything is possible"
And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
Contradictions and lies .... Snit's calling cards!
> Later:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa93eae84730a761>
> Freaks out completely, posting a bunch of quotes taken completely out of
> context and attributing Steve Carroll's quotes to *me*. Specifically:
> "With enough glue... anything is possible".
>
> Also posts quotes he has
> completely fabricated, as far as I can tell. They do not appear to be in
> the Google archive, but the search is being flakey there again.
But that doesnšt stop you jumping to the conclusion that they are fabricated
does it Snit?
Point out the quotes in question.
Steve Carroll
> On 4/1/09 12:17 PM, in article C585783C.E8255%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
(snip Snit getting his head bashed in by reality)
> "I live a fairly conservative life style - one wife... no drugs...
> heterosexual... would never support my wife having an abortion..."-Snit
>
> Ever considered keeping some information to yourself Snit?
Notice how Snit lied and says "no drugs". The fact of the matter is
that I've pointed to numerous posts of Snit's where he's talked about
having taken extremely powerful medications that left him feeling
drugged. Here's a post of Snit's where he makes it clear that he has
tried "a lot of meds"... (apparently Snit doesn't think "meds" are
"drugs"). LOL!
"I used to have a very high tolerance. Now a lot of meds seems to
react oddly with me. Seems I can add alcohol to that list. Damn that
was frightening".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/msg/046fceb5eccc0f22?hl=en&dmode=source
I dunno about you, but I believe Snit doesn't have a "very high
tolerance" for drugs and alcohol... as evidenced by the crap he
posts;)
Fact: There are plenty of Snit "drug" posts in the google archive.
I've pointed to many... to Snit's repeated denials.
My prediction: Snit will claim that he is not currently taking any
drugs... which could mean he is not putting a pill in his mouth during
the period of time it took him to type such a statement out. Anyone
who knows Snit knows this is the manner in which he tells the
"truth" ;)
> > For examples of trolls who have focused on this, look at Tim Adams, William
> > "Geoff M. Fitton" Poaster, Sandman, and others.
>
> "It should be illegal to point guns at (and therefore threaten) innocent
> people."-Snit
>
> "To give everyone a nuke (with the ability to USE it) would be a huge
> danger."-Snit
>
> Gee! there's no pulling the wool over Snits eyes, such amazing insight!
>
>
>
> > 4) While I make mistakes, as we all do, I am knowledgeable about computer
> > topics, especially in the areas I generally talk about. My views do not go
> > with the "party line": I think the best form of advocacy is to be honest
> > about a product - warts and all. Both OS X and Linux are well worth
> > advocating, and I do, but both also have problems I have discussed in some
> > depth in the respective forums. The die-hard "advocates" who see advocacy
> > as lying about the product they like do not like my honest and honorable
> > approach to advocacy.
>
> Honest and honorable approach to advocacy.?
Weird how Snit still calls his lies "mistakes", isn't it? I keep
telling him, people just aren't as stupid as he needs them to be...
(snip more funny stuff where reality lands on Snit's head)
Steve Carroll
Of course... like all his other misdeeds... Snit will undoubtedly
label his talking about blackmail as one of his "mistakes".
"Just to be clear, though, I have not told her word one about any of
his
activities and almost surely will not. If he posts a public apology
and
states he will never repeat such actions I will certainly not (even
though
that would not undo the damage he likely has done... I do not even
want to
appear to be sinking to his level)". - Snit
Pathetic.
Snit
C585783C.E8255%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 1/3/09 8:17 PM:
> The question of why I am a mark for the trolls has come up recently. Why do
Reply 1: Steve Carroll.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ca4a215831c0c9f5>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations, and sank to
name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at support for his
accusations. He later quoted me from *years* ago posting to another forum
where he found a reference to my noting I do not do drugs or alcohol,
clearly a reference to illegal drugs. He then tried to equate recreational
drug use (of the type he has made clear he engages in) with using
medications as they are intended to be used... and pretended to know what
medications, if any, I am on now. Utter rubbish. He will go on and on and
on... and expect me to read and reply to his every BS post. He has even
admitted his goal is to overwhelm me by posting too much BS for anyone to
respond to. I have bitten in the past, but I shan't this time. I have
posted plenty of evidence about Steve's repulsive behavior... if anyone
wants to see links to it just ask. He is not worth my time.
Score: Snit 1, Trolls 0
Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations, and sank to
name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at support for his
accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list of scavenged and forged
"quotes", but *none* from me. Not one.
Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
Reply 3: William Geoff M. Fitton Poaster
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/70ef35e0d0ad8656>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations (of blackmail!),
and sank to trying to tie his BS to my business name to pull Google
searchers of people looking for me to *his* BS. He did post a message ID,
but it did not in any way, shape, or form support his bizarre and delusional
accusation of *blackmail*. Where did he even come up with that? Just a
plea for attention?
Score: Snit 3, Trolls 0
Reply 4: Wally - responding to Poaster
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/70ef35e0d0ad8656>
As predicted: Made am accusation of "contradictions" but did not even try to
support his claim. Later:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa93eae84730a761>
Freaks out completely, posting a bunch of quotes taken completely out of
context and attributing Steve Carroll's quotes to *me*. Specifically:
"With enough glue... anything is possible", a quote he later admits, in this
thread, that Steve Carroll authored. Also posts quotes he has completely
fabricated, as far as I can tell. They do not appear to be in the Google
archive, but the search is being flakey there again.
Score: Snit 4, Trolls 0
Reply 5: Don Zeigler
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ab7e2357a484c45b>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave an unsupported accusation, and even
changed the name of the the subject line in his response (hey, I forgot to
predict that one!)
Score: Snit 5, Trolls 0
Reply 6: 7
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b43100a0f694946a>
As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported personal attacks (about my
voice in videos... what???), and then posted information on things other
than the topic. Not sure he even understood what he read. Just weird.
Score: Snit 6, Trolls 0
Reply 7: Peter Köhlmann
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c045b74425f860aa>
Makes accusations against me, namely that I do not prove claims... yet,
ironically, he posts no proof of his claim. Does he intend to be so absurd?
Score: Snit 7, Trolls 0
I wonder how many more will go out of their way to prove me correct? In any
case, please note I predicted they would... they are very, very predictable.
I will not be adding comments from those who have already proved me
correct... even if they post more. I will update this list if other trolls
opt to jump in and prove me correct or, as if, refute my claims and actually
support their BS. LOL. *Not* going to happen, even with my taunting of
them.
Steve Carroll
(snip Snit's delusions)
Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's delusional
lying. Why no comments by you on these lies I'm exposing?
> Reply 1: Steve Carroll.
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ca4a215831c0...>
>
> As predicted: snipped my post,
Of course... and anyone with a working brain will snip away all your
BS (which, btw, doesn't leave much to respond to;)
> gave unsupported accusations
Any accusation that gets proven in concrete fashion gets denied by
you. I've learned that it's much more fun to watch you try to pretend
that a large and growing group of people are all wrong about you;)
> He later quoted me from *years* ago posting to another forum
> where he found a reference to my noting I do not do drugs or alcohol,
A new Snit lie... I love it! Actually, as anyone that can comprehend
what they read can see, I quoted you saying you have taken "a lot of
meds" and alcohol.
"I used to have a very high tolerance. Now a lot of meds seems to
react oddly with me. Seems I can add alcohol to that list. Damn
that
was frightening".
Only you would try to pass this off as a "reference" to you "noting"
that you "do not do drugs or alcohol";) Below is this post in its
entirety... feel free to show how it "supports" your obvious LIE that
this post is a reference to your "noting" that you "do not do drugs or
alcohol" any time you'd like. LOL! Hadron should read it, too, though
I fully don't expect him to comment on it;)
[begin quoted material of Snit in thread entitled:
"AAAAAGGGHHHthpuuy!"]
Subject says it all...sorta. Having my first pretty major attack in
over a month. have felt faint on and off for the past couple of
days... didn't do my breathing exercises (IDIOT!!!!!)
managed to go shopping today - had to run to nasty supermarket
bathroom and breath into my paperbag and regain my composure. Also
had a bit of IBS... I'll spare the details :)
Got the brilliant idea that that a glass of wine with dinner might
help
me to relax. Came home. Felt a bit better, even was able to take a
10
minute bike ride. Returned home, turned on the tube. Started to
feel
faint and could not catch my breath fully even after 40 min or so.
Decided to hell with it, why wait for dinner, I'll have my glass of
wine
now. Had it. 10 minutes went by and it hit me. Could not catch my
breath. Heart pounding. Great desire to call 911. Calling out to
my
girlfriend who is not even home. Telling our stuffed animals to make
sure they tell her I love her. Realizing they probably won't do it.
Getting ready to run outside. Callapsing on the bed. Trying to
breath
right. Trying to NOT focus on rapid heart beat. Palpatations won't
let
me focus on anything else. Cry a little. Breath in. Breath out.
In.
Out. IN. OUT. In. Out. I am not going to die. NOT GOING TO
DIE.
NOT GOING TO DIE.
Well, I am quite a bit better now.
There has been some debate as to the effects of alcohol on people. I
still do not think that a glass of wine or a beer is a problem.
Certainly an alcolhol addiction or other problem is a problem for
anybody, AD or not...
I used to have a very high tolerance. Now a lot of meds seems to
react
oddly with me. Seems I can add alcohol to that list. Damn that was
frightening.
[end quoted material]
Funny how you used the word "Now" in this old post in reference to "a
lot of meds"... you know, a post you're "now" (as in today) claiming
is a "reference" to your "noting" how you "do not do drugs or
alcohol". Also funny is how you talk about "my glass of wine now"
while you are currently trying to sell the idea that it is a reference
that 'notes' your abstinence from drugs and alcohol.
People just aren't as stupid as you need them to be, Snit... they just
aren't.
Hadron
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> writes:
> On Jan 4, 8:43 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> (snip Snit's delusions)
>
>
> Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's delusional
> lying. Why no comments by you on these lies I'm exposing?
You're quite mad. I don't know what Snit has done to you but you haven't
posted evidence of any lies whatsoever.
Enough of this lunacy.
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> writes:
> > On Jan 4, 8:43 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip Snit's delusions)
>
> > Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's delusional
> > lying. Why no comments by you on these lies I'm exposing?
>
> You're quite mad.
Which is why you snipped the proof that Snit lied, right?
LOL!
Snit
gjqnqg$jpv$4...@edwardhall.motzarella.org on 1/4/09 9:23 AM:
Steve Carroll cannot point to any wrong doing on my part, so he point to the
fact that I have posted to a support group for people who suffer from a
specific health disorder. He then uses those posts - from years ago to a
*support* forum - as a part of his trolling.
I have had health concerns in my life.
I have used prescription medications.
Steve has me on that! Oh no!
Steve Carroll has made it clear, in public, that he is obsessed with glue
huffing and other recreational drug use. He wants people to think I am a
drug abuser like he undoubtedly is, so he dredges up comments where I talk
about using prescription meds. For what it is worth, it his (ex?)girlfriend
who pulled up those quotes (years ago) and I was able to find that she had
similar health concerns that she had posted about!
But Steve thinks it is fair and reasonable to act this way. He has no
problem with cross-posting his BS to the support forum. Here are just some
of his posts to that forum:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/search?hl=en&group
=alt.support.anxiety-panic&q=author%3Acarroll>
or <http://snipurl.com/carroll-trolls-asap>
Holy cow! Right now Google is showing 232 posts of his to that forum. And
that is just under his "Steve Carroll" name. Do a search for his other
names and you will surely find more.
Click on *any* of his post there and see if you can find any examples of him
talking about any health related support issue. I bet not. You will find
him making such statements as these:
Snit is the biggest liar in Usenet history. He sexually
harasses women and is a rapist. He accuses me of cheating on
my wife when I talk about just visiting them. He trolled
anxiety newsgroups under the name Brock McNuggets. It is to
the point where you are either with those of us who are
reasonable or you are against us and there is no middle
ground. Take a stand and side against Snit and show you are
not as much of an asshole as he is.
I have noticed someone named "Michael Glasser" is posting a
lot of Dreamweaver videos all over the web. Are they any
good?
Who remembers when the lying druggie known as Snit was
posting as "Brock McNuggets" as he showed he was enough of an
asshole to troll an anxiety news group? I know I do. Snit
denies it. Let's let him know how people are not stupid
enough to beleieve his shit.
... also believes you are a lying shitsack (as does virtually
every poster that has come into contact with you in the last
5 years)? Yes, I do. (snip Snit's lies)
Steve Carroll posted those comments to a *health support* forum! It is that
behavior from him that lead me to not responding directly to him... but, I
admit, I have been reading some of his posts recently and have responded
indirectly... and that is just encouraging him.
Steve Carroll is consumed with his hatred. This is has been well
documented. Here is an example of Steve's bigoted attacks:
and where I point out many of the errors and lies in his attack:
<http://snipurl.com/dqek>
<http://snipurl.com/dqen>
Steve Carroll truly is despicable.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Steve Carroll
> "Hadron" <hadronqu...@gmail.com> stated in post
> gjqnqg$jp...@edwardhall.motzarella.org on 1/4/09 9:23 AM:
>
>
>
> > Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >> On Jan 4, 8:43 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> (snip Snit's delusions)
>
> >> Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's delusional
> >> lying. Why no comments by you on these lies I'm exposing?
>
> > You're quite mad. I don't know what Snit has done to you but you haven't
> > posted evidence of any lies whatsoever.
>
> > Enough of this lunacy.
>
> Steve Carroll cannot point to any wrong doing on my part
This is proof that you do not consider lying to be "wrong doing".
Thanks for making this so clear.
Steve Carroll
> "Hadron" <hadronqu...@gmail.com> stated in post
>
>
>
> > Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> >> On Jan 4, 8:43 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> (snip Snit's delusions)
>
> >> Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's delusional
> >> lying. Why no comments by you on these lies I'm exposing?
>
> > You're quite mad. I don't know what Snit has done to you but you haven't
> > posted evidence of any lies whatsoever.
>
> > Enough of this lunacy.
>
> Steve Carroll cannot point to any wrong doing on my part, so he point to the
> fact that I have posted to a support group for people who suffer from a
> specific health disorder. He then uses those posts - from years ago to a
> *support* forum - as a part of his trolling.
>
> I have had health concerns in my life.
> I have used prescription medications.
>
> Steve has me on that! Oh no!
>
> Steve Carroll has made it clear, in public, that he is obsessed with glue
> huffing and other recreational drug use. He wants people to think I am a
> drug abuser like he undoubtedly is, so he dredges up comments where I talk
> about using prescription meds. For what it is worth, it his (ex?)girlfriend
> who pulled up those quotes (years ago) and I was able to find that she had
> similar health concerns that she had posted about!
>
> But Steve thinks it is fair and reasonable to act this way. He has no
> problem with cross-posting his BS to the support forum. Here are just some
> of his posts to that forum:
>
> =alt.support.anxiety-panic&q=author%3Acarroll>
>
> or <http://snipurl.com/carroll-trolls-asap>
>
> Holy cow! Right now Google is showing 232 posts of his to that forum.
Poor Snit... still, trying to pretend his obvious forgeries of me (as
shown here
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/d3b2b785988ca20f?hl=en&dmode=source)
... are posts from me.
Snit
The closest Steve Carroll can get to "evidence" is to use my posts from a
health forum against me... the same forum he trolled repeatedly:
<http://snipurl.com/carroll_spams_asap>
Wait. Steve had that link blocked. Well, this is what it pointed to:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/search?hl=en&group
=alt.support.anxiety-panic&q=author%3Acarroll&qt_g=Search+this+group>
A listing of 232 posts by Steve Carroll to a health related support group...
*all* of them trolling and spamming the group. For some reason *nobody* in
that group joined in with him in his BS and he never was able to get his
posts to the moderated version of the group.
In other words, Steve's "best" evidence shows him to be one of the worst
examples of a troll I have ever seen on Usenet. And that is just based on
his own "evidence" and what it naturally leads to - a clear admission from
him that he trolls health related forums for material for his trolling in
CSMA and COLA.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Steve de Mena
> On Jan 4, 8:43 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> (snip Snit's delusions)
STOP THE OFF TOPIC POSTS
Snit
C586FF17.F18F%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/4/09 8:04 AM:
> On 4/1/09 11:04 PM, in article C5860FE4.E830A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>
>> As predicted: Made am accusation of "contradictions" but did not even try to
>> support his claim.
>
> Why do you think that I used the quote below Snit? LOL
>
> Because I knew that I would not need to dredge up an old contradiction from
> you Snit, I deliberately chose that one because I knew you could not resist
> supplying a nice fresh one!
> As I have told you Snit ... You are *that* predictable!
>
> Do you remember this exchange Snit?...
>
> Steve Carroll wrote...
>
> "With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
...
> "With enough glue... anything is possible"
>
> And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
Ok, so we agree that Steve Carroll wrote what you attributed to me. Then
you whined about how I presented it, but you, not I, provided the quote from
Steve Carroll... but you falsely attributed it to me. Now you blame *me*
for "using" the quote *you* brought up.
You also "quoted" me saying this:
Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did
state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please
remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and you
claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown that
when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you
might agree with parts of it.
Yet I have repeatedly asked you for when you think *I* authored that quote.
You have yet to show where. Nor will you.
You also accused me of using sock puppets... but provided *no* support.
You quoted me talking about living a conservative life style and then
claimed there was a contradiction because I have used prescription meds!
On and on... you are just spewing BS and bizarre accusations... you know you
have no leg to stand on.
>> Later:
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa93eae84730a761>
>> Freaks out completely, posting a bunch of quotes taken completely out of
>> context and attributing Steve Carroll's quotes to *me*. Specifically:
>> "With enough glue... anything is possible".
>>
>> Also posts quotes he has
>> completely fabricated, as far as I can tell. They do not appear to be in
>> the Google archive, but the search is being flakey there again.
>
> But that doesnšt stop you jumping to the conclusion that they are fabricated
> does it Snit?
>
> Point out the quotes in question.
Look for the ones from Steve Carroll's known other names:
"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Fretwiz *
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Smit
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
Steve Carrroll *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve C *
Yevette Owens
Any from those names are Steve's fabrications. The names with asterisks, by
the way, are ones Steve has directly admitted to at some time in the past...
as if he thinks the others are not well known. Then again, Steve also back
pedals and then later denies the ones he has admitted to... and other times
blames his news reader and OS for *making* him use sock puppets. He is,
literally, insane, or at least portrays himself that way in public.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
High Plains Thumper
> Snit wrote:
>>> Steve Carroll writes:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (snip Snit's delusions)
>>>>
>>>> Hadron... this is yet another classic example of Snit's
>>>> delusional lying. Why no comments by you on these lies
>>>> I'm exposing?
>>>
>>> You're quite mad. I don't know what Snit has done to you
>>> but you haven't posted evidence of any lies whatsoever.
>>> Enough of this lunacy.
>>
>> Steve Carroll cannot point to any wrong doing on my part
>
> This is proof that you do not consider lying to be "wrong
> doing". Thanks for making this so clear.
Greatest lie of all:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a6db39aca51fa31d
Snit: "I am, of course, honest and honorable... something which
some people appreciate but others fear. And loath."
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
>
> Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
>
> As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations,
> and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
> support for his accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list
> of scavenged and forged "quotes", but *none* from me. Not
> one.
>
> Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
Rather, Snit & Trolls 0, Advocates 2
From quoted link:
[quote]
There is no targeting. People get tired of Michael Glasser's
continuous Snit Circus gross cut and pasting, denials even with
evidence shown, off-topic rants, redirecting a discussion that
originated as an on topic post into a post about him. These 121
posters have captured in all their glory their disdain for him.
List was originated by CSMA Moderator and continued by others:
[...] 2- 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."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/4a7c3ebf3fc10221
[...] 18- Edwin: "You've got to be out of your mind, Snit. You're
the worst troll this group has ever seen. You're a liar and a
forger, and you've almost destroyed this group single-handedly.
For you to post a list of out of context arguments, and lies, and
forgeries about your enemies labled as a "peace effort" has to be
one of the craziest stunts you've pulled. It's all about your
sick need for attention, your need to be center stage at all
times. You'd publicly eat dog turd if you thought it would make
people look at you."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/37e4a720619642a0
[...] 77- 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."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fcad2955ac5cb03b
[...] 80- 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."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d521a80051e24d08
[...] 101- zara: "Look - I'm not into combing through thousands
of posts, to prove what was said or not said - I leave stuff like
that to people without lives, like Snit. But it is assuredly, in
the record. Ping Snit to do a search - you will flatter him, and
give meaning to his tawdry little life."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a1d4fc7120a6a538
[...] 116- S'mee (Keith, rec.motorcycles): "Liar...forger and
worthless. You must be related to our resident racist troll, he
lies as much as you."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ab08c00330c8b58d
117- BaJoRi:
Snit: "You are, of course, lying."
BaJoRi: "No, I am not. You know it, and I know it, and everyone
else who has read your idiocy knows it. I took your statement,
showed it to be wrong, then added even more, just to be a dick
and REALLY show you to be a fool. You need to judiciously snip
out pertinent points because you are an intellectually dwarfed
turd-burglar."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.vacation.las-vegas/msg/647944511b74b82f
118- KK: 'Whoa there, ad hominem man. You started off your
sentence with "Ah" like you'd just realized something profound.'
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.howard-stern/msg/6a89029a5b5be5f8
119- -hh: 'Perversion has utterly nothing to do with the
definition of "synonymous". It is, however, a very clear example
of how you attempt to maliciously debase against anyone who
disagrees with you. As such, I consider this to be a purposeful
attempt by you to try to libel me. This is your only warning to
consider rescinding your remark, with the reminder that you, and
you alone are responsible for that accusation, both in the
ethical as well as the full legal meaning of the word "responsible".'
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5496641a3426293a
120- Geezer:
Snit: "Steve Carroll has no sense of morality"
Geezer: "Whined the guy who cannot directly address those who
uncover his lies and deceit;)"
Snit: "and no clue about the law."
Geezer: 'Said the guy who believes his unsupported opinions are
"proof". LOL! (snip more of Snit's unsupported lies)'
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d0517ced5134934d
121- RonB: "Snit is a crank fixated on one issue, who's thing is
twisting your words so he can win an argument against a straw
man. That's enough to killfile him."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/ce8550d4cc5b1b42
[/quote]
--
HPT
Snit
gjr4dm$sle$1...@news.motzarella.org on 1/4/09 12:58 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>>
>> Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
>>
>> As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations,
>> and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
>> support for his accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list
>> of scavenged and forged "quotes", but *none* from me. Not
>> one.
>>
>> Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
>
> Rather, Snit & Trolls 0, Advocates 2
>
> From quoted link:
You "forgot" to quote me! You "accidently" quoted about a dozen other
people... but did not quote *me*... you know the one you are trying to show
lied.
Man, you really suck at this whole supporting your accusations thing. Don't
you get the simple *fact* that to show me lying you have to *quote* the lie.
But you can't.
If it took ripping your left leg off to just find those alleged lies from me
you know you would do so... face it, HPT, you have placed yourself in a
position where the fact your accusations are dishonest is just glowingly
obvious.
--
I think we [the folks who make Linux desktops] don't yet deliver a good
enough user experience.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Hadron
> "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
> gjr4dm$sle$1...@news.motzarella.org on 1/4/09 12:58 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
>>>
>>> As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations,
>>> and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
>>> support for his accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list
>>> of scavenged and forged "quotes", but *none* from me. Not
>>> one.
>>>
>>> Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
>>
>> Rather, Snit & Trolls 0, Advocates 2
>>
>> From quoted link:
>
> You "forgot" to quote me! You "accidently" quoted about a dozen other
> people... but did not quote *me*... you know the one you are trying to show
> lied.
>
> Man, you really suck at this whole supporting your accusations thing. Don't
> you get the simple *fact* that to show me lying you have to *quote* the lie.
>
> But you can't.
>
> If it took ripping your left leg off to just find those alleged lies from me
> you know you would do so... face it, HPT, you have placed yourself in a
> position where the fact your accusations are dishonest is just glowingly
> obvious.
Not even COLA "advocates" pay any attention to High Plains
Hypocrite. They all think he's a bit of a loony and as thick as pig
shit. Don Diggler, the wire haired gigolo, only throws him a bone once
in a while because he needs another suckup to show him some attention.
--
"Are Linux systems perfect. Uh, no."
-- Rick <no...@nomail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
William Poaster
I suppose the "honest and honorable" bit includes attempted blackmail in
Michael Snit Glasser's world.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I'll do better than that Snit, I'll show you agreeing that you said it and
even explaining why you said it....
Wally wrote...
"Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did state that you
did not agree with it "at all". Please remember I pointed out a a partial
part of it, and you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown
that when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you might agree
with parts of it. Your logic is faulty". --Snit
Snit replied...
"I do not see how it is possible to partially agree with something that you
do not agree with "at all". That was the claim I was arguing against... and
one you clearly need help with understanding."-Snit
Note that in your reply you are again suggesting that there had been partial
agreement whereas your quote clearly indicates that there had not!
It is no wonder you are so confused Snit, you should at the very least be
able to understand what *you* said .... but you can't!
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> Hadron stated:
>>>>> Steve Carroll writes:
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (snip Snit's delusions)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hadron... this is yet another classic example of
>>>>>> Snit's delusional lying. Why no comments by you on
>>>>>> these lies I'm exposing?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're quite mad. I don't know what Snit has done to
>>>>> you but you haven't posted evidence of any lies
>>>>> whatsoever. Enough of this lunacy.
>>>>
>>>> Steve Carroll cannot point to any wrong doing on my part
>>>
>>> This is proof that you do not consider lying to be "wrong
>>> doing". Thanks for making this so clear.
>>
>> Greatest lie of all:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a6db39aca51fa31d
>>
>> Snit: "I am, of course, honest and honorable... something
>> which some people appreciate but others fear. And loath."
>
> I suppose the "honest and honorable" bit includes attempted
> blackmail in Michael Snit Glasser's world.
If you notice how the trolls work, they work in teams. Currently
Michael is working with Hadron. DFS and Gary shared a bed along
with Hadron. Ezekiel works along side all of them. Older trolls
such as Tim Smith and Erik Funkenbusch put in their occasional barbs.
Hadron and Ezekiel also work from motzarella.org, thinking to
have immunity to do their dirty work of trashing this newsgroup.
All use ad hominem attacks to advocating posters, to tire them of
posting in this newsgroup. Roy Culley was correct in his
statement made a couple years ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d521a80051e24d08
They also use psychology, creating personality profiles on
individuals, based on what can be gleened by posting styles and
content. It appears that there is more to the picture than is
presented on the surface.
Similar to a criminal who denies they did anything wrong after a
crime was committed, they accuse Roy of his comments regarding
flatfish's admittance of renumeration for trolling COLA.
Their lack of respect for the charter of this newsgroup, the FAQ
that was approved by the advocating community and posting
community itself is demonstration of a criminal mind.
Come to think of it, there are no "quality" wintrolls herein who
would have been able to give sound, non-offensive rhetoric. COLA
is now in the mop-up phase.
Comes Versus Microsoft Lawsuit, Evangelism document
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf
PDF page 45: [quote] During the mopping-up phase, ensure that the
enemy technology is routed. Use the press, the Internet, etc. to
heighten the impression that the enemy is desperate, demoralized,
defeated, deceased. [/quote]
PDF page 55: [quote] In the Mopping Up phase, Evangelism's goal
is to put the final nail into the competing technology's coffin,
and bury it in the burning depths of the earth.
Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated with
mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny, and OS/2." Just keep rubbing it in, via the press,
analysts, newsgroups, whatever.
^^^^^^^^^^
make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of
the mythology of the computer industry. [/quote]
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
Snit
...
>>> Steve Carroll wrote...
>>>
>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
>>
>> ...
>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible"
>>>
>>> And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
>>
>> Ok, so we agree that Steve Carroll wrote what you attributed to me. Then
>> you whined about how I presented it, but you, not I, provided the quote from
>> Steve Carroll... but you falsely attributed it to me. Now you blame *me*
>> for "using" the quote *you* brought up.
Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve Carroll.
As far as I can find in any archive, I never wrote:
Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
you claimed you did not agree with that
But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I called
you on it later.
And you have been running ever since. Come on, Wally... what is the Message
ID of the post you think I said that?
My guess: you made it up... but at *best*, for you, I made a typo and you
caught it... how many years past the time I even supposedly made this error?
But, wait... how did you catch an error if you cannot even find the message
it came from? That makes very little sense... so, most likely, you are just
fabricating BS again. And your "defense" is I did not catch in the above
exchange... I only caught you later.
How pathetic.
--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman
Snit
4961723a$0$17068$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org on 1/4/09 7:36 PM:
> If you notice how the trolls work, they work in teams. Currently
> Michael is working with Hadron.
Working with him?
Trolls?
Wow... didn't you say you were going to post about Linux and not your
paranoid delusions.
...
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper stated:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6519b6fde775082>
>>>
>>> As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported
>>> accusations, and sank to name calling. He made no effort
>>> to even *hint* at support for his accusations. He did
>>> post Steve Carroll's list of scavenged and forged
>>> "quotes", but *none* from me. Not one.
>>>
>>> Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
>>
>> Rather, Snit & Trolls 0, Advocates 2
>>
>> From quoted link:
>>
>> Glasser's continuous Snit Circus gross cut and pasting,
>> denials even with evidence shown, off-topic rants,
>> redirecting a discussion that originated as an on topic post
>> into a post about him. These 121 posters have captured in
>> all their glory their disdain for him. List was originated
>> by CSMA Moderator and continued by others:
>>
>> You're the worst troll this group has ever seen. You're a
>> liar and a forger, and you've almost destroyed this group
>> single-handedly. For you to post a list of out of context
>> arguments, and lies, and forgeries about your enemies labled
>> as a "peace effort" has to be one of the craziest stunts
>> you've pulled. It's all about your sick need for attention,
>> your need to be center stage at all times. You'd publicly
>> eat dog turd if you thought it would make people look at
>> you."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/37e4a720619642a0
>>
>> 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."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d521a80051e24d08
>>
>> the definition of "synonymous". It is, however, a very
>> clear example of how you attempt to maliciously debase
>> against anyone who disagrees with you. As such, I consider
>> this to be a purposeful attempt by you to try to libel me.
>> This is your only warning to consider rescinding your
>> remark, with the reminder that you, and you alone are
>> responsible for that accusation, both in the ethical as well
>> as the full legal meaning of the word "responsible".'
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5496641a3426293a
>>
>>
>> who's thing is twisting your words so he can win an argument
>> against a straw man. That's enough to killfile him."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/ce8550d4cc5b1b42
>> [/quote]
>
> dozen other people... but did not quote *me*... you know the
> one you are trying to show lied.
Lie. In order to spot a counterfeit, the US Treasury agents
spend hours studying the real dollar bill, so that when they see
a phony, they can spot it right away.
Similarly, since there is no authentic and worthwhile content to
your messages (one only need to read your inflated ego inspired
rubbish herein), there is no need to quote a phony such as you.
[snip rest of troll rant]
--
HPT
Snit
>> You "forgot" to quote me! You "accidently" quoted about a
>> dozen other people... but did not quote *me*... you know the
>> one you are trying to show lied.
>
> Lie. In order to spot a counterfeit, the US Treasury agents
> spend hours studying the real dollar bill, so that when they see
> a phony, they can spot it right away.
>
> Similarly, since there is no authentic and worthwhile content to
> your messages (one only need to read your inflated ego inspired
> rubbish herein), there is no need to quote a phony such as you.
So point to one of these "phony" messages where I allegedly lied.
But you won't.
You can't.
You have backed yourself in to a corner - made it all too clear that your
accusations are utter rubbish. Oh well.
Not like anyone believed you in the first place, eh?
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolution had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5878CE6.F1DA%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/4/09 6:09 PM:
>
> ...
>>>> Steve Carroll wrote...
>>>>
>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible"
>>>>
>>>> And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
>>>
>>> Ok, so we agree that Steve Carroll wrote what you attributed to me. Then
>>> you whined about how I presented it, but you, not I, provided the quote from
>>> Steve Carroll... but you falsely attributed it to me. Now you blame *me*
>>> for "using" the quote *you* brought up.
>
> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve Carroll.
What do you think that was Snit?...
That says all that is needed to be said about that particular lie from you
Snit!
So you admit that you are so inept as not to be able to find a msg authored
by you that clearly shows you stating those words Snit?
Yes or no? (as I have no trouble at all finding such a msg!)
And even though you can clearly be shown explaining 'why' you used those
words you still cant except the fact that you did in fact use those words?
Yes or no?
The implication of a yes being that you must believe that you were stupid
enough to explain why you used a phrase that you didnšt actually use!
Do you believe you are *that* stupid Snit?
Yes or no?
>
> But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I called
> you on it later.
Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this thread question me
about *that* quote from you?
> And you have been running ever since.
"ever since" when Snit? When was I supposed to have started running from
giving you the link that you require, I have the link now as I have always
had and would have supplied it in a heartbeat had you asked, so when did you
previously ask Snit?
Is it the case that not only can you not remember what you did say but you
find yourself remembering things you said that you didnšt *actually* say
Snit? Is that about the size of it?
> Come on, Wally... what is the Message
> ID of the post you think I said that?
The msg ID of the post where I *think* you said that Snit is where all your
other delusions reside, I can't say exactly where that may be!
I only have a link to a post where you are clearly seen to say what I have
quoted!
> My guess: you made it up... but at *best*, for you, I made a typo and you
> caught it... how many years past the time I even supposedly made this error?
Make up your mind Snit ... Did I make it up, or are you falling back to your
'typo' defense?
But I should warn you that the quote came at the conclusion of a pretty long
thread that can be followed step for step which clearly shows how you
arrived at the quote you made Snit, and there was clearly no typo involved!
> But, wait... how did you catch an error if you cannot even find the message
> it came from?
Exactly! proving that there was no error as I have indeed got the link!
> That makes very little sense...
Then it would have something in common with your quote Snit! wouldnšt it?
> so, most likely, you are just fabricating BS again.
So because of your poor search skills you are once again back to guessing?
> And your "defense" is I did not catch in the above exchange... I only caught
> you later.
If you look closely .... (your poor as they are search skills should be able
to find this as it's in this post) ... You will see that *that* was your
defense Snit! LOL
> How pathetic.
Your defenses usually are!
RonB
> What do you think that was Snit?...
You used "Snit" and "think" in the same sentence.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Snit
> On 5/1/09 11:48 AM, in article C586C322.E8671%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>> C5878CE6.F1DA%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/4/09 6:09 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Steve Carroll wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible"
>>>>>
>>>>> And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so we agree that Steve Carroll wrote what you attributed to me. Then
>>>> you whined about how I presented it, but you, not I, provided the quote
>>>> from
>>>> Steve Carroll... but you falsely attributed it to me. Now you blame *me*
>>>> for "using" the quote *you* brought up.
>>
>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve Carroll.
>
> What do you think that was Snit?...
Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely attributed
a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly, am
not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
>>>> You also "quoted" me saying this:
>>>>
>>>> Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did
>>>> state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please
>>>> remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and you
>>>> claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown that
>>>> when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you
>>>> might agree with parts of it.
>>>>
>>>> Yet I have repeatedly asked you for when you think *I* authored that quote.
>>>> You have yet to show where. Nor will you.
...
>> As far as I can find in any archive, I never wrote:
>>
>> Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
>> you claimed you did not agree with that
>
> So you admit that you are so inept as not to be able to find a msg authored
> by you that clearly shows you stating those words Snit?
I have not been able to find any message where I authored such a quote.
Nope.
Nor, apparently, have you.
But if you have, well, you are making a big deal out of an obvious typo...
but I suppose that is a step up from just falsely attributing a quote to me,
as you admit you did with the quote from Steve Carroll.
...
>> But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I called
>> you on it later.
>
> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this thread question me
> about *that* quote from you?
Repeatedly and recently, Wally. Just a few examples,
In response to your post: <C5815627.EED9%Wa...@wally.world.net>
-----
I see your game. You changed your claim to "quote" me saying
something that, as far as I can tell, I never did. Point to
the post.
But you won't.
My claim is that if someone does not agree with something "at
all" then they should not claim to agree with parts of it.
And you just want to argue. Oh well.
-----
And, hey, I was right!
In response to your post: <C5827B79.EF74%Wa...@wally.world.net>
-----
Quote the post it came from.
As if you could. As I have noted, I looked for the exact
text you "quoted" and did not find it in anything I authored.
I bet you will not find it either.
Seems you fabricated a quote of mine and then want me to
defend your creation. How clever of you, eh?
-----
In response to your post: <C582ACB3.EF92%Wa...@wally.world.net>
-----
Your first "quoting" of me:
-----
You did state that you did not agree with it "at all.....
.....when you say you do not agree with something "at
all" you might agree with parts of it.
-----
Your later expansion:
-----
You did state that you did not agree with it "at all".
Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have
shown that when you say you do not agree with something
"at all" you might agree with parts of it.
-----
You could not provide a message ID nor a link to either of
your renditions of your "quotes" of me.
So when did I say what you said I did? Did you just make it
up? I cannot find any post where I said what you said I did.
-----
In response to your post: <C582F789.EFA2%Wa...@wally.world.net>
Much of the same as the above, but also:
-----
Neither of those comments you attribute to me were authored
by me in the last year, no less last 30 minutes.
And you have failed to show where I said those things "at
all." I have been asking you to show what post you think I
said what you attributed to me.
And you are failing. Miserably.
But you are doing a fine job running from the debate we were
having were you repeatedly ran to an irrelevant metaphorical
use of the word "synonymous" that *still* showed you to be a
pervert.
And you will get your co-trolls approval... watch as Steve
Carroll and Tim Adams slap you on your back for your lovely
trolling.
100% predictable.
-----
And also in this thread. How the heck could you miss all of those?
...
>> Come on, Wally... what is the Message ID of the post you think I said that?
>
> The msg ID of the post where I *think* you said that Snit is where all your
> other delusions reside, I can't say exactly where that may be!
I accept that you have no thoughts as to what the message ID is. OK.
So you lied. Not like *that* is a surprise. What is surprising is that you
just admitted to it. Thanks!
You have now admitted to attributing a quote from Steve Carroll to me and
you have admitted to attributing a quote to me where you do not even have
any thoughts on what message ID it could have come from.
Amazing.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Snit
> On 5/1/09 3:50 PM, in article gjsaoa$md8$1...@reader.motzarella.org, "RonB"
> <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wally wrote:
>>
>>> What do you think that was Snit?...
>>
>> You used "Snit" and "think" in the same sentence.
>
> Damn! my mistake, thank you :)
>
Ahhh... the trolls are cuddling again.
--
... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C587D9C5.F205%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/4/09 11:37 PM:
>
>> On 5/1/09 11:48 AM, in article C586C322.E8671%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> C5878CE6.F1DA%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/4/09 6:09 PM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>> Steve Carroll wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible:)"
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "With enough glue... anything is possible"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And attributing it to Steve Carroll!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, so we agree that Steve Carroll wrote what you attributed to me. Then
>>>>> you whined about how I presented it, but you, not I, provided the quote
>>>>> from
>>>>> Steve Carroll... but you falsely attributed it to me. Now you blame *me*
>>>>> for "using" the quote *you* brought up.
>>>
>>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
>>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve Carroll.
>>
>> What do you think that was Snit?...
>
> Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely attributed
> a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly, am
> not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
Should I wait for the coherent version of the above to appear Snit.... You
are working on one?
>
>>>>> You also "quoted" me saying this:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did
>>>>> state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please
>>>>> remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and you
>>>>> claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown that
>>>>> when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you
>>>>> might agree with parts of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet I have repeatedly asked you for when you think *I* authored that
>>>>> quote.
>>>>> You have yet to show where. Nor will you.
>
> ...
>
>>> As far as I can find in any archive, I never wrote:
>>>
>>> Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
>>> you claimed you did not agree with that
>>
>> So you admit that you are so inept as not to be able to find a msg authored
>> by you that clearly shows you stating those words Snit?
>
> I have not been able to find any message where I authored such a quote.
> Nope.
At least you agree that you are inept, not that you could avoid admitting
that!
> Nor, apparently, have you.
Why apparently?
> But if you have,
Ah so it's not quite so apparent after all! LOL
> well, you are making a big deal out of an obvious typo...
An obvious typo in a post that you can't even find? LOL
> but I suppose that is a step up from just falsely attributing a quote to me,
> as you admit you did with the quote from Steve Carroll.
That would be the quote where you admit that your version of it offered
certain concerns? Gee I wonder what those concerns were! :-)
> ...
>>> But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I called
>>> you on it later.
>>
>> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this thread question me
>> about *that* quote from you?
>
> Repeatedly and recently, Wally. Just a few examples,
>
> In response to your post: <C5815627.EED9%Wa...@wally.world.net>
> -----
> I see your game. You changed your claim to "quote" me saying
> something that, as far as I can tell, I never did. Point to
> the post.
> But you won't.
> My claim is that if someone does not agree with something "at
> all" then they should not claim to agree with parts of it.
> And you just want to argue. Oh well.
> -----
The quote originated in a post from you in 2004 toward the end of a fairly
long thread, and you are only now seeking it's origin? Gee Snit it's not as
though you have shown any urgency on the matter is it? ROTF
> And, hey, I was right!
Saying I *won't* will in the fullness of time be proven to be wrong!
> In response to your post: <C5827B79.EF74%Wa...@wally.world.net>
> -----
> Quote the post it came from.
> As if you could. As I have noted, I looked for the exact
> text you "quoted" and did not find it in anything I authored.
> I bet you will not find it either.
> Seems you fabricated a quote of mine and then want me to
> defend your creation. How clever of you, eh?
> -----
You've waited almost five years before wondering where you had authored that
quote Snit .... Why the rush now?
> In response to your post: <C582ACB3.EF92%Wa...@wally.world.net>
> -----
> Your first "quoting" of me:
> -----
> You did state that you did not agree with it "at all.....
> .....when you say you do not agree with something "at
> all" you might agree with parts of it.
> -----
Gee you really are pathetic at searching aren't you Snit? *that* was nowhere
near the first time that I quoted you!
> Your later expansion:
> -----
> You did state that you did not agree with it "at all".
> Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
> you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have
> shown that when you say you do not agree with something
> "at all" you might agree with parts of it.
> -----
> You could not provide a message ID nor a link to either of
> your renditions of your "quotes" of me.
Of course I could! I simply chose not to! by not doing so I have treated
myself to watching you do all sorts of flip flopping ....priceless!
> So when did I say what you said I did? Did you just make it
> up? I cannot find any post where I said what you said I did.
> -----
2004 nearly five years ago Snit!
> In response to your post: <C582F789.EFA2%Wa...@wally.world.net>
> Much of the same as the above, but also:
> -----
> Neither of those comments you attribute to me were authored
> by me in the last year, no less last 30 minutes.
Did I ever suggest that they were Snit? ... Of course not! nice bit of
attempted obfuscation you got going there!
> And you have failed to show where I said those things "at
> all." I have been asking you to show what post you think I
> said what you attributed to me.
And as I have told you, if you want to see a post where I only *think* that
you authored that quote Snit I cannot oblige!
I can only show a post that proves that you *did* author that quote!
> And you are failing. Miserably.
Laughing at you never makes me miserable Snit!
> But you are doing a fine job running from the debate we were
> having were you repeatedly ran to an irrelevant metaphorical
> use of the word "synonymous" that *still* showed you to be a
> pervert.
LOL!
> And you will get your co-trolls approval... watch as Steve
> Carroll and Tim Adams slap you on your back for your lovely
> trolling.
> 100% predictable.
> -----
>
> And also in this thread. How the heck could you miss all of those?
I didnšt!
> ...
>>> Come on, Wally... what is the Message ID of the post you think I said that?
>>
>> The msg ID of the post where I *think* you said that Snit is where all your
>> other delusions reside, I can't say exactly where that may be!
My reply proves that I missed nothing!
> I accept that you have no thoughts as to what the message ID is. OK.
Your acceptance and reality are again seen to be poles apart Snit!
> So you lied. Not like *that* is a surprise. What is surprising is that you
> just admitted to it. Thanks!
As the msg ID of you authoring that quote exists and I have it, there is no
question of me merely thinking that it exists Snit.
> You have now admitted to attributing a quote from Steve Carroll to me and
> you have admitted to attributing a quote to me where you do not even have
> any thoughts on what message ID it could have come from.
LOL
> Amazing.
Fascinating!
chrisv
>On 5/1/09 11:48 AM, in article C586C322.E8671%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
*plonk*
High Plains Thumper
>> part of the mythology of the computer industry. [/quote]
>
>
> Trolls?
>
> Wow... didn't you say you were going to post about Linux and
> not your paranoid delusions.
Bingo! No further questions, your honour.
Yup, the Michael Glasser Snit Circus of pathological lies
continues ....
--
HPT
Wally
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Impressive!
Snit
...
>>>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
>>>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve
>>>> Carroll.
>>>
>>> What do you think that was Snit?...
>>
>> Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely attributed
>> a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly, am
>> not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
>
> Should I wait for the coherent version of the above to appear Snit.... You
> are working on one?
Ask an adult in your life to read it to you. Or even a child past, say, the
third grade.
>
>>
>>>>>> You also "quoted" me saying this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did
>>>>>> state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please
>>>>>> remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and you
>>>>>> claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown that
>>>>>> when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you
>>>>>> might agree with parts of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet I have repeatedly asked you for when you think *I* authored that
>>>>>> quote. You have yet to show where. Nor will you.
...
>> well, you are making a big deal out of an obvious typo...
>
> An obvious typo in a post that you can't even find? LOL
I can see the "quote", above. Seriously, get someone who cares about you to
read things with you. They can explain things in person. It is not my job
to help you with basic reading comprehension.
...
>>>> But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I called
>>>> you on it later.
>>>
>>> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this thread question me
>>> about *that* quote from you?
>>
>> Repeatedly and recently, Wally. Just a few examples,
>>
>> In response to your post: <C5815627.EED9%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>> -----
>> I see your game. You changed your claim to "quote" me saying
>> something that, as far as I can tell, I never did. Point to
>> the post.
>> But you won't.
>> My claim is that if someone does not agree with something "at
>> all" then they should not claim to agree with parts of it.
>> And you just want to argue. Oh well.
>> -----
>
> The quote originated in a post from you in 2004 toward the end of a fairly
> long thread, and you are only now seeking it's origin? Gee Snit it's not as
> though you have shown any urgency on the matter is it? ROTF
As suspected, you are pulling up debates from 2004. You and Carroll really
must have liked that year. Can you figure out why I am "seeking its origin"
now? Hint: it is "now" that you "quoted" it.
Assuming it is a quote.
You still have not provided the message ID. You did dodge, however,
commenting on your error:
Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this
thread question me about *that* quote from you?
How the heck did you miss my asking you? It is not like I asked you merely
once and you somehow missed it. I asked you repeatedly. You replied. In
the last week.
And now you show no recollection. Or, more likely, no comprehension.
Seriously: have someone in your life read with you. They can help you to
understand these simple concepts.
...
>> In response to your post: <C5827B79.EF74%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>> -----
>> Quote the post it came from.
>> As if you could. As I have noted, I looked for the exact
>> text you "quoted" and did not find it in anything I authored.
>> I bet you will not find it either.
>> Seems you fabricated a quote of mine and then want me to
>> defend your creation. How clever of you, eh?
>> -----
>
> You've waited almost five years before wondering where you had authored that
> quote Snit .... Why the rush now?
Gee, you "quote" me and within less than 24 hours I question you. Who cares
when you say the quote is from. Do you not get your error, yet?
>> In response to your post: <C582ACB3.EF92%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>> -----
>> Your first "quoting" of me:
>> -----
>> You did state that you did not agree with it "at all.....
>> .....when you say you do not agree with something "at
>> all" you might agree with parts of it.
>> -----
...
>> Your later expansion:
>> -----
>> You did state that you did not agree with it "at all".
>> Please remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and
>> you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have
>> shown that when you say you do not agree with something
>> "at all" you might agree with parts of it.
>> -----
>> You could not provide a message ID nor a link to either of
>> your renditions of your "quotes" of me.
...
>> So when did I say what you said I did? Did you just make it
>> up? I cannot find any post where I said what you said I did.
>> -----
>
> 2004 nearly five years ago Snit!
So why is this an issue to you, *now*? What the heck?
>> In response to your post: <C582F789.EFA2%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>> Much of the same as the above, but also:
>> -----
>> Neither of those comments you attribute to me were authored
>> by me in the last year, no less last 30 minutes.
>
> Did I ever suggest that they were Snit? ... Of course not! nice bit of
> attempted obfuscation you got going there!
Read your post. I provided the message ID. The only message ID I have asked
you for recently is the one to that alleged quote. And yet you stated:
We may be in for one hell of a wait Tim, especially if Snit
is doing his own research .... He recently asked me to
provide him with the Message ID to a post that he himself had
made just over 30 minutes earlier! LOL
You chastise me for not remembering the exact wording of some post from
2004, but you do not remember the general concepts of your posts from last
Thursday.
Seriously, Wally... have someone who cares about you explain to you why this
is funny... but a bit sad. I am sure you will not get it.
>> And you have failed to show where I said those things "at
>> all." I have been asking you to show what post you think I
>> said what you attributed to me.
>
> And as I have told you, if you want to see a post where I only *think* that
> you authored that quote Snit I cannot oblige!
"only *think*" ? What? Have an adult read my comments to you, Wally.
Seriously.
...
>> And you are failing. Miserably.
...
>> But you are doing a fine job running from the debate we were
>> having were you repeatedly ran to an irrelevant metaphorical
>> use of the word "synonymous" that *still* showed you to be a
>> pervert.
...
>> And you will get your co-trolls approval... watch as Steve
>> Carroll and Tim Adams slap you on your back for your lovely
>> trolling.
>> 100% predictable.
>> -----
>>
>> And also in this thread. How the heck could you miss all of those?
>
> I didnšt!
Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this
thread question me about *that* quote from you?
You are lying.
Again.
You have now:
* Admitted you lied by attributing a quote from Steve Carroll to me.
* Admitted you lied by attributing a quote to me where not even you
have any thoughts as to what message ID it could have come from
(though you insist you dredged it up from 2004!)
* Admitted you lied by pretending to not recall posts from less than
a week prior when you denied my questioning you about the origin
of this "quote".
I am amazed at your signs of honesty, there, Wally. You usually deny your
lies... though I suspect you will flip flop and deny them soon!
--
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C587FAB2.F221%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 1:58 AM:
>
> ...
>>>>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
>>>>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve
>>>>> Carroll.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think that was Snit?...
>>>
>>> Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely attributed
>>> a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly, am
>>> not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
>>
>> Should I wait for the coherent version of the above to appear Snit.... You
>> are working on one?
>
> Ask an adult in your life to read it to you. Or even a child past, say, the
> third grade.
You seem to have a thing about 3rd grade why is that? An unfulfilled
ambition to have gotten that far perhaps?
>>>
>>>>>>> You also "quoted" me saying this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did
>>>>>>> state that you did not agree with it "at all". Please
>>>>>>> remember I pointed out a a partial part of it, and you
>>>>>>> claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown that
>>>>>>> when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you
>>>>>>> might agree with parts of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet I have repeatedly asked you for when you think *I* authored that
>>>>>>> quote. You have yet to show where. Nor will you.
>
> ...
>>> well, you are making a big deal out of an obvious typo...
>>
>> An obvious typo in a post that you can't even find? LOL
>
> I can see the "quote", above.
Then you should stop lying and claiming that you cannot find it Snit!
But as far as the reproduction above is concerned where would you suggest
that the typo occurred?
> Seriously, get someone who cares about you to
> read things with you. They can explain things in person. It is not my job
> to help you with basic reading comprehension.
>
> ...
>>>>> But, yup, I missed calling you on that in the above exchange. But I
>>>>> called
>>>>> you on it later.
>>>>
>>>> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this thread question me
>>>> about *that* quote from you?
>>>
>>> Repeatedly and recently, Wally. Just a few examples,
>>>
>>> In response to your post: <C5815627.EED9%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>>> -----
>>> I see your game. You changed your claim to "quote" me saying
>>> something that, as far as I can tell, I never did. Point to
>>> the post.
>>> But you won't.
>>> My claim is that if someone does not agree with something "at
>>> all" then they should not claim to agree with parts of it.
>>> And you just want to argue. Oh well.
>>> -----
>>
>> The quote originated in a post from you in 2004 toward the end of a fairly
>> long thread, and you are only now seeking it's origin? Gee Snit it's not as
>> though you have shown any urgency on the matter is it? ROTF
>
> As suspected, you are pulling up debates from 2004.
And you'd never do that... Right? ROTFLMAO!
> You and Carroll really
> must have liked that year. Can you figure out why I am "seeking its origin"
> now? Hint: it is "now" that you "quoted" it.
>
> Assuming it is a quote.
Assuming Snit? Forgotten already that you claim to see the quote...
"I can see the "quote", above"-Snit
Do you doubt your own eyes Snit?
>
> You still have not provided the message ID.
Correct, and you are still unable to find it! LOL
> You did dodge, however,
> commenting on your error:
>
> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this
> thread question me about *that* quote from you?
>
> How the heck did you miss my asking you? It is not like I asked you merely
> once and you somehow missed it. I asked you repeatedly. You replied. In
> the last week.
As I have quoted you several times over nearly five years I am simply
wondering why you are so interested now?
> And now you show no recollection. Or, more likely, no comprehension.
>
> Seriously: have someone in your life read with you. They can help you to
> understand these simple concepts.
>
> ...
>>> In response to your post: <C5827B79.EF74%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>>> -----
>>> Quote the post it came from.
>>> As if you could. As I have noted, I looked for the exact
>>> text you "quoted" and did not find it in anything I authored.
>>> I bet you will not find it either.
>>> Seems you fabricated a quote of mine and then want me to
>>> defend your creation. How clever of you, eh?
>>> -----
>>
>> You've waited almost five years before wondering where you had authored that
>> quote Snit .... Why the rush now?
>
> Gee, you "quote" me and within less than 24 hours I question you. Who cares
> when you say the quote is from. Do you not get your error, yet?
Well you should if you ever expect to be able to search properly as your
method obviously leaves a lot to be desired!
I will at anytime take the opportunity to show how dysfunctional you are
Snit... But it's not really an 'issue' to me Snit ... It just seems to
happen so regularly is all!
>>> In response to your post: <C582F789.EFA2%Wa...@wally.world.net>
>>> Much of the same as the above, but also:
>>> -----
>>> Neither of those comments you attribute to me were authored
>>> by me in the last year, no less last 30 minutes.
>>
>> Did I ever suggest that they were Snit? ... Of course not! nice bit of
>> attempted obfuscation you got going there!
>
> Read your post. I provided the message ID. The only message ID I have asked
> you for recently is the one to that alleged quote. And yet you stated:
> We may be in for one hell of a wait Tim, especially if Snit
> is doing his own research .... He recently asked me to
> provide him with the Message ID to a post that he himself had
> made just over 30 minutes earlier! LOL
The original quote did not involve me Snit, so why would I direct you to it?
The example that I gave did involve me...
"For example in all of these exchanges you have only shown what I clearly
*disagreed* with......"-Wally
You then snipped everything above....
"Wow! Snit is suddenly mute on that particular subject! LOL"
..... Which included the example that I offered and your quotes, it was
those quote that I was referring to, as you well know!
>
> You chastise me for not remembering the exact wording of some post from
> 2004,
You claimed that I made it up Snit, so exact wording isn't the issue
claiming that you didnšt say it at all is the issue.
> but you do not remember the general concepts of your posts from last
> Thursday.
Better than you it seems!
> Seriously, Wally... have someone who cares about you explain to you why this
> is funny... but a bit sad. I am sure you will not get it.
>
>>> And you have failed to show where I said those things "at
>>> all." I have been asking you to show what post you think I
>>> said what you attributed to me.
>>
>> And as I have told you, if you want to see a post where I only *think* that
>> you authored that quote Snit I cannot oblige!
>
> "only *think*" ? What? Have an adult read my comments to you, Wally.
You have asked for the post that I think contains the quote that you are the
author of Snit ... I do not know of one that fits that description, but
there is a post that proves without doubt that you are the author, I would
only think it was you if there existed any doubt!
> Seriously.
Yes seriously!
> ...
>>> And you are failing. Miserably.
> ...
>>> But you are doing a fine job running from the debate we were
>>> having were you repeatedly ran to an irrelevant metaphorical
>>> use of the word "synonymous" that *still* showed you to be a
>>> pervert.
> ...
>>> And you will get your co-trolls approval... watch as Steve
>>> Carroll and Tim Adams slap you on your back for your lovely
>>> trolling.
>>> 100% predictable.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> And also in this thread. How the heck could you miss all of those?
>>
>> I didnšt!
>
> Later? When later Snit? When did you ever before this
> thread question me about *that* quote from you?
>
> You are lying.
>
> Again.
>
> You have now:
>
> * Admitted you lied by attributing a quote from Steve Carroll to me.
Wrong!
> * Admitted you lied by attributing a quote to me where not even you
> have any thoughts as to what message ID it could have come from
> (though you insist you dredged it up from 2004!)
Wrong!
> * Admitted you lied by pretending to not recall posts from less than
> a week prior when you denied my questioning you about the origin
> of this "quote".
Wrong!
> I am amazed at your signs of honesty, there, Wally. You usually deny your
> lies... though I suspect you will flip flop and deny them soon!
Yer think? LOL
Snit
> On 5/1/09 11:45 PM, in article C5876B27.E8787%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>> C587FAB2.F221%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 1:58 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been the
>>>>>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve
>>>>>> Carroll.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think that was Snit?...
>>>>
>>>> Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely attributed
>>>> a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly, am
>>>> not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
>>>
>>> Should I wait for the coherent version of the above to appear Snit.... You
>>> are working on one?
>>
>> Ask an adult in your life to read it to you. Or even a child past, say, the
>> third grade.
>
> You seem to have a thing about 3rd grade why is that?
Because it is in the first and third grade when they cover the concepts you
have shown you do not understand.
The idea of what it means to be synonymous is generally covered in the first
grade, the idea of figurative language by at the latest the third. You have
shown you do not have a grasp of these concepts and you operate at below the
third grade level.
I am not saying this to be insulting, Wally. Get yourself tested. If you
really are not being grossly dishonest, then you have a severe learning
disability or are even borderline mentally retarded.
...
>> You have now:
>>
>> * Admitted you lied by attributing a quote from Steve Carroll to me.
>
> Wrong!
>
>> * Admitted you lied by attributing a quote to me where not even you
>> have any thoughts as to what message ID it could have come from
>> (though you insist you dredged it up from 2004!)
>
> Wrong!
>
>> * Admitted you lied by pretending to not recall posts from less than
>> a week prior when you denied my questioning you about the origin
>> of this "quote".
>
> Wrong!
>
>> I am amazed at your signs of honesty, there, Wally. You usually deny your
>> lies... though I suspect you will flip flop and deny them soon!
>
> Yer think? LOL
Yup. And you did. You admitted you lied... and now you are denying it. Oh
well.
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
Steve Carroll
> "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>
>
>
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> Reply 2: High Plains Thumper
>
> >> As predicted: snipped my post, gave unsupported accusations,
> >> and sank to name calling. He made no effort to even *hint* at
> >> support for his accusations. He did post Steve Carroll's list
> >> of scavenged and forged "quotes", but *none* from me. Not
> >> one.
>
> >> Score: Snit 2, Trolls 0
>
> > Rather, Snit & Trolls 0, Advocates 2
>
> > From quoted link:
>
> You "forgot" to quote me!
Whined the lying hypocrite that consistently tries to speak on behalf
of others by purposefully misrepresenting them.
Chris Ahlstrom
After takin' a swig o' grog, Wally belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
Can you dumbass Mac bois keep it in COMA, I mean, CSMA.
--
"I would rather spend 10 hours reading someone else's source code than
10 minutes listening to Musak waiting for technical support which isn't."
(By Dr. Greg Wettstein, Roger Maris Cancer Center)
Tim Adams
wrote:
> On 5/1/09 11:45 PM, in article C5876B27.E8787%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> > C587FAB2.F221%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 1:58 AM:
> >
> > ...
> >>>>> Hey, no comment on my catching you on your lie about *me* having been
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> one author of the quote you have now admitted was authored by Steve
> >>>>> Carroll.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think that was Snit?...
> >>>
> >>> Because you are a coward and a liar. You knowingly and falsely
> >>> attributed
> >>> a quote from Steve Carroll to. You have admitted to this. I, frankly,
> >>> am
> >>> not interested in why you are dishonest... it is a fact that you are.
> >>
> >> Should I wait for the coherent version of the above to appear Snit.... You
> >> are working on one?
> >
> > Ask an adult in your life to read it to you. Or even a child past, say,
> > the
> > third grade.
>
> You seem to have a thing about 3rd grade why is that? An unfulfilled
> ambition to have gotten that far perhaps?
>
Bingo Wally - you hit the nail squarely on the head. If michael, the prescott
computer pervert had 5 more years of schooling he'd be eligible to get into the
third grade. so sad...
~snip
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-94EF2E.17...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
1/5/09 3:43 PM:
...
>>> Ask an adult in your life to read it to you. Or even a child past, say, the
>>> third grade.
>>>
>> You seem to have a thing about 3rd grade why is that? An unfulfilled ambition
>> to have gotten that far perhaps?
>>
> Bingo Wally - you hit the nail squarely on the head.
...
Funny how you so often jump to bad conclusions. Then again, Tim, you are
the person other than Wally who has been struggling with the concepts that
are taught by the third grade:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something a third grader would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
That is why I mention the third grade: because you and he have shown you are
not able to comprehend things at a third grade level.
And you just showed it again, above.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Wally
1299fe76-4a50-4879...@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com, "Steve
Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
Oh so true! And here is a very good example of that very thing .....
Ok first a bit of history the thread in question was ironically titled...
'Worst case of foot-in-mouth' It was started by Snit in Jan 2004.
The irony of that title is pure magic.
Ok where to Start? the whole thread can be read here...
But I'll start about 8 posts in where Elizabot states...
<quote>
Have a look at this exchange:
Snit: (It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here:
"with (the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate
refutations (have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am
wrong."
Elizabot:
I do not agree with that statement at all.
Snit:
Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
seem to agree to that statement.
Elizabot:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
Snit:
So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
the logical possibility that I am wrong."
Fair enough. While I do not accept your argument that there is no logical
chance I am wrong, I will not argue with it.
Elizabot:
Fallacy of Division: It consists of assuming that a property of some thing
must apply to its parts; or that a property of a collection of items is
shared by each item.
Snit:
Now, had you meant that you disagreed with a specific part, you would have
stated so.
Elizabot:
Nope.
Snit:
You did not say that you do not agree with some of its parts, but you did
not agree with the statement "at all".
Elizabot: Correct.
Snit:
You are now trying to claim that you agreed with some parts of it, but
disagreed with other.
Elizabot:
Nope.
Snit:
So which is it? Do you not agree with the statement "at all", or do you
agree with some parts of the statement but not others.
Elizabot:
I disagree with the statement as you have written it. I would have written
"I don't agree with any part of that statement" if that is what I had meant.
Snit:
She later tried to back pedal and claim that she did not agree with it "AS A
WHOLE", but that is not what she said originally. She seems to think that
when she states she does not agree with something "at all" that it makes
sense to later claim she partially agrees with it.
<end quote>
Obviously no where has Snit been able to show where she "later tried to back
pedal....."! In fact later you will see Snit actually states...
"She never hints, implies, or suggests she may agree with any part of
it"-Snit
Snit went on to say...
<quote>
Your not agreeing with the statement "at all" is not consistent with you
agreeing with it in part, as you now seem to imply (though you have not
stated). Simple as that.
You even went out of your way to shove it in my face when I pointed to
another part.... what else did you mean by:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
<end quote>
It's worth noting that Snit is now admitting that Elizabot never stated that
she agreed with anything Snit had stated, and Snit has changed tack to say
that Elizabot implied agreement! (remember that point).
Again a Snit post...
<quote>
In the following, Elizabot clearly shows that when she claims she does not
agree with something "at all", that she may still agree with parts of it.
Where does that confuse you?
Snit:
It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
Elizabot:
I do not agree with that statement at all.
Snit:
Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
seem to agree to that statement.
Elizabot:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
<end quote>
Nowhere does Elizabot show agreement with any of Snits statement, and yet
Snit claims that it can be seen clearly in the quote above!..Where?
Steve Carroll then posts...
<quote>
LOL! No where in there does she show where she *may* agree with
anything. That's an assumption on your part. Apparently, you leapt to
the conclusion that you received an answer for your questions and that
seems to really have you confused... but the fact that you used the word
*may* while leaping should be the big clue for you:) It essentially
tells you there is insufficient data to leap to such a conclusion with
anything remotely resembling a solid foundation.
<end quote>
And Steve was exactly right!
Snit then does as is normal for him, he snips Steve's post leaving just the
first sentence ......
"LOL! No where in there does she show where she *may* agree with
anything."-Steve Carroll
.... To which Snit added......
<quote>
She does not. She makes it clear, she does not agree "at all". She never
hints, implies, or suggests she may agree with any part of it - in fact, she
clearly states the opposite. She does not agree with it "at all". When I
point out a part she *may* agree with, she vehemently *disagreed* (she
stated:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
What makes you think there is the slightest chance she would agree with any
part of my statement?
Then again, she has flip flopped from her original position and *she* has
decided that she does agree with part of my statement (the part where I say
"there is the logical possibility that I am wrong.")
Do we now both agree that when she said she does not agree with the
statement "at all" that that is not consistent with her later claims that
she does agree with parts if it?
Don't you find it funny that in your inability to read or reason and your
strong desire to blindly attack me, you just ended up supporting *my* point
that there is nowhere in there that she shows where she *might* agree with
anything.
<end quote>
That post alone shows just how disturbed Snit was at that time...
He makes it perfectly clear that Elizabot *did not* imply agreement, which
contradicts *every* claim that he made to the contrary! He contradicts his
own claim of Elizabot doing a back pedal, He simply could not get his story
straight!
Note the last two paragraphs from the quote above...
First he states that Elizabot later changed her mind, yet can never show
where that happened, then he admits that he knows full well that Elizabot
had said that she did not agree with anything that Snit had written.
Now moving on down the thread a mind *was* changed ... but it was as
expected Snit that did it.....
<quote>
You still are claiming that when you say you do not agree with something "at
all" you may partially agree with it.
<end quote>
That statement is useful for two reasons, first it shows Snit changing from
Elizabot agreeing, then to not agreeing then back to square one where he
says she is back to claiming agreement again! he simply changes his mind to
suit whatever argument he is trying to put forward, and secondly it proves
that when he made the next statement that I will quote it was written
exactly as he intended without any "typos" at all....
<quote>
Ok, do you or do you not partially agree with it. You did state that you
did not agree with it "at all". Please remember I pointed out a a partial
part of it, and you claimed you did not agree with that... so you have shown
that when you say you do not agree with something "at all" you might agree
with parts of it.
Your logic is faulty.
<end quote>
Snit claiming that someone else's logic is faulty is simply hilarious!
How anyone could make so many blunders on such a simple topic as Snit has
here is bewildering, until you consider the dishonesty that he employs on a
hourly basis! That'll get you every time!
Snit
Wow... you are obsessed with 2004.
In any case, note where I said (post 10 in that thread):
-----
Actually I am just playing the same semantic games you two
play; I just do it better. Do I *really* think that is what
Elizabot meant - decide for yourself. But, if you look at
the LOGIC of what she says, she is claiming that she does not
agree "at all". That is not consistent with agreeing with it
part way.
-----
So this was settled on Jan 12, 2004. That will be *five* years in just a
few days.
And you have not been able to let go of it.
That is funny.
Hey, since you are obsessing over that thread, can you find any place where
you or any of your co-trolling buddies were able to figure it if she
disagreed with only some parts of my statement or if she did not agree "at
all".
The answer, of course, is "no".
100% predictable.
Why do you bring up debates from 2004 where your buddies made complete fools
of themselves and then obsess over some alleged wrong doing on my part?
Hey, and speaking of that thread, I see that is where Steve Carroll admitted
it was *reality* that prevented him from refuting the very argument he has
been claiming he refuted, well, since before then and ever since:
Refute what? That Bush IS legally guilty of breaking the
laws that Snit claims? Sorry... reality prevents me from
doing so.
Even recently Steve has been claiming he, in his view, went against
*reality* and refuted my claims.
Whatever. Happy New Year. Welcome to 2009.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
<quote> (from the post that Snit cites)
"But, if you look at the LOGIC of what she says, she is claiming that she
does not agree "at all". That is not consistent with agreeing with it part
way."
<end quote>
LOL
You were the only illogical one in that exchange as Elizabot had never
suggested that she agreed with *anything* part way, and yet in some demented
manner your "LOGIC" was telling you otherwise!
"She makes it clear, she does not agree "at all". She never hints, implies,
or suggests she may agree with any part of it"-Snit
There is clearly no semantic games on your part Snit as it is not semantics
to claim something on behalf of another that you have already admitted never
happened, you were outright lying to try and save face pure and simple!
Note when you made that claim of semantic games Snit? ..... *after* Elizabot
cooked your Goose! LOL
The rest of that thread was about you trying desperately to get one back on
her, and the hole you dug just got deeper and deeper and deeper! :-)
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Hey, since you are obsessing over that thread, can you find any place where
> you or any of your co-trolling buddies were able to figure it if she
> disagreed with only some parts of my statement or if she did not agree "at
> all".
>
> The answer, of course, is "no".
>
> 100% predictable.
What part of......
"I do not agree with that statement at all."-Elizabot
"Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."-Elizabot
"I disagree with the statement as you have written it."-Elizabot
"LOL! No where in there does she show where she *may* agree with
anything."-Steve Carroll
Even the meaning of your own words are a total mystery to you Snit...
"She makes it clear, she does not agree "at all". She never
hints, implies, or suggests she may agree with any part of it - in fact, she
clearly states the opposite. She does not agree with it "at all". When I
point out a part she *may* agree with, she vehemently *disagreed*"-Snit
I don't mind finding links for you that you are too inept to find Snit, but
I cannot find Elizabot stating, claiming, or even implying something that
she clearly never did Snit!
Your delusions may, but reality simply doesnšt work that way!
I am amazed that you claim that the matter was settled almost five years ago
when you prove right here right now that you still cant work out what it was
all about! ... Hilarious!
Snit
Stop snipping and running.
Please.
You are no more mature than a third grader.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
> <quote> (from the post that Snit cites)
> "But, if you look at the LOGIC of what she says, she is claiming that she
> does not agree "at all". That is not consistent with agreeing with it part
> way."
> <end quote>
> LOL
Do you think one can agree in part with what one claims to not agree with at
all?
I suppose you might. After all, you are the one who cannot follow logic
that a third grader could:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something a grade school child would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
Ever since I pointed that out you have been freaking out, dredging up
debates you and your buddies lost in 2004, as if that will help you run from
your severe problems with comprehension.
...
--
I know how a jam jar feels...
... full of jam!
Snit
>> Hey, since you are obsessing over that thread, can you find any place where
>> you or any of your co-trolling buddies were able to figure it if she
>> disagreed with only some parts of my statement or if she did not agree "at
>> all".
>>
>> The answer, of course, is "no".
>>
>> 100% predictable.
>
> What part of......
>
> "I do not agree with that statement at all."-Elizabot
But elsewhere she claimed to agree with the idea that I might be wrong.
Or do you think she was insisting I was right?
Oh.
You will run from that question.
100% predictable.
Of course, you are running to BS from 20004 to obfuscate your recently shown
comprehension problems:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something a grade school child would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
A third grader should be able to follow that logic.
You failed.
Now you are freaking out. Whatever.
--
But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price, who is not too
concerned about freedom, I don't think we can say the Linux desktop offers
the very best experience.
Snit
...
Come on, Wally, you are showing your severe comprehension problems, again.
Here, try to answer a simple question:
-----
Person 1:
"while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
logical possibility that I am wrong"
Person 2:
"I do not agree with that statement at all"
Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
about his claims??
-----
I predict the question will go far, far over your head. I also bet it would
not be uncommon for a third grader to be able to answer the question
correctly...
As I have noted, material that is generally covered by third completely
baffles you. The example that got you all freaked out recently:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something a grade school child would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
Yet you clearly could not understand it. You were baffled and confused...
and even acted angry and lashed out with name calling and silly accusations.
And to run from it you brought up a debate from *2004* where you show you
were not able to comprehend the very material you quoted.
How sad is that?
I pity you.
--
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> Note when you made that claim of semantic games Snit? ..... *after* Elizabot
>> cooked your Goose! LOL
>>
>> The rest of that thread was about you trying desperately to get one back on
>> her, and the hole you dug just got deeper and deeper and deeper! :-)
I knew you wouldnšt react well to that Snit!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C588FD92.F495%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 8:22 PM:
>
>> <quote> (from the post that Snit cites)
>> "But, if you look at the LOGIC of what she says, she is claiming that she
>> does not agree "at all". That is not consistent with agreeing with it part
>> way."
>> <end quote>
>> LOL
>
> Do you think one can agree in part with what one claims to not agree with at
> all?
There is nothing ambiguous about it Snit!
Why are you struggling with it so?
> I suppose you might. After all, you are the one who cannot follow logic
> that a third grader could:
Amazing, you suppose that I might, then through out a childish insult all of
which indicates clearly that you must know that the answer to your question
is NO!
Yet you cannot let it go and admit that when Elizabot said time after time
that she did not agree with your statement "at all" that was exactly what
she meant!
Even after nearly five years you are *still* asking...
"Hey, since you are obsessing over that thread, can you find any place where
you or any of your co-trolling buddies were able to figure it if she
disagreed with only some parts of my statement or if she did not agree "at
all"."-Snit
How on earth have you gotten so disturbed over this matter Snit?
Snit
Gee, you can predict I do not treat you well when you run like a coward.
Good for you!
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolution had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Snit
Come on, Wally, you are showing your severe comprehension problems, again.
Here, try to answer a simple question:
-----
Person 1:
"while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
logical possibility that I am wrong"
Person 2:
"I do not agree with that statement at all"
Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
about his claims??
-----
I predict the question will go far, far over your head. I also bet it would
not be uncommon for a third grader to be able to answer the question
correctly...
As I have noted, material that is generally covered by third completely
baffles you. The example that got you all freaked out recently:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something a grade school child would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
Yet you clearly could not understand it. You were baffled and confused...
and even acted angry and lashed out with name calling and silly accusations.
And to run from it you brought up a debate from *2004* where you show you
were not able to comprehend the very material you quoted.
How sad is that?
I pity you.
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C58900DD.F497%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 8:36 PM:
>
>>> Hey, since you are obsessing over that thread, can you find any place where
>>> you or any of your co-trolling buddies were able to figure it if she
>>> disagreed with only some parts of my statement or if she did not agree "at
>>> all".
>>>
>>> The answer, of course, is "no".
>>>
>>> 100% predictable.
>>
>> What part of......
>>
>> "I do not agree with that statement at all."-Elizabot
>
> But elsewhere she claimed to agree with the idea that I might be wrong.
Where? Nowhere that I can see!
<quote>
Elizabot:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
Snit:
So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
the logical possibility that I am wrong."
Fair enough. While I do not accept your argument that there is no logical
chance I am wrong, I will not argue with it.
Elizabot:
Fallacy of Division: It consists of assuming that a property of some thing
must apply to its parts; or that a property of a collection of items is
shared by each item.
<end quote>
> Or do you think she was insisting I was right?
>
> Oh.
>
"Oh" is right, Truly Snit, I have never encountered anyone with such a
tenuous grasp on reality as you have.
Snit
Come on, Wally, you are showing your severe comprehension problems, again.
Here, try to answer a simple question:
-----
Person 1:
"while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
logical possibility that I am wrong"
Person 2:
"I do not agree with that statement at all"
Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
about his claims??
-----
I predict the question will go far, far over your head. I also bet it would
not be uncommon for a third grader to be able to answer the question
correctly...
As I have noted, material that is generally covered by third completely
baffles you. The example that got you all freaked out recently:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something a grade school child would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
Yet you clearly could not understand it. You were baffled and confused...
and even acted angry and lashed out with name calling and silly accusations.
And to run from it you brought up a debate from *2004* where you show you
were not able to comprehend the very material you quoted.
How sad is that?
I pity you.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Unknown
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C588E536.F291%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 6:38 PM:
>
> ...
> Come on, Wally, you are showing your severe comprehension problems,
If you mean that I cannot comprehend how deeply effected you have become
over this and other subjects wrt certain people ... Well Snit you might be
on to something!
It is quite remarkable how damaged you are!
Snit
Gee, Wally, you try to dodge your more recent humiliations by bringing up
debates from *2004... and then you show you are baffled by what *you*
brought up. And then you claim I am "deeply effected"... well, I deeply
pity you. Face it, you cannot answer this simple question:
-----
Person 1:
"while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
logical possibility that I am wrong"
Person 2:
"I do not agree with that statement at all"
Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
about his claims??
-----
The question has, clearly, gone over your head. You are standing there like
a deer in headlights. But I still bet it would not be uncommon for a third
grader to be able to answer the question correctly... you have already shown
how other material that is generally covered by third grade completely
baffles you. The example that got you all freaked out recently:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something a grade school child would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
Yet you clearly could not understand it. You were baffled and confused...
and even acted angry and lashed out with name calling and silly accusations.
And to run from your humiliation there you brought up a debate from
*2004*... where you have now shown you are not able to comprehend the very
material you quoted.
How sad is that?
I pity you.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Don Zeigler
> How on earth have you gotten so disturbed over this matter Snit?
Choose an answer below:
1. He's been made to look like a fool, AGAIN
2. He's been caught in a lie, AGAIN
3. He's manufactured reality, AGAIN
4. All of the above
--
Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.
Regards,
[dmz]
Owner and proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> Come on, Wally, ...
Join in your cut'n'paste party Snit? ... Thanks but no thanks!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C58949D9.F4AE%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/6/09 1:48 AM:
>
>> On 6/1/09 1:39 PM, in article C5882EA8.E8A2D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> C58900DD.F497%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 8:36 PM:
>>>
>>>>> Hey, since you are obsessing over that thread, can you find any place
>>>>> where
>>>>> you or any of your co-trolling buddies were able to figure it if she
>>>>> disagreed with only some parts of my statement or if she did not agree "at
>>>>> all".
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer, of course, is "no".
>>>>>
>>>>> 100% predictable.
>>>>
>>>> What part of......
>>>>
>>>> "I do not agree with that statement at all."-Elizabot
>>>
>>> But elsewhere she claimed to agree with the idea that I might be wrong.
>>
>> Where? Nowhere that I can see!
Hey Snit, you just passed up on an opportunity to back up what you claim!
my oh my I am shocked! LOL
>> <quote>
>> Elizabot:
>> Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
>>
>> Snit:
>> So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
>> the logical possibility that I am wrong."
>>
>> Fair enough. While I do not accept your argument that there is no logical
>> chance I am wrong, I will not argue with it.
>>
>> Elizabot:
>> Fallacy of Division: It consists of assuming that a property of some thing
>> must apply to its parts; or that a property of a collection of items is
>> shared by each item.
>> <end quote>
>>
>>> Or do you think she was insisting I was right?
>>>
>>> Oh.
>>>
>>
>> "Oh" is right, Truly Snit, I have never encountered anyone with such a
>> tenuous grasp on reality as you have.
>>
<cut'n'paste snipped>
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5894B79.F4B0%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/6/09 1:55 AM:
>
>> On 6/1/09 2:01 PM, in article C58833C2.E8A37%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> C588E536.F291%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 6:38 PM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> Come on, Wally, you are showing your severe comprehension problems,
>>
>> If you mean that I cannot comprehend how deeply effected you have become
>> over this and other subjects wrt certain people ... Well Snit you might be
>> on to something!
>>
>> It is quite remarkable how damaged you are!
>
> Gee, Wally, you try to dodge your more recent humiliations by bringing up
> debates from *2004... and then you show you are baffled by what *you*
> brought up. And then you claim I am "deeply effected"
Don't forget "damaged" Snit!
> ... well, I deeply pity you.
That's just a reflection of the size of the hole you dug for yourself!
> Face it, you cannot answer this simple question:
I don't agree with that statement 'at all' Snit!
(now you're confused aren't you Snit, does that mean I believe none of it,
some of it.....)
ROTFL!
<snip>
Steve Carroll
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C588E536.F291%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/5/09 6:38 PM:
>
> > On 6/1/09 3:33 AM, in article
Great rebuttal... you can't muster up an argument against reality so
you shoot at the messenger.
Snit
brought up. And then you claim I am "deeply effected and damaged"... well,
I deeply pity you - but that hardly is deeply effecting me nor damaging me.
Face it, you cannot answer this simple question:
-----
How sad is that?
I pity you.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Snit
> <cut'n'paste snipped>
Hey, if you actually could respond to it I would stop shoving it in your
face. But you will run. Face it, you cannot answer this simple question:
-----
Person 1:
"while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
logical possibility that I am wrong"
Person 2:
"I do not agree with that statement at all"
Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
about his claims??
-----
The question has, clearly, gone over your head. You are standing there like
a deer in headlights. But I still bet it would not be uncommon for a third
grader to be able to answer the question correctly... you have already shown
how other material that is generally covered by third grade completely
baffles you. The example that got you all freaked out recently:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something a grade school child would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
Yet you clearly could not understand it. You were baffled and confused...
and even acted angry and lashed out with name calling and silly accusations.
And to run from your humiliation there you brought up a debate from
*2004*... where you have now shown you are not able to comprehend the very
material you quoted.
How sad is that?
I pity you.
--
Snit
Hey, stop running and I won't shove it in your face...
Face it, you cannot answer this simple question:
-----
Person 1:
"while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
logical possibility that I am wrong"
Person 2:
"I do not agree with that statement at all"
Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
about his claims??
-----
The question has, clearly, gone over your head. You are standing there like
a deer in headlights. But I still bet it would not be uncommon for a third
grader to be able to answer the question correctly... you have already shown
how other material that is generally covered by third grade completely
baffles you. The example that got you all freaked out recently:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something a grade school child would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
Yet you clearly could not understand it. You were baffled and confused...
and even acted angry and lashed out with name calling and silly accusations.
And to run from your humiliation there you brought up a debate from
*2004*... where you have now shown you are not able to comprehend the very
material you quoted.
How sad is that?
I pity you.
--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman
Snit
20090106100050...@this.domain.or.that on 1/6/09 3:00 AM:
> Wally wrote:
>
>> How on earth have you gotten so disturbed over this matter Snit?
>
> Choose an answer below:
>
> 1. He's been made to look like a fool, AGAIN
Well, responding to trolls so much does make me look a bit foolish. Yeah, I
can see someone saying it is foolish to give you and Wally and other trolls
so many chances. Guilty as charged!
> 2. He's been caught in a lie, AGAIN
But, sadly, you are too incompetent to find the lie and quote it and provide
a message ID. Man, that is a shame. At least I am not as incompetent as
you are!
> 3. He's manufactured reality, AGAIN
Well, I am doing things... and that, I suppose from a certain perspective,
is changing my current reality. But isn't that true for all of us?
> 4. All of the above
Nope... just #1 and, maybe, #3. You would have to provide support for #2
for anyone with any sense of reason to even consider it. Nice try, though!
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> 121- RonB: "Snit is a crank fixated on one issue, who's
>> thing is twisting your words so he can win an argument
>> against a straw man. That's enough to killfile him."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/ce8550d4cc5b1b42
>
> You forgot another one found in this very thread (I think it
> sums things up nicely;)
>
> Don Ziegler: "Michael "Messiah Complex" Glasser". Google
> Message-ID: <1e645q58...@this.domain.or.that>
Don Ziegler is Tatoo V.
> And here's a thread just for Snit (appropriately entitled:
> Snit - Disruptive Troll)
>
> George Orwell: "COLA has been infested with what we call
> wintrolls for years. These are posters whose sole purpose is
> to incite flame wars. A nasty development a year or so ago was
> for some of these wintrolls to crosspost to other newsgroups
> in the hope of causing more disruption.
>
> You appear to be in the latter category. Starting crossposted
> threads for the simple purpose of hoping to generate a flame
> war".
Anonymous remailing poster quoted Roy Culley.
> By the way... the material you've attributed to Geezer was
> actually written by me... so I guess we're back to 122.
The list is tweakable. Nonetheless, if persons have been quoted
twice, it is still a self standing document. Snit may refute all
he wants, but these bits of self indicting truth stand.
> Snit absolutely *hates* this list with a passion... he's whined
> about it constantly. Look for him to try and focus on you
> instead of the list's content... as if doing so diminishes
> that content in any way... too funny. He has a "psych degree",
> you know;)
Snit has already done that, Snit Circus style. Instead of
participating in the discussion, most of his posts are intended
to flame the poster. It is all about him. He typically snips
away deeply, then comes back with "you have no proof, you can't,
you won't, you ...." like a jilted bride.
I have replied to his non-sense, the answers to his nonsense are
all captured in all their glory in Google and other on-line
Usenet archives.
To his own shame, he continues his diatribes well beyond where
the readership has kill binned him.
--
HPT
Snit
>> You forgot another one found in this very thread (I think it
>> sums things up nicely;)
>>
>> Don Ziegler: "Michael "Messiah Complex" Glasser". Google
>> Message-ID: <1e645q58...@this.domain.or.that>
>
> Don Ziegler is Tatoo V.
Steve uses multiple of his own names... why not multiples of others?
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Snit
gk13mm$hl3$1...@news.motzarella.org on 1/6/09 7:23 PM:
>> Snit absolutely *hates* this list with a passion... he's whined
>> about it constantly. Look for him to try and focus on you
>> instead of the list's content... as if doing so diminishes
>> that content in any way... too funny. He has a "psych degree",
>> you know;)
>
> Snit has already done that, Snit Circus style. Instead of
> participating in the discussion, most of his posts are intended
> to flame the poster. It is all about him. He typically snips
> away deeply, then comes back with "you have no proof, you can't,
> you won't, you ...." like a jilted bride.
>
> I have replied to his non-sense, the answers to his nonsense are
> all captured in all their glory in Google and other on-line
> Usenet archives.
>
> To his own shame, he continues his diatribes well beyond where
> the readership has kill binned him.
Steve claims I "hate" this list. I frankly just find it stupid... no more
of value than the lists I have posted about Steve.
The very ones he claims are of no value. I will post them again so you can
see them, but, really, what do such lists prove? Yeah, Steve can do a lot
of quote scavenging. So?
The fact is no matter how much I challenge you trolls you cannot support
your accusations. You have been outted as just making stuff up. And that
includes many of the "quotes" from Steve sock puppets. He is doing nothing
but proving he hates me. Why cares?
--
The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
offering things that Linux is not.
Snit
gk13mm$hl3$1...@news.motzarella.org on 1/6/09 7:23 PM:
...
>> Snit absolutely *hates* this list with a passion... he's whined
>> about it constantly.
When?
I told you I would post the list of quotes about Steve... so as to not start
a new thread and make others think such quote lists mean anything... here
are some quotes I gathered in *one month* for Steve. He has been gathering
quotes about me since at least 2004.
Correct me where I misunderstand you, Steve. Snit made some
comment about Bush many years ago that you think he did not
prove and because of that you think it is fine to accuse him
of forging your posts without any evidence at all and you
expect him to jump in and defend you when others call you
names when you act like a complete asshole. Please, Steve,
tell me that I am wrong about you being that stupid.
So you claim snit lies and therefore beause he lies, you get
to be a lying fuck tube with anyone you want to declare to be
a snit sock.
So, Steve am I a snit puppet like you deluded previously?
Because, fuck tube, you have to prove I am snit BEFORE you
can assert that you are using the same tactics. Now, prove
I am a snit sockpuppet, your assertion, or admit you are a
completely clueless fuck tube.
So, you can't prove that 'Ratz is Snit's sock.
Never said it was. But your retorts after being caught with
your foot in your mouth, they have all been weak.
You would have been better off by accepting that you'd made a
fool of yourself. Instead, you've chosen to act like a
grade-schooler.
This isn't worth my time. Grow up.
Where is the evidence of sock puppetry Steve? Do you think
hiding like a spanked coward will help your case?
Why did you claim things were snipped when they were still in
the post?
When will you stop lying?
Please post edit everything, again, Steve.
None of that is support for anything but the affirmation, "I
HATE SNIT AND I WANT HIM TO DIE!!!!!" You have to prove that
he is lying and socking up (to people who could not possibly
give a flying fuck about you, Snit, or your tiff with him) to
get anyone thus disinterested to believe that you are, in
fact, not lying or socking up yourself.
Alternatively, you can go on to win many awards for
dipshittery, looniness, pathological lying, and sockpuppetry,
and get listed on Kookpedia, where at least two kooks have
made it damn clear they don't care to be litsed, and only
gotten their way because they have nyms or nicknames on
usenet. You have no such protection, so you'll be "Steve
Carroll" on all Kookpedia pages, and "Steve_Carroll" in the
URL.
So you admit you are a lying scumbag.
Hint: You are claiming someone with years of posting with the
exact same nym & email is a sockpuppet of someone with much
less posting history.
So how exactly does that work, Steve? Explain how I could be
posting years in advance and be a sockpuppet now?
<Insert next lying evasion>
Weak, carroll.
Steve, I am still awaiting your proof I am a snit sock
puppet. More evasions will be proof you are a lying scum bag.
What is required is you post something other than your
opinion as proof:
Care to share of your abundant wisdom, carroll?
I didn't bring up the economy. I even pointed out that I was
*not* talking about the economy. But you, with your twisted
"alice in wonderland"-logic, immediately assumed I was
talking about the economy. You need to have your head
examined.
Running away? No. I'm watching your "logic" once again snarl
itself up like a plate of spaghetti. Just like it always
does.
What are you going on about *this* time?
I've decided to accept the nomination, not for the evidence
presented /prior/ to the nomination, which might have
convinced me to at least excise Steve Carroll from the "COLA
Kook Collective" but from the ample evidence Mr. Carroll
presented afterwards. At some point, he exceeded the "doth
protest too much" threshold.
Poor Steve, can't understand when he is asked a direct
question and then is stupid. I could have said "acts stupid"
but I doubt he is acting.
The only thing you proved is that you're as scrambled as
always.
Right... care to elaborate on this? Use a tiny teaspoon
please. Assume that I'm *really* stupid.
For the slow kid:
1. You claim I am snit's sock.
2. you claim you get to use the same tactics as snit
because I am snit's sock.
3. You cannot show the slightest piece of evidence that I am snit.
Ergo you cannot whine about anyone's tactics unless you can
supply evidence that either of your claims can be supported
by evidence.
Does that help, fuck tube?
Or are you just going to continue to claim that anyone who
thinks you an obsessive fuck tube to be a snit sock.
Only I wasn't talking about the economy. You skipped tracks.
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:03:33 -0600, a coward and pest named
Steve Carroll lied: Then lied about lying, lied about having
lied about lying, lied some more to cover up the previous
lies, and lied again.
Note: Steve once again runs away from posting his proof.
"Which sockpuppets would those be, Steve? Itemize the one YOU
think are me." What's the matter, chickenshit, you said I was
a snit sock, now prove it.
No, I'm going to make a distinction between sentences that
contain the word "not" and sentences that don't.
Because, fuck tube, you have to prove I am snit BEFORE you can
assert that you are using the same tactics. Now, prove I am a
snit sockpuppet, your assertion, or admit you are a completely
clueless fuck tube.
What are you talking about now?
So all you can do is make up more delusion and lies in a
pathetic attempt to cover for your previous lies. What's the
matter, Steve, you could not find a lie, could you? All you
can find is you hiding behind snit's skirts. How does that
make you feel Steve, knowing that the only sense of safety
you have is cowering in the shadows like a beaten little
puppy.
Stevie once more evades and hides:
************************************************
>> >>So here is where you show I lied about you:
************************************************
When you going to show these lies, Steve? You going to keep
snipping and running and hiding behind Snit. You are a
gutless little crybaby.
The only reason you want to use your twisted view of his
standards is you have none of your own. Clearly your word
means nothing to you. You fucking bitch about how Snit
talked badly about Bushy years ago so you get to be an
asshole and lie about him all you want. Are you stoned? Are
you really that stupid and fucked up? Get a goddam life
already!
Steve fucktube Carroll blew a gasket because someone said
something mean about his buddy Bushy. Well Fucktube Carroll,
Bushy is a law breaking asshole of galactic proportions who
lies to the world for a drop of oil. He can bend over
forwards and take it up the ass from Cheney for all I care.
Are you going to chase me down for years now to and lie about
me forging you?
No corrections offered, so now we know the real story here:
Snit made some comment about Bush many years ago that you
think he did not prove and because of that you think it is
fine to accuse him of forging your posts without any evidence
at all and you expect him to jump in and defend you when
others call you names when you act like a complete asshole.
You clearly are that stupid.
I have seen Snit point to his website where he does have
support. Have you seen it? Do you have a counter arguement?
I bet not! Snit made some comment about Bush many years ago
that you think he did not prove and because of that you think
it is fine to accuse him of forging your posts without any
evidence at all and you expect him to jump in and defend you
when others call you names when you act like a complete
asshole.
Why? Because now you will follow me around for years
accusing me of forging your posts, too? Are you making a
threat? Are you going to try to hunt me down and fuck with
me, too?
Now you accept Snit offered support. Lovely. Do you have
anything to counter his support or will you just follow him
around for eternity claiming he is forging you?
Shove your crap up your ass, Steve. Snit has posted his
website that has his argument. Can you refute it or will you
just continue to lie about him throughout eternity because he
said something mean about Bushy the war monger?
You clearly are in a perpetual mental breakdown you fucktube.
...You have labelled Snit as being guilty of forging you.
When pressed to provide proof, you provide over 100 quotes
from various individuals regarding their perceptions of him.
That isn't proof of anything except that he lives rent-free
in a whole lot of heads. Therefore, by the definition you
just gave me, you are, indeed, a thug, as well as a Rethug.
And you are a dissembling fuck tube.
Snit made a comment about Bushy years ago that set you off so
now you get to accuse him of forging your posts and you think
that is just fine. You are fucked up more than most of the
idiots who post to Usenet.
So is 5 days enough for you to have come up with a response,
fucktube?
Of sweet fuck-all. Voltaire said, "A witty saying proves
nothing." Your quotes aren't even /witty/. Who gives a shit
what people "believe"? It doesn't mean you've proven Snit to
be a liar for a second. As for being a troll, most usenetters
are that. The ones who aren't trolling are k00ky wallflowers
who want no one to reply to them. Try again, slaphead.
So you'd rather not prove any of your claims, but instead
keep foaming away at Snit and anyone who dares question your
attacks on him. You're gonna walk away with that CNOTM.
Your statement, cupcake, you provide proof of your own
assertion. Here is a hint, I don't give one flying Ratz ass
about your co-dependant obsession with snit. Now back to the
question you cannot answer: :What's the matter, chickenshit,
you said I was a snit sock, now prove it. <Next cowardly
avoidance and obfuscation>
Do shut the fuck up.
You were asked to provide YOUR evidence not what other unknown
people write. "Which sockpuppets would those be, Steve? Itemize
the one YOU think are me."
What lie did I post? You can of course show where I lied
about anything about you, right? Proof is so important to you
and lying is so egregious to you you would noyt want to be
caught lying yourself, right? So here is where you show I
lied about you:
Which sockpuppets would those be, Steve? Itemize the one YOU
think are me.
You keep whining about Snit saying he did not have proof. So
what? Did he have support? Do you think a lack of proof is
the same as a disproof? Are you hoping Bushy jumps in Air
Force One to come meet you and then meat you?
Prove it, moron. You made a claim, now prove you did not lie.
"What's the matter, chickenshit, you said I was a snit sock,
now prove it." <insert next obfuscation>
What else will netkook Steve obsess over next?
Come on fuck tube, where was the *post*? To what am I
replying? Demonstrate how that *post* that has no text in the
body and consists of just headers is not a *post*.
Steve = Nutjob
Oh how cute! Another 29 percenter!
Well, that's where you're royally fucked, then, isn't it?
Because Snit's proof that Bush is a war criminal is possessed
of Herculean strength, next to your 98-pound weakling that he
is a sockpuppeteer.
Look, I don't care who is who. I comment on topics, I
generally don't care who writes the subject matter.
And we should care as to his ethnicity/religion
precisely...why?
Again, you think the opinions of posters who are mostly
amateur kookologists (at best -- I saw one single nym
belonging to an accredited pro) and (in at least a few cases)
k00ks is enough to sway me on the subject of Snit's kookery.
You are, at minimum, at least as obsessed as he is, and that
isn't taking into account you getting completely thrashed in
a debate about Bush five years ago, then going on a five-year
mission of destruction against Glasser. Tell me, do you still
support the Idiot Tyrant?
Will you _ever_ stop lying?
Did he offer support? Was the support strong? Was there any
counter support? And why the hell do you care if this
happened years ago? Did Bushy promise you a blow job if you
defended him for the rest of eternity?
Oh, shut up, you whiny little fuckbot.
You need to look at your own moral scorecard in these
matters.
Steve Carroll is the resident right wing nutjob over in mac
advocacy. Expect some kind of CRAZED response.
<Proof Steve Carrol is a clueless knob><Compounding the
clueless knob nature>
WOOT! Paranoia!!!! So I posted without anything in the body,
is that a post or not, fuck tube?
He did in fact say "You", in reply to me, when he was
referring to you, so I'd say you're the one who is apparently
an ESL student -- and you aren't exactly in a good position
to be chiding anyone about this, Mr. "I think Everyone Is A
Snit Sock If They Don't Agree With Me About Snit". You
exhibit no understanding as to what a "sockpuppet" is, nor
are you aware of the fact that Snit is on a Windows box,
whilst I am using Linux, as my headers will reveal.
Note: No response.
What exactly does the following mean in response to you being
shown to be a complete idiot?
So was it a post or not? Be a man, stand up for what you
believe, show how a post that has nothing in the body and
only headers is not a post.
It gets more deliciously k00ky with age...
Nice lie, Steve. Why didn't you claim I snipped what was not
snipped, again?
...
Why would you need to edit your comments, coward?
I see YOU finally snipped your comments you were claiming I
snipped. How's that one working out, liar.
Still have not seen one shred of evidence to support you lies
I am someone's sock puppet. Hell, show I am anyone's
sockpuppet but my own.
Poor Steve, left repeating his lies.
...
Where did I snip it Steve (it is ALL still there Steve)? You
are lying, again.
What was snipped Steve? It is ALL still there, right where it
was left. I am coming to the conclusion tha that it isn't
that you lie but that you are too stupid to recognize reality
when you see it.
Now, when do you connect the aratzio nym to the snit nym and
prove that I am a sock puppet rather than someone that just
considers you an idiot.
I just asked you. So where is it Steve? Where is the proof
you claim to have I am a snit sock puppet, steve. You do have
the proof? You know something like right below, evidence you
are a lying scumbag.
Now go ahead and snip the verifiable facts and pretend you did
not lie, again.
Arguing that Snit needs to prove it is all the proof I need
of your raging k00kery.
For his argument that my reference to the headers from two of
his posts as "posts" is proof that I am unable to distinguish
between a post and a header, and further, his claim that he
is being "forged" (apparently, by someone duplicating his
posts on a Windoze box, but not adding any new content, or
making any changes at all -- dude, who cares? You did in fact
say what you were quoted as saying, which is the point), I,
Snarky (not Snit, not Aratzio, not Kadaitcha Man, not Gary
"flatfish" Stewart, or any other poster on Steve's haet
lits), do hereby nominate Steve Carroll for Clueless Newbie
of the Month.
You do know what the word "executive" means, don't you?
You ARE a crazed right wing nutjob.
So ALL the people who point out that you are a complete
fucking idiot are actually just one person? Bizarre.
So, let us grant, for the purposes of argument only, that it
is true that there are MS advocates posting in cola who are
lying sacks of shit. How does that justify finding out
people's names and where they work then targeting them in
real life until they break?
So you're still lying, then. Like any (Re)thug.
Whilst I'm not certain if Fitton and Carroll (et al) acts of
stalking and outer-filthing exemplify "the eponymous founder
of this award", one thing is for sure, while a thoroughly
good rogering with a splintery bush-jarrah pole is in order
for the cola kooks, a painfully sharp anal pineapple is the
next best thing.
Cmon, fucktube, show how your *headers are not a post* works.
Feel free to prove that it was a forged post *anytime*,
fuckface. AFAIAC, it has been proven to be yours.
Steve's too much the coward to go look it up. I compared the
alleged forgery to the post where he makes the claim, and the
differences are irrelevant. Same newsreader, same OS, same
NSP -- those are the things one would need to be a real
0BsEsS0 to reproduce, and Steve's already one of the biggest
obsessos on CSMA. Steve is invited to check out my proof.
Why did you add those other newsgroups? Anxiety-panic?
Politics? Dreamweaver?
Translation: "LALALALALAAALAAALALA*ICANTHEARYOU*LALAAAAALAAA"
You know, Steve, you have become especially vicious of late.
Is it possible that you are mentally ill ...
Or is it just a big joke to you to flood this and other groups
and clog the server with endless megabytes of garbage that you
haven't even bothered to "X-No-Archive: Yes"?
Steve Carroll wrote:
> a whole bunc of trollish crap cross-posted to the world
Plonk
The posts which you claim are "forgeries" may or may not be
so. ... That you're a wingnut k00k? Bush _is_ a war criminal.
War crimes have been committed on his watch, and ultimate
responsibility for them leads to his desk.
Stop forging me, k00k.
DYOFDW. Motzarella's abuse dept. will act on solid evidence
of forgery of a valid email address on their server. ...
What lie? You /are/ busted. Fucking liar.
"Fantasies?" It's happening right before our eyes. You can't
see it because you're part of it.
Yeah, like you provided Message-IDs for all /your/ quotes.
Twit. I'm no more anonymous than you are -- you can google my
nyms and find a history dating back to 1999 -- and I know as
much about you as you do about me. Nothing, nada, zip,
bupkus. The caring is on the same level, too. All I care
about is your insane, frothy spew, and you are very obliging.
Re-read the sub-thread, carroll. I didn't mention third world
nations until *after* you skipped tracks.
Fiend! You're forging _me_, kO0k.
Please be explaining the law that has been broken.
Please be explaining why the police would pay attention to a
pantywaist whiner.
Please be explaining why any prosecutor would give a flying
fuck about your whining.
Please be explaining why you do not have the account nuked at
Motzerella, first.
I'll bet you are lying.
Oh, is a post without a body still a post?
Yay a meds lame.
Prove they're *Snit's*, and not, say, K-Man's, or mine
(neither he nor I are "Snit", who is being voted on for a
kook award right now, until tomorrow night). Wild, bug-eyed,
foaming accusations, aimed at some guy who handed you your
head in a political flamewar about five years ago, are
nothing.
No, I won't have sex with you, mister.
> I get it... you're measuring success in dollars and sense.
Your problem is you never use /either/ measure to rate your
success.
Wanna try a new lie, Steve?
Oh, still awaiting you to provide one piece of evidence that
I am ANYONEs sock puppet.
If I told you where to find one post under my name that
exists in google from 1995 would you admit you are wrong?
>> Steve blames me when the weather is bad.
> Whose fault is this?
Apparently, Snit's, according to you. A less-biased point of
view might well see it as a matter of your own obsession
blinding you -- or perhaps it's because you're a wingnut. I
dunno.
I don't really give a flying fuck if a bunch of other people
hate Snit, for whatever reason, or blame him for bad weather,
or think he's forging you -- a million people sharing a
hallucination are a million delusional people. There is no
proof whatsoever that the Motzarella copies of your posts
came from Snit, unless the Motz admin has it himself. Your
own paranoia about Snit -- similar to BushCo paranoia about
"terrorism" -- is proof of nothing.
Classical "Commies hiding under my bed to STEAL MY KIDNEYS!"
paranoid histrionics.
No, he was merely unclear. As kooks go, Snit seems a minor
one, to me, but you seem to be more of a Gerald C. Newton.
Maybe a Lysaght, but that'd be a pretty huge diff -- you
might wind up with an award named for you, in a few years, if
so. Mind you, Emmett Earl Gulley did, and he only won 13 (but
he's in prison now for his usenet-to-real-life kookery).
These people are known technically as net.kooks. You know,
guys like Steve Carroll.
Snit may be a k00k; Steve Carroll is unquestionably a k00k
Or the guys (and gals) that Steve Carrol's paranoid delusions
think are snit.
--
BU__SH__
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Don Zeigler" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
> 20090106100050...@this.domain.or.that on 1/6/09 3:00 AM:
>
>> Wally wrote:
>>
>>> How on earth have you gotten so disturbed over this matter Snit?
>>
>> Choose an answer below:
>>
>> 1. He's been made to look like a fool, AGAIN
>
> Well, responding to trolls so much does make me look a bit foolish. Yeah, I
> can see someone saying it is foolish to give you and Wally and other trolls
> so many chances. Guilty as charged!
Well done Snit admitting that you were made to look a fool is an excellent
start!
>> 2. He's been caught in a lie, AGAIN
> But, sadly, you are too incompetent to find the lie and quote it and provide
> a message ID. Man, that is a shame. At least I am not as incompetent as
> you are!
Says the guy that needed me to supply a msg ID to a quote that *he* authored
in a post that *he* sent as he admitted that he was too inept to find it
himself!
Now he needs a msg ID to find a post in the very thread that he is
responding to! LOL
>> 3. He's manufactured reality, AGAIN
>
> Well, I am doing things... and that, I suppose from a certain perspective,
> is changing my current reality. But isn't that true for all of us?
The difference being that the current reality that you speak of is as you
strangely admit.. ever changing for you, whereas Don Zeigler is in reference
to a reality that has remained constant for nearly five years, will *never*
change, and will always be verifiable for the rest of us!
Oh yes and in case you were wondering..... No Snit! the fact that you are
*doing* things will not change your current reality, as the things that you
are *doing* are intrinsic to your current reality Snit!
And again .. No Snit! It is not true that our *current reality* can be
changed for *all of us* .... *THAT* only happens in most of your posts!
>
>> 4. All of the above
>
> Nope... just #1 and, maybe, #3. You would have to provide support for #2
> for anyone with any sense of reason to even consider it. Nice try, though!
Your argument is self defeating Snit! ... Anyone with a sense of reason
could find where you lied as Don Zeigler has clearly done, even if he were
to show you where, your current reality being in the state of change that
you state that it is would only have you deny that he had shown you where!
Your admission of having a constantly changing *current reality* Snit
answers a lot of questions concerning your bizarre behavior!
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper stated:
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> ... Snit absolutely *hates* this list with a passion...
>>> he's whined about it constantly.
>
This is an example of:
http://www.webservertalk.com/message1474739.html
[quote]
Subject: 4.1 Drivel
Posts without interesting content are simple to produce.
Cascades have a long history on usenet, usually containing
wordplays round a specific theme. The Trolls version is a
cascade of drivel. two persons working online to the same
newsserver can throw a thread between themselves and create
very large numbers of posts. One person can throw a thread
between two or more sockpuppets.
[/quote]
--
HPT
Snit
> On 7/1/09 2:57 AM, in article C588E9AC.E8BC5%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Don Zeigler" <sit...@this.computer> stated in post
>> 20090106100050...@this.domain.or.that on 1/6/09 3:00 AM:
>>
>>> Wally wrote:
>>>
>>>> How on earth have you gotten so disturbed over this matter Snit?
>>>
>>> Choose an answer below:
>>>
>>> 1. He's been made to look like a fool, AGAIN
>>
>> Well, responding to trolls so much does make me look a bit foolish. Yeah, I
>> can see someone saying it is foolish to give you and Wally and other trolls
>> so many chances. Guilty as charged!
>
> Well done Snit admitting that you were made to look a fool is an excellent
> start!
You showed a small amount of comprehension... not much, of course, but
better than your norm.
>>> 2. He's been caught in a lie, AGAIN
>
>> But, sadly, you are too incompetent to find the lie and quote it and provide
>> a message ID. Man, that is a shame. At least I am not as incompetent as
>> you are!
>
> Says the guy that needed me to supply a msg ID to a quote that *he* authored
> in a post that *he* sent as he admitted that he was too inept to find it
> himself!
>
> Now he needs a msg ID to find a post in the very thread that he is
> responding to! LOL
Did you think I missed your moving goal posts from my noting Don's complete
inability to support his claim to you whining about me not finding a nearly
five your old post you obsessed over. But let us follow your change of
topic... just for the heck of it! You dredged up a quote from 2004. 2004!
You tried to find a quote from me in any way similar to you (wrong,
trolling, whatever).. and the only one you could find to even *claim* such
was from 2004! And then I was able to easily prove you blew it on that:
-----
Person 1:
"while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
logical possibility that I am wrong"
Person 2:
"I do not agree with that statement at all"
Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
about his claims??
-----
You never were able to answer what question... just snip, run, and whine
that I was asking you the same question over and over... as you spewed lies
about the same conversation.
Hey, any chance you have grown a back bone and are actually willing to *try*
to answer the question... you know, pause your babbling tirades and actually
try to respond to some of my showing your BS is, well, BS.
No, I did not think so. You simply will snip it and run.
>>> 3. He's manufactured reality, AGAIN
>>
>> Well, I am doing things... and that, I suppose from a certain perspective,
>> is changing my current reality. But isn't that true for all of us?
>
> The difference being that the current reality that you speak of is as you
> strangely admit.. ever changing for you, whereas Don Zeigler is in reference
> to a reality that has remained constant for nearly five years, will *never*
> change, and will always be verifiable for the rest of us!
>
> Oh yes and in case you were wondering..... No Snit! the fact that you are
> *doing* things will not change your current reality, as the things that you
> are *doing* are intrinsic to your current reality Snit!
>
> And again .. No Snit! It is not true that our *current reality* can be
> changed for *all of us* .... *THAT* only happens in most of your posts!
See how you babble. Seriously, did you think you were being clever?
Insightful? No... you were just showing your complete lack of comprehension
about what I wrote.
>>> 4. All of the above
>>
>> Nope... just #1 and, maybe, #3. You would have to provide support for #2
>> for anyone with any sense of reason to even consider it. Nice try, though!
>
> Your argument is self defeating Snit! ... Anyone with a sense of reason
> could find where you lied as Don Zeigler has clearly done
I accept that Don has lied, as you say, but where do you think I did? Quote
it and provide a link or message ID.
Oh.
I have asked you repeatedly to do so and you have failed - even when you
clearly have hunted back all the way to 2004!
> , even if he were
> to show you where, your current reality being in the state of change that
> you state that it is would only have you deny that he had shown you where!
>
> Your admission of having a constantly changing *current reality* Snit
> answers a lot of questions concerning your bizarre behavior!
What the heck are you babbling about?
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper stated:
>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... Snit absolutely *hates* this list with a passion...
>>>> he's whined about it constantly.
>>
>> When? [snip 534 lines of Michael Glasser drivel]
>
> This is an example of:
>
> http://www.webservertalk.com/message1474739.html
I showed you to be wrong... and you run.
Whatever... you, frankly, are completely lost. You have no comprehension
what you are talking about so you snip, run, and then paste completely
irrelevant drivel.
Are you as dim as Wally? You sure act like it.
--
"Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/gates/>
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You don't appear able to even recognize goal posts Snit! there is nothing at
all in what Don Zeigler said to indicate that he lacks the ability to
support what he said! it is only you that has jumped to that conclusion!
Is that an example of how "current reality" constantly changes for you Snit?
Fact... All Don said was "He's been caught in a lie, AGAIN".
Fact... Four posts prior to that I posted your lie and challenged it!
"But elsewhere she claimed to agree with the idea that I might be
wrong."-Snit
"Where? Nowhere that I can see!"-Wally
Fact... You ignored your lie, and failed to offer any support for your
claim.
Fact... There was no need for Don to produce any other lie from you as you
made it perfectly clear that you would simply ignore it!
Fact... You will *never* try and offer support in defense of your lie!
"But elsewhere she claimed to agree with the idea that I might be
wrong."-Snit
> to you whining about me not finding a nearly
> five your old post you obsessed over. But let us follow your change of
> topic... just for the heck of it! You dredged up a quote from 2004.
There was no dredging involved Snit! I have had it available to me since the
first day that you posted it!
> 2004!
> You tried to find a quote from me in any way similar to you (wrong,
> trolling, whatever)..
I don't have to search back in time to find your lies Snit, Because there is
one common denominator associated with all your lies and that is that you
are guaranteed to not try and support them, just as you failed to support
your lie that I mention above, and do so again here ...
"But elsewhere she claimed to agree with the idea that I might be
wrong."-Snit
"Where? Nowhere that I can see!"-Wally
> and the only one you could find to even *claim* such
> was from 2004! And then I was able to easily prove you blew it on that:
>
> -----
> Person 1:
> "while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
> logical possibility that I am wrong"
> Person 2:
> "I do not agree with that statement at all"
>
> Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
> about his claims??
> -----
>
> You never were able to answer what question... just snip, run, and whine
> that I was asking you the same question over and over... as you spewed lies
> about the same conversation.
Your question is irrelevant as it may have escaped your attention Snit but
there is an actual example contained in a real thread involving real people
Snit!
There is no need for your demented ramblings such as ...
-----
Person 1:
"while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
logical possibility that I am wrong"
Person 2:
"I do not agree with that statement at all"
Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
about his claims??
-----
... When the answer is plain to see and is contained in the reply from
Person 2.
> Hey, any chance you have grown a back bone and are actually willing to *try*
> to answer the question... you know, pause your babbling tirades and actually
> try to respond to some of my showing your BS is, well, BS.
Clearly you are one having problems with it Snit, so whereas I may be
willing to point you in the right direction, it would, I feel, do you a
disservice to outright give you the answer!
> No, I did not think so. You simply will snip it and run.
>
>>>> 3. He's manufactured reality, AGAIN
>>>
>>> Well, I am doing things... and that, I suppose from a certain perspective,
>>> is changing my current reality. But isn't that true for all of us?
>>
>> The difference being that the current reality that you speak of is as you
>> strangely admit.. ever changing for you, whereas Don Zeigler is in reference
>> to a reality that has remained constant for nearly five years, will *never*
>> change, and will always be verifiable for the rest of us!
>>
>> Oh yes and in case you were wondering..... No Snit! the fact that you are
>> *doing* things will not change your current reality, as the things that you
>> are *doing* are intrinsic to your current reality Snit!
>>
>> And again .. No Snit! It is not true that our *current reality* can be
>> changed for *all of us* .... *THAT* only happens in most of your posts!
>
> See how you babble. Seriously, did you think you were being clever?
Why do you equate being clever with having the common sense to realize that
you cannot alter 'current reality' Snit? ... Because you lack common sense
perhaps?
> Insightful? No... you were just showing your complete lack of comprehension
> about what I wrote.
Snit wrote...
<quote>
Well, I am doing things... and that, I suppose from a certain perspective,
is changing my current reality. But isn't that true for all of us?
<end quote>
You clearly are claiming that you're doing something that you believe is
changing your "current reality"!
*That* is not possible as your "current reality" must by definition include
that which you are doing currently!
Just for fit's and giggles why don't you explain in your own words how
"current reality" changes for you Snit?
Are you able? My guess is NO!
>>>> 4. All of the above
>>>
>>> Nope... just #1 and, maybe, #3. You would have to provide support for #2
>>> for anyone with any sense of reason to even consider it. Nice try, though!
>>
>> Your argument is self defeating Snit! ... Anyone with a sense of reason
>> could find where you lied as Don Zeigler has clearly done
>
> I accept that Don has lied, as you say,
"Anyone with a sense of reason could find where you lied as Don Zeigler has
clearly done"-Wally
I did just for a second fail to give due consideration to your lack of
comprehension Snit.
Clearly I am not suggesting that Don lied, merely that he could as anyone
with a sense of reason could find a lie authored by you!
But I do thank you for bringing it to my attention as I would not like for
anyone else (no matter how unlikely that would be) to think that I thought
Don was a liar!
> but where do you think I did? Quote
> it and provide a link or message ID.
I have posted it again in in this msg, or the original can still be seen as
I have explained above!
But don's hesitate to ask again if the original is beyond your ability to
find Snit!
Snit
As far as your obsession with altering reality, I can see why you would want
to alter yours. First you showed you did not have the ability to understand
information that is covered by the third grade, even though you have been
"processing" it for years, and then to run from that weakness of yours you
dredged up a debate from 2004 where you showed you think someone's later
words trumped logic.
-----
Person 1:
"while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
logical possibility that I am wrong"
Person 2:
"I do not agree with that statement at all"
Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
about his claims??
-----
Logic points to the answer being one thing... the person's later words point
the other direction. I go with logic. You do not. Thank you for finally
answering my question. Now that you have made it clear where our
disagreement stems from, can you bring yourself to cease lashing out in
anger and spewing insults and accusations?
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
> -----
> Person 1:
> "while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
> logical possibility that I am wrong"
> Person 2:
> "I do not agree with that statement at all"
>
> Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
> about his claims??
> -----
>
> ... When the answer is plain to see and is contained in the reply from
> Person 2.
In my first post I was mistaken... I thought you meant a later comment from
person 2.... but you did not. My apologies. And thank you for admitting I
was right. I appreciate it.
Now why did you call me a liar when you were disagreeing that the logic of
those statements should *not* be trumped by person 2's later comments?
--
... something I'm committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually move the desktop
experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Ooop's there goes Snit's "current reality" again.... He brings up the
subject so therefore it must be my obsession! :-)
> I can see why you would want to alter yours.
>
> First you showed you did not have the ability to understand
> information that is covered by the third grade, even though you have been
> "processing" it for years, and then to run from that weakness of yours you
> dredged up a debate from 2004 where you showed you think someone's later
> words trumped logic.
Which "later words" Snit? Do you know? Will you share? No?
> -----
> Person 1:
> "while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
> logical possibility that I am wrong"
> Person 2:
> "I do not agree with that statement at all"
>
> Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
> about his claims??
> -----
>
> Logic points to the answer being one thing... the person's later words point
> the other direction.
They would be the words that you can't seem to find would they Snit? Let me
guess.... they used to be there... But then you did something which changed
your "current reality" and now you can't find them?... Close? LOL
"Well, I am doing things... and that, I suppose from a certain perspective,
is changing my current reality. But isn't that true for all of us?"-Snit
ROTFLMAO!
> I go with logic. You do not.
Of course I do, and I can prove that mine actually works ...try this for
logic...
It is logical that after you repeatedly failing to produce a statement
authored by Elizabot to indicate anything other than that which she has
stated and I have already produced, to assume that no such statement exists,
and you are simply lying to try and deflect some of the embarrassment that
you are feeling!
Of course you can trump my logic by actually quoting or linking to this
alleged statement from Elizabot that you keep mentioning! But you won't
Snit, you won't! :-)
> Thank you for finally
> answering my question. Now that you have made it clear where our
> disagreement stems from, can you bring yourself to cease lashing out in
> anger and spewing insults and accusations?
I am pleased that I was able to help you Snit....
"the answer is plain to see and is contained in the reply from Person 2...
... Clearly you are one having problems with it Snit, so whereas I may be
willing to point you in the right direction, it would, I feel, do you a
disservice to outright give you the answer!"-Wally
But just out of interest, Where did I actually answer your question Snit?
"Thank you for finally answering my question."-Snit
Was that an example of how your "current reality" changes in relation to the
rest of us when you do something?
"Well, I am doing things... and that, I suppose from a certain perspective,
is changing my current reality. But isn't that true for all of us?"-Snit
You really should stop trying to convince yourself that other people whether
that be "most people" or even "all of us" share your disturbing views Snit!
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C58A9A4B.F56A%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/7/09 1:43 AM:
>
>> -----
>> Person 1:
>> "while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
>> logical possibility that I am wrong"
>> Person 2:
>> "I do not agree with that statement at all"
>>
>> Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
>> about his claims??
>> -----
>>
>> ... When the answer is plain to see and is contained in the reply from
>> Person 2.
>
> In my first post I was mistaken... I thought you meant a later comment from
> person 2....
Snit I don't know any gentler way to break this to you, so here goes...
The concept of Person I and person 2 in this thread was all yours, the
comments made by person 1 and person 2 were authored by you, so I believe it
is safe to say that if there were a "later comment" by person 2 you would
have been the first to know!
> but you did not.
Of course I did not!
> My apologies. And thank you for admitting I
> was right. I appreciate it.
Are you sure you are not mixing me up with some other manifestation that you
have created and then forgotten that you had Snit?
> Now why did you call me a liar when you were disagreeing that the logic of
> those statements should *not* be trumped by person 2's later comments?
You would be a liar if the "later statements" that you claim exist but have
repeatedly failed to display simply do not exist Snit, therefore they cannot
"trump" or contradict or any other word you care to choose the statements
that do exist and have been posted by me!
And as it is my opinion that they do not exist, it is likewise my opinion
that you are a liar in stating that they do!
Only you can prove if I am right or wrong Snit, only you, will you?
Fairly straight forward really! (as long as you can keep your "current
reality" nailed down Snit)
Steve Carroll
> "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
>
> ...
>
> >> Snit absolutely *hates* this list with a passion... he's whined
> >> about it constantly.
>
> When?
>
> I told you I would post the list of quotes about Steve... so as to not start
> a new thread and make others think such quote lists mean anything... here
> are some quotes I gathered in *one month* for Steve. He has been gathering
> quotes about me since at least 2004.
>
> Correct me where I misunderstand you, Steve. Snit made some
> comment about Bush many years ago that you think he did not
> prove
Correction: That Snit admitted he did not prove.
> Because, fuck tube, you have to prove I am snit BEFORE you
> can assert that you are using the same tactics. Now, prove
> I am a snit sockpuppet, your assertion, or admit you are a
> completely clueless fuck tube.
You could simply be a shill... one of Snit's friends or someone who
recognizes that backing a well known troll like Snit is an easy way to
quickly troll a ng. Anyone who thinks they can defend Snit's trolling
is a troll, shill or sock puppet. Reality has amply shown that, for
good reason, honest and honorable people have all labeled Snit a liar,
troll or worse.
> Never said it was. But your retorts after being caught with
> your foot in your mouth, they have all been weak.
>
Yeah... I'm caught with my 'foot in my mouth' about your defense of
Snit. LOL!
> You would have been better off by accepting that you'd made a
> fool of yourself. Instead, you've chosen to act like a
> grade-schooler.
> This isn't worth my time. Grow up.
Same as above... Snit related BS.
>
> Where is the evidence of sock puppetry Steve? Do you think
> hiding like a spanked coward will help your case?
> Why did you claim things were snipped when they were still in
> the post?
> When will you stop lying?
> Please post edit everything, again, Steve.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> None of that is support for anything but the affirmation, "I
> HATE SNIT AND I WANT HIM TO DIE!!!!!"
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> So you admit you are a lying scumbag.
Same as above... Snit related BS.
> Steve, I am still awaiting your proof I am a snit sock
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Care to share of your abundant wisdom, carroll?
Ah yes, an argument with C Lund.. always wrought with Lund's anti-
American BS. Here's what Lund has said referring to you:
"C Lund: "Snit is not my responsibility.
Maybe it's time for you to learn how to use your kill-filter. I am
assuming,
of course, that your Usenet browser has a kill-filter."
> I've decided to accept the nomination, not for the evidence
> presented /prior/ to the nomination, which might have
> convinced me to at least excise Steve Carroll from the "COLA
> Kook Collective" but from the ample evidence Mr. Carroll
> presented afterwards. At some point, he exceeded the "doth
> protest too much" threshold.
>
> Poor Steve, can't understand when he is asked a direct
> question and then is stupid. I could have said "acts stupid"
> but I doubt he is acting.
>
> The only thing you proved is that you're as scrambled as
> always.
>
> Right... care to elaborate on this? Use a tiny teaspoon
> please. Assume that I'm *really* stupid.
>
> For the slow kid:
> 1. You claim I am snit's sock.
More Snit related BS
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:03:33 -0600, a coward and pest named
> Steve Carroll lied: Then lied about lying, lied about having
> lied about lying, lied some more to cover up the previous
> lies, and lied again.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Note: Steve once again runs away from posting his proof.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> "Which sockpuppets would those be, Steve? Itemize the one YOU
> think are me." What's the matter, chickenshit, you said I was
> a snit sock, now prove it.
Same as above... Snit related BS
> Because, fuck tube, you have to prove I am snit BEFORE you can
> assert that you are using the same tactics. Now, prove I am a
> snit sockpuppet
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> What are you talking about now?
Real damning here;)
>
> So all you can do is make up more delusion and lies in a
> pathetic attempt to cover for your previous lies.
Same as above... Snit related BS
> Stevie once more evades and hides:
> ************************************************
> >> >>So here is where you show I lied about you:
Same as above... Snit related BS
> When you going to show these lies, Steve?
Same as above... Snit related BS
> The only reason you want to use your twisted view of his
> standards is you have none of your own. Clearly your word
> means nothing to you. You fucking bitch about how Snit
> talked badly about Bushy years ago so you get to be an
> asshole and lie about him all you want.
Same as above... Snit related BS
Are you stoned? Are
> you really that stupid and fucked up? Get a goddam life
> already!
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Steve fucktube Carroll blew a gasket because someone said
> something mean about his buddy Bushy. Well Fucktube Carroll,
> Bushy is a law breaking asshole of galactic proportions who
> lies to the world for a drop of oil. He can bend over
> forwards and take it up the ass from Cheney for all I care.
> Are you going to chase me down for years now to and lie about
> me forging you?
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> No corrections offered, so now we know the real story here:
> Snit made some comment about Bush many years ago that you
> think he did not prove and because of that you think it is
> fine to accuse him of forging your posts without any evidence
> at all and you expect him to jump in and defend you when
> others call you names when you act like a complete asshole.
> You clearly are that stupid.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> I have seen Snit point to his website where he does have
> support. Have you seen it? Do you have a counter arguement?
> I bet not! Snit made some comment about Bush many years ago
> that you think he did not prove and because of that you think
> it is fine to accuse him of forging your posts without any
> evidence at all and you expect him to jump in and defend you
> when others call you names when you act like a complete
> asshole.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Why? Because now you will follow me around for years
> accusing me of forging your posts, too? Are you making a
> threat? Are you going to try to hunt me down and fuck with
> me, too?
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Now you accept Snit offered support. Lovely. Do you have
> anything to counter his support or will you just follow him
> around for eternity claiming he is forging you?
>
Same as above... Snit related BS
> Shove your crap up your ass, Steve. Snit has posted his
> website that has his argument. Can you refute it or will you
> just continue to lie about him throughout eternity because he
> said something mean about Bushy the war monger?
>
Same as above... Snit related BS
> You clearly are in a perpetual mental breakdown you fucktube.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> ...You have labelled Snit as being guilty of forging you.
> When pressed to provide proof, you provide over 100 quotes
> from various individuals regarding their perceptions of him.
> That isn't proof of anything except that he lives rent-free
> in a whole lot of heads. Therefore, by the definition you
> just gave me, you are, indeed, a thug, as well as a Rethug.
>
Same as above... Snit related BS
> And you are a dissembling fuck tube.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Snit made a comment about Bushy years ago that set you off so
> now you get to accuse him of forging your posts and you think
> that is just fine. You are fucked up more than most of the
> idiots who post to Usenet.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> So is 5 days enough for you to have come up with a response,
> fucktube?
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Of sweet fuck-all. Voltaire said, "A witty saying proves
> nothing." Your quotes aren't even /witty/. Who gives a shit
> what people "believe"? It doesn't mean you've proven Snit to
> be a liar for a second. As for being a troll, most usenetters
> are that. The ones who aren't trolling are k00ky wallflowers
> who want no one to reply to them. Try again, slaphead.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> So you'd rather not prove any of your claims, but instead
> keep foaming away at Snit and anyone who dares question your
> attacks on him. You're gonna walk away with that CNOTM.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Your statement, cupcake, you provide proof of your own
> assertion. Here is a hint, I don't give one flying Ratz ass
> about your co-dependant obsession with snit. Now back to the
> question you cannot answer: :What's the matter, chickenshit,
> you said I was a snit sock, now prove it. <Next cowardly
> avoidance and obfuscation>
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Do shut the fuck up.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> You were asked to provide YOUR evidence not what other unknown
> people write. "Which sockpuppets would those be, Steve? Itemize
> the one YOU think are me."
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> What lie did I post? You can of course show where I lied
> about anything about you, right? Proof is so important to you
> and lying is so egregious to you you would noyt want to be
> caught lying yourself, right? So here is where you show I
> lied about you:
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Which sockpuppets would those be, Steve? Itemize the one YOU
> think are me.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> You keep whining about Snit saying he did not have proof. So
> what? Did he have support? Do you think a lack of proof is
> the same as a disproof? Are you hoping Bushy jumps in Air
> Force One to come meet you and then meat you?
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Prove it, moron. You made a claim, now prove you did not lie.
> "What's the matter, chickenshit, you said I was a snit sock,
> now prove it." <insert next obfuscation>
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> What else will netkook Steve obsess over next?
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Come on fuck tube, where was the *post*? To what am I
> replying? Demonstrate how that *post* that has no text in the
> body and consists of just headers is not a *post*.
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Steve = Nutjob
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Oh how cute! Another 29 percenter!
Same as above... Snit related BS
>
> Well, that's where you're royally fucked, then, isn't it?
> Because Snit's proof that Bush is a war criminal is possessed
> of Herculean strength, next to your 98-pound weakling that he
> is a sockpuppeteer.
Same as above... Snit related BS
(snip the remainder which were all the same as above... Snit related
BS... anyone reading surely gets the idea by now)
Note: No attributions to *anything*. Also notable is the *fact* that
virtually every one of these quotes were made by the same few 'people'
in the common theme of defending Snit;)
Snit
> On 7/1/09 6:24 PM, in article C589C2C7.E8E65%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>> C58A9A4B.F56A%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/7/09 1:43 AM:
>>
>>> -----
>>> Person 1:
>>> "while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
>>> logical possibility that I am wrong"
>>> Person 2:
>>> "I do not agree with that statement at all"
>>>
>>> Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
>>> about his claims??
>>> -----
>>>
>>> ... When the answer is plain to see and is contained in the reply from
>>> Person 2.
>>
>> In my first post I was mistaken... I thought you meant a later comment from
>> person 2....
>
> Snit I don't know any gentler way to break this to you, so here goes...
>
> The concept of Person I and person 2 in this thread was all yours
Yes, Wally, very good! I did not refer to the people by name but by person 1
and person 2!
> , the comments made by person 1 and person 2 were authored by you
Well, other than they were not, sure!
> , so I believe it is safe to say that if there were a "later comment" by
> person 2 you would have been the first to know!
Ah, so you did not recognize the very quotes *you* dredged up from 2004 and
obsessed over. LOL!
...
>> My apologies. And thank you for admitting I
>> was right. I appreciate it.
>
> Are you sure you are not mixing me up with some other manifestation that you
> have created and then forgotten that you had Snit?
Above, Wally, you agree with me that the answer is "plain to see and is
contained in the reply from Person 2". Assuming you mean, of course, you are
taking that comment in relation to the comment it referred to, that that was
what I have been saying. And you have been claiming I was wrong.
So, again, thanks for admitting your error. I truly appreciate it.
...
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C58AE2B2.F587%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/7/09 6:52 AM:
>
>> On 7/1/09 6:24 PM, in article C589C2C7.E8E65%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> C58A9A4B.F56A%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/7/09 1:43 AM:
>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> Person 1:
>>>> "while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
>>>> logical possibility that I am wrong"
>>>> Person 2:
>>>> "I do not agree with that statement at all"
>>>>
>>>> Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
>>>> about his claims??
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> ... When the answer is plain to see and is contained in the reply from
>>>> Person 2.
>>>
>>> In my first post I was mistaken... I thought you meant a later comment from
>>> person 2....
>>
>> Snit I don't know any gentler way to break this to you, so here goes...
>>
>> The concept of Person I and person 2 in this thread was all yours
>
> Yes, Wally, very good! I did not refer to the people by name but by person 1
> and person 2!
Correct! even though I had explained why there was no need to do so...
<quote>
Your question is irrelevant as it may have escaped your attention Snit but
there is an actual example contained in a real thread involving real people
Snit!
There is no need for your demented ramblings such as ...
-----
Person 1:
"while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
logical possibility that I am wrong"
Person 2:
"I do not agree with that statement at all"
Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
about his claims??
-----
<end quote>
Clearly you felt more comfortable with your example than with the "actual
example contained in a real thread involving real people" Snit!
>> , the comments made by person 1 and person 2 were authored by you
>
> Well, other than they were not, sure!
Yes they were!
Show any comments in this thread where comments attributed to a 'person 1'
or 'person 2' were not authored by you Snit!
>
>> , so I believe it is safe to say that if there were a "later comment" by
>> person 2 you would have been the first to know!
>
> Ah, so you did not recognize the very quotes *you* dredged up from 2004 and
> obsessed over. LOL!
I have *never* quoted a 'person 1' or 'person 2' from that year Snit, the
only 'person 1 or 'person 2' that I have quoted are the more recent ones
authored by you Snit!
> ...
>>> My apologies. And thank you for admitting I
>>> was right. I appreciate it.
>>
>> Are you sure you are not mixing me up with some other manifestation that you
>> have created and then forgotten that you had Snit?
>
> Above, Wally, you agree with me that the answer is "plain to see and is
> contained in the reply from Person 2".
Which it is!
> Assuming you mean, of course,
No need for any assumptions Snit,
You having 'person 2' stating ...
"Person 2:
"I do not agree with that statement at all""-Snit
... That is plain enough!
> you are
> taking that comment in relation to the comment it referred to,
I am taking that comment as the answer to the question that it is in
relation to!
> that that was what I have been saying. And you have been claiming I was
> wrong.
I have never denied that in your example 'person 2' has completely answered
the question asked by 'person 1'.
> So, again, thanks for admitting your error. I truly appreciate it.
If it were true I am sure that you would... Alas for you it isn't!
Wally
<Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
It appears that Snit has decided that he will not share these "later words"!
That comes as a big shock! ....NOT!
I just can't seem to help being right about you Snit!
>> Thank you for finally
>> answering my question. Now that you have made it clear where our
>> disagreement stems from, can you bring yourself to cease lashing out in
>> anger and spewing insults and accusations?
>
> I am pleased that I was able to help you Snit....
>
> "the answer is plain to see and is contained in the reply from Person 2...
>
> ... Clearly you are one having problems with it Snit, so whereas I may be
> willing to point you in the right direction, it would, I feel, do you a
> disservice to outright give you the answer!"-Wally
>
> But just out of interest, Where did I actually answer your question Snit?
Still waiting Snit! LOL
> "Thank you for finally answering my question."-Snit
>
> Was that an example of how your "current reality" changes in relation to the
> rest of us when you do something?
>
> "Well, I am doing things... and that, I suppose from a certain perspective,
> is changing my current reality. But isn't that true for all of us?"-Snit
>
> You really should stop trying to convince yourself that other people whether
> that be "most people" or even "all of us" share your disturbing views Snit!
That is really good advice Snit!
Snit
>>>>> -----
>>>>> Person 1:
>>>>> "while I appear to be right [about my claims] there is the
>>>>> logical possibility that I am wrong"
>>>>> Person 2:
>>>>> "I do not agree with that statement at all"
>>>>>
>>>>> Does Person 2 think there is a possibility Person 1 is wrong
>>>>> about his claims??
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> ... When the answer is plain to see and is contained in the reply from
>>>>> Person 2.
>>>>
>>>> In my first post I was mistaken... I thought you meant a later comment from
>>>> person 2....
>>>
>>> Snit I don't know any gentler way to break this to you, so here goes...
>>>
>>> The concept of Person I and person 2 in this thread was all yours
>>
>> Yes, Wally, very good! I did not refer to the people by name but by person 1
>> and person 2!
>
> Correct! even though I had explained why there was no need to do so...
Your judgment of the value of doing so is irrelevant. I simply do not care.
What I am happy about, though, is that you finally answered the question and
admitted I was right.
Thank you.
With us coming to agreement there is nothing left to discuss on this topic.
Snit
> On 7/1/09 10:33 PM, in article C58ADE4D.F585%Wa...@wally.world.net, "Wally"
> <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
Do you want to include someone else in your conversations?
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)