Honest and Honorable Agreement
Snit
have fair "fighting" or disagreement on csma. I am open and willing to
enter into such an agreement with *anyone* in csma. I am willing to be
honest and honorable... I wish that some of the folks who argue with me were
willing to do that same... or at least let me know which point they disagree
with. Here is the list:
1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is bothering
you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially in a forum like
this.
2) Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
3) Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with
problems as they arise.
4) Agree to let the past go...
I am open to this. I welcome this. I even request this. Am I the only one
who can agree to be honest and honorable?
Sad, really.
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
John
The problem is very few of the people on here are HONEST.
Snit
5/15/04 3:48 PM:
How about you, John? While we have not had many disagreements, will you
agree to join in this pact with me... where you and I will agree to post to
each other only with the rules I specified?
I know that those that have been polluting this group recently will not...
other than myself, for I certainly have been joining in with the excessive
flame posts.
Seems I have found a way to put honor and honesty to the test, and they will
not "play my game". Sad, really...
Alan Baker
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
You've put nothing to the test. Lack of "agreement" with you says
absolutely nothing about anyone's character except yours.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Snit
alangbaker-04E1D...@news.telus.net on 5/15/04 4:26 PM:
I am testing who can agree to live by rules of honor.. granted, I have
defined those rules, but they seem fair and are based on "Fair Fighting"
rules that you can find on the web.
I have agreed to post under this system of honor with others who are in the
agreement... and have acknowledged that I have not done so in the past. I
believe I have broken all four of the rules.
You have shown you have no desire to enter into the agreement... and I have
agreed, based on your posts, that it makes sense for you not to enter into
any agreement that tries to enforce honor, or at least not the one I have
defined.
I do not see why this seems to bother you.
Steve Carroll
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
This from a guy who claimed he makes 5 times as much money as anyone in
csma... all without benefit of knowing what anyone in here makes. You
have had the least negative dealings with Snit of most all the posters
in here. I don't recall you telling anyone that you ever mistrusted
Snit. So what's stopping you from entering into his contract, John?
Steve
George Graves
Reality from the king of dishonest posters.
--
George Graves
------------------
³When I learned to use my new computer and found out what Microsoft Windows XP does best, I felt like I had just paid $700.00 for a deck of cards.²
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
Because you implied he wasn't honorable if he didn't agree to your
contract. It's known as the logical fallacy of presupposition and
you've been doing it all day. I suggest you consider the point he made.
Read it again:
"Lack of "agreement" with you says absolutely nothing about anyone's
character except yours."
Pretty much says it all.
Steve
Snit
fretwizz-2EFF0C...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/15/04 5:18 PM:
I am not claiming that lack of agreement proves dishonor... just curious why
he would be reluctant to agree to be honorable? For that matter, will you
agree to be honorable? Will you agree to post to me in the way I have
defined honor?
If so, the web site comes down and I will immediately agree to treat you the
same way.
Seems like a win-win to me.. but not something you are interested in.
Wally
----------
In article <BCCBEEF3.500B8%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>, Snit
<sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
<snit>
> I know that those that have been polluting this group recently will not...
> other than myself,
An admission that you pollute this group...well done!
> for I certainly have been joining in with the excessive
> flame posts.
When it comes to "excessive flame posts" you have NO equal, hardly a case of
you "joining in"......your dishonesty is showing!
> Seems I have found a way to put honor and honesty to the test, and they will
> not "play my game". Sad, really...
Because by your own admission "honor and honesty" are nothing more than a
"game" to you, as such not only do you wish to define the rules, but no
doubt you will also attempt to alter or bend the rules when inevitably
things do not go to your liking, for this reason I doubt anyone would be
foolish enough to play your game.
Snit
k3Cpc.15528383$Of.25...@news.easynews.com on 5/15/04 9:25 PM:
>
>
> ----------
> In article <BCCBEEF3.500B8%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>, Snit
> <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
> <snit>
>
>> I know that those that have been polluting this group recently will not...
>> other than myself,
>
> An admission that you pollute this group...well done!
I have been a part of that group... yes. Will the others admit to it as
well?
>
>> for I certainly have been joining in with the excessive
>> flame posts.
>
> When it comes to "excessive flame posts" you have NO equal, hardly a case of
> you "joining in"......your dishonesty is showing!
Your attempt at an insult is noted, but not important. What is important,
at least to me, and the reason for this thread, is to see who is willing to
agree to move forward in an honorable way.
Are you? Will you agree to my "rules"
1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is bothering
you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially in a forum like
this.
2) Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
3) Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with
problems as they arise.
4) Agree to let the past go...
>
>> Seems I have found a way to put honor and honesty to the test, and they will
>> not "play my game". Sad, really...
>
> 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.
I used your phrase of "play my game". I do not see honor as a game. Nor do
I seek to redefine any terms... which is why I have placed them in writing
in fairly specific language. I am open to re-wording if you or others think
I have left in some bizarre loop hole where I hope to exploit you.
So, will you agree to be honorable? If so, do you agree that my terms are
part of honor, and if so, will you count yourself as a signatory? if not,
which rule do you think is unfair?
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> <snip list of things no one will agree to as long as we're
> absolutely clear that you're not lying>
Given your tendency to lie and troll, the above "request" is irrelevant since
we have little or no faith that YOU could live up to its expectations, given
your history of doing the exact opposite.
And, given the recent vaugness in your "admission" about being Sigmond, any
doubt about your honesty need to be cleared up - hence; here are somee
questions for you:
1. Is this a reply to a post you've written?
http://tinyurl.com/2kl7b
2. Is this, or was this ever your IP:
24.117.214.4
3. Have you or have you not created one or more sock puppets, including one
named 'sigmond'?
4. Is this an email from you?
http://tinyurl.com/2yvcf
Unless the answer is "Yes." to each and every question above, you're being
dishonest and any "request" of honesty you would make is laughable.
I am waiting.
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
----------
In article <BCCC4D6D.50195%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>, Snit
<sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wallyworld.net> wrote in
> k3Cpc.15528383$Of.25...@news.easynews.com on 5/15/04 9:25 PM:
>
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <BCCBEEF3.500B8%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>, Snit
>> <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snit>
>>
>>> I know that those that have been polluting this group recently will not...
>>> other than myself,
>>
>> An admission that you pollute this group...well done!
>
> I have been a part of that group... yes. Will the others admit to it as
> well?
>>
>>> for I certainly have been joining in with the excessive
>>> flame posts.
>>
>> When it comes to "excessive flame posts" you have NO equal, hardly a case of
>> you "joining in"......your dishonesty is showing!
>
> Your attempt at an insult is noted, but not important.
I don't find facts insulting, a lack of facts, I do, the fact is that you
have no equal in instigating flame posts, THAT is not simply "joining in"
that was dishonest.....no?
> What is important,
> at least to me, and the reason for this thread, is to see who is willing to
> agree to move forward in an honorable way.
>
> Are you? Will you agree to my "rules"
NO!
> 1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is bothering
> you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially in a forum like
> this.
Most already do, those that don't are amusing, this rule would have the
effect of preventing John from posting at all, and Edwin, & Nash would have
to cut down considerably :=)
> 2) Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
> generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
Only for some, most can handle debate, and have no problem changing their
position if the counter arguments are valid.
>
> 3) Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
> counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
> problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with
> problems as they arise.
And if a recent dispute can only be clarified by reference to a previous
discussion no matter how long ago it occurred?
> 4) Agree to let the past go...
Same as #3
>>
>>> Seems I have found a way to put honor and honesty to the test, and they will
>>> not "play my game". Sad, really...
>>
>> 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.
>
> I used your phrase of "play my game".
I beg your pardon...MY phrase?
> I do not see honor as a game.
This indicates otherwise...
"Seems I have found a way to put honor and honesty to the test, and they
will not "play my game""
> Nor do
> I seek to redefine any terms... which is why I have placed them in writing
> in fairly specific language. I am open to re-wording if you or others think
> I have left in some bizarre loop hole where I hope to exploit you.
THAT has already happened, when you posted in a recent post of yours...
"You were certainly showing a lack of honor as defined by my terms"
So you define, and you interpret, another reason why none of this is needed.
> So, will you agree to be honorable?
I am!
> If so, do you agree that my terms are
> part of honor,
no!
> and if so, will you count yourself as a signatory?
no!
> if not, which rule do you think is unfair?
ALL are unnecessary IMO, as most posters have shown that they know how to
conduct themselves wrt the person they are addressing.
Elizabot
Steve Carroll
"Wally" <wa...@wallyworld.net> wrote:
Exactly. Since when is it dishonorable to bring up a past grievance that
hasn't been dealt with... say, for instance:
DID Snit write the sex webpage about Elizabot?
How is the asking of such a question dishonorable? His trick is so
pathetic it's laughable:) He actually thinks he is smarter than everyone
else in here. He must to think anyone would fall for this *let Snit off
the hook for past offenses* ploy. The idea that the questioning of
immoral behavior is dishonorable is one of the most ludicrous things
I've ever seen posted on usenet. LOL!
Steve
Elizabot
> "Wally" <wa...@wallyworld.net> wrote in
[snip]
> Your attempt at an insult is noted, but not important. What is important,
> at least to me, and the reason for this thread, is to see who is willing to
> agree to move forward in an honorable way.
The only honorable way you cam move forward is to admit that you posted
as sig...@mad.scientist.com and apologize for that disgusting post
titled "Elizabot Can't Get Enough!" you made, in addition to what others
have requested.
Maybe you are used to running away from your past. You cannot even begin
to make this go away here without making some serious amends, and some
serious changes in your behavior.
[snip]
Elizabot
[snip]
>> I do not see honor as a game.
>
>
> This indicates otherwise...
>
> "Seems I have found a way to put honor and honesty to the test, and they
> will not "play my game""
Snit is still playing games, of course. Nice catch, Wally!
[snip]
Nashton
That seems very reasonable, but it doesn't exonerate the Steve(s). They
have used profanities and insults that were unnecessary.
I vote for Carroll and Mackay apologizing first, this would go a long
way in reestablishing their credibility in my eyes (not that I think
they care what I think, they have repeated this continually) and if Snit
does not respond by acknowledging any wrongdoing, it will be an
admission of guilt AFAIC from his part.
If this occurs, can we *then* just move on and forget the past?
Nicolas
Steve Carroll
Nashton <na...@smash.cash> wrote:
You know what, Nic? I said something to you that was out of line once
and I did apologize for it. You were just a big enough man to spit in my
face over it. Not that you care what *I* think but that showed me what
YOU were made of, integrity-wise. You can 'vote' anyway you want, Snit
will still be nothing but a disingenuous liar in my book and you won't
ever see me apologizing for saying that because I consider it fact and
not name calling. As for you, from my viewpoint you owe me an apology
because I did attempt to be apologize to you and you slammed me during
that attempt. After watching your interaction with any number of posters
in here, the idea that your hands are cleaner than anyone else's doesn't
wash for me,(pun intended). My two cents.
BTW, the 'Greek God' comment that you and Snit took as bigotry had
nothing to do with bigotry. It had to do with my asking you if you
recognized Snit's narcissistic tendencies and if you planned on
following in his footsteps. If you are familiar with Greek mythology,
you know where this word comes from, Narcissus, who was the son of the
river god Cephissus... hence the comment. Snit constantly takes the
words of others and tries to turn them into something they are not. If
you haven't seen this then you haven't looked. Of course, in this
instance, it was likely his lack of education that had him foaming. I
mistakenly figured you might be aware of the story... but I certainly
meant no racial or ethnic slur by it. Just wanted to clear that up.
Steve
Sandman
Nashton <na...@smash.cash> wrote:
> > Given your tendency to lie and troll, the above "request" is irrelevant
> > since we have little or no faith that YOU could live up to its
> > expectations, given your history of doing the exact opposite.
> >
> > And, given the recent vaugness in your "admission" about being Sigmond,
> > any doubt about your honesty need to be cleared up - hence; here are somee
> > questions for you:
> >
> > 1. Is this a reply to a post you've written?
> > http://tinyurl.com/2kl7b
> >
> > 2. Is this, or was this ever your IP:
> > 24.117.214.4
> >
> > 3. Have you or have you not created one or more sock puppets, including one
> > named 'sigmond'?
> >
> > 4. Is this an email from you?
> > http://tinyurl.com/2yvcf
> >
> > Unless the answer is "Yes." to each and every question above, you're being
> > dishonest and any "request" of honesty you would make is laughable.
> >
> > I am waiting.
> >
>
> That seems very reasonable, but it doesn't exonerate the Steve(s). They
> have used profanities and insults that were unnecessary.
Absolutely, as have I, as have we all. Should Michael actually be a man about
this and admit to all of these and present a formal apology to Steve and
Elizabot, they should also apologize for their actions.
> I vote for Carroll and Mackay apologizing first, this would go a long
> way in reestablishing their credibility in my eyes (not that I think
> they care what I think
The problem is that if Michael answer "yes" to the above (see my sigmond FAQ
post with regards to actual facts regarding this, which means that the honest
answer WOULD be yes) then he has made some really poor posts, such as this one:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4072eff2%240%24195%2475868355%40news.frii.net
> they have repeated this continually) and if Snit
> does not respond by acknowledging any wrongdoing, it will be an
> admission of guilt AFAIC from his part.
The above doesn't require any admission on his part, really. They are all
proven to be true. His admission is required as a display of honesty on his
part. I think its refreshing to see that you have realized that Michael isn't a
very honest person as well.
> If this occurs, can we *then* just move on and forget the past?
If he admits to all these points, I have no reason to pursue his trolling any
further. I have already proven him correct, and will continue to shove that
down his throat for as long as he denies it and still frequents this group. In
other words, he could make all this go away by owing up to his lies or just go
away. We'll see if he chooses to continue troll or if he doesn't.
--
Sandman[.net]
Elizabot
[snip]
> Exactly. Since when is it dishonorable to bring up a past grievance that
> hasn't been dealt with... say, for instance:
>
> DID Snit write the sex webpage about Elizabot?
>
> How is the asking of such a question dishonorable? His trick is so
> pathetic it's laughable:) He actually thinks he is smarter than everyone
> else in here. He must to think anyone would fall for this *let Snit off
> the hook for past offenses* ploy. The idea that the questioning of
> immoral behavior is dishonorable is one of the most ludicrous things
> I've ever seen posted on usenet. LOL!
Abusers often refuse to take responsibilty for their actions. Here is
what Snit/sigmond wrote in response to his disgusting post about me:
Snit:
"Since you ask: I find it barely amusing but poorly worded,
inappropriate, and in poor taste.
While I do not condone such comments, I can understand why such a post
would be directed toward the target that it was."
Clearly he shows no remorse for his actions. This is prime evidence of
why I consider Snit to be a sexual harasser, abuser, and a pervert.
Sandman
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
> You know what, Nic? I said something to you that was out of line once
> and I did apologize for it. You were just a big enough man to spit in my
> face over it. Not that you care what *I* think but that showed me what
> YOU were made of, integrity-wise. You can 'vote' anyway you want, Snit
> will still be nothing but a disingenuous liar in my book and you won't
> ever see me apologizing for saying that because I consider it fact and
> not name calling.
Now, Steve. If Michael is big enough to apologize for all his lies about you,
surely you can apologize for an occasional name-calling?
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Mackay
Yes, I will agree. I do appologize for my vulgar remarks towards you,
Nashton. And I appologize to you Snit, for my vulgar comments and
profanities.
> I vote for Carroll and Mackay apologizing first, this would go a long
> way in reestablishing their credibility in my eyes (not that I think
> they care what I think, they have repeated this continually) and if Snit
> does not respond by acknowledging any wrongdoing, it will be an
> admission of guilt AFAIC from his part.
> If this occurs, can we *then* just move on and forget the past?
I just want Snit to admit to his lies, appologize, _ESPECIALLY_ to
Elizabot for that disgusting post.
Snit
pan.2004.05.16....@hotmail.com on 5/16/04 11:16 AM:
> Yes, I will agree. I do appologize for my vulgar remarks towards you,
> Nashton. And I appologize to you Snit, for my vulgar comments and
> profanities.
Accepted. I, too, apologize to you for any comments that were inappropriate
or inaccurate. I truly hope we can *all* move forward in a mature and
honorable way, even if we do not have any set of standards, as I have
suggested.
It does frustrate me that people will neither agree to the standards I have
suggested nor state what standard they find unreasonable... it smacks of a
disingenuous agreement to move forward...
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
I find it unreasonable for a liar to state standards about honesty. And you are
a proven liar.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
on 5/16/04 11:24 AM:
You are arguing a fallacy. You have also been trolling... will you admit to
it?
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> Yes, I will agree. I do appologize for my vulgar remarks towards you,
> >>> Nashton. And I appologize to you Snit, for my vulgar comments and
> >>> profanities.
> >>
> >> Accepted. I, too, apologize to you for any comments that were
> >> inappropriate
> >> or inaccurate. I truly hope we can *all* move forward in a mature and
> >> honorable way, even if we do not have any set of standards, as I have
> >> suggested.
> >>
> >> It does frustrate me that people will neither agree to the standards I
> >> have
> >> suggested nor state what standard they find unreasonable... it smacks of a
> >> disingenuous agreement to move forward...
> >
> > I find it unreasonable for a liar to state standards about honesty. And you
> > are a proven liar.
>
> You are arguing a fallacy.
Incorrect, given:
The Official sigmond FAQ
This is a FAQ created with the sole intention to gather the actual facts surrounding a specific poster on the group comp.sys.mac.advocacy (csma). It is posted without linewrapping in an attempt to preserve URLs at the bottom of the post.
1. Who is sigmond?
2. Who is Michael (Snit)?
3. What's this about an IP?
4. Is 24.117.214.4 Michaels IP?
5. Is Michael lying?
6. Has Michael countered any of these facts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Who is sigmond?
A. sigmond was a poster that appeared in csma for a brief period of time in January of 2004. sigmond appeared in a debate between Michael and a number of other posters. sigmond had no earlier posting history to usenet prior to that and disappeared quickly when it was claimed he was a sock puppet of Michael. sigmond also posted a specifically poor taste post about another poster in csma, Elizabot. sigmond has since then removed his posts from Google in what appears as an attempt to hide his origin. This means that no references to his actual posts can be made, only to replies to them. [1] is a reply to the poor taste post from sigmond.
Q. Who is Michael (Snit) ?
A. Michael is an Mac advocate and a frequent poster to csma and has been since 2003-10-07 when he posted his first csma post [2]. Since then he has been deemed a troll by the majority of the people he has been engaged in argument with, including but not limited to, the general group of people that usually are found arguing with the trolls in the group.
Q. What's this about an IP?
A. Michael posts via SuperNews, which doesn't append a NNTP-Posting-Host header to posts posted through their service, making the posters anonymous, hence the IP of Michael isn't shown
in posts he has made through SuperNews. sigmond posted through Google, which does include the NNTP-Posting-Host header and sigmonds IP was 24.117.214.4.
Q. Is 24.117.214.4 Michaels IP?
A. Yes, it is. He has posted to usenet with this very IP [3] and sent an email to Steve Mackay [4] which was verified by Sandman (who was given the password to Steves mail account) [5]. There is no doubt that this is Michaels IP.
Q. Is Michael lying?
A. Yes, he is. Given the actual proof found above, he stills deny that he created sigmond as a sock puppet, which means he is a liar.
Q. Has Michael countered any of this proof?
A. In short, no he hasn't. He has constructed some far fetched conspiracy theories about sigmond which can be found in [6] where the only point that tries to counter these facts is that he is pointing to the fact that there has been a poster by the name "Steve Sigmond" and implied that that means Steve Carroll is sigmond, even though that this "Steve Sigmond" hasn't posted since 1993 and never to csma, and never used the IP in question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4072eff2%240%24195%2475868355%40news.frii.net
[2] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BBA835A9.29784%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
[3] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC172FBE.37F1C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC1706B3.37DCC%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
[4] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pan.2004.04.03.01.50.03.297000%40hotmail.com
[5] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mr-9A4617.19380305042004%40news.fu-berlin.de
[6] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC9D9CA5.4839F%25snit%40nospam-cableone.net
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
on 5/16/04 11:29 AM:
> In article <BCCD00C3.50254%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Yes, I will agree. I do appologize for my vulgar remarks towards you,
>>>>> Nashton. And I appologize to you Snit, for my vulgar comments and
>>>>> profanities.
>>>>
>>>> Accepted. I, too, apologize to you for any comments that were
>>>> inappropriate
>>>> or inaccurate. I truly hope we can *all* move forward in a mature and
>>>> honorable way, even if we do not have any set of standards, as I have
>>>> suggested.
>>>>
>>>> It does frustrate me that people will neither agree to the standards I
>>>> have
>>>> suggested nor state what standard they find unreasonable... it smacks of a
>>>> disingenuous agreement to move forward...
>>>
>>> I find it unreasonable for a liar to state standards about honesty. And you
>>> are a proven liar.
>>
>> You are arguing a fallacy.
>
> Incorrect, given:
The logical fallacy is based on your arguing against a claim based on the
person claiming it and not the claim itself.
As far as the rest of your post... it is clearly trolling.
Will you admit to your trolling now?
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Snit is nothing but a pathetic, habitual liar who has repeatedly shown
he has no concept of honor. An apology from him would mean absolutely
nothing to me as I've been down this road with him before. I seriously
doubt I'll ever believe a word he says. Only his actions may cause me to
change my mind over time. As to his rules, they are a joke IMO. Nothing
more than a reminder of what he is. That you are even considering
entertaining the idea that he will remain honorable, especially with
what he tried to pull WHILE offering you his 'new deal', shows me that
you are fairly naive where Snit is concerned.
Steve
Snit
> In article <mr-5F117B.19...@individual.net>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <fretwizz-CB091D...@netnews.comcast.net>,
>> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You know what, Nic? I said something to you that was out of line once
>>> and I did apologize for it. You were just a big enough man to spit in my
>>> face over it. Not that you care what *I* think but that showed me what
>>> YOU were made of, integrity-wise. You can 'vote' anyway you want, Snit
>>> will still be nothing but a disingenuous liar in my book and you won't
>>> ever see me apologizing for saying that because I consider it fact and
>>> not name calling.
>>
>> Now, Steve. If Michael is big enough to apologize for all his lies about you,
>> surely you can apologize for an occasional name-calling?
>
> Snit is nothing but a pathetic, habitual liar who has repeatedly shown
> he has no concept of honor.
I have posted a list of questions for you. Will you answer them? Can you?
Your pointing to me is meaningless.
> An apology from him would mean absolutely nothing to me as I've been down this
> road with him before. I seriously doubt I'll ever believe a word he says.
Cheese exists.
> Only his actions may cause me to change my mind over time. As to his rules,
> they are a joke IMO.
Which of the rules do you find objectionable?
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/'
If you do have a reasonable objection, I am happy to hear you out and make
modifications. If others do sign on, no modifications would be done without
the consent of all signatories.
> Nothing more than a reminder of what he is.
I am looking to support honor in csma. It is a reminder of that...
> That you are even considering entertaining the idea that he will remain
> honorable, especially with what he tried to pull WHILE offering you his 'new
> deal', shows me that you are fairly naive where Snit is concerned.
Can you and will you answer the questions I posed to you? Will you show
this honor you seem to think is lacking in me? We *have* been down this
road before... you will not. Unlike you, however, I am willing to let the
past be the past... even though you will not answer those questions, I see
no good in repeatedly bringing them up - other than to counter your claims.
You seem to bring up things to counter me and vice versa. I am suggesting
we *both* drop it... and act honorably.
Are you willing to do so? I sincerely hope you are.
As soon as I see you agree to act in an honorable way and agree to my
rules... or other reasonable ones... I will remove the web page about you
and not bring up the past... unless there is a danger to someone, as I have
stated before. In the future I will assume that you know this disclaimer,
and not keep harping on it... and I assume you, too, would bring up past
issues if you thought I was being a danger to someone - in other words, I
hope we could be treated in a just way.
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in mr-828773.20...@individual.net
> on 5/16/04 11:29 AM:
>
> > In article <BCCD00C3.50254%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>, Snit
> > <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Yes, I will agree. I do appologize for my vulgar remarks towards you,
> >>>>> Nashton. And I appologize to you Snit, for my vulgar comments and
> >>>>> profanities.
> >>>>
> >>>> Accepted. I, too, apologize to you for any comments that were
> >>>> inappropriate or inaccurate. I truly hope we can *all* move forward in
> >>>> a mature and honorable way, even if we do not have any set of
> >>>> standards, as I have suggested.
> >>>>
> >>>> It does frustrate me that people will neither agree to the standards I
> >>>> have suggested nor state what standard they find unreasonable... it
> >>>> smacks of a disingenuous agreement to move forward...
> >>>
> >>> I find it unreasonable for a liar to state standards about honesty. And
> >>> you are a proven liar.
> >>
> >> You are arguing a fallacy.
> >
> > Incorrect, given:
>
> <trolling snipped>
Sandman
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
I suppose this will stand for you. As far as I am concerned, when Michael
admits to his lies and apologizes to you and Elizabot for his actions, I will
have no reason to ever talk to him again.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> You know what, Nic? I said something to you that was out of line once
> >>> and I did apologize for it. You were just a big enough man to spit in my
> >>> face over it. Not that you care what *I* think but that showed me what
> >>> YOU were made of, integrity-wise. You can 'vote' anyway you want, Snit
> >>> will still be nothing but a disingenuous liar in my book and you won't
> >>> ever see me apologizing for saying that because I consider it fact and
> >>> not name calling.
> >>
> >> Now, Steve. If Michael is big enough to apologize for all his lies about
> >> you, surely you can apologize for an occasional name-calling?
> >
> > Snit is nothing but a pathetic, habitual liar who has repeatedly shown he
> > has no concept of honor.
>
Snit
on 5/16/04 11:51 AM:
> In article <BCCD0528.5025F%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> You know what, Nic? I said something to you that was out of line once
>>>>> and I did apologize for it. You were just a big enough man to spit in my
>>>>> face over it. Not that you care what *I* think but that showed me what
>>>>> YOU were made of, integrity-wise. You can 'vote' anyway you want, Snit
>>>>> will still be nothing but a disingenuous liar in my book and you won't
>>>>> ever see me apologizing for saying that because I consider it fact and
>>>>> not name calling.
>>>>
>>>> Now, Steve. If Michael is big enough to apologize for all his lies about
>>>> you, surely you can apologize for an occasional name-calling?
>>>
>>> Snit is nothing but a pathetic, habitual liar who has repeatedly shown he
>>> has no concept of honor.
>>
>> <trolling snipped>
>
> The Official sigmond FAQ
You are intercepting this thread for the sole reason of antagonizing me.
You are trolling.
Will you admit to it now?
Snit
on 5/16/04 11:51 AM:
> In article <fretwizz-67A5B7...@netnews.comcast.net>,
Do you have a reason now? Other than antagonizing and trolling that is?
Seems not.
Sandman
Elizabot
[snip]
> As soon as I see you agree to act in an honorable way and agree to my
> rules... or other reasonable ones... I will remove the web page about you
> and not bring up the past... unless there is a danger to someone, as I have
> stated before. In the future I will assume that you know this disclaimer,
> and not keep harping on it... and I assume you, too, would bring up past
> issues if you thought I was being a danger to someone - in other words, I
> hope we could be treated in a just way.
This is your way to allow yourself to continue to harass me, isn't it?
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>>> You know what, Nic? I said something to you that was out of line once
> >>>>> and I did apologize for it. You were just a big enough man to spit in my
> >>>>> face over it. Not that you care what *I* think but that showed me what
> >>>>> YOU were made of, integrity-wise. You can 'vote' anyway you want, Snit
> >>>>> will still be nothing but a disingenuous liar in my book and you won't
> >>>>> ever see me apologizing for saying that because I consider it fact and
> >>>>> not name calling.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, Steve. If Michael is big enough to apologize for all his lies about
> >>>> you, surely you can apologize for an occasional name-calling?
> >>>
> >>> Snit is nothing but a pathetic, habitual liar who has repeatedly shown he
> >>> has no concept of honor.
> >>
> >> <trolling snipped>
> >
> > The Official sigmond FAQ
>
> <trolling snipped>
The Official sigmond FAQ
This is a FAQ created with the sole intention to gather the actual facts surrounding a specific poster on the group comp.sys.mac.advocacy (csma). It is posted without linewrapping in an attempt to preserve URLs at the bottom of the post.
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >> Snit is nothing but a pathetic, habitual liar who has repeatedly shown he
> >> has no concept of honor. An apology from him would mean absolutely
> >> nothing to me as I've been down this road with him before. I seriously
> >> doubt I'll ever believe a word he says. Only his actions may cause me to
> >> change my mind over time. As to his rules, they are a joke IMO. Nothing
> >> more than a reminder of what he is. That you are even considering
> >> entertaining the idea that he will remain honorable, especially with what
> >> he tried to pull WHILE offering you his 'new deal', shows me that you are
> >> fairly naive where Snit is concerned.
> >
> > I suppose this will stand for you. As far as I am concerned, when Michael
> > admits to his lies and apologizes to you and Elizabot for his actions, I
> > will have no reason to ever talk to him again.
>
> Do you have a reason now?
Yes, for as long as you keep on trolling, I will keep on throwing the facts in your face. Here they are again:
Snit
on 5/16/04 11:59 AM:
> In article <BCCD0748.50277%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Snit is nothing but a pathetic, habitual liar who has repeatedly shown he
>>>> has no concept of honor. An apology from him would mean absolutely
>>>> nothing to me as I've been down this road with him before. I seriously
>>>> doubt I'll ever believe a word he says. Only his actions may cause me to
>>>> change my mind over time. As to his rules, they are a joke IMO. Nothing
>>>> more than a reminder of what he is. That you are even considering
>>>> entertaining the idea that he will remain honorable, especially with what
>>>> he tried to pull WHILE offering you his 'new deal', shows me that you are
>>>> fairly naive where Snit is concerned.
>>>
>>> I suppose this will stand for you. As far as I am concerned, when Michael
>>> admits to his lies and apologizes to you and Elizabot for his actions, I
>>> will have no reason to ever talk to him again.
>>
>> Do you have a reason now?
>
> Yes, for as long as you keep on trolling, I will keep on throwing the facts in
> your face. Here they are again:
Again, you are posting for the sole reason to antagonize... you are
trolling.
Will you admit to it now?
For the record, since it is clear you will not answer, I see my posts to you
as equal trolling. We are both posting essentially the same thing back and
forth for the good of nothing...
I am honest enough to admit that these useless debates are ... well useless
and trolling.
Are you honest enough to admit to your part, or will you simply point my
honesty as "proof" that I troll and you do not?
Snit
on 5/16/04 11:56 AM:
> In article <BCCD071A.50276%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> You know what, Nic? I said something to you that was out of line once
>>>>>>> and I did apologize for it. You were just a big enough man to spit in my
>>>>>>> face over it. Not that you care what *I* think but that showed me what
>>>>>>> YOU were made of, integrity-wise. You can 'vote' anyway you want, Snit
>>>>>>> will still be nothing but a disingenuous liar in my book and you won't
>>>>>>> ever see me apologizing for saying that because I consider it fact and
>>>>>>> not name calling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, Steve. If Michael is big enough to apologize for all his lies about
>>>>>> you, surely you can apologize for an occasional name-calling?
>>>>>
>>>>> Snit is nothing but a pathetic, habitual liar who has repeatedly shown he
>>>>> has no concept of honor.
>>>>
>>>> <trolling snipped>
>>>
>>> The Official sigmond FAQ
>>
>> <trolling snipped>
>
> The Official sigmond FAQ
If you are trying to prove you are a bigger troll than I am... you win. I
will no longer respond to your repeated posting of this antagonism.
I strongly suspect you will continue your trolling....
Snit
40a7b960$0$209$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 11:56 AM:
In what way? You made threats to me that, if carried out, could have hurt
me severely... if I ever see you doing the same to anyone else, I *will*
step in.
That is not harassment, no matter how you wish to define it.
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 40a7b960$0$209$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 11:56 AM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>As soon as I see you agree to act in an honorable way and agree to my
>>>rules... or other reasonable ones... I will remove the web page about you
>>>and not bring up the past... unless there is a danger to someone, as I have
>>>stated before. In the future I will assume that you know this disclaimer,
>>>and not keep harping on it... and I assume you, too, would bring up past
>>>issues if you thought I was being a danger to someone - in other words, I
>>>hope we could be treated in a just way.
>>
>>This is your way to allow yourself to continue to harass me, isn't it?
>
>
> In what way? You made threats to me that, if carried out, could have hurt
> me severely... if I ever see you doing the same to anyone else, I *will*
> step in.
Only if you were guilty...
I wrote "You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to
contact the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a promise."
There is NO THREAT OF FILING FALSE CHARGES WITH THE POLICE mentioned
here, Snit.
You really need to stop this bullshit.
> That is not harassment, no matter how you wish to define it.
I never threatened to file false charges against you, Snit. Your
continuous lying about it DOES constitute harassment and is slanderous.
Snit
40a7bfd9$0$201$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 12:24 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>> 40a7b960$0$209$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 11:56 AM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>> As soon as I see you agree to act in an honorable way and agree to my
>>>> rules... or other reasonable ones... I will remove the web page about you
>>>> and not bring up the past... unless there is a danger to someone, as I have
>>>> stated before. In the future I will assume that you know this disclaimer,
>>>> and not keep harping on it... and I assume you, too, would bring up past
>>>> issues if you thought I was being a danger to someone - in other words, I
>>>> hope we could be treated in a just way.
>>>
>>> This is your way to allow yourself to continue to harass me, isn't it?
>>
>>
>> In what way? You made threats to me that, if carried out, could have hurt
>> me severely... if I ever see you doing the same to anyone else, I *will*
>> step in.
>
> Only if you were guilty...
That is not true. I have know teachers to be accused of similar wrong doing
that you accused me of who have lost jobs over it. Even Steve admitted he
has seen marriages ruined over the *accusations*. I would like to live in a
world where false accusations have no detrimental affect on the accused...
but this is not that world.
>
> I wrote "You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to
> contact the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a promise."
>
> There is NO THREAT OF FILING FALSE CHARGES WITH THE POLICE mentioned
> here, Snit.
>
> You really need to stop this bullshit.
What line were you in reference to? The threat to call the police was very
clear. Since there was no wrong doing, as you seem to now admit, the only
think you could have reported would have been trumped up charges.
>
>> That is not harassment, no matter how you wish to define it.
>
> I never threatened to file false charges against you, Snit. Your
> continuous lying about it DOES constitute harassment and is slanderous.
You made that claim that you were contemplating calling the police. Why?
What would you have told them?
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>> Snit is nothing but a pathetic, habitual liar who has repeatedly shown
> >>>> he has no concept of honor. An apology from him would mean absolutely
> >>>> nothing to me as I've been down this road with him before. I seriously
> >>>> doubt I'll ever believe a word he says. Only his actions may cause me
> >>>> to change my mind over time. As to his rules, they are a joke IMO.
> >>>> Nothing more than a reminder of what he is. That you are even
> >>>> considering entertaining the idea that he will remain honorable,
> >>>> especially with what he tried to pull WHILE offering you his 'new
> >>>> deal', shows me that you are fairly naive where Snit is concerned.
> >>>
> >>> I suppose this will stand for you. As far as I am concerned, when
> >>> Michael admits to his lies and apologizes to you and Elizabot for his
> >>> actions, I will have no reason to ever talk to him again.
> >>
> >> Do you have a reason now?
> >
> > Yes, for as long as you keep on trolling, I will keep on throwing the
> > facts in your face. Here they are again:
>
> <trolling snipped>
Alan Baker
Nashton <na...@smash.cash> wrote:
> I vote for Carroll and Mackay apologizing first, this would go a long
They used them *after* Snit had already made himself a thoroughgoing
pain.
> way in reestablishing their credibility in my eyes (not that I think
> they care what I think, they have repeated this continually) and if Snit
> does not respond by acknowledging any wrongdoing, it will be an
> admission of guilt AFAIC from his part.
> If this occurs, can we *then* just move on and forget the past?
>
> Nicolas
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-67A5B7...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/16/04 11:37 AM:
>
> > In article <mr-5F117B.19...@individual.net>,
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <fretwizz-CB091D...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> >> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You know what, Nic? I said something to you that was out of line once
> >>> and I did apologize for it. You were just a big enough man to spit in my
> >>> face over it. Not that you care what *I* think but that showed me what
> >>> YOU were made of, integrity-wise. You can 'vote' anyway you want, Snit
> >>> will still be nothing but a disingenuous liar in my book and you won't
> >>> ever see me apologizing for saying that because I consider it fact and
> >>> not name calling.
> >>
> >> Now, Steve. If Michael is big enough to apologize for all his lies about
> >> you,
> >> surely you can apologize for an occasional name-calling?
> >
> > Snit is nothing but a pathetic, habitual liar who has repeatedly shown
> > he has no concept of honor.
>
> I have posted a list of questions for you. Will you answer them? Can you?
> Your pointing to me is meaningless.
Of course. Anything to do with you is meaningless... but even
meaningless things can still be fun. For instance, I'm having fun
watching you scurry from poster to poster, trying to deal with your
past. Obviously, someone on csma, who stated it is always Snit vs.
somebody, was correct. That you try to pin the blame on me for your lack
of credibility is hilarious, though. I really do find it highly
entertaining:) I realize that the whole thing is just your ploy to be
the center of attention, but it's still fun to watch the lengths you'll
go to for it.
> > An apology from him would mean absolutely nothing to me as I've been down
> > this
> > road with him before. I seriously doubt I'll ever believe a word he says.
>
> Cheese exists.
>
> > Only his actions may cause me to change my mind over time. As to his rules,
> > they are a joke IMO.
>
> Which of the rules do you find objectionable?
Face it, Snit... I was right when I said they have nothing to do with
the concept of honor... just like the guy who presented them. His idea
that, in and of themselves, they do... is as delusional as most of what
he writes.
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/'
>
> If you do have a reasonable objection, I am happy to hear you out and make
> modifications. If others do sign on, no modifications would be done without
> the consent of all signatories.
>
> > Nothing more than a reminder of what he is.
>
> I am looking to support honor in csma. It is a reminder of that...
Then it behooved you to refrain from trying to scam people while you
asked for their support. Of course, you already know this. This entire
thing was done solely for attention... that's really all you crave. You
knew your credibility was shot a long time ago:) Attention is all you
have left.
> > That you are even considering entertaining the idea that he will remain
> > honorable, especially with what he tried to pull WHILE offering you his
> > 'new
> > deal', shows me that you are fairly naive where Snit is concerned.
>
> Can you and will you answer the questions I posed to you? Will you show
> this honor you seem to think is lacking in me? We *have* been down this
> road before... you will not. Unlike you, however, I am willing to let the
> past be the past... even though you will not answer those questions, I see
> no good in repeatedly bringing them up - other than to counter your claims.
> You seem to bring up things to counter me and vice versa. I am suggesting
> we *both* drop it... and act honorably.
Your questions are as irrelevant today as when you first created them to
evade reality with.
> Are you willing to do so? I sincerely hope you are.
>
> As soon as I see you agree to act in an honorable way and agree to my
> rules... or other reasonable ones... I will remove the web page about you
> and not bring up the past... unless there is a danger to someone, as I have
> stated before. In the future I will assume that you know this disclaimer,
> and not keep harping on it... and I assume you, too, would bring up past
> issues if you thought I was being a danger to someone - in other words, I
> hope we could be treated in a just way.
Leave the webpage... it perfectly suits you:)
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 40a7b960$0$209$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 11:56 AM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> As soon as I see you agree to act in an honorable way and agree to my
> >> rules... or other reasonable ones... I will remove the web page about you
> >> and not bring up the past... unless there is a danger to someone, as I have
> >> stated before. In the future I will assume that you know this disclaimer,
> >> and not keep harping on it... and I assume you, too, would bring up past
> >> issues if you thought I was being a danger to someone - in other words, I
> >> hope we could be treated in a just way.
> >
> > This is your way to allow yourself to continue to harass me, isn't it?
>
> In what way? You made threats to me that, if carried out, could have hurt
> me severely...
How so? If you were innocent, you had nothing to worry about. My point
is... you acted anything but innocent.
> if I ever see you doing the same to anyone else, I *will*
> step in.
>
> That is not harassment, no matter how you wish to define it.
So step in... just make sure you don't step in any more doo doo... I
believe you have enough clinging to you now:)
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
Uh huh... and recognizing all of this, why would you go out of your way
to poke a stick in the eye of such a variable? Want me to take that one:)
> > I wrote "You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to
> > contact the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a promise."
> >
> > There is NO THREAT OF FILING FALSE CHARGES WITH THE POLICE mentioned
> > here, Snit.
> >
> > You really need to stop this bullshit.
>
> What line were you in reference to? The threat to call the police was very
> clear. Since there was no wrong doing, as you seem to now admit, the only
> think you could have reported would have been trumped up charges.
There was no threat that I saw, only a promise if you did cross the line
in her estimation. Even so, it would still have been up to the
authorities to make the assessment that you actually did what she
claimed you did. You know all this, you are simply doing what Elizabot
says you are doing... continuing with your disingenuous bullshit. Your
victim role doesn't play at this theatre any longer.
> >> That is not harassment, no matter how you wish to define it.
> >
> > I never threatened to file false charges against you, Snit. Your
> > continuous lying about it DOES constitute harassment and is slanderous.
>
> You made that claim that you were contemplating calling the police. Why?
> What would you have told them?
When you crossed the line (which is the only time she claimed she would
call them)? She would tell them how she believed you crossed the line.
Cut your shit.
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
Hey... didn't you see what he wrote?
The Official sigmond FAQ
Q. Is Michael lying?
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve
Snit
At least his trolling was original. Now you have to copy your trolling from
others.
Sad... just sad.
Snit
What are you talking about here? Do you even know?
>
>>> I wrote "You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to
>>> contact the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a promise."
>>>
>>> There is NO THREAT OF FILING FALSE CHARGES WITH THE POLICE mentioned
>>> here, Snit.
>>>
>>> You really need to stop this bullshit.
>>
>> What line were you in reference to? The threat to call the police was very
>> clear. Since there was no wrong doing, as you seem to now admit, the only
>> think you could have reported would have been trumped up charges.
>
> There was no threat that I saw, only a promise if you did cross the line
> in her estimation. Even so, it would still have been up to the
> authorities to make the assessment that you actually did what she
> claimed you did. You know all this, you are simply doing what Elizabot
> says you are doing... continuing with your disingenuous bullshit. Your
> victim role doesn't play at this theatre any longer.
Her threat was something that could not be reasonably ignored. You can deny
this all you want, but that does not change the truth.
>
>>>> That is not harassment, no matter how you wish to define it.
>>>
>>> I never threatened to file false charges against you, Snit. Your
>>> continuous lying about it DOES constitute harassment and is slanderous.
>>
>> You made that claim that you were contemplating calling the police. Why?
>> What would you have told them?
>
> When you crossed the line (which is the only time she claimed she would
> call them)? She would tell them how she believed you crossed the line.
> Cut your shit.
What line?
Snit
What past? And why do you not answer the questions about you? I *have*
answered all questions about me, even if you claim you do not believe me.
Can you even attempt to answer the questions to you?
> Obviously, someone on csma, who stated it is always Snit vs.
> somebody, was correct. That you try to pin the blame on me for your lack
> of credibility is hilarious, though. I really do find it highly
> entertaining:) I realize that the whole thing is just your ploy to be
> the center of attention, but it's still fun to watch the lengths you'll
> go to for it.
All this talk from you... and still no answers from you. Why is that? What
are you running from?
>
>>> An apology from him would mean absolutely nothing to me as I've been down
>>> this
>>> road with him before. I seriously doubt I'll ever believe a word he says.
>>
>> Cheese exists.
>>
>>> Only his actions may cause me to change my mind over time. As to his rules,
>>> they are a joke IMO.
>>
>> Which of the rules do you find objectionable?
>
> Face it, Snit... I was right when I said they have nothing to do with
> the concept of honor... just like the guy who presented them. His idea
> that, in and of themselves, they do... is as delusional as most of what
> he writes.
Logical fallacy on your part: you are arguing against the messenger and not
the message.
This is disingenuous on your part. No surprise here.
>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/'
>>
>> If you do have a reasonable objection, I am happy to hear you out and make
>> modifications. If others do sign on, no modifications would be done without
>> the consent of all signatories.
>>
>>> Nothing more than a reminder of what he is.
>>
>> I am looking to support honor in csma. It is a reminder of that...
>
> Then it behooved you to refrain from trying to scam people while you
> asked for their support. Of course, you already know this. This entire
> thing was done solely for attention... that's really all you crave. You
> knew your credibility was shot a long time ago:) Attention is all you
> have left.
If all I crave is attention, as you claim, then you must think I have won.
Silly on your part, eh?
In any case... I have scammed nobody.
>
>>> That you are even considering entertaining the idea that he will remain
>>> honorable, especially with what he tried to pull WHILE offering you his
>>> 'new
>>> deal', shows me that you are fairly naive where Snit is concerned.
>>
>> Can you and will you answer the questions I posed to you? Will you show
>> this honor you seem to think is lacking in me? We *have* been down this
>> road before... you will not. Unlike you, however, I am willing to let the
>> past be the past... even though you will not answer those questions, I see
>> no good in repeatedly bringing them up - other than to counter your claims.
>> You seem to bring up things to counter me and vice versa. I am suggesting
>> we *both* drop it... and act honorably.
>
> Your questions are as irrelevant today as when you first created them to
> evade reality with.
They are very relevant. Your past claims have hinged on these things... or
do you now claim that your past words are simply irrelevant?
>
>> Are you willing to do so? I sincerely hope you are.
>>
>> As soon as I see you agree to act in an honorable way and agree to my
>> rules... or other reasonable ones... I will remove the web page about you
>> and not bring up the past... unless there is a danger to someone, as I have
>> stated before. In the future I will assume that you know this disclaimer,
>> and not keep harping on it... and I assume you, too, would bring up past
>> issues if you thought I was being a danger to someone - in other words, I
>> hope we could be treated in a just way.
>
> Leave the webpage... it perfectly suits you:)
Ok...
Snit
alangbaker-3E76B...@news.telus.net on 5/16/04 2:18 PM:
Holding people to high standards can cause them pain. OK...
>
>> way in reestablishing their credibility in my eyes (not that I think
>> they care what I think, they have repeated this continually) and if Snit
>> does not respond by acknowledging any wrongdoing, it will be an
>> admission of guilt AFAIC from his part.
>> If this occurs, can we *then* just move on and forget the past?
>>
>> Nicolas
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
Your game is just falling all to hell, Mikey:) Even though you just
snipped the shit out of it, I attributed it to him and left his name in.
IOW, I didn't pull the Snit parrot act. Now back to the perch... you
sad, lonely, little parrot:)
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
Don't you know?
> >
> >>> I wrote "You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to
> >>> contact the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a promise."
> >>>
> >>> There is NO THREAT OF FILING FALSE CHARGES WITH THE POLICE mentioned
> >>> here, Snit.
> >>>
> >>> You really need to stop this bullshit.
> >>
> >> What line were you in reference to? The threat to call the police was
> >> very
> >> clear. Since there was no wrong doing, as you seem to now admit, the only
> >> think you could have reported would have been trumped up charges.
> >
> > There was no threat that I saw, only a promise if you did cross the line
> > in her estimation. Even so, it would still have been up to the
> > authorities to make the assessment that you actually did what she
> > claimed you did. You know all this, you are simply doing what Elizabot
> > says you are doing... continuing with your disingenuous bullshit. Your
> > victim role doesn't play at this theatre any longer.
>
> Her threat was something that could not be reasonably ignored. You can deny
> this all you want, but that does not change the truth.
What threat? Post it.
> >>>> That is not harassment, no matter how you wish to define it.
> >>>
> >>> I never threatened to file false charges against you, Snit. Your
> >>> continuous lying about it DOES constitute harassment and is slanderous.
> >>
> >> You made that claim that you were contemplating calling the police. Why?
> >> What would you have told them?
> >
> > When you crossed the line (which is the only time she claimed she would
> > call them)? She would tell them how she believed you crossed the line.
> > Cut your shit.
>
> What line?
THE line. LOL!
Steve
Elizabot
> In article <BCCD0ECD.50297%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>You made that claim that you were contemplating calling the police. Why?
>>What would you have told them?
>
>
> When you crossed the line (which is the only time she claimed she would
> call them)? She would tell them how she believed you crossed the line.
> Cut your shit.
If I gave him examples, he'd probably take it as a dare.
Elizabot
You have claimed that you are my teacher, Snit. You wrote:
"It is a well known phenomena that people often gain crushes on their
teachers or others in authority, this is more true for women than for
men. Snit was recently in a teacher position over Elizabot."
As someone claiming to be my teacher, and as you have finally admitted
to being sigmond, who wrote that disgusting post, I could argue a case
of sexual harassment against you based on what is in your mind.
You really should be more careful. Your perverted thoughts and actions
are anything but innocent in this matter.
>>I wrote "You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to
>>contact the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a promise."
>>
>>There is NO THREAT OF FILING FALSE CHARGES WITH THE POLICE mentioned
>>here, Snit.
>>
>>You really need to stop this bullshit.
>
>
> What line were you in reference to? The threat to call the police was very
> clear. Since there was no wrong doing, as you seem to now admit, the only
> think you could have reported would have been trumped up charges.
I did not admit there was no wrong doing. That is more of your weird
thinking going on, Snit. There is nothing presently prosecutable. I am
letting you know that if you harass me to the point were there is
something prosecutable, I will contact the police. *THIS IS NOT A DARE!*
>
>>>That is not harassment, no matter how you wish to define it.
>>
>>I never threatened to file false charges against you, Snit. Your
>>continuous lying about it DOES constitute harassment and is slanderous.
>
>
> You made that claim that you were contemplating calling the police. Why?
> What would you have told them?
You've heard of if-then statements, I presume?
I would call the police *if* you crossed the line. I.e. did something
prosecutable.
I really wish you'd get this through your head. It is not a difficult
concept.
Now I've answered your questions. Except the one about the poo because I
need more information.
Snit
40a7ef25$0$203$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 3:45 PM:
This was all true. I would have to look up the stats to support the idea
that women do this more than men, but I had read them not long before making
that statement.
>
> As someone claiming to be my teacher, and as you have finally admitted
> to being sigmond, who wrote that disgusting post, I could argue a case
> of sexual harassment against you based on what is in your mind.
What is on my mind? Your obsession? It was clearly documented.
>
> You really should be more careful. Your perverted thoughts and actions
> are anything but innocent in this matter.
Pot:Kettle:Black.
>
>>> I wrote "You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to
>>> contact the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a promise."
>>>
>>> There is NO THREAT OF FILING FALSE CHARGES WITH THE POLICE mentioned
>>> here, Snit.
>>>
>>> You really need to stop this bullshit.
>>
>>
>> What line were you in reference to? The threat to call the police was very
>> clear. Since there was no wrong doing, as you seem to now admit, the only
>> think you could have reported would have been trumped up charges.
>
> I did not admit there was no wrong doing. That is more of your weird
> thinking going on, Snit. There is nothing presently prosecutable. I am
> letting you know that if you harass me to the point were there is
> something prosecutable, I will contact the police. *THIS IS NOT A DARE!*
I would never even consider doing so. Nor have I given you any reason to
think I would. You, on the other hand, tracked me down to my home city.
You showed repeated signs of stalking behavior... not internet research, but
real attempts to find out where I live. I never did that to you, and the
only reason I ever found out where you live is that *you* posted it...
someone else suggested that they may have found the place, and you told
them, and me, that they were right. Other than look at the public web site
of the place where you live, I never did anything to research it or narrow
it down.
>
>>
>>>> That is not harassment, no matter how you wish to define it.
>>>
>>> I never threatened to file false charges against you, Snit. Your
>>> continuous lying about it DOES constitute harassment and is slanderous.
>>
>>
>> You made that claim that you were contemplating calling the police. Why?
>> What would you have told them?
>
> You've heard of if-then statements, I presume?
>
> I would call the police *if* you crossed the line. I.e. did something
> prosecutable.
Well, if you do something prosecutable, I would call the police, too. I
never made some outlandish threat to do so... you did.
>
> I really wish you'd get this through your head. It is not a difficult
> concept.
You made a clear threat. I reacted appropriately.
>
> Now I've answered your questions.
I appreciate it... even if we do not agree with the answers, it shows a
certain amount of integrity. You and Steve M. have shown that... Steve
Carroll has done everything he can to weasel out of answering, and Sandman
simply ignores the questions. They show no integrity.
> Except the one about the poo because I
> need more information.
I would have to dig up your posts with links, but do you deny posting links
to pictures of fecal material multiple times in csma?
Snit
40a7eef9$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 3:45 PM:
I think it goes without saying that if *anyone* crossed a prosecutable line,
the one offended might go to the police.
It *does* go without saying... yet she felt the need to say it...
She made a threat. That is something that does not go away.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-0169AA...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/16/04 2:28 PM:
>
> > In article <BCCD0CE4.5028B%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> > Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> >> 40a7b960$0$209$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 11:56 AM:
> >>
> >>> Snit wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>>> As soon as I see you agree to act in an honorable way and agree to my
> >>>> rules... or other reasonable ones... I will remove the web page about
> >>>> you
> >>>> and not bring up the past... unless there is a danger to someone, as I
> >>>> have
> >>>> stated before. In the future I will assume that you know this
> >>>> disclaimer,
> >>>> and not keep harping on it... and I assume you, too, would bring up past
> >>>> issues if you thought I was being a danger to someone - in other words,
> >>>> I
> >>>> hope we could be treated in a just way.
> >>>
> >>> This is your way to allow yourself to continue to harass me, isn't it?
> >>
> >> In what way? You made threats to me that, if carried out, could have hurt
> >> me severely...
> >
> >
> > How so? If you were innocent, you had nothing to worry about. My point
> > is... you acted anything but innocent.
>
> This is again disingenuous on your part. We have been over this: innocent
> people who are accused often are hurt simply by the accusation. Do you deny
> this?
Yes, we have been over this and apparently you are still too stupid to
realize your admission that you acknowledge this potential is an
inconsistency. Anyone truly concerned about being falsely accused has a
reason to avoid the person they believe would do such a thing, yet,
after the alleged 'threat' took place, you still sought her out. You did
so because you knew that she had no intention of doing what you claimed.
The disingenuous activity belongs to you.
> >> if I ever see you doing the same to anyone else, I *will*
> >> step in.
> >>
> >> That is not harassment, no matter how you wish to define it.
> >
> > So step in... just make sure you don't step in any more doo doo... I
> > believe you have enough clinging to you now:)
>
> You are babbling now. Do you have a point?
Yeah... smell your shoes:)
Steve
Snit
Honesty is not a game. That is the only thing I am "playing".
> Even though you just
> snipped the shit out of it, I attributed it to him and left his name in.
sure... you still are just posting his trolling...
> IOW, I didn't pull the Snit parrot act. Now back to the perch... you
> sad, lonely, little parrot:)
You did parrot his trolling... and now you deny it.
You have been caught lying again...
Snit
"She had no intention of doing what she claimed". Do you really believe she
lied?
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
Get your mommy to read it to you:)
Steve
Snit
>> "She had no intention of doing what she claimed". Do you really believe she
>> lied?
>
> Get your mommy to read it to you:)
Why do I need someone else to read to me your claim that Elizabot lied.
Alan Baker
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>>> The Official sigmond FAQ
> >>>>
> >>>> If you are trying to prove you are a bigger troll than I am... you win.
> >>>> I
> >>>> will no longer respond to your repeated posting of this antagonism.
> >>>>
> >>>> I strongly suspect you will continue your trolling....
> >>>
> >>> Hey... didn't you see what he wrote?
> >>
> >> At least his trolling was original. Now you have to copy your trolling
> >> from
> >> others.
> >>
> >> Sad... just sad.
> >
> > Your game is just falling all to hell, Mikey:)
>
> Honesty is not a game. That is the only thing I am "playing".
And yet you won't answer this question:
Did you post as "sigmond", here in CSMA? Amazing how you won't answer
that question...
Alan Baker
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
Bearing out exactly what people have been saying:
Your agreement is all about getting others into a position where if they
call you on your bullshit, it's "bringing up the past", and yet your
agreement doesn't prevent you from carrying right on as you always have.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-A7846D...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/16/04 4:35 PM:
>
> >> "She had no intention of doing what she claimed". Do you really believe
> >> she
> >> lied?
> >
> > Get your mommy to read it to you:)
>
> Why do I need someone else to read to me your claim that Elizabot lied.
Do you really think snipping away what I wrote while you intentionally
misquoted me fooled anyone? LOL!
Steve
Elizabot
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-A7846D...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/16/04 4:35 PM:
>
>
>>>"She had no intention of doing what she claimed". Do you really believe she
>>>lied?
>>
>>Get your mommy to read it to you:)
>
>
> Why do I need someone else to read to me your claim that Elizabot lied.
Dishonest snipping and context removal by Snit.
Full sentence:
"You did so because you knew that she had no intention of doing what you
claimed."
You are clearly trolling again, Snit. You have lost all honor and integrity.
Wally
----------
In article <BCCCFEBC.5024B%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>, Snit
<sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> pan.2004.05.16....@hotmail.com on 5/16/04 11:16 AM:
>
>> Yes, I will agree. I do appologize for my vulgar remarks towards you,
>> Nashton. And I appologize to you Snit, for my vulgar comments and
>> profanities.
>
> Accepted. I, too, apologize to you for any comments that were inappropriate
> or inaccurate. I truly hope we can *all* move forward in a mature and
> honorable way, even if we do not have any set of standards, as I have
> suggested.
>
> It does frustrate me that people will neither agree to the standards I have
> suggested nor state what standard they find unreasonable... it smacks of a
> disingenuous agreement to move forward...
Frankly it "smacks" of nothing more than not wanting the bear to have
anything to do with re-designing the Honey jar!....think *motive* ;=)
Sandman
> If you are trying to prove you are a bigger troll than I am... you win. I
> will no longer respond to your repeated posting of this antagonism.
>
> I strongly suspect you will continue your trolling....
Well, this is pointless now. You are a troll and even substantiated facts can't
get in your way. You have become a menace to this group and people are starting
to leave the group because of you. You are hereby the first troll to ever enter
my killfile, since I no longer wish have anything to do with a compulsive liar
such as yourself.
I recommend most of the group - or at least most of the people that have
participating in your circus - to do the same, of course, since it's quite
clear that nothing productive could ever come from you, what so ever. You are a
big liar and you're probably never going to change.
You should take your trolling back to your troll group for the sake of the rest
of the group, but I am done with you. I have proved you to be a liar many times
over and your latest supporter, Nashton, also thinks you're a liar by now. As
far as your game - you "lost" (I know the terms "losing" and "winning" is
something you have a loose grasp on, but I'll use them anyway) it many weeks
ago.
*plonk*
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
"Wally" <wa...@wallyworld.net> wrote:
LOL!
Steve
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> > "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> > fretwizz-A7846D...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/16/04 4:35 PM:
> >
> >
> >>>"She had no intention of doing what she claimed". Do you really believe
> >>>she
> >>>lied?
> >>
> >>Get your mommy to read it to you:)
> >
> >
> > Why do I need someone else to read to me your claim that Elizabot lied.
>
> Dishonest snipping and context removal by Snit.
Don't forget quote tampering. The idiot put his lie in quotes as if to
make it appear that I quoted what he wrote.
> Full sentence:
>
> "You did so because you knew that she had no intention of doing what you
> claimed."
>
> You are clearly trolling again, Snit. You have lost all honor and integrity.
Ya know... I honestly believe he thought no one would recognize what he
did. I'm convinced that he really does think he is smarter than everyone
he comes into contact with. All he has proven here is that he's not even
as sharp as the guy whom he claims is as dumb as his shoe:) No wonder I
piss him off so much, LOL!
Steve
Elizabot
not really interested in my answers, but in continuing some old debate.
I feel sorry for you. You really seemed like you wanted to move on this
time, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and answered your questions.
You let me down, Snit. Again. This isn't the first time you wanted us to
move on and you were not able to.
I see I was foolish for hoping you'd show some integrity and accept my
answers as my viewpoint and move on. I see your intentions were less
than honorable.
Snit wrote:
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement. I myself had a
crush on a teacher or two when I was much younger, so I know what it is
like.
I assure you this is not the case here.
>>As someone claiming to be my teacher, and as you have finally admitted
>>to being sigmond, who wrote that disgusting post, I could argue a case
>>of sexual harassment against you based on what is in your mind.
>
>
> What is on my mind? Your obsession? It was clearly documented.
The obsession is yours, Snit. You are obviously too sick to recognize
it. I am guilty of defending myself against your continued delusions,
which if you would stop creating them, I would stop addressing them.
It is up to you to see how long this will continue. The power is yours.
You stop making up crap about me, I stop defending myself against your
mischaracterizations. Simple concept, really.
>>You really should be more careful. Your perverted thoughts and actions
>>are anything but innocent in this matter.
>
>
> Pot:Kettle:Black.
What is really sick is your having written:
"Elizabot says that she practices safe sex and always requires her
partners to wear a condom when being penetrated, but loves the taste of
semen and usually asks her partners to ejaculate in her mouth or on her
breasts."
as a joke. If you are a teacher and this is how you treat your students,
I hope you get caught sooner rather than later. People as perverted as
you seem to be should be kept away from authority roles.
>>>>I wrote "You are very near to crossing the line. I will not hesitate to
>>>>contact the Prescott Police Department if you do. And that's a promise."
>>>>
>>>>There is NO THREAT OF FILING FALSE CHARGES WITH THE POLICE mentioned
>>>>here, Snit.
>>>>
>>>>You really need to stop this bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>>>What line were you in reference to? The threat to call the police was very
>>>clear. Since there was no wrong doing, as you seem to now admit, the only
>>>think you could have reported would have been trumped up charges.
>>
>>I did not admit there was no wrong doing. That is more of your weird
>>thinking going on, Snit. There is nothing presently prosecutable. I am
>>letting you know that if you harass me to the point were there is
>>something prosecutable, I will contact the police. *THIS IS NOT A DARE!*
>
>
> I would never even consider doing so. Nor have I given you any reason to
> think I would. You, on the other hand, tracked me down to my home city.
With the IP address you've through your posting supplied through arin,
Snit. I told you I tracked you through your IP address. You are blowing
this out of proportion.
> You showed repeated signs of stalking behavior... not internet research, but
> real attempts to find out where I live.
It was via your IP address, whether or not you believe it.
> I never did that to you, and the
> only reason I ever found out where you live is that *you* posted it...
> someone else suggested that they may have found the place, and you told
> them, and me, that they were right. Other than look at the public web site
> of the place where you live, I never did anything to research it or narrow
> it down.
They probably used arin on me too. No big deal. Did you see me freaking
out about it? I didn't appreciate my neighbors' email addresses being
posted. Do you have a problem with that?
>>>>>That is not harassment, no matter how you wish to define it.
>>>>
>>>>I never threatened to file false charges against you, Snit. Your
>>>>continuous lying about it DOES constitute harassment and is slanderous.
>>>
>>>
>>>You made that claim that you were contemplating calling the police. Why?
>>>What would you have told them?
>>
>>You've heard of if-then statements, I presume?
>>
>>I would call the police *if* you crossed the line. I.e. did something
>>prosecutable.
>
>
> Well, if you do something prosecutable, I would call the police, too. I
> never made some outlandish threat to do so... you did.
I made no outlandish threat. I was informing you how disturbing your
behavior had been and was warning you to knock it off.
>>I really wish you'd get this through your head. It is not a difficult
>>concept.
>
>
> You made a clear threat. I reacted appropriately.
Blah, blah, blah.
Now that you have admitted to being sigmond, my case concerning your
sexual harassment is that much stronger.
I suggest you drop it, Snit. If you hadn't noticed, this all started out
from your asking me questions. I decided to answer them and look where
it's gotten us. NOWHERE. What is the point to your having asked these
questions? Seems like you still wish to debate them.
>>Now I've answered your questions.
>
>
> I appreciate it... even if we do not agree with the answers, it shows a
> certain amount of integrity.
You would show some integrity if you'd accept my answers as my answers
insteading of turning them into another debate you and MOVE ON.
> You and Steve M. have shown that... Steve
> Carroll has done everything he can to weasel out of answering, and Sandman
> simply ignores the questions. They show no integrity.>>
The fact that you feel compelled to insult others' integrity speaks
about you, Snit.
>>Except the one about the poo because I
>>need more information.
>
>
> I would have to dig up your posts with links, but do you deny posting links
> to pictures of fecal material multiple times in csma?
How many times is multiple times? Could you be more specific? Why are
you asking this?
Scorpi...@attnospam.net
wrote:
What would be honorable would be for you to stay on topic.
Mac Advocacy
If your no posting something to advocate for Macs, don't post at all.
--
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
~ George Bush Jr. 2001-09-13
"I don't know where he (bin Laden) is. I have no idea and I really
don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
~ George Bush Jr. 2002-03-13
catchmerevisited
Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net at Scorpi...@attNOSPAM.net wrote on 5/17/04
2:46 PM:
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:23:00 -0700, Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
> What would be honorable would be for you to stay on topic.
>
> Mac Advocacy
>
> If your no posting something to advocate for Macs, don't post at all.
well he's consistent.... as much as can be said of the Bible he reads.