Tired of the perverts feeding frenzy
Snit
shit and running around slapping each other on the back on their trolling.
Just so they do not bury things to far, as is their goal, here are some of
the things they are running from:
-----
On Incest and sex:
* The two concepts are different enough where nobody but a pervert
would consider them synonymous. Period. No discussion should be
needed except the above listed perverts argue otherwise.
* Incest can bring up the concept of sex without sex bringing up the
concept of incest. This is true no matter how many times they deny it.
* A partial subset of a whole is not synonymous with the whole. This
is true no matter how far it goes over the heads of perverts who claim
that since incest is a subset of sex they must be - to them - synonymous.
* Steve's claim:
> Incest = A / Sexual activity = B / Sex = C
> If A = B and B = C, then A = C
Incest is *not* the only sexual activity that exists no matter how
many times he claims it is.
-----
On their fantasies about me:
Steve's:
I can just picture Snit, ever the health conscious gentlemen, roaming
around the cemetery at night... shovel in one hand, bouquet of flowers
in the other... a rubber coated with embalming fluid in his pocket.
Elizabeth's
Poor widdle Snitzel. Are you upset because Steve forgot to mention how
you'd be roaming around the cemetary, burping and farting everywhere
and everywhen?
* They are repulsive and offensive no matter how many off-topic quotes
they dig up from anyone.
-----
On Lund's views on the US
* Steve quoted Lund saying he did *not* hate the US. Steve used this quote
to argue that Lund *did* hate the US. Steve's game was moronic.
-----
On Steve and other's health issues:
* Steve ran around belittling others for denying people's health issues
even though the person in question had apologized and the event
happened *years* ago. Much more recently Steve has done much the same
thing yet *never* apologized. More than that, Steve has:
- never apologized for his lies about this person abusing drugs.
- never apologized for his lies about this person abusing alcohol.
- never apologized for his lies about this person's emails.
- never apologized for his many, many well documented lies.
Steve is clearly a hypocritical liar who is running from his own
actions.
-----
That is, of course, just a partial subset of their BS (and not synonymous
with the whole of their BS!) They have made it clear they will be in frenzy
mode for a while: snipping, running, pulling quotes out of context, lying,
playing semantic games, etc. Yaaaaaaawn. How long until Tim Adams and a
hoard of their sock puppets join in their circus?
--
Sex-based crimes are not synonymous with sex
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Elizabot v2.0.3
> Steve's:
> I can just picture Snit, ever the health conscious gentlemen, roaming
> around the cemetery at night... shovel in one hand, bouquet of flowers
> in the other... a rubber coated with embalming fluid in his pocket.
> Elizabeth's
> Poor widdle Snitzel. Are you upset because Steve forgot to mention how
> you'd be roaming around the cemetary, burping and farting everywhere
> and everywhen?
LOL!
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> <trolling snipped>
Objective Troll Criteria
Antagonizing threads
Remember, a troll needs attention to his trolling, so whenever he
is in a lengthy thread arguing only with this one poster, the
troll is likely to break out of that thread and start another
thread that will be one way to evade the first thread and also
draw more attention from more people.
You're welcome.
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Holy cow!
...another Snit thread! whoud'a thunk it?
Run rabbit, run rabbit, run,run,run! ;=)
--
"Yes, the concept of incest would bring up the subject of sex. That has
never been in question"-Snit
"when people talk about either of these concepts it does not "suggests the
other" to anyone but a pervert."-Snit
C Lund
In article <C0229964.4642F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Holy cow! Steve Carroll, Elizabeth, and Wally are feeding on each other's
> shit and running around slapping each other on the back on their trolling.
> Just so they do not bury things to far, as is their goal, here are some of
> the things they are running from:
If you're really tired of them, then killfile the lot of them. You'll
never see another one of their posts. It's that simple.
(and the same goes to the rest of the circus)
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Snit
mr-779B9E.08...@individual.net on 2/23/06 12:03 AM:
I have no desire to continue this thread. I posted it in case anyone was
curious what the perverts in question were up to.
And, of course, I was 100% right. Look at their posts.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-779B9E.08...@individual.net on 2/23/06 12:03 AM:
>
> > In article <C0229964.4642F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> <trolling snipped>
> >
> > Objective Troll Criteria
> >
> > Antagonizing threads
> >
> > Remember, a troll needs attention to his trolling, so whenever he
> > is in a lengthy thread arguing only with this one poster, the
> > troll is likely to break out of that thread and start another
> > thread that will be one way to evade the first thread and also
> > draw more attention from more people.
> >
> > You're welcome.
>
> I have no desire to continue this thread. I posted it in case anyone was
> curious what the perverts in question were up to.
Which is one of the reasons why you are a troll.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
One of your definitions of being a troll is giving examples of the trolling
of others and then bowing out of the circus. OK.
Steve Carroll
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <C0229964.4642F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > Holy cow! Steve Carroll, Elizabeth, and Wally are feeding on each other's
> > shit and running around slapping each other on the back on their trolling.
> > Just so they do not bury things to far, as is their goal, here are some of
> > the things they are running from:
>
> If you're really tired of them,
C'mon, you damn well know he is full of it here. How many times have you
seen this kind of post by him in the last two years? Besides creating
new threads for this scam like he's done here, he's also mentioned it so
many times in too many other threads that it's not worth counting.
> then killfile the lot of them. You'll
> never see another one of their posts. It's that simple.
>
> (and the same goes to the rest of the circus)
--
"I am not fond of "me too" posts..." - Snit
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
He knows what it is, he's just too busy pretending the criteria doesn't
fit him while claiming it does fit for everyone he has a problem with.
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > <trolling snipped>
> >
> > Objective Troll Criteria
> >
> > Antagonizing threads
> >
> > Remember, a troll needs attention to his trolling, so whenever he
> > is in a lengthy thread arguing only with this one poster, the
> > troll is likely to break out of that thread and start another
> > thread that will be one way to evade the first thread and also
> > draw more attention from more people.
> >
> > You're welcome.
>
> He knows what it is, he's just too busy pretending the criteria doesn't
> fit him while claiming it does fit for everyone he has a problem with.
It's as I said to Mayor - for some reason they both think that denying
that they're trolls somehow keeps some form of imaginary integrity
intact and what they say will have some credibility.
You'd have to be pretty blind to not having noticed that their
credibility went far out the window years ago.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> Objective Troll Criteria
> >>>
> >>> Antagonizing threads
> >>>
> >>> Remember, a troll needs attention to his trolling, so whenever he
> >>> is in a lengthy thread arguing only with this one poster, the
> >>> troll is likely to break out of that thread and start another
> >>> thread that will be one way to evade the first thread and also
> >>> draw more attention from more people.
> >>>
> >>> You're welcome.
> >>
> >> I have no desire to continue this thread. I posted it in case anyone was
> >> curious what the perverts in question were up to.
> >
> > Which is one of the reasons why you are a troll.
>
> One of your definitions of being a troll is giving examples of the trolling
> of others
No, it isn't. One of the Objective Troll Criteria is, after having
been called a troll by a group of people, start calling them all
trolls back in "defense". Without realising that the connecting factor
is yourself.
Allow me to explain:
http://www.sandman.net/files/snitcircle.png
That's you. I admit that I probably missed half of all the people that
have actually called you a troll. I haven't got the time to rumage
through google and just cut'n'paste most from CSMA_Moderators posts.
I'd be happy to get a good list from anyone (Elizabot?)
As you see, you've got a pretty huge number of people that either have
you killfiled or outright label you as a troll.
Not the blue shapes? Those are the people that themselves have a huge
network of people calling them trolls, which means that their opinion
wouldn't really matter much. This is important in my next graph:
http://www.sandman.net/files/sandmancircle.png
See the difference? As far as I know, only three people have ever
actually maintained that I am a troll of any sort. Note also that out
of the three people, two of them have huge Snit-like networks (one of
them *IS* snit) of people that would call them trolls and as such,
their opinion doesn't matter much.
I know, I know - lots and lots of people call Nashton a troll too, but
I left him blank since I felt it was too unfair to you if I had no
legit people at all saying I was a troll. But in reality, he would be
blue as well.
Thank you for your attention.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <noone-01B615....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>>> <trolling snipped>
>>>
>>> Objective Troll Criteria
>>>
>>> Antagonizing threads
>>>
>>> Remember, a troll needs attention to his trolling, so whenever he
>>> is in a lengthy thread arguing only with this one poster, the
>>> troll is likely to break out of that thread and start another
>>> thread that will be one way to evade the first thread and also
>>> draw more attention from more people.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>
>> He knows what it is, he's just too busy pretending the criteria doesn't
>> fit him while claiming it does fit for everyone he has a problem with.
>
> It's as I said to Mayor - for some reason they both think that denying
> that they're trolls somehow keeps some form of imaginary integrity
> intact and what they say will have some credibility.
In what way do you think that description does not fit you perfectly? LOL!
>
> You'd have to be pretty blind to not having noticed that their
> credibility went far out the window years ago.
Gee, someone who is following me around begging me to play his trolling
games does not trust my credibility. Better ask Steve to post with his CSMA
Mod sock puppet to back you up!
Elizabot v2.0.3
That seems like a pretty good list to me.
> As you see, you've got a pretty huge number of people that either have
> you killfiled or outright label you as a troll.
>
> Not the blue shapes? Those are the people that themselves have a huge
> network of people calling them trolls, which means that their opinion
> wouldn't really matter much. This is important in my next graph:
>
>
> http://www.sandman.net/files/sandmancircle.png
>
> See the difference? As far as I know, only three people have ever
> actually maintained that I am a troll of any sort. Note also that out
> of the three people, two of them have huge Snit-like networks (one of
> them *IS* snit) of people that would call them trolls and as such,
> their opinion doesn't matter much.
>
> I know, I know - lots and lots of people call Nashton a troll too, but
> I left him blank since I felt it was too unfair to you if I had no
> legit people at all saying I was a troll. But in reality, he would be
> blue as well.
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
>
lol. You could probably add Peter K. to the list that calls you a troll
as well.
Snit
> In article <C0231E94.4646F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>> Objective Troll Criteria
>>>>>
>>>>> Antagonizing threads
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember, a troll needs attention to his trolling, so whenever he
>>>>> is in a lengthy thread arguing only with this one poster, the
>>>>> troll is likely to break out of that thread and start another
>>>>> thread that will be one way to evade the first thread and also
>>>>> draw more attention from more people.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're welcome.
>>>>
>>>> I have no desire to continue this thread. I posted it in case anyone was
>>>> curious what the perverts in question were up to.
>>>
>>> Which is one of the reasons why you are a troll.
>>
>> One of your definitions of being a troll is giving examples of the trolling
>> of others
>
> No, it isn't. One of the Objective Troll Criteria is, after having
> been called a troll by a group of people, start calling them all
> trolls back in "defense". Without realising that the connecting factor
> is yourself.
How do you propose to determine if someone is calling someone as troll as a
defense, as you seem to be doing, or is actually using objective criteria?
My method has been to ask for the objective criteria.
>
> Allow me to explain:
> http://www.sandman.net/files/snitcircle.png
So you believe that group-think is what determines if someone is a troll?
>
> That's you. I admit that I probably missed half of all the people that
> have actually called you a troll. I haven't got the time to rumage
> through google and just cut'n'paste most from CSMA_Moderators posts.
> I'd be happy to get a good list from anyone (Elizabot?)
LOL! Yeah, call to the trolls for help. That boosts your credibility.
LOL!
>
> As you see, you've got a pretty huge number of people that either have
> you killfiled or outright label you as a troll.
So your criteria is based on the number of people who make an accusation.
OK.
>
> Not the blue shapes? Those are the people that themselves have a huge
> network of people calling them trolls, which means that their opinion
> wouldn't really matter much. This is important in my next graph:
How have you calculated the number of people calling others trolls?
>
> http://www.sandman.net/files/sandmancircle.png
Do you deny that others have called you a troll or used similar language to
describe you? If I found one other would you admit to being a troll? Two?
Three? How many would it take for you to be considered a troll?
>
> See the difference? As far as I know, only three people have ever
> actually maintained that I am a troll of any sort.
Maintained? Not just called you one... how do you define "maintained"?
Called you that twice? Three times?
> Note also that out of the three people, two of them have huge Snit-like
> networks (one of them *IS* snit) of people that would call them trolls and as
> such, their opinion doesn't matter much.
>
> I know, I know - lots and lots of people call Nashton a troll too, but
> I left him blank since I felt it was too unfair to you if I had no
> legit people at all saying I was a troll. But in reality, he would be
> blue as well.
>
> Thank you for your attention.
I look forward to your reply. Watching Steve and the others troll based on
it will be amusing as well.
Sandman
"Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> > http://www.sandman.net/files/sandmancircle.png
> >
> > See the difference? As far as I know, only three people have ever
> > actually maintained that I am a troll of any sort. Note also that out
> > of the three people, two of them have huge Snit-like networks (one of
> > them *IS* snit) of people that would call them trolls and as such,
> > their opinion doesn't matter much.
> >
> > I know, I know - lots and lots of people call Nashton a troll too, but
> > I left him blank since I felt it was too unfair to you if I had no
> > legit people at all saying I was a troll. But in reality, he would be
> > blue as well.
> >
> > Thank you for your attention.
>
> lol. You could probably add Peter K. to the list that calls you a troll
> as well.
Yeah, of course. I didn't think about that. My mistake. I only thought
about csma citizens.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > No, it isn't. One of the Objective Troll Criteria is, after having
> > been called a troll by a group of people, start calling them all
> > trolls back in "defense". Without realising that the connecting factor
> > is yourself.
>
> How do you propose to determine if someone is calling someone as troll as a
> defense, as you seem to be doing, or is actually using objective criteria?
Whatever do you mean? The difference is crystal clear.
> > Allow me to explain:
> > http://www.sandman.net/files/snitcircle.png
>
> So you believe that group-think is what determines if someone is a troll?
Obviously not.
> > That's you. I admit that I probably missed half of all the people that
> > have actually called you a troll. I haven't got the time to rumage
> > through google and just cut'n'paste most from CSMA_Moderators posts.
> > I'd be happy to get a good list from anyone (Elizabot?)
>
> LOL! Yeah, call to the trolls for help. That boosts your credibility.
> LOL!
See what I mean? Elizabot research skills is second to none. She's
like the research queen of usenet like David is the research king of
low PC prices.
> > As you see, you've got a pretty huge number of people that either have
> > you killfiled or outright label you as a troll.
>
> So your criteria is based on the number of people who make an accusation.
> OK.
Obviously not. You are now obfuscating - another Objective Troll
Criteria.
> > Not the blue shapes? Those are the people that themselves have a huge
> > network of people calling them trolls, which means that their opinion
> > wouldn't really matter much. This is important in my next graph:
>
> How have you calculated the number of people calling others trolls?
Adding.
> > http://www.sandman.net/files/sandmancircle.png
>
> Do you deny that others have called you a troll or used similar language to
> describe you? If I found one other would you admit to being a troll? Two?
> Three? How many would it take for you to be considered a troll?
Obfuscation at its best. Whether someone is a troll isn't determined
by he or she fitting one single criteria. Plus, the criteria doesn't
actually state specific numbers, since - in this case - the criteria
actually hinges on a mathematical calculation to determine a
true/false statement and to make an accurate sample, lots of research
needs to be done and fed to a statistical model.
For a brief overview, my charts illustrates the model and its
function, and even if it's fair to say that all the values have
margins, your charts greatly outweighs any room for marginal
adjustments in your favor or my disfavor.
For example, the model needs to take relational claims into account.
For instance, imagine that A calling B a troll. that would assign 1
point to B. Imagine now that C and D calls A a troll, that would
assign 2 points to A, and thus the point given to B would loose value,
relational to the amount of troll points A has. See what I mean?
If someone is called a troll by, for example, ten people, that person
would loose the ability to assign troll points to anyone (where one
troll point would lower the points that person could give by 0.1
points).
This is a logical experiment, and hard to really implement in an
advocacy group since you would take into account the number of people
that would assign troll points to people just because they dislike
them without actually thinking they're trolls. I really don't know how
this model would be implemented in reality and remain statistical
integrity, but I'll get back to you if I ever figure it out.
>> Note also that out of the three people, two of them have huge
>> Snit-like networks (one of them *IS* snit) of people that would call
>> them trolls and as such, their opinion doesn't matter much.
>>
>> I know, I know - lots and lots of people call Nashton a troll too,
>> but I left him blank since I felt it was too unfair to you if I had
>> no legit people at all saying I was a troll. But in reality, he
>> would be blue as well.
>>
>> Thank you for your attention.
>
> I look forward to your reply. Watching Steve and the others troll based on
> it will be amusing as well.
I think it's amusing that in face of the Criteria, you actually say
things to make you fit it as much as possible.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > It's as I said to Mayor - for some reason they both think that denying
> > that they're trolls somehow keeps some form of imaginary integrity
> > intact and what they say will have some credibility.
>
> In what way do you think that description does not fit you perfectly? LOL!
Given the fact that there is only about four people in this group that
would question my credibility (You, Edwin, Nashton and the Mayor) and
all of you have far larger credibility problems, according to the
Relational Troll Statistical Model, I don't really have a problem.
If sane people, like ZnU, Steve Mackay, Elizabot, Alan Baker or people
like that questioned my credibility, then I would start to worry about
it.
> > You'd have to be pretty blind to not having noticed that their
> > credibility went far out the window years ago.
>
> Gee, someone who is following me around begging me to play his trolling
> games does not trust my credibility.
Someone would have to be insane to think that it's only *my* opinion
about you, Michael.
--
Sandman[.net]
Timberwoof
wrote:
> Allow me to explain:
> http://www.sandman.net/files/snitcircle.png
OMFG! A lot of trolls think Snit is a troll!
Look, Snit, if just one person calls you an ass, don't worry about it. However,
if twenty people call you an ass, you better hoof it down to the tack shop and
get fitted for a saddle.
In this case, if just one person calls you a troll, don't worry about it.
However, if twenty people call you a troll, then lumber down to the Army Corps
of Engineers and get fitted for a bridge.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Timberwoof
<snip>
>
> Allow me to explain:
> http://www.sandman.net/files/snitcircle.png
>
<snip>
>
>
> http://www.sandman.net/files/sandmancircle.png
If you invented a way to automate generating those diagrams, you could probably
get a job at Google.
Snit
timberwoof-525A7...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net on 2/23/06 8:31
PM:
> In article <mr-78F817.17...@individual.net>, Sandman <m...@sandman.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Allow me to explain:
>> http://www.sandman.net/files/snitcircle.png
>
> OMFG! A lot of trolls think Snit is a troll!
>
> Look, Snit, if just one person calls you an ass, don't worry about it.
> However, if twenty people call you an ass, you better hoof it down to the tack
> shop and get fitted for a saddle.
>
> In this case, if just one person calls you a troll, don't worry about it.
> However, if twenty people call you a troll, then lumber down to the Army Corps
> of Engineers and get fitted for a bridge.
The use of the word "troll" in CSMA is too often used as an expression to
obfuscate the fact the accused has no real defense. Oh, and before those
who troll me jump up and down on that, this does not mean it is the *only*
way it is used.
Heck, who does the most name calling at me: Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally,
Sandman, Elizabeth... if one is willing to accept the name calling of these
idiots as fact then one will quickly have a very low image of themselves.
If a million people say a foolish thing it is *still* a foolish thing. I
will stick with logic and rationality and not the crowing of the likes of
those I named above; people who are clearly not respectable.
Heck, in each of their cases their lies and BS is so transparent that
anything they say is to be taken with a grain of salt. Need proof: name
*any* of the folks in that group and I will point out *at least* one lie,
episode of unwarranted name calling, or completely unsupportable accusation
they have made in their last 10 posts. More likely in at least 8 of their
last 10 posts. Sandman *might* be the exception to the "at least 8", he
does sometimes refrain from his BS for a while.
Snit
PM:
> In article <mr-78F817.17...@individual.net>, Sandman <m...@sandman.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Allow me to explain:
>> http://www.sandman.net/files/snitcircle.png
>>
> <snip>
>>
>>
>> http://www.sandman.net/files/sandmancircle.png
>
> If you invented a way to automate generating those diagrams, you could
> probably get a job at Google.
The hardest part would be figuring out who is the recipient of the name
calling. Building a list of buzzword derogatory names would be easy as
would finding who said it, except in the case of Carrollesque sock puppetry.
Wow: for the first time I actually spent more than a fraction of a second
looking at the list Sandman has in the first png. He includes morons such
as: Dawg Tail, Elizabeth, Rick, Tim Adams, Steve Mackay, George Graves,
Sandman, Wally, TheLetterK, Steve Carroll, GreyCloud, and Peter K.
LOL! Gee, I am so hurt *that* group of folks - all who clearly troll in the
vast majority of their posts - would call me names. LOL! Damn! Is Sandman
going for the humor effect?
For that matter I look forward to Sandman's evidence that the others in his
diagram have the belief he attributes to them. Also: I wonder why Sandman
did not include those that have called him a names such as troll? I would
bet it would not be hard to add to his list: Peter K., Muahman, Mayor, Zara,
Nashton, and others have likely called him all sorts of names. I bet that
Elizabot, who Sandman admires so much, is not going to be able to find any
info on this no matter how highly Sandman speaks of her research
capabilities. Oops... there goes his claim that she is a good one to go to
when research is requested. LOL!
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Heck, who does the most name calling at me: Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally,
> Sandman, Elizabeth...
You have just listed most of the minority of posters in CSMA that haven't
kf'd you! doesn't your *logic* tell you anything about that? ROTF!
--
"I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest."-Snit
Sandman
<timberwoof-F4B8E...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Allow me to explain:
> > http://www.sandman.net/files/snitcircle.png
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >
> > http://www.sandman.net/files/sandmancircle.png
>
> If you invented a way to automate generating those diagrams, you could
> probably get a job at Google.
I've done similar things in the past, but generating the diagram isn't
what's difficult, it's applying the Relational Troll Statistical Model
to it to add values to it. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> LOL! Gee, I am so hurt *that* group of folks - all who clearly troll in the
> vast majority of their posts - would call me names. LOL!
You're working hard to fit the criteria.
--
Sandman[.net]
C Lund
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <clund-DCC9FB....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > In article <C0229964.4642F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > > Holy cow! Steve Carroll, Elizabeth, and Wally are feeding on each other's
> > > shit and running around slapping each other on the back on their trolling.
> > > Just so they do not bury things to far, as is their goal, here are some of
> > > the things they are running from:
> > If you're really tired of them,
> C'mon, you damn well know he is full of it here. How many times have you
> seen this kind of post by him in the last two years? Besides creating
> new threads for this scam like he's done here, he's also mentioned it so
> many times in too many other threads that it's not worth counting.
You think you're any better? You're all feeding on each other. If
you're truly sick of the circus, then killfile the other side (snit,
in your case).
But none of you have killfiled anybody else. Instead, you guys keep
putting statements in your posts designed to start more "circus"
sub-threads.
Deep down, you guys are enjoying the "snit-circus". All of you. That's
why you're keeping it alive.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Snit
Hint: you have no real criteria. You are just trolling.
C Lund
In article
<timberwoof-525A7...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> In this case, if just one person calls you a troll, don't worry about it.
> However, if twenty people call you a troll, then lumber down to the Army
> Corps of Engineers and get fitted for a bridge.
Looking away from the "circus" for a moment (seriously - I don't want
this to be taken as a defence of one side or the other), I'd just like
to point out that what you're saying isn't necessarily correct.
For instance, if you counted all the CSMAers who've called me various
things over the years, you'd probably end up with a lot more than
twenty. But if you look at who those people are, you'll find yourself
looking at a list of right-wing extremists (faux), trolls (edwin), and
immature jerks (chaoswolf).
IOW, it's not just a question of quantity, but also of quality. B)
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> LOL! Gee, I am so hurt *that* group of folks - all who clearly troll in
> >> the
> >> vast majority of their posts - would call me names. LOL!
> >
> > You're working hard to fit the criteria.
>
> Hint: you have no real criteria.
Hint for what? That you're revving up your circus again?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
Exactly, which is why a mere list is insufficient, which I've said
plenty of times.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Stop blaming your circus in my, Sandman.
Oh, and stop dishonestly snipping and lying.
But you won't. You can't. You are addicted to your trolling.
Snit
clund-3A227D....@amstwist00.chello.com on 2/24/06 3:40 AM:
Please note that I have been, mostly, ignoring his latest round of BS.
Snit
You are busily pretending to count how many times the people you troll are
called names. You then are making diagrams to see who calls who names and
then assigning power to the name callers based on how often they are called
names (or not, as the case may be). This is in an effort to fulfill my
request to you to objectively define *your* name calling... so you are
putting in all sorts of effort to try to excuse your name calling to one of
the people you call names.
Here are some of the glowing flaws in your charts:
In your list of people who you feel have some level of "authority" you
include such morons such as: Dawg Tail, Elizabeth, Rick, Tim Adams, Steve
Mackay, George Graves, Sandman, Wally, TheLetterK, Steve Carroll, GreyCloud,
and Peter K.
I mean, really: when you start looking to them to define your reality,
Sandman, you have shown you have *no* faith in yourself. Of that list,
maybe, George, Rick, and Mackay have times when they troll less. The others
do almost nothing but troll.
Then for your list you leave out folks such as Peter K., Muahman, Mayor,
Zara, Nashton, and others who have likely called you all sorts of names.
Hmmm, you showed you were impressed with your Queen of Research's ability to
find info. I bet she will not be able to find more people who called you
names. I bet she completely fails in any effort she tries to help you
complete that part of your list.
Feel free to spend your time making bogus charts that start with a flawed
premise, are filled with lies, inaccuracies, and deceit, and will be used
only by complete morons as if they were meaningful. Seems odd to me, but
everyone needs a hobby, eh? LOL!
[Oh, and your dishonest snipping and running is completely predictable...
tee hee]
George Graves
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
Not me. I fervently wish it would disappear. In my opinion, Snit has all
but ruined this NG. When I see a long list of names like Steve Carrol,
Elizabot, etc. repeated over and over and over in a single thread, I
ASSUME that its a circus thread and avoid it like the plague. I know
that its one of Snit's (who's been killfiled for over a year) stupid,
endless arguments like what is Bush "guilty" of or how incest and sex
are the same thing, or whatever his twisted little mind has conceived.
But you are right. The participants enjoy it because there is an easy
way for all of them to walk away - just killfile Snit. With nobody
responding to his garbage, he'd soon go away.
--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.
Snit
gmgraves-475F74...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com on 2/24/06 2:09
PM:
I would love to hear your views of how I have done this. Gee, I respond to
some trolls some of the time. Is that all it takes to ruin CSMA in your
mind?
> When I see a long list of names like Steve Carrol, Elizabot, etc. repeated
> over and over and over in a single thread, I ASSUME that its a circus thread
> and avoid it like the plague.
I do not blame you. No doubt the two of them are just obsessing over me and
spewing all sorts of lies again. How long have they been doing that?
> I know that its one of Snit's (who's been killfiled for over a year) stupid,
> endless arguments like
Here we go:
> what is Bush "guilty" of
The actual main debate on that was Steve playing semantic games with the
words "guilt" and guilty. I made an argument that he never refuted and it
pissed him off. Oh well.
> or how incest and sex are the same thing,
No matter how many times I tell Steve, Wally, and Tim Adams that the
concepts are very different (not synoymous) they will keep spewing their
perversions.
> or whatever his twisted little mind has conceived.
I have been saying the concepts are so different as to never be considered
synonymous by any non-pervert. I would agree that when Wally, Tim Adams,
Steve Carroll or anyone says the concepts are the same (or even so close as
to be considered synonymous) they they are showing they have a twisted
little mind.
> But you are right. The participants enjoy it because there is an easy way for
> all of them to walk away - just killfile Snit.
Steve and Elizabeth, at least, cannot. They are so unbelievably obsessed
with me that they will *never* do that (though each has claimed to).
> With nobody responding to his garbage, he'd soon go away.
Funny how you claim to have me killfiled and yet also claim to know my
views. Perhaps you are reading the lies of Carroll and crew and are stupid
enough to believe them?
Elizabot v2.0.3
> Heck, who does the most name calling at me: Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally,
> Sandman, Elizabeth... if one is willing to accept the name calling of these
> idiots as fact then one will quickly have a very low image of themselves.
Mike, look at the title of this thread you created.
--
"Now, I suppose if the person stated, before they died, that they had no
problem with someone having sex with their dead body, then I would have
less *legal* problems with it." -Snit
C Lund
In article
<gmgraves-475F74...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Deep down, you guys are enjoying the "snit-circus". All of you. That's
> > why you're keeping it alive.
>
> Not me. I fervently wish it would disappear.
FWIW, I don't consider you to be part of the "circus" - no more than I
am. It's really a just a handful of posters. If they could just STFU
then the whole thing would go away.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Steve Carroll
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> On 24/2/06 12:07 PM, in article C023D4A9.46656%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > Heck, who does the most name calling at me: Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally,
> > Sandman, Elizabeth...
>
> You have just listed most of the minority of posters in CSMA that haven't
> kf'd you! doesn't your *logic* tell you anything about that? ROTF!
LOL!
--
"I am not fond of "me too" posts..." - Snit
Donald L McDaniel
(in article <mr-78F817.17...@individual.net>):
> In article <C0231E94.4646F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>> Objective Troll Criteria
>>>>>
>>>>> Antagonizing threads
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember, a troll needs attention to his trolling, so whenever he
>>>>> is in a lengthy thread arguing only with this one poster, the
>>>>> troll is likely to break out of that thread and start another
>>>>> thread that will be one way to evade the first thread and also
>>>>> draw more attention from more people.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're welcome.
>>>>
>>>> I have no desire to continue this thread. I posted it in case anyone was
>>>> curious what the perverts in question were up to.
>>>
>>> Which is one of the reasons why you are a troll.
>>
>> One of your definitions of being a troll is giving examples of the trolling
>> of others
>
> No, it isn't. One of the Objective Troll Criteria is, after having
> been called a troll by a group of people, start calling them all
> trolls back in "defense". Without realising that the connecting factor
> is yourself.
>
> Allow me to explain:
> http://www.sandman.net/files/snitcircle.png
>
> That's you. I admit that I probably missed half of all the people that
> have actually called you a troll. I haven't got the time to rumage
> through google and just cut'n'paste most from CSMA_Moderators posts.
> I'd be happy to get a good list from anyone (Elizabot?)
>
> As you see, you've got a pretty huge number of people that either have
> you killfiled or outright label you as a troll.
>
> Not the blue shapes? Those are the people that themselves have a huge
> network of people calling them trolls, which means that their opinion
> wouldn't really matter much. This is important in my next graph:
>
>
> http://www.sandman.net/files/sandmancircle.png
>
> See the difference? As far as I know, only three people have ever
> actually maintained that I am a troll of any sort. Note also that out
> of the three people, two of them have huge Snit-like networks (one of
> them *IS* snit) of people that would call them trolls and as such,
> their opinion doesn't matter much.
>
> I know, I know - lots and lots of people call Nashton a troll too, but
> I left him blank since I felt it was too unfair to you if I had no
> legit people at all saying I was a troll. But in reality, he would be
> blue as well.
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
>
>
Personally, the only person I have killfiled in this particular group is
"Georgie-Porgie" (otherwise known as Geo. Graves, the junior AntiChrist).
--
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may remain intact
==========================================
George Graves
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
I don't ever engage in Snit-fests. The moment Snit and its circus
invades any thread I'm in, I leave.
Snit
PM:
> In article <clund-87E1BD....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <gmgraves-475F74...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>> George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Deep down, you guys are enjoying the "snit-circus". All of you. That's
>>>> why you're keeping it alive.
>>>
>>> Not me. I fervently wish it would disappear.
>>
>> FWIW, I don't consider you to be part of the "circus" - no more than I
>> am. It's really a just a handful of posters. If they could just STFU
>> then the whole thing would go away.
>
> I don't ever engage in Snit-fests. The moment Snit and its circus
> invades any thread I'm in, I leave.
Hi.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Hint for what? That you're revving up your circus again?
>
> Stop blaming your circus in my, Sandman.
That doesn't even make any sense, Micahel.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Exactly, which is why a mere list is insufficient, which I've said
> > plenty of times.
>
> You are busily pretending to count how many times the people you troll are
> called names.
You just obfuscated (another Objective Troll Criteria), which
invalidated the entire premise of your entire post.
> You then are making diagrams to see who calls who names and
> then assigning power to the name callers based on how often they are called
> names
You just totally misrepresented my actions and my diagrams.
> (or not, as the case may be). This is in an effort to fulfill my
> request to you to objectively define *your* name calling...
I am aware of no such request, and I made no diagrams to fulfill this
alleged request. You are at best, guessing, and at worst lying.
> so you are putting in all sorts of effort to try to excuse your name
> calling to one of the people you call names.
Not only have put very little effort in anything related to this, the
motive for my effort is misrepresented by you above.
> In your list of people who you feel have some level of "authority" you
> include such morons such as: Dawg Tail, Elizabeth, Rick, Tim Adams, Steve
> Mackay, George Graves, Sandman, Wally, TheLetterK, Steve Carroll, GreyCloud,
> and Peter K.
The entire point of this exercise is to show projection. The entire
criteria is built around the fact that you are eager to refer to just
about everyone that calls you a troll either a troll back or a moron -
as you just did. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were on my
side of this debate, doing your best to show examples of just why you
fit the criteria.
> I mean, really: when you start looking to them to define your reality,
> Sandman, you have shown you have *no* faith in yourself. Of that list,
> maybe, George, Rick, and Mackay have times when they troll less. The others
> do almost nothing but troll.
Or, at least, that's what you really would want to be true.
> Then for your list you leave out folks such as Peter K., Muahman, Mayor,
> Zara, Nashton, and others who have likely called you all sorts of names.
Elizabot mentioned Peter K, and I agreed. Muahman and zara are both
self-admitted trolls and as such doesn't really have an opinion worth
counting in these sorts of exercises. They have called you lots of
names as well, and I left them out of your diagram as well. Nashton
*was* on my diagram and Mayor - sure, I'll put him on. Not that I ever
think he has called me a troll, though.
> Hmmm, you showed you were impressed with your Queen of Research's ability to
> find info. I bet she will not be able to find more people who called you
> names. I bet she completely fails in any effort she tries to help you
> complete that part of your list.
Because she dislikes you?
> Feel free to spend your time making bogus charts that start with a flawed
> premise, are filled with lies, inaccuracies, and deceit, and will be used
> only by complete morons as if they were meaningful. Seems odd to me, but
> everyone needs a hobby, eh? LOL!
At least I substantiate my claims. How's that honor and honesty code
coming along, Michael?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Most people would have been able to figure out that I made a typo and what
it was. Then it would have made complete sense to them. You, of course,
are not that bright. Maybe you can have one of your friends help you - are
they any brighter?
In any case, Sandman, when you blame your actions on me you are clearly
Snit
I am not interested in your circus, Sandman. Have fun trying to come up
with some "objective" criteria to discount your trolling. LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-7532F5.13...@individual.net on 2/26/06 5:28 AM:
>
> > In article <C0245D29.46682%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>> Hint for what? That you're revving up your circus again?
> >>
> >> Stop blaming your circus in my, Sandman.
> >
> > That doesn't even make any sense, Micahel.
> >
> Most people would have been able to figure out that
... you don't need to rely on typos to not make sense? Oh they have...
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
...him providing the objective criteria you've repeatedly asked him for
that points directly at you as the main troll on the ng? Yes, he
undoubtedly knows that... everyone knows.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> I am not interested in your circus, Sandman. Have fun trying to come up
> with some "objective" criteria to discount your trolling. LOL!
I see you are running from the subject even when your entire post is
replied to in great detail. How well you fit the Objective Troll
Criteria.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> Hint for what? That you're revving up your circus again?
> >>
> >> Stop blaming your circus in my, Sandman.
> >
> > That doesn't even make any sense, Micahel.
>
> Most people would have been able to figure out that I made a typo and what
> it was. Then it would have made complete sense to them. You, of course,
> are not that bright. Maybe you can have one of your friends help you - are
> they any brighter?
Unprovoked insult noted. Another Objective Troll Criteria.
> In any case, Sandman, when you blame your actions on me you are clearly
> trolling.
I.e I am not trolling. Nothing new.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I am under no obligation to respond to your every lie, even if you - GASP -
threaten to call me a troll if I do not. Oh no! Such horror!
Go troll someone else.
Snit
> In article <C0271164.4698F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>> Hint for what? That you're revving up your circus again?
>>>>
>>>> Stop blaming your circus in my, Sandman.
>>>
>>> That doesn't even make any sense, Micahel.
>>
>> Most people would have been able to figure out that I made a typo and what
>> it was. Then it would have made complete sense to them. You, of course,
>> are not that bright. Maybe you can have one of your friends help you - are
>> they any brighter?
>
> Unprovoked insult noted. Another Objective Troll Criteria.
You showed you were not able to understand the sentence because of a simple
typo. The fact that you were not bright enough to do so is simply a fact.
>
>> In any case, Sandman, when you blame your actions on me you are clearly
>> trolling.
>
> I.e I am not trolling. Nothing new.
Once again you show you have very, very poor reading comprehension.
Please stop blaming me for your actions.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-33E592.19...@individual.net on 2/26/06 11:36 AM:
>
> > In article <C02711E7.46991%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> I am not interested in your circus, Sandman. Have fun trying to come up
> >> with some "objective" criteria to discount your trolling. LOL!
> >
> > I see you are running from the subject even when your entire post is
> > replied to in great detail. How well you fit the Objective Troll
> > Criteria.
>
> I am under no obligation to respond to your every lie, even if you - GASP -
> threaten to call me a troll if I do not. Oh no! Such horror!
But you whine like a little girl when your trolling is snipped and run
like a little girl when it is replied to.
Ironically, when people snip out your trolling - your only reply is
that they are "running", but when you do pretty much the same, you are
suddenly judged by other criteria.
How predictable.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>> Hint for what? That you're revving up your circus again?
> >>>>
> >>>> Stop blaming your circus in my, Sandman.
> >>>
> >>> That doesn't even make any sense, Micahel.
> >>
> >> Most people would have been able to figure out that I made a typo and what
> >> it was. Then it would have made complete sense to them. You, of course,
> >> are not that bright. Maybe you can have one of your friends help you - are
> >> they any brighter?
> >
> > Unprovoked insult noted. Another Objective Troll Criteria.
>
> You showed you were not able to understand the sentence because of a simple
> typo.
Incorrect and obfuscation. I correctly noted that the sentence did not
make any sense. Whether I understood it or not was never a part of my
reply.
> The fact that you were not bright enough to do so is simply a fact.
Unprovoked insult noted. An Objective Troll Criteria.
> >> In any case, Sandman, when you blame your actions on me you are clearly
> >> trolling.
> >
> > I.e I am not trolling. Nothing new.
>
> Once again you show you have very, very poor reading comprehension.
I comprehended your sentence just fine. The logical conclusion from it
is that I am not trolling since I have never blame my actions on you.
> Please stop blaming me for your actions.
I can't stop something I never begun.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0274555.469F1%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-33E592.19...@individual.net on 2/26/06 11:36 AM:
>>
>>> In article <C02711E7.46991%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am not interested in your circus, Sandman. Have fun trying to come up
>>>> with some "objective" criteria to discount your trolling. LOL!
>>>
>>> I see you are running from the subject even when your entire post is
>>> replied to in great detail. How well you fit the Objective Troll
>>> Criteria.
>>
>> I am under no obligation to respond to your every lie, even if you - GASP -
>> threaten to call me a troll if I do not. Oh no! Such horror!
>
> But you whine like a little girl when your trolling is snipped and run
> like a little girl when it is replied to.
Incorrect.
>
> Ironically, when people snip out your trolling - your only reply is
> that they are "running", but when you do pretty much the same, you are
> suddenly judged by other criteria.
Incorrect.
>
> How predictable.
Your lies are, Sandman. Yes.
--
* The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
* OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
* Incest is so different from sex as to not be considered synonymous
by anyone other than perverts
* One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
* As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse.
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Bingo.
> How predictable.
Completely.
Steve Carroll
As is his ability to deny that it's not just you who thinks he's a troll
(or worse). It's hilarious that he thinks his criteria shifting won't be
spotted as long as he claims the other guy is doing it;)