Sandman correct about Snit's forgeries
High Plains Thumper
circus trash. Following contains Sandman's amicus curiae, an updated
version documenting Snit forging PDF's, which illustrates Snit has
established a history of forgeries and has no credibility:
Why is it so easy for Snit to lie? Here is an example of Snit's lies,
how he forges evidence, distilled in Google Groups in all its glory.
Regarding Snit's forged evidence and libellous ad hominem attacks:
Snit: "Heck, you can even post a few PDF files and blurry JPGs if you
really want to prove your case, right? :)"
Steve Mackay: "Hey, and you can modify multiple times, post them on your
site, and claim they are the 'originals'. Oh wait... You've done that
already. Wow... more accusations from you posted with -*gasp*-
absolutely no support. You do that a lot..."
Snit: "Oh, wait - you were just trolling."
Steve Mackay: "Naah. I leave that to the experts like you."
Snit: "Er? I have just shown you to be lying, above, and then you make
more baseless accusation. Well, then, as long as you are making
baseless accusation, you *are* a proven child molester. Keep in mind
that the baseless accusation game is the one *you* are pushing, so you
should have no problem with my referring to you as a 'proven child
molester'."
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:26:06 -0700
Message-ID: <BF23EBBE.29362%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/87031a1655f235c2
Snit has already established a history of modifying evidence (forgery
creation) and posting it as the original, which is a form of lying. Here
is an example of such forgery, which Steve MacKay in his message above
was referring to. Links have been updated, so the reader may by simply
clicking, view them in their Internet browser:
[quote]
Welcome to yet another Digest from comp.sys.mac.advocacy. This time the
subject is Michael (Snit) who has bombarded the group with incorrect
information, which this digest aims to clear up.
The background
Michael is questioning the PDF of the screenshot of the mail that Steve
Mackay received from him which later was one of the evidence that tied
Michael to having created sigmond as a sock puppet. Basically, Michael
claims that the PDF has been altered, lets examine that. The original of
the PDF, as posted by Steve Mackay is on
<http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/87a3b18aff5156e1
From: Snit <snit-nos...@cableone.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:32:23 -0700
Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
Message-id: <BD3E9B07.5BA3B%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
This is the first message where Michael claims to have dug up the old
PDF from his "backup drive". Note that the PDF, which is supposed to be
coming from Steve Mackay is on Michaels web space. He mentiones the
"unverified" part (see the sigmond FAQ for this part).
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d67cf7ab1c87b2d8
From: Steve Mackay <steve_mac...@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:47:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
Message-id: <pan.2004.08.11.14.52.54.922...@hotmail.com>
Steve replies to that, and notes that Michaels version of "his" PDF is
larger then the original and is created on a Mac (Steve used a Windows
box to create the original).
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b6aa8feccd0cc7ca
From: Snit <snit-nos...@cableone.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:53:20 -0700
Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
Message-id: <BD3F80F0.5BC56%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
Michael asks Steve why *HE* changed the PDF, which of course he didn't,
the original is still on Steves server, the altered version is on
Michaels server.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c9f66290f216ec98
From: Steve Mackay <steve_mac...@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:54:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
Message-id: <pan.2004.08.11.16.04.00.141...@hotmail.com>
Steve replies and says he did no such thing and links to two screenshots
about the information of the two PDFs clearly displaying that one is
made by Internet Explorer for PC while the other is made by OmniGraffle
on a Mac. Steve also links to the web directory that holds his files and
point to the modification date which is June 13, not August 10 like the
one Michael has.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/748f0903ec603b5e
From: Snit <snit-nos...@cableone.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:09:06 -0700
Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
Message-id: <BD3F92B2.5BC82%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
Michael responds to say that he is concerned only with the "unverified"
art of the PDF, and whatever differences in the PDF Steve might find is
irrelevant. He claims it doesn't matter which one Steve uses.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/868d83ee46de3522
From: Snit <snit-nos...@cableone.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:26:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
Message-id: <BD3F96B3.5BC8B%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
Michael then posts to say that he has added both of Steves PDF's to his
site, but Steve hasn't had two PDFs, he has only had one, the original.
Michael still claims that Steve has altered the PDFs which is what
accounts for the change of size. Remember that the PDF with the
different size originally came from Michaels web space, not Steves.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d9951207db7341ba
From: Steve Mackay <steve_mac...@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:53:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
Message-id: <pan.2004.08.11.19.58.21.63...@hotmail.com>
Steve replies by telling Michael that there isn't two versions of the
PDF coming from him. The one called "email.pdf" on Michaels web space is
the altered one and the one called "email-new.pdf" is in fact the
original one, from Steves site, now also on Michaels site.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/63e5ada930d5123f
From: Snit <snit-nos...@cableone.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:34:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
Message-id: <BD3FD100.5BD2B%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
Michael claims that both PDFs came from Steve, when this just isn't
true. One of the PDFs is different from the one on Steves site. Steve
hasn't posted this modified version, Michael has. Michael still claims
he is focused on the word "unverified".
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/96a71941fc15f562
From: Steve Mackay <steve_mac...@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:01:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
Message-id: <pan.2004.08.12.00.02.53.563...@hotmail.com>
Steve now posts a small summary of the PDFs where he has saved the two,
by Michael, modified version of his original PDF on his site, clearly
stating them to be Michaels PDFs.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9de058f951de1f98
From: Snit <snit-nos...@cableone.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:44:57 -0700
Subject: Caught Steve Mackay in *another* big lie
Message-id: <BD4019A9.5BDB5%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
Now Michael posts a new thread, called "Caught Steve Mackay in *another*
big lie" where he claims that one of the PDFs on Steves site is a
forgery! The only problem is that it's -Michaels- version of the PDF
that is the forgery, the one Michael has been posting on his site! He
claims that the font for the IP number is different - in his own PDF!
The one Steve uploaded to his site to keep a copy of Michaels
alterations to the PDF. Note that this different font isn't visible in
the original version on Steves site.
Classic, Michael has done all the work to prove that he forged the PDF
to look edited.
[/quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c01aec2af89b8173
Thus, Snit does not have a leg to stand on, the burden of proof of his
lying and forging documents, presenting them as "proofs" is already
captured in Google Groups, establishing a history.
--
HPT
Snit
on 12/6/09 5:30 PM:
> Snit continues to be rampantly on the loose in COLA
Gee, and little elves are stopping you from posting?
Why focus on the fact you are too incompetent to follow simple steps you see
in a video? Seriously, you have proved you are stupid and dishonest. Move
on.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 12/6/09 5:30 PM:
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:32:23 -0700
How do you even pretend to take sides on an issue this long dead? What is
wrong with you? In any case, you merely are proving you are dishonest and
stupid.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Dark
"High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hfhib1$t35$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
High plains douche bag,
Why start trouble Snit is not bothering anyone. We all know that you are an
asshole, you don't have to keep proving it.
High Plains Thumper
> High plains douche bag,
> Why start trouble Snit is not bothering anyone. We all know that you
> are an asshole, you don't have to keep proving it.
Zara, your slip is showing.
Snit: "And, yes, I know the facts will go over your head. You are an
insane moron... and you have nothing of value to say. Here: you will
prove it with your response and I will merely note you did so. 100%
predictable."
cc: "What facts? The fact that you don't know what a hypothetical
situation is? The fact that you can't answer any questions? The fact
that you continue to run away when faced with simple questions? I am
100% predictable to you because you simply cannot understand what has
been placed in front of you. It's all just a jumble of words to your
pea-sized brain, and therefore it always looks the same." 15 Nov 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f6ce4429806e9de6
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> Message-ID: <BD3E9B07.5BA3B%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
>
> This is the first message where Michael claims to have dug up the old
> PDF from his "backup drive". Note that the PDF, which is supposed to
> be coming from Steve Mackay is on Michaels web space. He mentiones
> the "unverified" part (see the sigmond FAQ for this part).
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d67cf7ab1c87b2d8
> From: Steve Mackay <steve_mac...@hotmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:47:52 -0500
> Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
> Message-ID: <pan.2004.08.11.14.52.54.922...@hotmail.com>
>
> Steve replies to that, and notes that Michaels version of "his" PDF
> is larger then the original and is created on a Mac (Steve used a
> Windows box to create the original).
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b6aa8feccd0cc7ca
> From: Snit <snit-nos...@cableone.net>
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:53:20 -0700
> Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
> Message-ID: <BD3F80F0.5BC56%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
>
> Michael asks Steve why *HE* changed the PDF, which of course he
> didn't, the original is still on Steves server, the altered version
> is on Michaels server.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c9f66290f216ec98
> From: Steve Mackay <steve_mac...@hotmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:54:03 GMT
> Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
> Message-ID: <pan.2004.08.11.16.04.00.141...@hotmail.com>
>
> Steve replies and says he did no such thing and links to two
> screenshots about the information of the two PDFs clearly displaying
> that one is made by Internet Explorer for PC while the other is made
> by OmniGraffle on a Mac. Steve also links to the web directory that
> holds his files and point to the modification date which is June 13,
> not August 10 like the one Michael has.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/748f0903ec603b5e
> From: Snit <snit-nos...@cableone.net>
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:09:06 -0700
> Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
> Message-ID: <BD3F92B2.5BC82%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
>
> Michael responds to say that he is concerned only with the
> "unverified" art of the PDF, and whatever differences in the PDF
> Steve might find is irrelevant. He claims it doesn't matter which one
> Steve uses.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/868d83ee46de3522
> From: Snit <snit-nos...@cableone.net>
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:26:11 -0700
> Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
> Message-ID: <BD3F96B3.5BC8B%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
>
> Michael then posts to say that he has added both of Steves PDF's to
> his site, but Steve hasn't had two PDFs, he has only had one, the
> original. Michael still claims that Steve has altered the PDFs which
> is what accounts for the change of size. Remember that the PDF with
> the different size originally came from Michaels web space, not
> Steves.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d9951207db7341ba
> From: Steve Mackay <steve_mac...@hotmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:53:19 -0500
> Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
> Message-ID: <pan.2004.08.11.19.58.21.63...@hotmail.com>
>
> Steve replies by telling Michael that there isn't two versions of the
> PDF coming from him. The one called "email.pdf" on Michaels web
> space is the altered one and the one called "email-new.pdf" is in
> fact the original one, from Steves site, now also on Michaels site.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/63e5ada930d5123f
> From: Snit <snit-nos...@cableone.net>
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:34:56 -0700
> Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
> Message-ID: <BD3FD100.5BD2B%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
>
> Michael claims that both PDFs came from Steve, when this just isn't
> true. One of the PDFs is different from the one on Steves site. Steve
> hasn't posted this modified version, Michael has. Michael still
> claims he is focused on the word "unverified".
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/96a71941fc15f562
> From: Steve Mackay <steve_mac...@hotmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:01:04 GMT
> Subject: Re: Sandman Trolling FAQ
> Message-ID: <pan.2004.08.12.00.02.53.563...@hotmail.com>
>
> Steve now posts a small summary of the PDFs where he has saved the
> two, by Michael, modified version of his original PDF on his site,
> clearly stating them to be Michaels PDFs.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9de058f951de1f98
> From: Snit <snit-nos...@cableone.net>
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:44:57 -0700
> Subject: Caught Steve Mackay in *another* big lie
> Message-ID: <BD4019A9.5BDB5%snit-nos...@cableone.net>
>
> Now Michael posts a new thread, called "Caught Steve Mackay in
> *another* big lie" where he claims that one of the PDFs on Steves
> site is a forgery! The only problem is that it's -Michaels- version
> of the PDF that is the forgery, the one Michael has been posting on
> his site! He claims that the font for the IP number is different - in
> his own PDF! The one Steve uploaded to his site to keep a copy of
> Michaels alterations to the PDF. Note that this different font isn't
> visible in the original version on Steves site.
>
> Classic, Michael has done all the work to prove that he forged the
> PDF to look edited.
> [/quote]
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c01aec2af89b8173
>
> Thus, Snit does not have a leg to stand on, the burden of proof of
> his lying and forging documents, presenting them as "proofs" is
> already captured in Google Groups, establishing a history.
Oh, and I just wanted to add, now let us fast forward to 2009:
[QUOTE]
Steve Carroll wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> * Steve Carroll forged text
>
> Hmmm... "forged"? Isn't that when you post using someone else's
> posting ID... like you have done multiple times on this ng (and
> probably many others)?
Snit still has yet to properly explain this, resorting instead to
deep snippages to remove fact, mangle quoting me and repeating Snit
garbage over and over and over. Following is just another example of
Snit's forgeries/strawman visual aids:
[quote]
Snit wrote: [...]
> Here are some of the inconsistencies (and other oddities) I have
> documented in a relatively recent versions of desktop Linux:
>
> From PCLOS:
>
> Poorly done menus <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-menu.pdf>
Very nit picky, making a mountain out of a mole hill. "Exit" versus
"Quit"? You're kidding.
> Poorly done dialogs: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.pdf>
Dialogs cut off? There is a slider bar at the bottom, and one can
resize the dialogue box. Looks like you resized the dialogue box to
suit your anti-Linux agenda.
> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS2.pdf>
You moved and dragged the task bar, aligned vertical with the side of
the screen. That is freedom and for you it is a problem? Buttons cut
off by default? I did what you did by shinking the window. FireFox
shows ">>", which shows the remainder of that favourites toolbar menu,
not as you show.
> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.mov>
In this case, file window dialogue box did not stretch, but all text
items are visible, fully functional. Windows XP does the same. This is
okay for Microsoft software but not okay for Linux? Who are you kidding?
> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much
> better:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ubuntu-menu.pdf>
What is unusal about individual expression of how menus are set up in
applications? I see the same thing with Windows software. Adobe's menu
items differ from Corel's, differ from Ulead.
> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird
> text behavior on selection:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/copy-paste.mov>
>
> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious.
Oh, really? I just copied in FireFox, pasted in gedit, it works fine.
This is with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS and FireFox 3.0.5. Here it is again, same
text you highlighted:
[paste]
Prescott Computer Guy is a family run business located in Prescott,
Arizona. My wife, Anne, does most of the "behind the scenes" work and I,
Michael, get to do the fun part: working with the public and playing
with fun toys. Don't tell her, but I think I get the better end of the deal!
[/paste]
Altered video wizardry? There is nothing wrong with Ubuntu copy and paste.
>> I suppose you could say Gimp vs Photoshop however people using
>> either of those programs are most likely professionals and will
>> take the time to learn the differences if they need to move between
>> the two.
>
> It is not a question of learning the difference... no doubt people
> can use, for example, any of the different Save dialogs I show in my
> above links. Still leads to lost work, frustration, and lost time.
No, rather it is another example of Snit moving the goal posts, creating
problems that do not exist except for an invention of his own mind.
[/quote] 29 Jan 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/4489dbf4844832e5
[QUOTE]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4e0a197b09306808
That was 10 months ago, and Snit is still harping on the same.
--
HPT
Snit
on 12/6/09 6:55 PM:
> Dark wrote:
>
>> High plains douche bag,
>> Why start trouble Snit is not bothering anyone. We all know that you
>> are an asshole, you don't have to keep proving it.
>
> Zara, your slip is showing.
HPT is painfully stupid. He hates that he is, but he knows he is. His only
way of dealing with it is to lash out...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 12/6/09 7:10 PM:
>>> * Steve Carroll forged text
>>
>> Hmmm... "forged"? Isn't that when you post using someone else's
>> posting ID... like you have done multiple times on this ng (and
>> probably many others)?
>
> Snit still has yet to properly explain this
I have explained it - and proved it - many times. You are just too stupid
to understand. Really. You are stupid.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> High plains douche bag,
> Why start trouble Snit is not bothering anyone. We all know that you are an
> asshole, you don't have to keep proving it.
HPT is stupid. He is dishonest. And now, clearly, he is angry. Oh well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
And you are delusional from the lack of attention and/or the PCP you are
hooked on.
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
And your grammar is bad. Commas should go where the dashes are, and
there are to be single spaces between sentences. Are you getting as
illiterate as zara?
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
In your LSD based delusions.
Snit
on 12/6/09 9:11 PM:
And you seem so clever, eh? LOL!
Listen, HPT has been caught making a complete idiot of himself. By his own
admission he is too stupid to follow simple steps he sees in a video and, in
reaction, lies and calls people names. He is, in a word, stupid.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 12/6/09 9:13 PM:
My grammar might be poor, but it is not bad.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 12/6/09 9:14 PM:
You are bored today, eh?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
No role reversal or projecting allowed, Mr. Incest.
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
No, sorry to disappoint you.
Snit
on 12/6/09 9:24 PM:
You just contradicted yourself.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Chance Furlong stated in post T-Bone-17E16E.22240406122...@news.giganews.com
> on 12/6/09 9:24 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <C741CF99.57DAC%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> on 12/6/09 9:11 PM:
>
> >>> In article <C741B6DA.57D3D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> >>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>> High plains douche bag,
> >>>>> Why start trouble Snit is not bothering anyone. We all know that you are
> >>>>> an
> >>>>> asshole, you don't have to keep proving it.
>
> >>>> HPT is stupid. He is dishonest. And now, clearly, he is angry. Oh well.
>
> >>> And you are delusional from the lack of attention and/or the PCP you are
> >>> hooked on.
>
> >> And you seem so clever, eh? LOL!
>
> >> Listen, HPT has been caught making a complete idiot of himself. By his own
> >> admission he is too stupid to follow simple steps he sees in a video and, in
> >> reaction, lies and calls people names. He is, in a word, stupid.
>
> > No role reversal or projecting allowed, Mr. Incest.
>
> You just contradicted yourself.
Where did he call you sane, honest and honorable?
Sandman
High Plains Thumper <h...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Snit continues to be rampantly on the loose in COLA, spreading his usual
> circus trash. Following contains Sandman's amicus curiae, an updated
> version documenting Snit forging PDF's, which illustrates Snit has
> established a history of forgeries and has no credibility:
>
> Why is it so easy for Snit to lie? Here is an example of Snit's lies,
> how he forges evidence, distilled in Google Groups in all its glory.
> Regarding Snit's forged evidence and libellous ad hominem attacks:
>
> Snit: "Heck, you can even post a few PDF files and blurry JPGs if you
> really want to prove your case, right? :)"
>
> Steve Mackay: "Hey, and you can modify multiple times, post them on your
> site, and claim they are the 'originals'. Oh wait... You've done that
> already. Wow... more accusations from you posted with -*gasp*-
> absolutely no support. You do that a lot..."
>
> Snit: "Oh, wait - you were just trolling."
>
> Steve Mackay: "Naah. I leave that to the experts like you."
>
> Snit: "Er? I have just shown you to be lying, above, and then you make
> more baseless accusation. Well, then, as long as you are making
> baseless accusation, you *are* a proven child molester. Keep in mind
> that the baseless accusation game is the one *you* are pushing, so you
> should have no problem with my referring to you as a 'proven child
> molester'."
This link has been posted many times, the entire forgery details can
be seen here:
http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
12/7/09 10:36 AM:
> This link has been posted many times, the entire forgery details can
> be seen here:
>
> http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
But none of it offers a shred of evidence of anything other than the fact
that you are a self-professed troll who spews BS on other media. This is
one of your own criteria for proving you are a troll.
Heck, I just looked at your BS, and part of it says:
The link to "his original PDF" doesn't link to a PDF on
Steves site - but on Michaels site. This is an important
pattern in Michaels obfuscation. Michaels link to "his
modified PDF" is to what before was Michaels copy of the
original PDF - which this digest has already commented on -
and that Michaels still tries to pull.
And yet you say that when the only copies you point to are the ones are on
your own servers! You know, the ones where you have enough control to even
fake posting dates and times!
Sandman goes out of his way to show he is a liar. Amazing.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-43840C.18362707122...@News.Individual.NET on
> 12/7/09 10:36 AM:
>
> > This link has been posted many times, the entire forgery details can
> > be seen here:
>
> >http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
>
> But none of it offers
... anything you were ever able to refute? Correct... you cannot
refute reality. All sane, honest and honorable people know this.
Steve Carroll
> 12/7/09 10:36 AM:
>
> > This link has been posted many times, the entire forgery details can
> > be seen here:
>
> >http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
>
> But none of it offers a shred of evidence of anything other than the fact
> that you are a self-professed troll who spews BS on other media. This is
> one of your own criteria for proving you are a troll.
>
> Heck, I just looked at your BS, and part of it says:
>
> The link to "his original PDF" doesn't link to a PDF on
> Steves site - but on Michaels site. This is an important
> pattern in Michaels obfuscation. Michaels link to "his
> modified PDF" is to what before was Michaels copy of the
> original PDF - which this digest has already commented on -
> and that Michaels still tries to pull.
>
> And yet you say that when the only copies you point to are the ones are on
> your own servers!
It's "actually" embarrassingly easy to prove you're lying about the
"only copies" being pointed to by Sandman exist on Sandman's servers.
Here is the link from Sandman's site... and notably, it has the date
embedded in it proving the doc has been there for almost 5 *years*:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050120142452/home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf
In case you don't know how to read a Wayback URL with respect to
dating it, I'll now point to a bit of documentation that will "teach"
you how...
--
"Reading Wayback Machine URLs
Archived urls from your collections are always formatted in a similar
way. The Archive-It host information comes first, then the collection
ID (Archive-It collection number), the date the page was captured, and
lastly the address for the archived URL itself. For example:
http://wayback.archive-it.org/194/20080414172354/http://www.governor.state.nc.us/
is a capture of governor.state.nc.us in collection 194 on April 14,
2008.
The date code in the url breaks down as yyyymmddhhmmss and is recorded
in GMT time.
When you see a * where the date code in an archival url should be, the
wayback machine will return all dates a url was archived. You can
limit the dates you see by adding a year or month before the *. There
are some examples of this below under URL Date Query."
https://webarchive.jira.com/wiki/display/ARIH/Advanced+Wayback+Machine+Navigation+and+Troubleshooting
--
Get that, gluehead? - "The date code in the url breaks down as
yyyymmddhhmmss and is recorded in GMT time."
So... as all sane, honest and honorable people can clearly see, the
date portion of the Wayback URL that Sandman pointed to reads:
20050120142452
Do you need even more help figuring the date out? Just let me know,
Mr. "computer teacher". LOL!
High Plains Thumper
Sandman, I took a look at the evidence on your site, rather amazing and
follows along with Snit's subtle modifications he likes to do with
"evidence" from his website. He did that to graphical screen shots of
Linux items, so he could spread his poisonous lies of supposed X-Server
problems.
In the PDF's, one subtlety I noticed about Snit's PDF's was the
overwriting his IP address after the "unverified" text with a slightly
different font size.
This was easy to detect, as Adobe Reader in Ubuntu allows multiple tabs
for multiple files, which I can click back and forth for comparison. It
appears that he was attempting to obfuscate his originating IP, which
Steve Mackay discovered from Snit direct E-mailing him.
Snit in COLA has been doing his usual snip away all burden of proof of
his trolling in my replies and coming back with his ad hominem rants.
His favourite rant is claiming I don't know what ad hominem is. I have
given him the direct meaning from the on-line Webster dictionary, which
his denial thereof is a classic troll denial technique to justify his
trolling.
To Snit, it is all a game, he has no sense of seriousness but to totally
frustrate those who attempt honest replies, no matter the topic.
His latest denial is that Joel Crump is not Snit, which is another open
lie. It is obvious that he uses open proxies, TOR, free E-mail ISP's,
altered PC system dates, altered NNTP headers and multiple desktop hosts
to obfuscate so he can post his FUD through socks.
The foul language displayed through his socks are a tip-off on the type
of depraved persona the posting community is dealing with.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> Sandman stated:
>
>> This link has been posted many times, the entire forgery details
>> can be seen here:
>>
>> http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
>
> But none of it offers a shred of evidence of anything other than the
> fact that you are a self-professed troll who spews BS on other media.
> This is one of your own criteria for proving you are a troll.
>
Take your lying, whiny rants to somewhere else where your type crap is
considered on-topic, luser.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> Snit wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Listen, HPT has been caught making a complete idiot of himself.
>>>> By his own admission he is too stupid to follow simple steps he
>>>> sees in a video and, in reaction, lies and calls people names.
>>>> He is, in a word, stupid.
>>>
>>> No role reversal or projecting allowed, Mr. Incest.
>>
>> You just contradicted yourself.
>
> Where did he call you sane, honest and honorable?
Snit is one of the worst trolls to inhabit in Usenet. One only need to
follow the threads to see what a fool he is. It is all captured in Google.
--
HPT
Snit
on 12/7/09 11:03 PM:
> Sandman, I took a look at the evidence on your site, rather amazing and
> follows along with Snit's subtle modifications he likes to do with
> "evidence" from his website. He did that to graphical screen shots of
> Linux items, so he could spread his poisonous lies of supposed X-Server
> problems.
You keep making this accusation. You *never* present a shred of evidence.
Why? Because you are a liar. And why do you lie about me? Easy - you are
still pissed you were not able to follow simple copy and paste steps I
showed in a video. Why not? Because you are stupid.
Yes, HPT, you are stupid. And dishonest. And still humiliated.
It really is that simple.
> In the PDF's, one subtlety I noticed about Snit's PDF's was the
> overwriting his IP address after the "unverified" text with a slightly
> different font size.
What PDF of mine did you "notice" that about? Come on... *point to it*. As
if you would.
> This was easy to detect, as Adobe Reader in Ubuntu allows multiple tabs
> for multiple files, which I can click back and forth for comparison. It
> appears that he was attempting to obfuscate his originating IP, which
> Steve Mackay discovered from Snit direct E-mailing him.
Ah, now you jump to the Steve Mackay BS. Remember, even Sandman says his
"evidence" is merely an attempt at obfuscation. Here:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/forgery.mov>
> Snit in COLA has been doing his usual snip away all burden of proof of
> his trolling in my replies and coming back with his ad hominem rants.
I am noting you are stupid. And also noting your misuse of the phrase "ad
hominem"... you do that a lot. Because you are stupid.
> His favourite rant is claiming I don't know what ad hominem is. I have
> given him the direct meaning from the on-line Webster dictionary, which
> his denial thereof is a classic troll denial technique to justify his
> trolling.
Pointing to a definition does not change the fact you use the term
incorrectly on a regular basis. A lot. In fact, since you have shown you
have found the definition and still misuse the phrase it just shows you are
stupid. And you are.
> To Snit, it is all a game, he has no sense of seriousness but to totally
> frustrate those who attempt honest replies, no matter the topic.
At least you admit you are frustrated. Oh well.
> His latest denial is that Joel Crump is not Snit, which is another open
> lie. It is obvious that he uses open proxies, TOR, free E-mail ISP's,
> altered PC system dates, altered NNTP headers and multiple desktop hosts
> to obfuscate so he can post his FUD through socks.
See: you are stupid. You just proved it again.
> The foul language displayed through his socks are a tip-off on the type
> of depraved persona the posting community is dealing with.
Again: you proved you are stupid.
How often do you want to do that?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
11:07 PM:
You whine about my snipping... as you do what you claim to not like.
Gee, you are not just stupid, you are a hypocrite.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
on 12/7/09 11:16 PM:
Yet you cannot find a single post to support this claim of yours. You do,
however, claim to be stupid enough to believe Sandman and Carroll:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/forgery.mov>
Why do you claim to be stupid?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Why do I claim to be stupid?
Snit
on 12/8/09 5:24 AM:
>>> Snit is one of the worst trolls to inhabit in Usenet. One only need to
>>> follow the threads to see what a fool he is. It is all captured in Google.
>>
>> Yet you cannot find a single post to support this claim of yours. You do,
>> however, claim to be stupid enough to believe Sandman and Carroll:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/forgery.mov>
>>
>> Why do you claim to be stupid?
>
> Why do I claim to be stupid?
It is one of the few times you have been honest.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Sandman
Thumper <h...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > High Plains Thumper:
> > > "Oh, wait - you were just trolling."
> > >
> > > "Naah. I leave that to the experts like you."
> > >
> > > "Er? I have just shown you to be lying, above, and then you
> > > make more baseless accusation. Well, then, as long as you are
> > > making baseless accusation, you *are* a proven child molester.
> > > Keep in mind that the baseless accusation game is the one *you*
> > > are pushing, so you should have no problem with my referring to
> > > you as a 'proven child molester'."
> > Sandman:
> > This link has been posted many times, the entire forgery details
> > can be seen here:
> >
> > http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
> High Plains Thumper:
> Sandman, I took a look at the evidence on your site, rather amazing
> and follows along with Snit's subtle modifications he likes to do
> with "evidence" from his website. He did that to graphical screen
> shots of Linux items, so he could spread his poisonous lies of
> supposed X-Server problems.
I don't doubt that for a second. You can read the follow up digest
here:
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/ScreenshotForgery>
> In the PDF's, one subtlety I noticed about Snit's PDF's was the
> overwriting his IP address after the "unverified" text with a
> slightly different font size.
>
> This was easy to detect, as Adobe Reader in Ubuntu allows multiple
> tabs for multiple files, which I can click back and forth for
> comparison. It appears that he was attempting to obfuscate his
> originating IP, which Steve Mackay discovered from Snit direct
> E-mailing him.
Snit was in fact trying to make it look like *Steve* had altered the
PDF, but all the altered PDF orginated from Michaels web space.
> To Snit, it is all a game, he has no sense of seriousness but to
> totally frustrate those who attempt honest replies, no matter the
> topic.
I can't comment on his motivations. I have tried to rationalise them
many times, but I can't come to a sufficient explanation to his
obsessive lying.
> His latest denial is that Joel Crump is not Snit, which is another
> open lie. It is obvious that he uses open proxies, TOR, free E-mail
> ISP's, altered PC system dates, altered NNTP headers and multiple
> desktop hosts to obfuscate so he can post his FUD through socks.
Of course, this has been proven in the past. He once flooded my site
almost three hundred thousand times, and continued to try to evade the
apache filtering I had set up by using TOR proxies.
> The foul language displayed through his socks are a tip-off on the
> type of depraved persona the posting community is dealing with.
I can spot his sock puppets from a mile away. The latest I exposed,
Omar, was so obvious from the beginning that it wasn't even funny. He
hasn't even got the smarts to enter the group with a new sock puppet
and spend some time to NOT attack the usual people he ordinarily
attacks. Edwin is equally obvious.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
12/8/09 1:22 PM:
> I can't comment on his motivations. I have tried to rationalise them
> many times, but I can't come to a sufficient explanation to his
> obsessive lying.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/forgery.mov>
Your "evidence" has been shot down. The reason for your lying is not hard
to figure out. Ever since I proved you lied about your CSS, you have added
more and more lies about me - an act you have acknowledged is an indication
you are a troll.
Why do you work so hard to troll? Why not rise above such BS? Your CSS did
not validate. The WayBackMachine proved it... time for you to let it go and
move on.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
12/8/09 1:22 PM:
> He once flooded my site
> almost three hundred thousand times, and continued to try to evade the
> apache filtering I had set up by using TOR proxies.
And the evidence you have for this is... um... nowhere.
Wait!
You once claimed to have a text file that proved it. You wanted people to
think you were too incompetent to fake a log file.
LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
12/8/09 1:22 PM:
> I can't comment on his motivations.
You lie about everything else... why not this? If I did a little digging, I
bet I could find examples of you doing so.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Sandman stated in post mr-EB70B4.21...@News.Individual.NET on
> 12/8/09 1:22 PM:
>
> > I can't comment on his motivations.
>
> I lie about everything else, why not this? If I did a little digging, I
> bet I could find examples of me doing so.
Nice to see the truth from you for once.
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Sandman stated in post mr-EB70B4.21...@News.Individual.NET on
> 12/8/09 1:22 PM:
>
> > I can't comment on his motivations. I have tried to rationalise them
> > many times, but I can't come to a sufficient explanation to his
> > obsessive lying.
> Why do I work so hard to troll? Why don't I rise above such bullshit? My CSS did
> not validate. The Way Back Machine proved it, time for me to let it go and
> move on.
You tell us why it is so.
Steve Carroll
> Sandman stated in post mr-EB70B4.21221608122...@News.Individual.NET on
> 12/8/09 1:22 PM:
>
> > He once flooded my site
> > almost three hundred thousand times, and continued to try to evade the
> > apache filtering I had set up by using TOR proxies.
>
> And the evidence you have for this is... um... nowhere.
>
> Wait!
>
> You once claimed to have a text file that proved it.
Who would he need to prove it to that wouldn't believe him? You and
your sock puppet army? LOL!
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper stated:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Sandman stated:
>>>
>>>> This link has been posted many times, the entire forgery
>>>> details can be seen here:
>>>>
>>>> http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
>>>
>>> But none of it offers a shred of evidence of anything other than
>>> the fact that you are a self-professed troll who spews BS on
>>> other media. This is one of your own criteria for proving you are
>>> a troll.
>>>
>>> Heck, [blah blah blah]
>>
>> Take your lying, whiny rants to somewhere else where your type crap
>> is considered on-topic, luser.
>
>
> Gee, I am not just stupid, I am a hypocrite.
Yup, the truth comes out. Finally.
--
HPT
Snit
on 12/8/09 6:59 PM:
> Gee, I am not just stupid, I am a hypocrite.
I would say you are both.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
Every now and then even Snit says what we all know to be true about
him. Here's an early example of Snit not only admitting he lies about
what others are claiming but he also claims that he shows evidence
from the record of his doing so. Of course, it's usually other people
that point to this evidence, though, Snit has pointed to it himself
now and then... probably when the drugs are mixed particularly well;)
George Graves wrote:
"Snit has a problem with the difference between his opinion and fact.
He seems to think that one equals the other. I have a unique position
to be able to recognize this pattern, as I tend to do it myself
although, I must mention that He is more blatant about it than I am."
The poster ed then replied to George with:
"snit's a lot more annoying than you though, because he tends to
repeat himself over and over, AND he lies about what others are
claiming."
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence
from the records. That does tend to annoy you.
As far as repeating, I respond to the same arguments over and over
again. Should I just let these alone? Perhaps, but if I did, you (or
others) would likely claim it was me running from an argument. Places
me in a no-win situation. I do, however, to simplify things for
everyone, write responses that apply to these repeated arguments, and
post that."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ef703db000e3b9e2?hl=en&dmode=source
--
I particularly like the part where Snit claims that he repeats himself
over and over "to simplify things for everyone". ;)
And the section about being placed "in a no-win situation" is
hilarious, too. Lying "about what others are claiming" would place
anyone "in a no-win situation", yet, Snit doesn't seem to make the
connection. LOL!
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>>> details can be seen here:
>>>
>>> http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
>>
>> High Plains Thumper: Sandman, I took a look at the evidence on your
>> site, rather amazing and follows along with Snit's subtle
>> modifications he likes to do with "evidence" from his website. He
>> did that to graphical screen shots of Linux items, so he could
>> spread his poisonous lies of supposed X-Server problems.
>
> I don't doubt that for a second. You can read the follow up digest
> here:
>
> <http://csma.sandman.net/pages/ScreenshotForgery>
Ihteresting. It is what I observed from the PDF's I downloaded from
your site.
>> In the PDF's, one subtlety I noticed about Snit's PDF's was the
>> overwriting his IP address after the "unverified" text with a
>> slightly different font size.
>>
>> This was easy to detect, as Adobe Reader in Ubuntu allows multiple
>> tabs for multiple files, which I can click back and forth for
>> comparison. It appears that he was attempting to obfuscate his
>> originating IP, which Steve Mackay discovered from Snit direct
>> E-mailing him.
>
> Snit was in fact trying to make it look like *Steve* had altered the
> PDF, but all the altered PDF orginated from Michaels web space.
That is typical Snit, falsely accusing others of his (mis)deeds, moving
goal posts, setting up strawmen arguments, severely snipping and denying.
>> To Snit, it is all a game, he has no sense of seriousness but to
>> totally frustrate those who attempt honest replies, no matter the
>> topic.
>
> I can't comment on his motivations. I have tried to rationalise them
> many times, but I can't come to a sufficient explanation to his
> obsessive lying.
When one reads about narcissistic personality disorder, then it makes
sense, IMO.
>> His latest denial is that Joel Crump is not Snit, which is another
>> open lie. It is obvious that he uses open proxies, TOR, free
>> E-mail ISP's, altered PC system dates, altered NNTP headers and
>> multiple desktop hosts to obfuscate so he can post his FUD through
>> socks.
>
> Of course, this has been proven in the past. He once flooded my site
> almost three hundred thousand times, and continued to try to evade
> the apache filtering I had set up by using TOR proxies.
He seems to have an affinity for illicit computer activity, similar to
Gary Stewart AKA Flatfish in COLA. Personality wise, they share a lot
in common. Both are compulsive liars.
>> The foul language displayed through his socks are a tip-off on the
>> type of depraved persona the posting community is dealing with.
>
> I can spot his sock puppets from a mile away. The latest I exposed,
> Omar, was so obvious from the beginning that it wasn't even funny. He
> hasn't even got the smarts to enter the group with a new sock puppet
> and spend some time to NOT attack the usual people he ordinarily
> attacks. Edwin is equally obvious.
I haven't paid much attention to Edwin. In this regard, Flatfish is
somewhat smarter. After recognizing nymshifting clues, it gets easier
to spot the fakes.
I am told that the US treasury department (well, now homeland security)
teaches their agents to recognise the real dollar bill. Then when a
phoney comes along, it can be easily spotted.
Snit's posts are so anti-advocate, that they stick out like a sore thumb.
--
HPT
Snit
7:42 PM:
Remember: Sandman's claims have been shown to be absurd:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/forgery.mov>
But you answer the question at the end of the video... you claim you are
stupid enough to be fooled by Steve and Sandman. Oh well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]