Well Sandman admit he was lying? Part II
Snit
In comparing how a G3 450 MHz machine would compare to a 2 GHz PC Sandman
produced several movies. Sandman even tried to make it look like the PC was
as good or better than the typical situation, "I would also like to mention
that this is a freshly installed Windows XP Pro on my 2.0 Ghz Compaq PC.
Since installing, I have only had time to install one game on it." He fails
to mention whatever it was that crippled the PC. He even throws in
And please, do yourself a favour and don't go all wintroll on me
telling me that I messed up the PC in some horrible way. It's quite
clear that the PC isn't slow in any way, the Mac is just WAY faster.
Elsewhere Sandman lies and says, "It's quite apparent, however, that a 400
Mhz iMac totally smokes a 2 Ghz PC when it comes to page rendering." He
even tells the whopper of a lie:
Your "experience" is totally debunked with my video clips. I
have proven you utterly wrong, face it and move on.
Note how he claims his videos apply not just to his own machine but to
someone else's experience with their own machines!
Sandman repeatedly argues with people, posts contrived half-truth evidence
and videos he claims are "proof" and then belittles those that point out his
dishonesty.
When will Sandman admit that he was trolling and lying?
When will Sandman admit that what he calls "proof" often is not?
--
"I am not a number, I am a free year!" - '06
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Your "experience" is totally debunked with my video clips. I
> have proven you utterly wrong, face it and move on.
>
> Note how he claims his videos apply not just to his own machine but to
> someone else's experience with their own machines!
Exactly! Davids so called "experience" claimed that a 450Mhz Mac was slow at
doing various tasks, such as web browsing. I made movies that proved him
utterly wrong. He has since then tried to backpedal to claim that a 450Mhz Mac
is only slow if you load comment pages on Slashdot or load about 20 sites at
the same time in tabs, which of course means that he has realised how wrong he
was and how correct I am.
Why do you need to point that out again? It's not like I haven't posted about
it a lot.
--
Sandman[.net]
"Apple beat Wintel to market with 64 bit personal computers"
- Edwin
Snit
mr-E0396F.08...@individual.net on 1/9/06 12:16 AM:
> In article <BFE71E25.40C4C%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> http://snipurl.com/lblm
>> In comparing how a G3 450 MHz machine would compare to a 2 GHz PC Sandman
>> produced several movies. Sandman even tried to make it look like the PC was
>> as good or better than the typical situation, "I would also like to mention
>> that this is a freshly installed Windows XP Pro on my 2.0 Ghz Compaq PC.
>> Since installing, I have only had time to install one game on it." He fails
>> to mention whatever it was that crippled the PC. He even throws in
>>
>> And please, do yourself a favour and don't go all wintroll on me
>> telling me that I messed up the PC in some horrible way. It's quite
>> clear that the PC isn't slow in any way, the Mac is just WAY faster.
>>
>> Elsewhere Sandman lies and says, "It's quite apparent, however, that a 400
>> Mhz iMac totally smokes a 2 Ghz PC when it comes to page rendering." He
>> even tells the whopper of a lie:
>>
>> Your "experience" is totally debunked with my video clips. I
>> have proven you utterly wrong, face it and move on.
>>
>> Note how he claims his videos apply not just to his own machine but to
>> someone else's experience with their own machines!
>>
>> Sandman repeatedly argues with people, posts contrived half-truth evidence
>> and videos he claims are "proof" and then belittles those that point out his
>> dishonesty.
>>
>> When will Sandman admit that he was trolling and lying?
>> When will Sandman admit that what he calls "proof" often is not?
>
> Exactly! Davids so called "experience" claimed that a 450Mhz Mac was slow at
> doing various tasks, such as web browsing. I made movies that proved him
> utterly wrong. He has since then tried to backpedal to claim that a 450Mhz Mac
> is only slow if you load comment pages on Slashdot or load about 20 sites at
> the same time in tabs, which of course means that he has realised how wrong he
> was and how correct I am.
>
> Why do you need to point that out again? It's not like I haven't posted about
> it a lot.
Why not talk about *your* lie? You live in a glass house, you should not be
throwing such stones.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
... nothing that made any sense (including the title of the thread). Cap
off the glue tube, Snit... and seek treatment for your OCD.
--
"The question is not about my behavior: the question is about your
admission about not being able to carry on a reasoned conversation."
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> Why do you need to point that out again? It's not like I haven't
>> posted about it a lot.
>
> Why not talk about *your* lie?
I never made any.
--
Sandman[.net]
"Kudos to Apple for being the first to bring affordable 64 bit
computing to the PC market"
- Edwin
Snit
> In article <BFE7D4C5.40CCD%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> Why do you need to point that out again? It's not like I haven't
>>> posted about it a lot.
>>
>> Why not talk about *your* lie?
>
> I never made any.
>
LOL! At least you have a sense of humor.
If you did not tell a lie then why did you snip it? LOL! Here one of your
lies are, again:
And please, do yourself a favour and don't go all wintroll on me
telling me that I messed up the PC in some horrible way. It's quite
clear that the PC isn't slow in any way, the Mac is just WAY faster.
Do you stand by your lie that your PC was not slow "in any way"? LOL!
fibercut
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-0D3BAB.12...@individual.net on 1/11/06 4:05 AM:
>
>> In article <BFE7D4C5.40CCD%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why do you need to point that out again? It's not like I haven't
>>>> posted about it a lot.
>>>
>>> Why not talk about *your* lie?
>>
>> I never made any.
>>
> LOL! At least you have a sense of humor.
>
> If you did not tell a lie then why did you snip it? LOL! Here one of your
> lies are, again:
>
> And please, do yourself a favour and don't go all wintroll on me
> telling me that I messed up the PC in some horrible way. It's quite
> clear that the PC isn't slow in any way, the Mac is just WAY faster.
>
> Do you stand by your lie that your PC was not slow "in any way"? LOL!
You really have a problem with people, don't you?
Snit
2006011122354875249-fibercut@nospamcom on 1/11/06 8:35 PM:
With people, no. With those people lying, yes.
Sandman likes to pretend to have proven things - almost always things that
make others look bad - but then he generally comes around and admit his
"proof" was faulty. I am just having fun showing him how faulty his proof
was.
I do also enjoy pointing out how the worst of the trolls in CSMA can do
little more than snip and run so often. In some ways it is a bit sad, used
to be trolls were more fun and had backbones. :)
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > I never made any.
>
> LOL! At least you have a sense of humor.
Thanks, I think I do too.
> If you did not tell a lie then why did you snip it?
I didn't snip any lies, unless I snipped something you wrote.
> LOL! Here one of your lies are, again:
>
> And please, do yourself a favour and don't go all wintroll on me
> telling me that I messed up the PC in some horrible way. It's quite
> clear that the PC isn't slow in any way, the Mac is just WAY faster.
>
> Do you stand by your lie that your PC was not slow "in any way"?
I stand by the fact that the PC wasn't slow, yes.
When will you apologize for your lies and insults, Michael?
--
Sandman[.net]
"As far as my decision to use the PC goes, that
went according to my pocketbook"
- Edwin, too poor to afford a Mac.
fibercut
That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to CSMA I have
seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides the typical
Mac vs. Windows typical argument. I feel that it is like being in a
room of really young children trying there best to best the other
person. The one common thing among all of this seems to be you. I hate
to be like this, but facts are facts. You seem to be in the middle of a
great percentage of arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs and
more about "look everybody, I think he lied". Is there no end then all
this picking at each other on such a personal level. CSMA has always
been al little adversarial but you have personally crank it up to the
point that this place is no longer fun. Congratulations on stopping
CSMA and making this place your own personal circus.
Sandman
fibercut <fibe...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Sandman likes to pretend to have proven things - almost always things
>> that make others look bad - but then he generally comes around and
>> admit his "proof" was faulty. I am just having fun showing him how
>> faulty his proof was. I do also enjoy pointing out how the worst of
>> the trolls in CSMA can do little more than snip and run so often. In
>> some ways it is a bit sad, used to be trolls were more fun and had
>> backbones. :)
>
> That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to CSMA I have
> seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides the typical
> Mac vs. Windows typical argument. I feel that it is like being in a
> room of really young children trying there best to best the other
> person. The one common thing among all of this seems to be you. I hate
> to be like this, but facts are facts. You seem to be in the middle of
> a great percentage of arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs and
> more about "look everybody, I think he lied". Is there no end then all
> this picking at each other on such a personal level. CSMA has always
> been al little adversarial but you have personally crank it up to the
> point that this place is no longer fun. Congratulations on stopping
> CSMA and making this place your own personal circus.
That's what I've been saying for a veery long time. Michael is the most hated
person in the group.
Everything is a contest for him, which he needs to "win". It's more evident if
someone has exposed his lies like me - with sigmond, or his PDF forgery and
things like that. Then we're hos mortal enemies and everything we say will be
pounced on.
Since I lifted my killfile, I haven't provoked him or insulted him, and look
how excited he is. Hmmm
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "fibercut" <fibe...@nospam.com> stated in post
> 2006011122354875249-fibercut@nospamcom on 1/11/06 8:35 PM:
<snip>
>> You really have a problem with people, don't you?
>
> With people, no. With those people lying, yes.
>
> Sandman likes to pretend to have proven things - almost always things that
> make others look bad - but then he generally comes around and admit his
> "proof" was faulty. I am just having fun showing him how faulty his proof
> was.
If this were general Sandman behavior then it will be an easy task for you
to show instances of Sandman admitting his "proof" was faulty!
Your mistake as usual is to not understanding what you read which leads you
to interpret such statements as......
"If you mean any claims I have made of OSX functions in general regarding
file extensions and type/creator, then yes - the claims I made seem to not
apply to every OSX system,w hich is curious since it applies to mine. I made
the claim thinking that every OSSX system worked as mine, of course.
The videos, however, are not faulty in any shape or form." -Sandman
....being an admission of faulty proof, which of course it is not, as the
proof still shows actual behavior exhibited by Sandman's system and is
therefore valid!
If Sandman made any mistake at all it was in responding to you in an
extremely honest way, this will always be a danger when dealing with someone
such as yourself that has such a tenuous grasp on reality, where you see
such honesty as a weakness to be exploited! fortunately the vast majority in
this place have no such leanings!
> I do also enjoy pointing out how the worst of the trolls in CSMA can do
> little more than snip and run so often. In some ways it is a bit sad, used
> to be trolls were more fun and had backbones. :)
Here you do have a clear advantage, I can't recall a time when you ever had
a backbone, therefore comparison is not possible!
--
"And I cry when there is nobody who understands that."- Snit
Sandman
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> > Sandman likes to pretend to have proven things - almost always things that
> > make others look bad - but then he generally comes around and admit his
> > "proof" was faulty. I am just having fun showing him how faulty his proof
> > was.
>
> If this were general Sandman behavior then it will be an easy task for you
> to show instances of Sandman admitting his "proof" was faulty!
>
> Your mistake as usual is to not understanding what you read which leads you
> to interpret such statements as......
>
> "If you mean any claims I have made of OSX functions in general regarding
> file extensions and type/creator, then yes - the claims I made seem to not
> apply to every OSX system,w hich is curious since it applies to mine. I made
> the claim thinking that every OSSX system worked as mine, of course.
> The videos, however, are not faulty in any shape or form." -Sandman
>
> ....being an admission of faulty proof, which of course it is not, as the
> proof still shows actual behavior exhibited by Sandman's system and is
> therefore valid!
>
> If Sandman made any mistake at all it was in responding to you in an
> extremely honest way, this will always be a danger when dealing with someone
> such as yourself that has such a tenuous grasp on reality, where you see
> such honesty as a weakness to be exploited! fortunately the vast majority in
> this place have no such leanings!
I couldn't have said it better myself. This is what Michael does all the time,
so it's not new in any way. But it's fun to see his unprovoked hostility
towards me in light of all the threads of wanting "peace" with the people that
argue with him. I have been extremely honest and civil throughout the entire
course of "discussion", yet Michael has been unable to resist insulting and
lying about me.
Snit
> I couldn't have said it better myself. This is what Michael does all the time,
> so it's not new in any way. But it's fun to see his unprovoked hostility
> towards me in light of all the threads of wanting "peace" with the people that
> argue with him. I have been extremely honest and civil throughout the entire
> course of "discussion", yet Michael has been unable to resist insulting and
> lying about me.
You have been honest and civil? Do you believe your own drivel?
In any case, this is what has happened:
You made some claims, posted videos you *claimed* were proof, belittled
others when they told you your "proof" was no such thing, finally admitted
that your "proof" did not prove what you claimed it did, and then started
whining and trolling when your poor behavior was pointed out.
Again: Google and I on one side, you and the cretin crew on the other.
Sorry, Sandman, I trust Google over you *every* time.
Snit
> In article <BFEA7842.410CD%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> I never made any.
>>
>> LOL! At least you have a sense of humor.
>
> Thanks, I think I do too.
>
>> If you did not tell a lie then why did you snip it?
>
> I didn't snip any lies, unless I snipped something you wrote.
>
>> LOL! Here one of your lies are, again:
>>
>> And please, do yourself a favour and don't go all wintroll on me
>> telling me that I messed up the PC in some horrible way. It's quite
>> clear that the PC isn't slow in any way, the Mac is just WAY faster.
>>
>> Do you stand by your lie that your PC was not slow "in any way"?
>
> I stand by the fact that the PC wasn't slow, yes.
Really! LOL! That is funny.
>
> When will you apologize for your lies and insults, Michael?
LOL! Projecting again, Sandman. OK. Whatever. You have bored me out of
another conversation.
It ends here: You made some claims, posted videos you *claimed* were proof,
belittled others when they told you your "proof" was no such thing, finally
admitted that your "proof" did not prove what you claimed it did, and then
started whining and trolling when your poor behavior was pointed out.
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Well, that's sort of what this ng is about. Anyway, I don't think Snit's
problem is merely to win. I think it's exactly like fibercut is
saying... Snit was abused and is totally driven to seeking retribution.
This drive created a Snit that is narcissistic in the extreme. He can't
get the retribution from the person whom he feels rightfully owes it to
him so he tries to fill that gap in other places. It silly to walk on
eggshells here and ignore what is likely the cause. I think it's pretty
obvious that Snit's mom was an alcoholic who had Snit later in life. As
I've previously shown from his own words written in his panic ng, he has
many of the associated health (physical and mental) problems with such a
pregnancy and upbringing. He never could get his mother to own up to her
responsibility and he has yet to deal with that. Remember how Snit
flipped out when I brought this up before when I showed all the evidence
from his own writings in the panic ng? He had a fucking cow and it was
all based on stuff *he* had written. He's pretended to try and hide it
but the pieces are all there to see, as if he wanted them to be seen.
There's no real mystery here, Snit is doing a simple transference. I
can't believe that more people don't spot it... or maybe they do and
they just don't care.
> It's more evident
> if
> someone has exposed his lies like me - with sigmond, or his PDF forgery and
> things like that. Then we're hos mortal enemies and everything we say will be
> pounced on.
>
> Since I lifted my killfile, I haven't provoked him or insulted him, and look
> how excited he is. Hmmm
As you yourself have said, the guy wants attention and will do whatever
it takes to get it. Once he has it, he will try to foist blame and begin
the process of exacting his dysfunctional form of retribution. I know
you must have seen him do this by now.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Do you stand by your lie that your PC was not slow "in any way"?
> >
> > I stand by the fact that the PC wasn't slow, yes.
>
> Really!
Yep.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> I couldn't have said it better myself. This is what Michael does
>> all the time, so it's not new in any way. But it's fun to see his
>> unprovoked hostility towards me in light of all the threads of
>> wanting "peace" with the people that argue with him. I have been
>> extremely honest and civil throughout the entire course of
>> "discussion", yet Michael has been unable to resist insulting and
>> lying about me.
>
> You have been honest and civil?
Yep.
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin, on protecting against malware:
"I use Avast AV, the Yahoo anti-spy toolbar, the MS anti-spy
software, Windows SP2 with its firewall, AdAware, Spybot Search and
Destroy, and SpywareBlaster."
Snit
> That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to CSMA I have
> seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides the typical
> Mac vs. Windows typical argument.
> I feel that it is like being in a room of really young children trying there
> best to best the other person. The one common thing among all of this seems to
> be you. I hate to be like this, but facts are facts. You seem to be in the
> middle of a great percentage of arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs
> and more about "look everybody, I think he lied". Is there no end then all
> this picking at each other on such a personal level. CSMA has always been al
> little adversarial but you have personally crank it up to the point that this
> place is no longer fun. Congratulations on stopping CSMA and making this place
> your own personal circus.
>
For a long time CSMA has been a place where people spew attacks against each
other. What I do which is different then what others do is I insist on
honesty and honor *while* confronting these accusations. There are others,
of course, who are honest and honorable, but they ignore the BS attacks. I
face them head on and ask for support. Here are some examples of
accusations Steve Carroll has made against me (snipped from another post,
all references to "you" are to Steve):
-----
You accused me of admitting to forging your CSMA Moderator ID
You accused me of saying I wanted USB 2.0 to replace Firewire
You accused me of being dishonest when I told you the *fact*
someone can actually be guilty of committing a crime but
be neither tried nor convicted.
(Hint: http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/colb/20031022.html)
You have repeatedly accused me of using illegal drugs
You have accused me of "parroting" the Bush argument you have
been running from for years
You have accused me of not being a teacher even though you have
been told I am
You have accused me of making inappropriate sexual advances
And, of course, you accused me of e-mailing your unmarried "wife"
a person who may or may not even exist!
And it is you who said:
If someone makes a claim, particularly when it seems unlikely, they
should expect to be challenged on it. If they can't handle that, they've
no business making the claim public, much less in an advocacy group.
-----
Steve hates the fact that I hold him accountable for his actions like nobody
else ever has, at least not in CSMA (and likely never in the real world,
based on his actions here).
I also, when I engage in making accusations, support what I say with massive
amounts of data - data that is easily independently verified in the Google
record. My page about Elizabot is a great example. She has no defense for
her actions. She cannot obfuscate and bury it nor snip and run from it.
In the end, I am holding people accountable for their words. I am specific
in what I claim. Look at, for example, what Steve and Wally and Tim Adams
do. They simply spew lies they cannot back up. The most extreme here may
be Tim did with his BS claims about the tilde in a path. This was discussed
in depth here: <http://snipurl.com/ligv>.
My facts are solid, accurate, and, of course, something that embarrasses Tim
to no end. Look at the thread, though. See who jumps in to flame and troll
against me: Elizabot, Wally, and Steve Carroll. No surprise there. What
none of them do - because it is not possible - is refute the solid facts I
present.
What they hope people will do is just look at numbers: they are a group
against, for the most part, just one person (sometimes others do join in to
refute their BS). They hope that people will go no further than to say that
it is several against one so the one must be wrong.
I welcome you asking Tim to support his claims about the tilde and his
accusations against me. Let him give you his best shot. Let Steve Carroll
give you his best evidence to support his accusations I list above. His
very best. Let Elizabot offer her best defense for her actions I have
pointed out. In each case they will run, they will obfuscate, and they will
spew more flames against me. They will *never* support their actions /
claims, for there is *no* reasonable support they can offer. But, please,
do not take my word for it - ask them. Get their side. Most are not
willing to spend the time to do this, and for that I hardly blame you. But
do not come to any conclusions about our silly little debates until or
unless you do.
Steve Mackay
> "fibercut" <fibe...@nospam.com> stated in post
> 2006011204501116807-fibercut@nospamcom on 1/12/06 2:50 AM:
>
>> That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to CSMA I have
>> seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides the typical
>> Mac vs. Windows typical argument.
>> I feel that it is like being in a room of really young children trying there
>> best to best the other person. The one common thing among all of this seems to
>> be you. I hate to be like this, but facts are facts. You seem to be in the
>> middle of a great percentage of arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs
>> and more about "look everybody, I think he lied". Is there no end then all
>> this picking at each other on such a personal level. CSMA has always been al
>> little adversarial but you have personally crank it up to the point that this
>> place is no longer fun. Congratulations on stopping CSMA and making this place
>> your own personal circus.
>>
> For a long time CSMA has been a place where people spew attacks against each
> other.
But you've brought this to a new level. FAR lower than ever seen in CSMA.
> What I do which is different then what others do is I insist on
> honesty and honor *while* confronting these accusations.
Who are you trying to kid? You wouldn't know honor, nor honesty if they
were tattooed on your forehead. Shall we mention the whole PDF incident?
The rest of Snit's bullshit snipped.
Elizabeth
> Let Elizabot offer her best defense for her actions I have pointed out.
You are still whining that I won't address your web page here, Snit.
Poor baby.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "fibercut" <fibe...@nospam.com> stated in post
> 2006011204501116807-fibercut@nospamcom on 1/12/06 2:50 AM:
>
> > That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to CSMA I have
> > seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides the typical
> > Mac vs. Windows typical argument.
> > I feel that it is like being in a room of really young children trying
> > there
> > best to best the other person. The one common thing among all of this seems
> > to
> > be you. I hate to be like this, but facts are facts. You seem to be in the
> > middle of a great percentage of arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs
> > and more about "look everybody, I think he lied". Is there no end then all
> > this picking at each other on such a personal level. CSMA has always been
> > al
> > little adversarial but you have personally crank it up to the point that
> > this
> > place is no longer fun. Congratulations on stopping CSMA and making this
> > place
> > your own personal circus.
> >
> For a long time CSMA has been a place where people spew attacks against each
> other. What I do which is different
...is prattle on endlessly about grievances that put you in the center
arena? Somehow, I believe he's got this part of it, Snit;)
(snip Snit's delusions)
Elizabeth
Weren't there about a half a dozen people who downloaded Snit's PDF's
from Snit's web site, and each of them saw how the metadata kept
changing, yet Snit kept denying altering the PDFs?
And the point to his altering the PDFs, don't forget, was obfuscation.
The IP address on his email was the same IP address that sigmond had
used in this newsgroup. The same sigmond that had posted that lurid sex
page about Elizabot.
Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmil.com> wrote:
Now hold just a minute! He does know about those things... why, he's
even entered into a pact with ed over them... in fact, there's a thread
entitled 'Now is the time to be STRONG' that really shows how honorable
Snit was with ed:)
> Shall we mention the whole PDF incident?
Isn't it documented on Sandy's site?
>
> The rest of Snit's bullshit snipped.
--
fibercut
I want to make it clear to anyone that I have not called snit a lier.
My name is not Steve and you insinuation of this truly infuriates me (I
want to make in clear that I hold nothing against Steve. If he accused
me of being someone else I would have felt the same)He is now putting
words into my mouth and confusing me with his regular circus people. I
will not take such talk from anyone and I believe a man/woman is as
good as their word. Well his word is clearly off the deep end and he
can't even have a one and one conversation. You are truly pitiful and
my heart goes out to all the people in the real world that ever cross
snit's path.
<plonk> and good riddance. i urge all that read this stop the circus
and ignore this sad individual.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
~ Babbling Snip
> it is several against one so the one must be wrong.
>
> I welcome you asking Tim to support his claims about the tilde
Already supported - if you could READ you would have seen it in the original
thread where I clearly stated I was dealing with Apple installed Widgets. You
were the person that had changed the topic to Apple Widgets. I clearly stated I
was talking only about them and then you decided to try and find them down in
the users directory by introducing path names using the tilde. Get a clue snit -
you didn't need to go to the users directory to find Apple installed widgets
back then and you still don't need to go there today!
~more babbling snipped
--
Tim
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-C7FA68.17...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/12/06
3:25 PM:
> In article <BFEBDB8B.41320%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> ~ Babbling Snip
>
>> it is several against one so the one must be wrong.
>>
>> I welcome you asking Tim to support his claims about the tilde
>
> Already supported - if you could READ you would have seen it in the original
> thread where I clearly stated I was dealing with Apple installed Widgets.
The fact that you admitted you missed the context of the conversation is not
the same as your denial of not knowing what the tilde meant. Remember, Tim,
you stated:
"YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the name of the
hard drive only." - Tim Adams
No matter what widgets you were talking about, the on-topic auto-installed
one or the off-topic Apple-installed ones, your comments about the tilde are
*still* ignorant.
Of course, Tim, you will just snip and run from that. You will not,
however, *ever* admit to your ignorance. Ever, Tim. You will lie - it is
just what you do.
> You were the person that had changed the topic to Apple Widgets.
The Google record disagrees with you.
Daniel Johnson started the thread titled "Dashboard, Malware, and a Theory".
In it he commented on Apple's error in allowing auto-installed widgets to
appear to replace Apple widgets. Macslut responded by asking "how many
brain cells does it take to be able to remove a widget from its folder and
relaunch dashboard (or restart)". I commented, about *those* widgets, the
widgets that are auto-installed, that Apple (at the time) had info on their
web site that stated you could not remove widgets. This made it more a
matter of technical competence than intelligence, being that even an
intelligent person without much technical skill was being deceived by the
maker of the product (ouch!). You responded by talking about the Apple
installed widgets - and were quickly corrected by two people about how you
had changed the topic. You were neither trolled nor flamed for your error.
In fact, my exact wording was:
In case you are actually trying to be helpful and educate those
who do not know that, I will say thanks... but keep in mind that
the comment was not a question about how to remove it, but a
comment about what Apple says about it. Still, some may not have
known the details of how to remove a Widget, so I will give you the
benefit of the doubt
Please note I was kind and considerate in my comments to you. You started
trolling and flaming based on your error, and have not stopped.
Look at the thread titled, "Dashboard, Malware, and a Theory". What I say
is very well supported. If you doubt it and need help finding any given
post just ask and I will provide you with a direct link to the post in
question.
See, Tim, once again Google and I are on one side while you and your buddies
are on the other. How much longer will you insist that the Google record
and I are wrong? How long until you even try to offer any support for your
view? The answer is you will *never* support your view, for your view has
*no* support.
Is it time for you to take use Elizabot's tactic and lie that you have some
splendid support but you will not share it, or will you take the Steve
Carroll tactic of snipping and running? Either way, Tim, you will *never*
support your BS, for your lies cannot be supported.
Snit
bkwxf.36689$7S.2...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com on 1/12/06 10:27 AM:
Yaaaaaaaaaewn. Your flaming is boring, just thought you should know.
Snit
Please note that I make it very clear the "yous" above apply to Steve and
not you. I merely copied from another post, as I stated. I will accept
your apology if you admit you missed that.
> (I want to make in clear that I hold nothing against Steve. If he accused me
> of being someone else I would have felt the same)He is now putting words into
> my mouth and confusing me with his regular circus people. I will not take
> such talk from anyone and I believe a man/woman is as good as their word. Well
> his word is clearly off the deep end and he can't even have a one and one
> conversation. You are truly pitiful and my heart goes out to all the people in
> the real world that ever cross snit's path.
>
> <plonk> and good riddance. i urge all that read this stop the circus
> and ignore this sad individual.
A shame: I would have liked to see you ask Steve, Tim, and Elizabot for
their sides of the above issues. It is amusing watching them obfuscate and
run. That is all they ever do. They simply are incapable of taking
responsibility for their actions.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-C7FA68.17...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/12/06
> 3:25 PM:
>
> > In article <BFEBDB8B.41320%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> > ~ Babbling Snip
> >
> >> it is several against one so the one must be wrong.
> >>
> >> I welcome you asking Tim to support his claims about the tilde
> >
> > Already supported - if you could READ you would have seen it in the original
> > thread where I clearly stated I was dealing with Apple installed Widgets.
>
> The fact that you admitted you
changed the topic and then couldn't keep up with reality. yes we know.
BTW - Google is your friend and will verify what I wrote and what you ran away
from - again.
~babbling snipped
--
Tim
Snit
5:09 PM:
Yaaaaawn. Your trolling has become even more boring. Thought you should
know. In any case, you will *always* run from the following (your running,
by the way, amuses me):
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-9582A5.19...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/12/06
> 5:09 PM:
>
> > In article <BFEC3A77.41399%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-C7FA68.17...@news.east.earthlink.net on 1/12/06
> >> 3:25 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <BFEBDB8B.41320%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ~ Babbling Snip
> >>>
> >>>> it is several against one so the one must be wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> I welcome you asking Tim to support his claims about the tilde
> >>>
> >>> Already supported - if you could READ you would have seen it in the
> >>> original
> >>> thread where I clearly stated I was dealing with Apple installed Widgets.
> >>
> >> The fact that you admitted you
> >
> > changed the topic and then couldn't keep up with reality. yes we know.
> >
> > BTW - Google is your friend and will verify what I wrote and what you ran
> > away
> > from - again.
> >
> > ~babbling snipped
>
>
> Yaaaaawn. Your trolling has become even more boring.
To bad it is you that is the troll isn't it.
> Thought you should
> know. In any case, you will *always* run from the following (your running,
> by the way, amuses me):
Yet it is you that is now, and has always been doing the running. How quaint.
>
> Daniel Johnson started the thread titled "Dashboard, Malware, and a Theory".
Yes he did and YOU changed the topic to Apple widgets and I made a fool of you
and your 'ouch' with my very first post in that thread. I went on, in another
post to clearly state that I was talking about Apple Widgets.
Google is your friend, that is IF you are capable of using it.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
(snip Snit's delusions)
> A shame: I would have liked to see you ask Steve, Tim, and Elizabot for
> their sides of the above issues. It is amusing watching them obfuscate and
> run. That is all they ever do. They simply are incapable of taking
> responsibility for their actions.
Why would a guy who basically just finished telling you your self focus
is negatively affecting this ng entertain your silly bullshit where you
take center stage? You come up with the goofiest, narcissistic idiocy.
Snit
6:03 PM:
As I said, if you need help finding any of the posts I referenced let me
know. All easy to find... and all things you will *always* run from in the
Google record.
That, really, is what this comes down to - you running from the Google
record.
Here, let me challenge you with the same deal I told you I would accept from
you: point to the post where you think I changed the topic. Oh, and then
explain how that changes your ignorance about the tilde, which is what the
topic was before you obfuscated.
You will, of course, fail.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
I read and understood what was written when the posts were originally made.
Maybe you should go back and try to comprehend what was written as it is you
that is still having the problem understanding them.
Yet more babbling snipped
--
Tim
Snit
8:00 PM:
>>> Yes he did and YOU changed the topic to Apple widgets and I made a fool of
>>> you and your 'ouch' with my very first post in that thread. I went on, in
>>> another post to clearly state that I was talking about Apple Widgets.
>>>
>>> Google is your friend, that is IF you are capable of using it.
>>>
>>> ~more babbling snipped
>>
>> As I said, if you need help finding any of the posts I referenced let me
>> know. All easy to find... and all things you will *always* run from in the
>> Google record.
>>
>> That, really, is what this comes down to - you running from the Google
>> record.
>>
>> Here, let me challenge you with the same deal I told you I would accept from
>> you: point to the post where you think I changed the topic. Oh, and then
>> explain how that changes your ignorance about the tilde, which is what the
>> topic was before you obfuscated.
>>
>> You will, of course, fail.
>
> I read and understood what was written when the posts were originally made.
> Maybe you should go back and try to comprehend what was written as it is you
> that is still having the problem understanding them.
Please note, Tim, that you were not able to find a single post to support
your claims. You also failed to find one flaw in my claim which cannot be
fully supported by the Google record. Here, again, Tim, is my claim:
-----
Daniel Johnson started the thread titled "Dashboard, Malware, and a Theory".
In it he commented on Apple's error in allowing auto-installed widgets to
appear to replace Apple widgets. Macslut responded by asking "how many
brain cells does it take to be able to remove a widget from its folder and
relaunch dashboard (or restart)". I commented, about *those* widgets, the
widgets that are auto-installed, that Apple (at the time) had info on their
web site that stated you could not remove widgets. This made it more a
matter of technical competence than intelligence, being that even an
intelligent person without much technical skill was being deceived by the
maker of the product (ouch!). You responded by talking about the Apple
installed widgets - and were quickly corrected by two people about how you
had changed the topic. You were neither trolled nor flamed for your error.
In fact, my exact wording was:
In case you are actually trying to be helpful and educate those
who do not know that, I will say thanks... but keep in mind that
the comment was not a question about how to remove it, but a
comment about what Apple says about it. Still, some may not have
known the details of how to remove a Widget, so I will give you the
benefit of the doubt
Please note I was kind and considerate in my comments to you. You started
trolling and flaming based on your error, and have not stopped.
Look at the thread titled, "Dashboard, Malware, and a Theory". What I say
is very well supported. If you doubt it and need help finding any given
post just ask and I will provide you with a direct link to the post in
question.
-----
Why do you always run, other than the fact that you know you are 100% wrong
and full of shit. Face it, not even your cretin crew buddies are jumping to
help you here (well, I think Steve did one - he is *that* stupid)
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
snit that the google record does indeed support my claim. The fact that you are
reading challenged is well known is this ng and not my problem.
~yet more babbling by the idiot snit snipped
--
Tim
Elizabeth
"I made the mistake to trust Google" -Snit
Elizabeth
> In article <BFEC3B51.4139D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> (snip Snit's delusions)
>
>
>>A shame: I would have liked to see you ask Steve, Tim, and Elizabot for
>>their sides of the above issues. It is amusing watching them obfuscate and
>>run. That is all they ever do. They simply are incapable of taking
>>responsibility for their actions.
>
>
> Why would a guy who basically just finished telling you your self focus
> is negatively affecting this ng entertain your silly bullshit where you
> take center stage? You come up with the goofiest, narcissistic idiocy.
>
His Delusions of Godhood are speaking. ;-)
Steve Carroll
Elizabeth <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
I think he's totally lost it.
Steve Mackay
between. And since everyone knows what type of lying piece of elephant
dung you are. Hearing it yet again, is boring.
Snit
How did I know, even before I clicked your message, that you would be
spewing BS insults in order to try to make yourself feel better about
yourself? Did you realize you were that predictable?
Your snipping and running from my comments is much, much more telling than
your silly whiny insults. Why do you feel such a need to run?