Re: OT: Father's Attempt To Teach His Daughter A Lesson Backfires
Alan Baker
You really are an asshole.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Rick G
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> http://www.healthtalk.ca/lesson_11282004_3090.php
>
> ----- Start Quotes -----
>
> A man in Newark, N.J., who wanted to teach his daughter a lesson about
> drinking has ended up in trouble himself after calling the police.
>
> Kevin Winson, 46, had called police to his home after one of his daughters
> came home intoxicated. However, his attempt to teach his 16-year-old
> daughter a lesson took a bizarre twist.
>
> When police arrived at his home, the girl informed the police that she was
> afraid, because of what her father was hiding in their home.
>
> The young girl led police to a crawl space where her father was keeping a
> stash of guns and hundreds of vials of illegal drugs.
>
> Police said the man was arrested and charged with illegal possession of
> semiautomatic firearms and possession of a controlled substance.
>
> ----- End Quotes -----
>
> Seems the guy was too stupid to realize that his kids learn by example...
> though I bet he would give the concept lip service. Sounds like Steve
> Carroll. :)
>
> Steve Quote 1:
> I'm a 'stay at home' dad who has raised two kids and I'm quite
> confident that they both learned much by imitation.
>
> Steve gives lip service to the idea that he understands that kids his kids
> learn from him... though later, in talking about that quote, he said:
>
> As a stay at home dad, I have had the opportunity to recognize where
> these things were imitated from. Dads that don't get to spend as much
> time as I do probably haven't had the same opportunity in this regard.
>
> As though it takes some special circumstances to realize the painfully
> obvious idea that kids learn by imitation, esp. by imitating their parents.
> Please, will anyone admit that they do not realize this? To me it is so
> obvious that it should be accepted that every adult is aware of this.
>
> Steve Quote 2:
> > That's right. A fight doesn't start because someone hits you back.
> If I could only convince my youngest son of that:)
>
> Wow... wonder where Steve's kids learned their delusional view of fighting?
>
> I would not be surprised to find out Steve called the cops about his kid's
> fighting and ended up in jail for being abusive himself. Would clearly fit
> what we know about him.
Snit, this is both cheap and petty.
--
Rick...
Snit
Rick-1F29A4.2...@news.telus.net on 11/28/04 10:54 PM:
OK. Fair enough. Esp. since he has not been posting recently.
My apologies.
--
"He's guilty of committing the crime, not of breaking the law."
- CSMA Troll playing silly semantic games
Alan Baker
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> alangbaker-361D5...@news.telus.net on 11/28/04 10:55 PM:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > You really are an asshole.
>
> While I admit my post was inappropriate, and have already apologized for it,
> I do not recall seeing you make similar assessments of Steve when he posted
> personal and bigoted attacks against me and posted the "theory" that I was
> suffering from Fetal Alcohol Affects. To make matters worse, he claimed his
> "theory" was a "defense" of his own actions... actions he admitted to.
>
> Why the bias from you?
You're the asshole. Plain and simple. I didn't read any such posts by
Steve and just based on the fact that you say they exist, I'll start by
assuming they don't.
Snit
alangbaker-361D5...@news.telus.net on 11/28/04 10:55 PM:
> <snip>
>
> You really are an asshole.
While I admit my post was inappropriate, and have already apologized for it,
I do not recall seeing you make similar assessments of Steve when he posted
personal and bigoted attacks against me and posted the "theory" that I was
suffering from Fetal Alcohol Affects. To make matters worse, he claimed his
"theory" was a "defense" of his own actions... actions he admitted to.
Why the bias from you?
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Snit
----- Start Quotes -----
----- End Quotes -----
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Snit
>>> You really are an asshole.
>>
>> While I admit my post was inappropriate, and have already apologized for it,
>> I do not recall seeing you make similar assessments of Steve when he posted
>> personal and bigoted attacks against me and posted the "theory" that I was
>> suffering from Fetal Alcohol Affects. To make matters worse, he claimed his
>> "theory" was a "defense" of his own actions... actions he admitted to.
>>
>> Why the bias from you?
>
> You're the asshole. Plain and simple.
You are welcome to your opinion. Seems you are also not above me when it
comes to tossing insults around in a public forum.
I have acknowledged that my post that started this thread was inappropriate.
Are you willing to do the same with your name calling, above?
Somehow I doubt it.
> I didn't read any such posts by Steve and just based on the fact that you say
> they exist, I'll start by assuming they don't.
Would you like a link?
Alan Baker
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> alangbaker-0EA6C...@news.telus.net on 11/28/04 11:03 PM:
>
> >>> You really are an asshole.
> >>
> >> While I admit my post was inappropriate, and have already apologized for
> >> it,
> >> I do not recall seeing you make similar assessments of Steve when he
> >> posted
> >> personal and bigoted attacks against me and posted the "theory" that I was
> >> suffering from Fetal Alcohol Affects. To make matters worse, he claimed
> >> his
> >> "theory" was a "defense" of his own actions... actions he admitted to.
> >>
> >> Why the bias from you?
> >
> > You're the asshole. Plain and simple.
>
> You are welcome to your opinion. Seems you are also not above me when it
> comes to tossing insults around in a public forum.
I don't just "toss" insults. You behaved like an asshole so I called you
one.
>
> I have acknowledged that my post that started this thread was inappropriate.
> Are you willing to do the same with your name calling, above?
It wasn't inappropriate. It was the appropriate description of someone
who would make that post. Don't pretend you didn't know it wasn't
inappropriate when you posted it, and don't pretend you haven't done
similar in the past.
>
> Somehow I doubt it.
>
> > I didn't read any such posts by Steve and just based on the fact that you
> > say
> > they exist, I'll start by assuming they don't.
>
> Would you like a link?
I really don't care. This isn't really about one post.
You're an asshole pretty much all the time.
Elizabot v2.0.2
<snip Snit's disgusting troll>
So is this how you "open the offer to any and all of them"?
You know, the offer to eliminate hostilities.
Face the truth. You lied to me. Again.
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Snit
41aac720$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/28/04 11:52 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
> <snip Snit's disgusting troll>
>
> So is this how you "open the offer to any and all of them"?
>
> You know, the offer to eliminate hostilities.
>
> Face the truth. You lied to me. Again.
While that post was not appropriate, Steve has yet to accept the offer.
Do you think he will?
Alan Baker
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41aac720$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/28/04 11:52 PM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >
> > <snip Snit's disgusting troll>
> >
> > So is this how you "open the offer to any and all of them"?
> >
> > You know, the offer to eliminate hostilities.
> >
> > Face the truth. You lied to me. Again.
>
> While that post was not appropriate, Steve has yet to accept the offer.
>
> Do you think he will?
In light of you continuing to behave like an asshole after making the
offer, why should he?
Truth is: you stop behaving like an asshole and there's no need for
anyone else to do anything.
Snit
> In article <BDD00FAD.1470F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
>> alangbaker-0EA6C...@news.telus.net on 11/28/04 11:03 PM:
>>
>>>>> You really are an asshole.
>>>>
>>>> While I admit my post was inappropriate, and have already apologized for
>>>> it, I do not recall seeing you make similar assessments of Steve when he
>>>> posted personal and bigoted attacks against me and posted the "theory" that
>>>> I was suffering from Fetal Alcohol Affects. To make matters worse, he
>>>> claimed his "theory" was a "defense" of his own actions... actions he
>>>> admitted to.
>>>>
>>>> Why the bias from you?
>>>
>>> You're the asshole. Plain and simple.
>>
>> You are welcome to your opinion. Seems you are also not above me when it
>> comes to tossing insults around in a public forum.
>
> I don't just "toss" insults. You behaved like an asshole so I called you
> one.
So you are not above tossing around insults. I see.
>>
>> I have acknowledged that my post that started this thread was inappropriate.
>> Are you willing to do the same with your name calling, above?
>
> It wasn't inappropriate. It was the appropriate description of someone
> who would make that post. Don't pretend you didn't know it wasn't
> inappropriate when you posted it, and don't pretend you haven't done
> similar in the past.
Do you have a point to make? Feel free to compare my post with Steve's
accusations against me... The ones I discuss, below.
In what way do you think his comments were more appropriate? At least I
have the decency to admit my post was in poor taste. Steve will never admit
to his error.
>
>>
>> Somehow I doubt it.
>>
>>> I didn't read any such posts by Steve and just based on the fact that you
>>> say
>>> they exist, I'll start by assuming they don't.
>>
>> Would you like a link?
>
> I really don't care. This isn't really about one post.
>
> You're an asshole pretty much all the time.
You are welcome to your opinion.
--
Snit
> In article <BDD01AB5.14719%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 41aac720$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/28/04 11:52 PM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip Snit's disgusting troll>
>>>
>>> So is this how you "open the offer to any and all of them"?
>>>
>>> You know, the offer to eliminate hostilities.
>>>
>>> Face the truth. You lied to me. Again.
>>
>> While that post was not appropriate, Steve has yet to accept the offer.
>>
>> Do you think he will?
>
> In light of you continuing to behave like an asshole after making the
> offer, why should he?
That is a different question altogether... My guess is there is nothing I
could do to prevent Steve from being hostile.
>
> Truth is: you stop behaving like an asshole and there's no need for
> anyone else to do anything.
Are you suggesting that Steve's post where he presented personal and bigoted
attacks against me and suggested I was suffering from fetal alcohol affects
was appropriate? Do you defend Steve's actions as he posted that?
His post was much, much worse than mine... And he claimed it was a defense
for his dishonest semantic games and his posting as "John". Do you believe
his actions are acceptable?
My guess - you will dodge the question.
Alan Baker
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> alangbaker-1B55C...@news.telus.net on 11/28/04 11:31 PM:
>
> > In article <BDD00FAD.1470F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> >> alangbaker-0EA6C...@news.telus.net on 11/28/04 11:03 PM:
> >>
> >>>>> You really are an asshole.
> >>>>
> >>>> While I admit my post was inappropriate, and have already apologized for
> >>>> it, I do not recall seeing you make similar assessments of Steve when he
> >>>> posted personal and bigoted attacks against me and posted the "theory"
> >>>> that
> >>>> I was suffering from Fetal Alcohol Affects. To make matters worse, he
> >>>> claimed his "theory" was a "defense" of his own actions... actions he
> >>>> admitted to.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why the bias from you?
> >>>
> >>> You're the asshole. Plain and simple.
> >>
> >> You are welcome to your opinion. Seems you are also not above me when it
> >> comes to tossing insults around in a public forum.
> >
> > I don't just "toss" insults. You behaved like an asshole so I called you
> > one.
>
> So you are not above tossing around insults. I see.
Your behavior determines what you get called.
> >>
> >> I have acknowledged that my post that started this thread was
> >> inappropriate.
> >> Are you willing to do the same with your name calling, above?
> >
> > It wasn't inappropriate. It was the appropriate description of someone
> > who would make that post. Don't pretend you didn't know it wasn't
> > inappropriate when you posted it, and don't pretend you haven't done
> > similar in the past.
>
> Do you have a point to make? Feel free to compare my post with Steve's
> accusations against me... The ones I discuss, below.
>
> In what way do you think his comments were more appropriate? At least I
> have the decency to admit my post was in poor taste. Steve will never admit
> to his error.
I don't believe they exist. You lie so freely, I assume everything you
say is a lie.
That's the price for being an asshole.
<snip>
Alan Baker
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
I don't believe the question is up for debate as I don't believe any of
your statements on the matter are true.
An asshole like you lies all the time.
Snit
>>>>>> You really are an asshole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I admit my post was inappropriate, and have already apologized for
>>>>>> it, I do not recall seeing you make similar assessments of Steve when he
>>>>>> posted personal and bigoted attacks against me and posted the "theory"
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> I was suffering from Fetal Alcohol Affects. To make matters worse, he
>>>>>> claimed his "theory" was a "defense" of his own actions... actions he
>>>>>> admitted to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why the bias from you?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're the asshole. Plain and simple.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to your opinion. Seems you are also not above me when it
>>>> comes to tossing insults around in a public forum.
>>>
>>> I don't just "toss" insults. You behaved like an asshole so I called you
>>> one.
>>
>> So you are not above tossing around insults. I see.
>
> Your behavior determines what you get called.
Spewing such names speaks more about your character than mine.
>>>>
>>>> I have acknowledged that my post that started this thread was
>>>> inappropriate.
>>>> Are you willing to do the same with your name calling, above?
>>>
>>> It wasn't inappropriate. It was the appropriate description of someone
>>> who would make that post. Don't pretend you didn't know it wasn't
>>> inappropriate when you posted it, and don't pretend you haven't done
>>> similar in the past.
>>
>> Do you have a point to make? Feel free to compare my post with Steve's
>> accusations against me... The ones I discuss, below.
>>
>> In what way do you think his comments were more appropriate? At least I
>> have the decency to admit my post was in poor taste. Steve will never admit
>> to his error.
>
> I don't believe they exist. You lie so freely, I assume everything you
> say is a lie.
More accusations. I have offered you links to the posts. You have chosen
not to look.
>
> That's the price for being an asshole.
Well, I suppose you shall have to pay it then.
>
> <snip>
Snit
>> Are you suggesting that Steve's post where he presented personal and bigoted
>> attacks against me and suggested I was suffering from fetal alcohol affects
>> was appropriate? Do you defend Steve's actions as he posted that?
>>
>> His post was much, much worse than mine... And he claimed it was a defense
>> for his dishonest semantic games and his posting as "John". Do you believe
>> his actions are acceptable?
>>
>> My guess - you will dodge the question.
>
> I don't believe the question is up for debate as I don't believe any of
> your statements on the matter are true.
Here is the post:
I discuss it in detail here:
As far as Steve admitting to his dishonest semantic games and posting as
John, see these threads:
Do you think I modified the Google record?
>
> An asshole like you lies all the time.
Wow... You can make unsupported accusations. Do you feel proud?
Alan Baker
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> alangbaker-5693C...@news.telus.net on 11/29/04 12:34 AM:
>
> >> Are you suggesting that Steve's post where he presented personal and
> >> bigoted
> >> attacks against me and suggested I was suffering from fetal alcohol
> >> affects
> >> was appropriate? Do you defend Steve's actions as he posted that?
> >>
> >> His post was much, much worse than mine... And he claimed it was a defense
> >> for his dishonest semantic games and his posting as "John". Do you
> >> believe
> >> his actions are acceptable?
> >>
> >> My guess - you will dodge the question.
> >
> > I don't believe the question is up for debate as I don't believe any of
> > your statements on the matter are true.
>
> Here is the post:
>
> http://snipurl.com/ay9q
Where he discusses in neutral terms things about you that you *chose* to
make known. He doesn't mention "fetal alcohol syndrome" in that post at
all.
IOW, you lied, asshole.
>
> I discuss it in detail here:
>
> http://snipurl.com/ay9j
Yeah. Whatever, asshole.
>
> As far as Steve admitting to his dishonest semantic games and posting as
> John, see these threads:
>
> http://snipurl.com/a54w
>
> http://snipurl.com/a2wt
> Do you think I modified the Google record?
Question, asshole: why didn't you post a direct link to Steve's
admission?
> > An asshole like you lies all the time.
>
> Wow... You can make unsupported accusations. Do you feel proud?
You should ask that question of yourself for so many posts, asshole.
Snit
>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Steve's post where he presented personal and
>>>>>> bigoted attacks against me and suggested I was suffering from fetal
>>>>>> alcohol affects was appropriate? Do you defend Steve's actions as he
>>>>>> posted that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His post was much, much worse than mine... And he claimed it was a
>>>>>> defense for his dishonest semantic games and his posting as "John". Do
>>>>>> you believe his actions are acceptable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess - you will dodge the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe the question is up for debate as I don't believe any of
>>>>> your statements on the matter are true.
>>>>>
>>>> Here is the post:
>>>>
>>>> http://snipurl.com/ay9q
>>>>
>>> Where he discusses in neutral terms things about you that you *chose* to
>>> make known. He doesn't mention "fetal alcohol syndrome" in that post at all.
>>>
>>> IOW, you lied, asshole.
>>
>> From that post:
>>
>> The symptoms Snit talks about in that post can be attributed to FAS...
>> but Snit exhibits other well known FAS symptoms, too... the most
>> noticeable to this NG being - learning problems and memory loss.
>>
>> Just what do you think Steve was in reference to when he was talking about
>> FAS?
>>
>> In other words, your accusation of a lie has just been shown to be a lie in
>> and of itself.
>>
>> And your name calling did not make your argument any stronger.
No comment on your lies? No comment on your excessive and inappropriate use
of name calling?
Why is that, Alan?
>>>>
>>>> I discuss it in detail here:
>>>>
>>>> http://snipurl.com/ay9j
>>>
>>> Yeah. Whatever, asshole.
>>
>> Wow... Such brilliant insight from you... You must be proud.
>>>>
>>>> As far as Steve admitting to his dishonest semantic games and posting as
>>>> John, see these threads:
>>>>
>>>> http://snipurl.com/a54w
>>>>
>>>> http://snipurl.com/a2wt
>>>>
>>>> Do you think I modified the Google record?
>>>
>>> Question, asshole: why didn't you post a direct link to Steve's
>>> admission?
>>
>> It is the post I responded to. Do you need help finding it? Do you believe
>> I modified his comments?
>
> Yes. Otherwise, why not post a link to his actual post, asshole?
Well, not sure which claim you need verified... did not take long, here is
the post were Steve admits to both:
and my commentary:
The conversation... I wrote:
You have yet to state how your bigoted accusations are a defense of your
actions of playing semantic games and posting as "John".
Steve claims:
I just did... [etc]
Clearly Steve is admitting to his acts, and is even saying that he has
stated how his bigoted accusations are a defense of his actions of playing
semantic games and posting as "John".
Any questions?
>>>
>>>>> An asshole like you lies all the time.
>>>>
>>>> Wow... You can make unsupported accusations. Do you feel proud?
>>>
>>> You should ask that question of yourself for so many posts, asshole.
>>
>> Wow... more name calling from you... but not even creative name calling.
>>
>> What do you think your use of immature and uncreative name calling says
>> about you? My guess: you will have no idea.
>
> LOL
>
> Truth: you're an asshole. You've been one since long before you started
> dirtying up CSMA.
>
> And I'm done with you.
Does this mean you will not read Steve's confessions?
Does this mean I will not be treated to your immature name calling any more?
What a shame.
Snit
BDD030B5.14750%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 11/29/04 1:49 AM:
>> And I'm done with you.
>
> Does this mean you will not read Steve's confessions?
>
> Does this mean I will not be treated to your immature name calling any more?
>
> What a shame.
Oh, forgot to note in my first reply... it is interesting to see how you
denied Steve's actions until I posted links to the threads where Steve was
an utter moron and jerk... and then you ran... neither damning nor defending
Steve's actions.
Nobody can defend Steve's actions. They are indefensible, at least in any
rational way. Sad thing is Steve will never apologize for his actions...
even the ones he has admitted to.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>>41aac720$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/28/04 11:52 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip Snit's disgusting troll>
>>>>
>>>>So is this how you "open the offer to any and all of them"?
>>>>
>>>>You know, the offer to eliminate hostilities.
>>>>
>>>>Face the truth. You lied to me. Again.
>>>
>>>
>>>While that post was not appropriate, Steve has yet to accept the offer.
>>
>>
>>"This offer is open to anyone who wants to end hostilities."
>>
>>That includes you, Snit. You have done nothing to end hostilities. In
>>fact, you've acted in a way to increase hostilities.
>
>
> No agreement has been reached between Steve and I, or, for that matter, you
> and I.
Your offer is then, in effect, meaningless.
> The offer is still open... will you accept?
>
>>>Do you think he will?
>>
>>How should I know?
>
>
> Based on his past actions, he would never agree to end hostilities. He is
> generally easy to predict.
That didn't answer my question. Your evasion is noted.
>>Do you deny that you made the offer to Steve?
>
>
> Of course not. And it is still open.
>
>>Do you deny that you include yourself in your offer?
>
>
> I offer an offer that once both sides agree to it of course I would be held
> to it as well. I do not expect any one sided agreements.
So you expect other people to agree to it before you will? To me it
appears as though you are holding other posters to a higher standard
than you hold to yourself.
>>Do you deny that you subsequently attacked him?
>
>
> After the offer or the acceptance? The acceptance has not happened yet, so
> there is no deal.
After the offer. It is clear that you expect other people to agree to it
before you will.
>>He has not rejected your offer, yet you continue to act like he has, and
>>you are acting in a way to increase hostilities. Your offer includes
>>yourself, Snit. Too bad you weren't able to follow the terms of your own
>>offer.
>
>
> An offer and an agreement are not the same thing. Look at you - you made an
> offer to me, and in the very same thread you tossed accusations at me.
Actually you told called your ad hominems my past errors, so I called
you on this lie of yours.
>>Your behavior is neither decent nor honorable, and your words ring hollow.
>
>
> Do you think Steve's personal and bigoted accusations against me are any
> better? I do not.
What does Steve's behavior have to do with yours?
>>But go ahead and pretend that your repulsive behavior is somehow
>>justified in your eyes.
>
>
> Have you not seen my apology? I have admitted it was not justified. Steve
> has not posted a recent attack against me - as he has not even posted at
> all, or at least that I have seen. My post was not appropriate.
I saw it, but it does not negate the fact that you attacked Steve after
making a peace offer to him.
>>You have, in effect, done nothing to eliminate hostilities between
>>yourself and the other posters here.
>
>
> Steve is not all posters here.
I didn't suggest that he was.
> I have done plenty to eliminate hostilities between you and I:
>
> I have accepted your offer
Yet you lied to me in your subsequent responses. We've been over this.
> I have extended a similar offer to you
>
> I have not posted few if any accusations against you, despite you not
> extending the same courtesy to me.
About what you call "accusations": I see it as though you've been
feeding me lies and I've been calling you on them.
> While I can understand how our histories
> would lead to this, you are clearly holding me to a much higher standard
> than you hold yourself or Steve.
I'd like to see you live up to your word that you wish to end hostilities.
> I submit that this is not fair... while I
> am treating you with a higher standard than you are treating me, it is not
> something I owe you.
I do not agree with your assessment that I am holding you to a higher
standard.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> alangbaker-1B55C...@news.telus.net on 11/28/04 11:31 PM:
>
~Snip
> >
> > You're an asshole pretty much all the time.
>
> You are welcome to your opinion.
It's not an opinion it's a FACT!
--
Tim
Nasht0n
Oh for crying out loud, if I wasn't convinced that snit is a total
loser, and I rarely call people losers, I certainly am now.
Why bother responding to his stupidities anyway?
Nicolas
Snit
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip Snit's disgusting troll>
>>>>>
>>>>> So is this how you "open the offer to any and all of them"?
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, the offer to eliminate hostilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Face the truth. You lied to me. Again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While that post was not appropriate, Steve has yet to accept the offer.
>>>
>>> Apparently neither have you.
>>>
>>> "This offer is open to anyone who wants to end hostilities."
>>>
>>> That includes you, Snit. You have done nothing to end hostilities. In
>>> fact, you've acted in a way to increase hostilities.
>>
>>
>> No agreement has been reached between Steve and I, or, for that matter, you
>> and I.
>
> Your offer is then, in effect, meaningless.
The ending of hostilities is with meaning... I welcome it.
>
>> The offer is still open... will you accept?
>>
>>>> Do you think he will?
>>>
>>> How should I know?
>>
>>
>> Based on his past actions, he would never agree to end hostilities. He is
>> generally easy to predict.
>
> That didn't answer my question. Your evasion is noted.
What evasion? You asked how you should know. I answered. His past actions
make it clear he will never agree. If he surprises me here, however, I
would welcome it.
>
>>> Do you deny that you made the offer to Steve?
>>
>>
>> Of course not. And it is still open.
>>
>>> Do you deny that you include yourself in your offer?
>>
>>
>> I offer an offer that once both sides agree to it of course I would be held
>> to it as well. I do not expect any one sided agreements.
>
> So you expect other people to agree to it before you will?
No. If anything I am giving other posters control of the situation. If you
agree... it is a done deal. If Steve agrees, same thing.
> To me it appears as though you are holding other posters to a higher standard
> than you hold to yourself.
I can not help how you perceive things. I am being open and honest with
you, and clear... if you are not able to understand, there is little more I
can do. I do not say this as an insult, just as a statement of fact.
I have been clear and yet your perception is incorrect. If you were to
agree to the ending of hostilities, they would be over between us. Period.
I am open to ideas on how to handle consequences if someone were to break
this deal - once made.
>
>>> Do you deny that you subsequently attacked him?
>>
>>
>> After the offer or the acceptance? The acceptance has not happened yet, so
>> there is no deal.
>
> After the offer. It is clear that you expect other people to agree to it
> before you will.
Incorrect. Again, accept the offer and it is a done deal.
Will you accept. Are you willing to end hostilities between you and I? I
am.
>
>>> He has not rejected your offer, yet you continue to act like he has, and
>>> you are acting in a way to increase hostilities. Your offer includes
>>> yourself, Snit. Too bad you weren't able to follow the terms of your own
>>> offer.
>>
>>
>> An offer and an agreement are not the same thing. Look at you - you made an
>> offer to me, and in the very same thread you tossed accusations at me.
>
> Actually you told called your ad hominems my past errors, so I called
> you on this lie of yours.
We have gone over this.
----------
I even did you the favor of snipping / ignoring your silliness where you
talked about such previous disagreements of ours... I suggested the
immediate ending of all hostilities. Instead of accepting that, you
focused on the silly battles again. Here is the conversation:
You wrote:
Hi Snit!
I've had a really good week, but I know that you are not interested in
the details, so I'm not going to tell you about them. I understand that
you have no interest in my private life. I think this weekend is going
to be really fun too! ;-)
<snip of accusations>
Life is too short to hold grudges. Can't we just be friends?? (Someone
has to make the first move towards peace, and it just might as well be
me.)
God bless you and your wife, and take care.
Elizabot v2.0.2
:-)
I responded:
I think the term "friends" is a bit much - I do not consider anyone I
know from csma to a real friend.
I do welcome, however, the ending of all hostilities between us, and am
happy to see us "move towards peace".
Thank you.
Please note I was welcoming your movement toward peace... fully accepting
it. I took your offer as an honest one... which was my mistake.
You replied with:
I see you are unable to respond to the above points. You obviously are
too ashamed to face your own words, so you snipped them out.
You should do the responsible and honorable thing and face up to what
you wrote.
It is clear your offer was not serious. As I said... your "offer" was
based on doing so only if I not only pretended your dishonest accusations
were accurate, but were to actually go so far as to apologize for things I
owe you no apology for. Nowhere did you suggest that you would apologize or
take responsibility for your actions. Your offer was one-sided and biased.
Your offer, in other words, was not a serious or reasonable offer at all.
You even continued with:
Thats will be difficult for me to do if you do not take responsibility
for your actions.
I made an offer, and you reacted with selective snipping. You are still
up to your same old tricks.
And look here, you come right out and say I need to take responsibility for
what you accuse me of... do you accept responsibility for your actions...
those I have pointed out?
You were not looking for peace, you were looking for me to accept your
accusations while not accepting or apologizing for your own actions. Never
going to happen - I will never accept your dishonest claims and roll over on
having you accept your own actions.
What I will do, as I stated in my response to your original post, is agree
to the ending of all hostilities. You pretended to make such an offer, but
it is clear your offer was not an honest one.
That is a shame. I would still be open to such an idea... but I will not do
so under your one-sided biased terms. Nor, I suspect, would you if I were
to offer the ending of hostilities but only if you, and not I, apologize for
past wrongs. The difference is I would not sink to your level to play such
silly trolling games as to even offer up such a dishonest "offer".
So how about you accepting this offer of mine: let's end the hostilities in
a fair and unbiased way - and not demand either of us to accept the others
past accusations or claims... as that will *never* happen. You and I will
never see eye to eye on those things. I am OK with that... as arguing about
them does nobody any good.
I sincerely hope... but doubt... that you will accept the chance to end
hostilities.
----------
>
>>> Your behavior is neither decent nor honorable, and your words ring hollow.
>>
>>
>> Do you think Steve's personal and bigoted accusations against me are any
>> better? I do not.
>
> What does Steve's behavior have to do with yours?
I am trying to see if you are biased against me in this matter. If you
excuse Steve's far worse behavior for which he has not apologized and likely
never will - yet hold me accountable for a single post I have acknowledged
was an error even though it was not as inappropriate as Steve's posts - then
your bias will be very, very clear.
>
>>> But go ahead and pretend that your repulsive behavior is somehow
>>> justified in your eyes.
>>
>>
>> Have you not seen my apology? I have admitted it was not justified. Steve
>> has not posted a recent attack against me - as he has not even posted at
>> all, or at least that I have seen. My post was not appropriate.
>
> I saw it, but it does not negate the fact that you attacked Steve after
> making a peace offer to him.
You seem to be fixating on Steve. Why not concentrate on the matter at hand
- the offer open to you.
Will you accept the cessation of hostilities between you and I?
I will.
>
>>> You have, in effect, done nothing to eliminate hostilities between
>>> yourself and the other posters here.
>>
>>
>> Steve is not all posters here.
>
> I didn't suggest that he was.
You point to one post I made that mentions Steve, and extend it to "the
other posters here".
>
>> I have done plenty to eliminate hostilities between you and I:
>>
>> I have accepted your offer
>
> Yet you lied to me in your subsequent responses. We've been over this.
Look above. Your offer was never a serious one. I have no desire to debate
you on this. If you wish to disagree, so be it.
>
>> I have extended a similar offer to you
>>
>> I have not posted few if any accusations against you, despite you not
>> extending the same courtesy to me.
>
> About what you call "accusations": I see it as though you've been
> feeding me lies and I've been calling you on them.
I grow weary of your accusations.
It is time for you to decide... are you open to the ending of hostilities?
I am.
>
>> While I can understand how our histories
>> would lead to this, you are clearly holding me to a much higher standard
>> than you hold yourself or Steve.
>
> I'd like to see you live up to your word that you wish to end hostilities.
I have been very kind and patient with you.
It is time for you to decide... are you open to the ending of hostilities?
I am.
>
>> I submit that this is not fair... while I
>> am treating you with a higher standard than you are treating me, it is not
>> something I owe you.
>
> I do not agree with your assessment that I am holding you to a higher
> standard.
You need not agree.
It is time for you to decide... are you open to the ending of hostilities?
I am.
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-DBC7AE.07...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 11/29/04
5:49 AM:
Wow... such powerful argument from you.
You must be quite angry I pointed out your lies and trolling.
Edwin
> In article <BDD02C09.14747%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
>> alangbaker-7EC97...@news.telus.net on 11/29/04 1:00 AM:
>>
>>>>>> Are you suggesting that Steve's post where he presented personal and
>>>>>> bigoted attacks against me and suggested I was suffering from fetal
>>>>>> alcohol
>>>>>> affects was appropriate? Do you defend Steve's actions as he posted
>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His post was much, much worse than mine... And he claimed it was a
>>>>>> defense
>>>>>> for his dishonest semantic games and his posting as "John". Do you
>>>>>> believe
>>>>>> his actions are acceptable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess - you will dodge the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe the question is up for debate as I don't believe any of
>>>>> your
>>>>> statements on the matter are true.
>>>>>
>>>> Here is the post:
>>>>
>>>> http://snipurl.com/ay9q
>>>>
>>> Where he discusses in neutral terms things about you that you *chose* to
>>> make
>>> known. He doesn't mention "fetal alcohol syndrome" in that post at all.
>>>
>>> IOW, you lied, asshole.
>>
>> From that post:
>>
>> The symptoms Snit talks about in that post can be attributed to FAS...
>> but Snit exhibits other well known FAS symptoms, too... the most
>> noticeable to this NG being - learning problems and memory loss.
>>
>> Just what do you think Steve was in reference to when he was talking about
>> FAS?
>>
>> In other words, your accusation of a lie has just been shown to be a lie in
>> and of itself.
>>
>> And your name calling did not make your argument any stronger.
>>>>
>>>> I discuss it in detail here:
>>>>
>>>> http://snipurl.com/ay9j
>>>
>>> Yeah. Whatever, asshole.
>>
>> Wow... Such brilliant insight from you... You must be proud.
>>>>
>>>> As far as Steve admitting to his dishonest semantic games and posting as
>>>> John, see these threads:
>>>>
>>>> http://snipurl.com/a54w
>>>>
>>>> http://snipurl.com/a2wt
>>>>
>>>> Do you think I modified the Google record?
>>>
>>> Question, asshole: why didn't you post a direct link to Steve's
>>> admission?
>>
>> It is the post I responded to. Do you need help finding it? Do you believe
>> I modified his comments?
>
> Yes. Otherwise, why not post a link to his actual post, asshole?
>
>
>>>
>>>>> An asshole like you lies all the time.
>>>>
>>>> Wow... You can make unsupported accusations. Do you feel proud?
>>>
>>> You should ask that question of yourself for so many posts, asshole.
>>
>> Wow... more name calling from you... but not even creative name calling.
>>
>> What do you think your use of immature and uncreative name calling says
>> about you? My guess: you will have no idea.
>
> LOL
>
> Truth: you're an asshole. You've been one since long before you started
> dirtying up CSMA.
>
> And I'm done with you.
Alan and I argue most of the time, but this is one thread where I support
everything he wrote 100%.
Rick G
Nasht0n <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> Rick G wrote:
> > Snit, this is both cheap and petty.
> >
>
> Oh for crying out loud, if I wasn't convinced that snit is a total
> loser, and I rarely call people losers, I certainly am now.
> Why bother responding to his stupidities anyway?
>
Perhaps I'm just an idealogue, but I believe that most people have some
redeeming values.
Before anybody jumps on me with counter-examples of the worst scum
Humanity has to offer, remember that I said "most".
--
Rick...
Snit
awh3nfom5r1j.1k5geq88uz65y$.d...@40tude.net on 11/29/04 12:48 PM:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:45:41 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-DBC7AE.07...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 11/29/04
>> 5:49 AM:
>>
>>> In article <BDD01DB7.14727%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
>>>> alangbaker-1B55C...@news.telus.net on 11/28/04 11:31 PM:
>>>>
>>>
>>> ~Snip
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're an asshole pretty much all the time.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to your opinion.
>>>
>>> It's not an opinion it's a FACT!
>>
>> Wow... such powerful argument from you.
>>
>> You must be quite angry I pointed out your lies and trolling.
>
> Is there any Mac Advocate here (other than Rick G) who doesn't despise you?
How can you tell. Take you for instance, you may claim to, but you lie so
often, how can I trust that you really do?
> There was a time when someone with a pro-Mac site like yours, and who
> posted anti-Wintel, pro-Mac articles such as you do, would be a hero who
> could do no wrong. How did you fsck that up?
I did not play the game of kissing the asses of the trolls. They don't like
that.
Snit
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41aae4a7$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/29/04 1:58 AM:
>
>
>>>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip Snit's disgusting troll>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So is this how you "open the offer to any and all of them"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You know, the offer to eliminate hostilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Face the truth. You lied to me. Again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>While that post was not appropriate, Steve has yet to accept the offer.
>>>>
>>>>Apparently neither have you.
>>>>
>>>>"This offer is open to anyone who wants to end hostilities."
>>>>
>>>>That includes you, Snit. You have done nothing to end hostilities. In
>>>>fact, you've acted in a way to increase hostilities.
>>>
>>>
>>>No agreement has been reached between Steve and I, or, for that matter, you
>>>and I.
>>
>>Your offer is then, in effect, meaningless.
>
>
> The ending of hostilities is with meaning... I welcome it.
Since you are acting in a way to increase hostilities, your offer is
meaningless.
>>>The offer is still open... will you accept?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Do you think he will?
>>>>
>>>>How should I know?
>>>
>>>
>>>Based on his past actions, he would never agree to end hostilities. He is
>>>generally easy to predict.
>>
>>That didn't answer my question. Your evasion is noted.
>
>
> What evasion? You asked how you should know. I answered. His past actions
> make it clear he will never agree. If he surprises me here, however, I
> would welcome it.
You think *I* should know because of *your* assertions?
>>>>Do you deny that you made the offer to Steve?
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course not. And it is still open.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you deny that you include yourself in your offer?
>>>
>>>
>>>I offer an offer that once both sides agree to it of course I would be held
>>>to it as well. I do not expect any one sided agreements.
>>
>>So you expect other people to agree to it before you will?
>
>
> No. If anything I am giving other posters control of the situation. If you
> agree... it is a done deal. If Steve agrees, same thing.
I still see it as though you expect other people to accept it before you
will and therefore holding other posters to a higher standard then yourself.
>
>>To me it appears as though you are holding other posters to a higher standard
>>than you hold to yourself.
>
>
> I can not help how you perceive things. I am being open and honest with
> you, and clear... if you are not able to understand, there is little more I
> can do. I do not say this as an insult, just as a statement of fact.
>
> I have been clear and yet your perception is incorrect. If you were to
> agree to the ending of hostilities, they would be over between us. Period.
What part of my understanding that you wish other posters to agree to
your offer before you will is incorrect? As I've noted, you've made the
offer to other posters, including Steve, but you have acted in a way to
increase hostilies.
> I am open to ideas on how to handle consequences if someone were to break
> this deal - once made.
And who decides whether or not the deal has been broken? You?
>>>>Do you deny that you subsequently attacked him?
>>>
>>>
>>>After the offer or the acceptance? The acceptance has not happened yet, so
>>>there is no deal.
>>
>>After the offer. It is clear that you expect other people to agree to it
>>before you will.
>
>
> Incorrect. Again, accept the offer and it is a done deal.
Somehow I doubt that.
> Will you accept. Are you willing to end hostilities between you and I? I
> am.
I do not draw that conclusion from reading all your words in this post.
I see that you are still looking for ways to increase hostilities.
>>>>He has not rejected your offer, yet you continue to act like he has, and
>>>>you are acting in a way to increase hostilities. Your offer includes
>>>>yourself, Snit. Too bad you weren't able to follow the terms of your own
>>>>offer.
>>>
>>>
>>>An offer and an agreement are not the same thing. Look at you - you made an
>>>offer to me, and in the very same thread you tossed accusations at me.
>>
>>Actually you told called your ad hominems my past errors, so I called
>>you on this lie of yours.
>
>
> We have gone over this.
Yes, we have. And we have not seen eye to eye on this. I doubt we will
ever see eye to eye on this.
Your bringing up issues that we will probably never see eye to eye on
will probably only serve to increase hostilities. Why do insist on
bringing up such issues?
> ----------
> I even did you the favor of snipping / ignoring your silliness where you
> talked about such previous disagreements of ours... I suggested the
> immediate ending of all hostilities. Instead of accepting that, you
> focused on the silly battles again. Here is the conversation:
You are denigrating to my view by calling them "silly battles." This
serves to increase hostilities.
Why are you calling my pointing out your lies "silly battles?"
Perhaps it is your position that it is a "silly battle" to point out
your lies.
> You wrote:
>
> Hi Snit!
>
> I've had a really good week, but I know that you are not interested in
> the details, so I'm not going to tell you about them. I understand that
> you have no interest in my private life. I think this weekend is going
> to be really fun too! ;-)
>
> <snip of accusations>
>
> Life is too short to hold grudges. Can't we just be friends?? (Someone
> has to make the first move towards peace, and it just might as well be
> me.)
>
> God bless you and your wife, and take care.
>
> Elizabot v2.0.2
>
> :-)
Yes, we've been over this many times.
I've pointed out that what you are calling "accusations" are indeed your
personal attacks against myself. Before you had called them my past errors.
Your continuing unwillingness to be honest about your own words
reinforces my belief that I was correct in my assessment of you and your
dishonest behavior. Namely, that you will never stop telling lies,
never stop spinning others' words, and never stop being deceitful.
>
> I responded:
>
> I think the term "friends" is a bit much - I do not consider anyone I
> know from csma to a real friend.
>
> I do welcome, however, the ending of all hostilities between us, and am
> happy to see us "move towards peace".
>
> Thank you.
>
> Please note I was welcoming your movement toward peace... fully accepting
> it. I took your offer as an honest one... which was my mistake.
Your mistake was in your dishonesty in how you handled my offer. The
truth is that you are continuing to misrepresent and distort what I've
written. You are not acting in a manner to decrease hostilities.
> You replied with:
>
> I see you are unable to respond to the above points. You obviously are
> too ashamed to face your own words, so you snipped them out.
>
> You should do the responsible and honorable thing and face up to what
> you wrote.
>
> It is clear your offer was not serious. As I said... your "offer" was
> based on doing so only if I not only pretended your dishonest accusations
> were accurate, but were to actually go so far as to apologize for things I
> owe you no apology for. Nowhere did you suggest that you would apologize or
> take responsibility for your actions. Your offer was one-sided and biased.
> Your offer, in other words, was not a serious or reasonable offer at all.
The truth is that you lied to me in misrepresenting your personal
attacks by calling them my past errors. In this post, you are now
calling them "accusations."
You continue to lie about what you have written. This does not help to
decrease hostilities. You continue to increase hostilities and then
expect me to swallow your lies and accept your offer.
> You even continued with:
>
> Thats will be difficult for me to do if you do not take responsibility
> for your actions.
>
> I made an offer, and you reacted with selective snipping. You are still
> up to your same old tricks.
>
> And look here, you come right out and say I need to take responsibility for
> what you accuse me of... do you accept responsibility for your actions...
> those I have pointed out?
It is true that you snipped my post, and when asked about the snipping,
you lied to me and said that you had snipped out "my past errors" when
in fact you had snipped out your ad hominems. I caught you lying. The
offer was withdrawn.
> You were not looking for peace, you were looking for me to accept your
> accusations while not accepting or apologizing for your own actions. Never
> going to happen - I will never accept your dishonest claims and roll over on
> having you accept your own actions.
I simply asked you about what you had snipped out and then you repaid me
by lying to me about what you had snipped out. Simple concept, really.
> What I will do, as I stated in my response to your original post, is agree
> to the ending of all hostilities. You pretended to make such an offer, but
> it is clear your offer was not an honest one.
It is clear that on the one hand you agreed to end hostilities, but on
the other hand you acted to increase them with your lying.
That is not honest, nor is it acceptable behavior to me.
> That is a shame. I would still be open to such an idea... but I will not do
> so under your one-sided biased terms.
I will not accept your offer under your one-sided biased terms: You want
other people to accept your own offer before you do. You are holding
others to a higher standard.
> Nor, I suspect, would you if I were
> to offer the ending of hostilities but only if you, and not I, apologize for
> past wrongs. The difference is I would not sink to your level to play such
> silly trolling games as to even offer up such a dishonest "offer".
My offer was sincere and honest. The truth is that I asked you about
what you had snippped out and then you lied to me.
Your offer is not sincere. You wish other people to abide by its terms
before you will.
> So how about you accepting this offer of mine: let's end the hostilities in
> a fair and unbiased way - and not demand either of us to accept the others
> past accusations or claims... as that will *never* happen. You and I will
> never see eye to eye on those things. I am OK with that... as arguing about
> them does nobody any good.
>
> I sincerely hope... but doubt... that you will accept the chance to end
> hostilities.
I do not draw that conclusion from reading all your words in this post.
I see that you are still looking for ways to increase hostilities.
> ----------
>
>
>>>>Your behavior is neither decent nor honorable, and your words ring hollow.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you think Steve's personal and bigoted accusations against me are any
>>>better? I do not.
>>
>>What does Steve's behavior have to do with yours?
>
>
> I am trying to see if you are biased against me in this matter. If you
> excuse Steve's far worse behavior for which he has not apologized and likely
> never will - yet hold me accountable for a single post I have acknowledged
> was an error even though it was not as inappropriate as Steve's posts - then
> your bias will be very, very clear.
I see this as a way for you to increase hostilities if I were to answer
in a manner which you do not find acceptable.
>>>>But go ahead and pretend that your repulsive behavior is somehow
>>>>justified in your eyes.
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you not seen my apology? I have admitted it was not justified. Steve
>>>has not posted a recent attack against me - as he has not even posted at
>>>all, or at least that I have seen. My post was not appropriate.
>>
>>I saw it, but it does not negate the fact that you attacked Steve after
>>making a peace offer to him.
>
>
> You seem to be fixating on Steve. Why not concentrate on the matter at hand
> - the offer open to you.
*My* fixation on Steve? *You* are the one who attacked him for no good
reason after having made him a peace offer.
> Will you accept the cessation of hostilities between you and I?
>
> I will.
I do not believe you.
>>>>You have, in effect, done nothing to eliminate hostilities between
>>>>yourself and the other posters here.
>>>
>>>
>>>Steve is not all posters here.
>>
>>I didn't suggest that he was.
>
>
> You point to one post I made that mentions Steve, and extend it to "the
> other posters here".
You have done nothing to eliminate hostilities with several other
posters here including Wally, Tim Adams, Jason McNorton, and others.
I did not say "all other posters."
I have caught you playing another semantic game. This does not serve to
decrease hostilities.
>>>I have done plenty to eliminate hostilities between you and I:
>>>
>>> I have accepted your offer
>>
>>Yet you lied to me in your subsequent responses. We've been over this.
>
>
> Look above. Your offer was never a serious one. I have no desire to debate
> you on this. If you wish to disagree, so be it.
It is your "world view" that my offer was never a serious one. You are
denigrating my "world view." This is not acceptable. And you expect me
to accept your world view, which allows you to misrepresent what I
wrote, which has been demonstrated all through this post
>>> I have extended a similar offer to you
>>>
>>>I have not posted few if any accusations against you, despite you not
>>>extending the same courtesy to me.
>>
>>About what you call "accusations": I see it as though you've been
>>feeding me lies and I've been calling you on them.
>
>
> I grow weary of your accusations.
I grow weary of your lying and misrepresenting my words, and of your
calling my pointing out your lies "accusations." You are still playing
word games.
> It is time for you to decide... are you open to the ending of hostilities?
>
> I am.
I do not draw that conclusion from reading all your words in this post.
I see that you are still looking for ways to increase hostilities.
>>>While I can understand how our histories
>>>would lead to this, you are clearly holding me to a much higher standard
>>>than you hold yourself or Steve.
>>
>>I'd like to see you live up to your word that you wish to end hostilities.
>
>
> I have been very kind and patient with you.
>
> It is time for you to decide... are you open to the ending of hostilities?
>
> I am.
I do not draw that conclusion from reading all your words in this post.
I see that you are still looking for ways to increase hostilities.
>>>I submit that this is not fair... while I
>>>am treating you with a higher standard than you are treating me, it is not
>>>something I owe you.
>>
>>I do not agree with your assessment that I am holding you to a higher
>>standard.
>
>
> You need not agree.
>
> It is time for you to decide... are you open to the ending of hostilities?
>
> I am.
I do not draw that conclusion from reading all your words in this post.
I see that you are still looking for ways to increase hostilities.
--
Edwin
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-DBC7AE.07...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 11/29/04
> 5:49 AM:
>
>> In article <BDD01DB7.14727%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
>>> alangbaker-1B55C...@news.telus.net on 11/28/04 11:31 PM:
>>>
>>
>> ~Snip
>>
>>>>
>>>> You're an asshole pretty much all the time.
>>>
>>> You are welcome to your opinion.
>>
>> It's not an opinion it's a FACT!
>
> Wow... such powerful argument from you.
>
> You must be quite angry I pointed out your lies and trolling.
Is there any Mac Advocate here (other than Rick G) who doesn't despise you?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> http://www.healthtalk.ca/lesson_11282004_3090.php
>
> ----- Start Quotes -----
>
> A man in Newark, N.J., who wanted to teach his daughter a lesson about
> drinking has ended up in trouble himself after calling the police.
>
> Kevin Winson, 46, had called police to his home after one of his daughters
> came home intoxicated. However, his attempt to teach his 16-year-old
> daughter a lesson took a bizarre twist.
>
> When police arrived at his home, the girl informed the police that she was
> afraid, because of what her father was hiding in their home.
>
> The young girl led police to a crawl space where her father was keeping a
> stash of guns and hundreds of vials of illegal drugs.
>
> Police said the man was arrested and charged with illegal possession of
> semiautomatic firearms and possession of a controlled substance.
>
> ----- End Quotes -----
>
> Seems the guy was too stupid to realize that his kids learn by example...
> though I bet he would give the concept lip service. Sounds like Steve
> Carroll. :)
>
> Steve Quote 1:
> I'm a 'stay at home' dad who has raised two kids and I'm quite
> confident that they both learned much by imitation.
This one again... geez, don't you ever learn? I wrote this in a conversation
about learning language in a thread about improvising music. Let's look at the
unsnipped version of this first quote:
"Grammer may be just that, but a vocabulary isn't and I think this is
what we are really dealing with in music... mainly due to the fact that
the 'grammer' of music isn't quite as structured as that of a spoken
language. I'm a 'stay at home' dad who has raised two kids and I'm quite
confident that they both learned much by imitation. I know they aren't
unique so I personally discredit any theory that discredits behaviorism
in toto. I'm not saying it supersedes cognitivism, constructivism, or
any other 'ism' you can come up with, just that it does play a part in
the process."
Being that it was MY point that contradicted another poster's viewpoint, I was
*obviously* aware that kids learn by imitation, yet, here you are, alluding
that I am too stupid to realize that my kids "learn by example". Reading
comprehension problem rearing its ugly head again, Snit? :)
> Steve gives lip service to the idea that he understands that kids his kids
> learn from him... in talking about that quote, he said:
>
> As a stay at home dad, I have had the opportunity to recognize where
> these things were imitated from. Dads that don't get to spend as much
> time as I do probably haven't had the same opportunity in this regard.
>
> As though it takes some special circumstances to realize the painfully
> obvious idea that kids learn by imitation, esp. by imitating their parents.
What's "painfully obvious" is that you don't *actually* read what you respond
to. As the unsnipped version of the second quote will show, I made it clear that
I was referring to sources of imitation other than parental sources. To a parent
who works out of the home, the source of any given imitation may be unknown and
being in a position to recognize what these sources are *does* require a special
circumstance of sorts. You need to be around the kids enough and around the
sources enough to spot them as sources. Along with any thinking person, any
'teacher' worth his salt knows this. If you had bothered to read the rest of
what you snipped, (and this presupposes you'd have understood it) you would have
gotten the education you so sorely lack on this topic... take a look at the
second quote's unsnipped version:
"The context was imitation of language and I didn't specify it was ME
they were learning things from in that post. In fact, when I made the
statement, what I had in mind were language things I would have
preferred they didn't learn, things that were not taught to them by
their parents. As a stay at home dad, I have had the opportunity to
recognize where these things were imitated from. Dads that don't get to
spend as much time as I do probably haven't had the same opportunity in
this regard. Of course... none of this occurred to you when you went off
half cocked:) "
Now that it's shown in *context*... (again), it's obvious that I made it very
clear to you I was referring to imitation of language sources I would prefer my
kids didn't imitate. Did you ONLY learn via imitation of your parents, Snit?
Were you confined to your home as a child? One would think you'd be a better
reader...
> Please, will anyone admit that they do not realize this? To me it is so
> obvious that it should be accepted that every adult is aware of this.
That kids learn by imitation is no big secret. Now go read what I was *actually*
referring to... get your cat to read the big words to you. What you've done here
is no different than if you had snipped out the part above (in quote 1) where I
say my kids aren't unique... and applied it to some other topic... as though
I've said they weren't unique as it applies to that topic. Delusions like this
are easily knocked down. Unfortunately, the problems that cause these delusions
aren't so easily dealt with... are they Snit? :)
> Steve Quote 2:
> > That's right. A fight doesn't start because someone hits you back.
> If I could only convince my youngest son of that:)
>
> Wow... wonder where Steve's kids learned their delusional view of fighting?
This presupposes they have a "delusional view of fighting". Care to expound on
this... or do you think you have enough foot in your mouth for now?
> I would not be surprised to find out Steve called the cops about his kid's
> fighting and ended up in jail for being abusive himself. Would clearly fit
> what we know about him.
If 'you' are part of that "we", undoubtedly... one of 'us' thinks he 'knows' it.
That you are no longer confining to csma your integration of me with all people
probably won't shock anyone too much.
--
Steve C
Snit
fretwizz-15ABB9...@netnews.comcast.net on 11/29/04 1:15 PM:
> In article <BDD006CD.146F2%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> http://www.healthtalk.ca/lesson_11282004_3090.php
>>
>> ----- Start Quotes -----
>>
>> A man in Newark, N.J., who wanted to teach his daughter a lesson about
>> drinking has ended up in trouble himself after calling the police.
>>
>> Kevin Winson, 46, had called police to his home after one of his daughters
>> came home intoxicated. However, his attempt to teach his 16-year-old
>> daughter a lesson took a bizarre twist.
>>
>> When police arrived at his home, the girl informed the police that she was
>> afraid, because of what her father was hiding in their home.
>>
>> The young girl led police to a crawl space where her father was keeping a
>> stash of guns and hundreds of vials of illegal drugs.
>>
>> Police said the man was arrested and charged with illegal possession of
>> semiautomatic firearms and possession of a controlled substance.
>>
>> ----- End Quotes -----
>>
>> Seems the guy was too stupid to realize that his kids learn by example...
>> though I bet he would give the concept lip service. Sounds like Steve
>> Carroll. :)
>>
>> Steve Quote 1:
>> I'm a 'stay at home' dad who has raised two kids and I'm quite
>> confident that they both learned much by imitation.
>
> This one again... geez, don't you ever learn? I wrote this in a conversation
> about learning language in a thread about improvising music.
Do you now deny that they learn things from you other than bad words
("language")?
<snip of Steve's obfuscation>
I see you have no real comments.
In any case, I have admitted that the post was in poor taste, and have
apologized for it. I can see why you would not want to discuss it... I do
not want to, either.
Instead, I would like to offer you the opportunity to end all hostilities
between us.
While I doubt you will accept, I truly hope you do.
And again, I this post was in poor taste, and I apologize for it.
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
> awh3nfom5r1j.1k5geq88uz65y$.d...@40tude.net on 11/29/04 12:48 PM:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:45:41 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
>>> teadams$2$0$0$3-DBC7AE.07...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 11/29/04
>>> 5:49 AM:
>>>
>>>> In article <BDD01DB7.14727%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
>>>>> alangbaker-1B55C...@news.telus.net on 11/28/04 11:31 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~Snip
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're an asshole pretty much all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are welcome to your opinion.
>>>>
>>>> It's not an opinion it's a FACT!
>>>
>>> Wow... such powerful argument from you.
>>>
>>> You must be quite angry I pointed out your lies and trolling.
>>
>> Is there any Mac Advocate here (other than Rick G) who doesn't despise you?
>
> How can you tell. Take you for instance, you may claim to, but you lie so
> often, how can I trust that you really do?
Prove that I've lied.
>> There was a time when someone with a pro-Mac site like yours, and who
>> posted anti-Wintel, pro-Mac articles such as you do, would be a hero who
>> could do no wrong. How did you fsck that up?
>
> I did not play the game of kissing the asses of the trolls. They don't like
> that.
Get off your high horse, because that's not the reason you're reviled here,
by Wintroll and Maccie alike. The reason you're despised is because
you're a narcissist of the worst kind, one who will post lies and
distortions just for the attention it brings. The Mac isn't what you care
about, it's being the center of attention, at all costs. When your wacky
Mac Web site and goofy takes on Mac versus Windows didn't get you enough
attention, you turned to fighting with the Maccies here.
You're a sociopath and a narcissist. An unsavory combination, to say the
least...
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Irrelevant. Say... isn't this the same strawman from the last time you avoided
dealing with this?
> <snip of Steve's obfuscation>
Tell me, do you really think snipping it away means that no one will ever see it
again or ever did see? :)
> I see you have no real comments.
Projecting, Snit? Yeah... I saw that you couldn't deal with the reality last
time you brought this up, either.
> In any case, I have admitted that the post was in poor taste, and have
> apologized for it. I can see why you would not want to discuss it... I do
> not want to, either.
>
> Instead, I would like to offer you the opportunity to end all hostilities
> between us.
You said you hate me.... you claim that I have said I hate you but you can't
show where. From where I sit you're the one with the hostilities here... I'm
just pointing out the delusions of a NG troll who can't keep his lies straight.
> While I doubt you will accept, I truly hope you do.
>
> And again, I this post was in poor taste, and I apologize for it.
Why is this delusion any different from any of your other delusions that you
feel the need to apologize for it? You really don't have to answer, Snit... we
both know the reason was that Rick called it cheap and petty... that's why Rick
was the poster that received the apology:)
--
Steve C
Snit
>> Do you now deny that they learn things from you other than bad words
>> ("language")?
>
> Irrelevant. Say... isn't this the same strawman from the last time you avoided
> dealing with this?
Are you denying that your kids learn from you? Are you denying that your
son has, or had, a problem with starting fights? Are you denying that you
start arguments? Are you denying that your son learns his poor behavior
from you?
Where are you in denial? Perhaps if you specify where your denial is you
can deal with it.
>
>> <snip of Steve's obfuscation>
>
> Tell me, do you really think snipping it away means that no one will ever see
> it again or ever did see? :)
Of course I will see your obfuscations again.
<snip of Steve's obfuscation>
>> In any case, I have admitted that the post was in poor taste, and have
>> apologized for it. I can see why you would not want to discuss it... I do
>> not want to, either.
>>
>> Instead, I would like to offer you the opportunity to end all hostilities
>> between us.
>
> You said you hate me....
You are a vile, bigoted, hate filled person... or at least you play one in
csma.
Still, I am happy to end hostilities. I am not inviting you over for tea.
<snip of Steve's obfuscation>
>
>> While I doubt you will accept, I truly hope you do.
>>
>> And again, I this post was in poor taste, and I apologize for it.
>
> Why is this delusion any different from any of your other delusions that you
> feel the need to apologize for it?
Who said anything about anything containing incorrect information? It was
simply posted in poor taste...
<snip of Steve's obfuscation>
So, are you willing to accept an end to hostilities? I am. I hope, but
doubt, you are.
Snit
>>> Is there any Mac Advocate here (other than Rick G) who doesn't despise you?
>>
>> How can you tell. Take you for instance, you may claim to, but you lie so
>> often, how can I trust that you really do?
>
> Prove that I've lied.
Easy: http://snipurl.com/az3g
----- Start Quotes -----
You made a claim:
Snit has said the dialog box to do this in contains too much "visual
distraction" for him to use it.
I asked you to support the claim.
You have not, though you did bring up this quote (from me):
To turn on and off the MS Office feature, you have to either build a
quick way yourself, as I have done, or go to a menu, select an option
to have a dialog pop up with an abundance of check boxes, tabs, and
other visually distracting options...
That quote does not support your claim that I am unable to use the specific
feature in Word, despite the visual clutter. In fact, I explained the
feature in pretty good detail there, and even provided screen shots to show
people exactly what I was talking about
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/word.html
As compared to the OS X Cocoa method:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/cocoa.html
and, to be complete, the easier way in Word that I presented (and you seemed
ignorant about)
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/word2.html
Oh, the links also show you that you were wrong about what menu the feature
can be found in some modern versions of Word. For the record, by the way, MS
just came out with another version of Word - the absolute newest version of
Word does not have the feature where you claimed it was. It is where my
images show it to be... though the screens have been slightly modified in
the new version of Word.
Do you still deny your lie? Do you still claim that I ever suggested I
could not use the feature? Seems you confused the idea of my recognizing
the weakness of the feature as a sign of not being able to use the feature.
----- End Quotes -----
>
>>> There was a time when someone with a pro-Mac site like yours, and who
>>> posted anti-Wintel, pro-Mac articles such as you do, would be a hero who
>>> could do no wrong. How did you fsck that up?
>>
>> I did not play the game of kissing the asses of the trolls. They don't like
>> that.
>
> Get off your high horse, because that's not the reason you're reviled here,
> by Wintroll and Maccie alike.
Yeah, people love it when I point out there lies. They love me for it. :)
> The reason you're despised is because you're a narcissist of the worst kind,
> one who will post lies and distortions just for the attention it brings.
Prove that I've lied.
> The Mac isn't what you care about, it's being the center of attention, at all
> costs.
Wow... where did you get your psych degree? And is the cost refundable?
In any case, if you really believe that, why are you posting to me?
> When your wacky Mac Web site and goofy takes on Mac versus Windows
> didn't get you enough attention, you turned to fighting with the Maccies here.
>
> You're a sociopath and a narcissist. An unsavory combination, to say the
> least...
Wow... and you wanted proof of your lies. You just told some more.
Edwin
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
> igiqsk0o217$.870rdvly...@40tude.net on 11/29/04 3:53 PM:
>
>>>> Is there any Mac Advocate here (other than Rick G) who doesn't despise you?
>>>
>>> How can you tell. Take you for instance, you may claim to, but you lie so
>>> often, how can I trust that you really do?
>>
>> Prove that I've lied.
>
> Easy: http://snipurl.com/az3g
>
> ----- Start Quotes -----
>
> You made a claim:
>
> Snit has said the dialog box to do this in contains too much "visual
> distraction" for him to use it.
>
> I asked you to support the claim.
Steve has already done an excellent job of that for me. No need for me to
duplicate his effort.
> You have not, though you did bring up this quote (from me):
So I have not, but I have?
> To turn on and off the MS Office feature, you have to either build a
> quick way yourself, as I have done, or go to a menu, select an option
> to have a dialog pop up with an abundance of check boxes, tabs, and
> other visually distracting options...
>
> That quote does not support your claim that I am unable to use the specific
I never wrote that you are "unable to use it," and you've failed to provide
any quotes of me making such a claim.
> feature in Word, despite the visual clutter. In fact, I explained the
> feature in pretty good detail there, and even provided screen shots to show
> people exactly what I was talking about
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/word.html
>
> As compared to the OS X Cocoa method:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/cocoa.html
>
> and, to be complete, the easier way in Word that I presented (and you seemed
> ignorant about)
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/word2.html
There's all the support I need, provided by yourself.
> Oh, the links also show you that you were wrong about what menu the feature
> can be found in some modern versions of Word.
I never said anything about the features other than asking you to prove
they where different between versions.
>For the record, by the way, MS
> just came out with another version of Word - the absolute newest version of
> Word does not have the feature where you claimed it was. It is where my
> images show it to be... though the screens have been slightly modified in
> the new version of Word.
As if I have access to every version of Word...
> Do you still deny your lie?
What lie?
> Do you still claim that I ever suggested I
> could not use the feature?
I never made such a claim. The lies are all your own.
> Seems you confused the idea of my recognizing
> the weakness of the feature as a sign of not being able to use the feature.
Seems that way to an idiot. You can't make a liar out of me by putting
words in my mouth.
> ----- End Quotes -----
>>
>>>> There was a time when someone with a pro-Mac site like yours, and who
>>>> posted anti-Wintel, pro-Mac articles such as you do, would be a hero who
>>>> could do no wrong. How did you fsck that up?
>>>
>>> I did not play the game of kissing the asses of the trolls. They don't like
>>> that.
>>
>> Get off your high horse, because that's not the reason you're reviled here,
>> by Wintroll and Maccie alike.
>
> Yeah, people love it when I point out there lies. They love me for it. :)
Their so-called "lies" are from you putting words in their mouths, as you
did to me above. That's why you're reviled. You make up stuff,
attribute what you made up to another person, and then declare that person
to be a liar based on the words you put in their mouths. Then you take
their angry denials to be your persecution.
>> The reason you're despised is because you're a narcissist of the worst kind,
>> one who will post lies and distortions just for the attention it brings.
>
> Prove that I've lied.
Done above, and by others throughout this group.
>> The Mac isn't what you care about, it's being the center of attention, at all
>> costs.
>
> Wow... where did you get your psych degree? And is the cost refundable?
>
> In any case, if you really believe that, why are you posting to me?
To tell you what I really believe about you.
>> When your wacky Mac Web site and goofy takes on Mac versus Windows
>> didn't get you enough attention, you turned to fighting with the Maccies here.
>>
>> You're a sociopath and a narcissist. An unsavory combination, to say the
>> least...
>
> Wow... and you wanted proof of your lies. You just told some more.
Where?
The Snit Circus is full of elephant dung and stale popcorn again...
Snit
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:17:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>> igiqsk0o217$.870rdvly...@40tude.net on 11/29/04 3:53 PM:
>>
>>>>> Is there any Mac Advocate here (other than Rick G) who doesn't despise
>>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> How can you tell. Take you for instance, you may claim to, but you lie so
>>>> often, how can I trust that you really do?
>>>
>>> Prove that I've lied.
>>
>> Easy: http://snipurl.com/az3g
>>
>> ----- Start Quotes -----
>>
>> You made a claim:
>>
>> Snit has said the dialog box to do this in contains too much "visual
>> distraction" for him to use it.
>>
>> I asked you to support the claim.
>
> Steve has already done an excellent job of that for me. No need for me to
> duplicate his effort.
In what way are a bunch of lies and semantic games an "excellent job"?
>
>> You have not, though you did bring up this quote (from me):
>
> So I have not, but I have?
Er? You did not support the claim, but you brought up the following quote
of mine, which in no way supports your claim that there is too much visual
clutter for me to be able to use the feature. In fact, the quote goes a
good way to *disproving* your claim.
>
>> To turn on and off the MS Office feature, you have to either build a
>> quick way yourself, as I have done, or go to a menu, select an option
>> to have a dialog pop up with an abundance of check boxes, tabs, and
>> other visually distracting options...
>>
>> That quote does not support your claim that I am unable to use the specific
>
> I never wrote that you are "unable to use it," and you've failed to provide
> any quotes of me making such a claim.
You claimed the feature had to much "visual clutter" for me to use it.
Yet you know I *do* use the feature.
You were lying. Of that there is doubt, no matter what semantic games you
play.
This will not, of course, stop you from denying the facts.
No amount of denial on your part will change the fact that I do know how to
use the feature and that I *do* use the feature and have for years.
>
>> feature in Word, despite the visual clutter. In fact, I explained the
>> feature in pretty good detail there, and even provided screen shots to show
>> people exactly what I was talking about
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/word.html
>>
>> As compared to the OS X Cocoa method:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/cocoa.html
>>
>> and, to be complete, the easier way in Word that I presented (and you seemed
>> ignorant about)
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/word2.html
>
> There's all the support I need, provided by yourself.
All the support you need for what? Be specific.
>
>> Oh, the links also show you that you were wrong about what menu the feature
>> can be found in some modern versions of Word.
>
> I never said anything about the features other than asking you to prove
> they where different between versions.
You claimed it was in the Tools menu of all modern versions of Word. You
were wrong about that, too.
>
>> For the record, by the way, MS
>> just came out with another version of Word - the absolute newest version of
>> Word does not have the feature where you claimed it was. It is where my
>> images show it to be... though the screens have been slightly modified in
>> the new version of Word.
>
> As if I have access to every version of Word...
Is that how you justify your "error"?
>
>> Do you still deny your lie?
>
> What lie?
Pick one.
>
>> Do you still claim that I ever suggested I
>> could not use the feature?
>
> I never made such a claim. The lies are all your own.
Your words are above. Even if you use Steve's silly semantic games on them,
your claim is still a lie.
>
>> Seems you confused the idea of my recognizing
>> the weakness of the feature as a sign of not being able to use the feature.
>
> Seems that way to an idiot.
It does seem that way to you, doesn't it.
> You can't make a liar out of me by putting words in my mouth.
I have no control of the Google archive. Do a search and find your words
for yourself.
--
Nash*ton
> In article <i0Fqd.187237$Np3.7...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> Nasht0n <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Rick G wrote:
>>
>>>Snit, this is both cheap and petty.
>>>
>>
>>Oh for crying out loud, if I wasn't convinced that snit is a total
>>loser, and I rarely call people losers, I certainly am now.
>>Why bother responding to his stupidities anyway?
>>
>
> Perhaps I'm just an idealogue, but I believe that most people have some
> redeeming values.
That is true and I agree, but sometimes ignoring the jerks is more
beneficial to all parties involved;)
Nicolas
Edwin
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
news:BDD11ED0.148FE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
> s8g7skj5muea.1l00zbiy7co3$.d...@40tude.net on 11/29/04 6:29 PM:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:17:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>>> igiqsk0o217$.870rdvly...@40tude.net on 11/29/04 3:53 PM:
>>>
>>>>>> Is there any Mac Advocate here (other than Rick G) who doesn't
>>>>>> despise
>>>>>> you?
>>>>>
>>>>> How can you tell. Take you for instance, you may claim to, but you
>>>>> lie so
>>>>> often, how can I trust that you really do?
>>>>
>>>> Prove that I've lied.
>>>
>>> Easy: http://snipurl.com/az3g
>>>
>>> ----- Start Quotes -----
>>>
>>> You made a claim:
>>>
>>> Snit has said the dialog box to do this in contains too much "visual
>>> distraction" for him to use it.
>>>
>>> I asked you to support the claim.
>>
>> Steve has already done an excellent job of that for me. No need for me
>> to
>> duplicate his effort.
>
> In what way are a bunch of lies and semantic games an "excellent job"?
You have your replies confused with Steve's.
>>> You have not, though you did bring up this quote (from me):
>>
>> So I have not, but I have?
>
> Er? You did not support the claim,
What I quoted did.
> but you brought up the following quote
> of mine, which in no way supports your claim that there is too much visual
> clutter for me to be able to use the feature.
It doesn't need to support that claim, as I never made any claim about what
you'r "able" to use.
> In fact, the quote goes a
> good way to *disproving* your claim.
Only if "my claims" become claims that were made by you instead of by me.
>>> To turn on and off the MS Office feature, you have to either build a
>>> quick way yourself, as I have done, or go to a menu, select an
>>> option
>>> to have a dialog pop up with an abundance of check boxes, tabs, and
>>> other visually distracting options...
>>>
>>> That quote does not support your claim that I am unable to use the
>>> specific
>>
>> I never wrote that you are "unable to use it," and you've failed to
>> provide
>> any quotes of me making such a claim.
>
> You claimed the feature had to much "visual clutter" for me to use it.
Yes, you said you'd rather use a Mac instead, and you gave the "visual
clutter" in the Word setup dialog as a big reason why.
> Yet you know I *do* use the feature.
Where did I say you didn't?
> You were lying.
No, the words you try to put into my mouth do not make a liar out of me,
only out of yourself.
> Of that there is doubt, no matter what semantic games you
> play.
The lies and the games are all your own. That's why I didn't bother with
that thread, or you in general, for a long time.
> This will not, of course, stop you from denying the facts.
Snit, you wouldn't know what a fact was if one walked up and kicked you
square in your arse.
> No amount of denial on your part will change the fact that I do know how
> to
> use the feature and that I *do* use the feature and have for years.
Now all you need to do is find a place where I have denied it, and anyplace
I continue this denial that I never made in the first place.
>>> feature in Word, despite the visual clutter. In fact, I explained the
>>> feature in pretty good detail there, and even provided screen shots to
>>> show
>>> people exactly what I was talking about
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/word.html
>>>
>>> As compared to the OS X Cocoa method:
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/cocoa.html
>>>
>>> and, to be complete, the easier way in Word that I presented (and you
>>> seemed
>>> ignorant about)
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/word2.html
>>
>> There's all the support I need, provided by yourself.
>
> All the support you need for what? Be specific.
That the dialog box to set up spell checking in word has too much "visual
distraction" for you to use it. That's why you set up a shortcut method to
change it in Windows, and why you prefer to use a Mac instead.
>>> Oh, the links also show you that you were wrong about what menu the
>>> feature
>>> can be found in some modern versions of Word.
>>
>> I never said anything about the features other than asking you to prove
>> they where different between versions.
>
> You claimed it was in the Tools menu of all modern versions of Word. You
> were wrong about that, too.
Not at the time I wrote it. You finding a newer version much later doesn't
count.
>>> For the record, by the way, MS
>>> just came out with another version of Word - the absolute newest version
>>> of
>>> Word does not have the feature where you claimed it was. It is where my
>>> images show it to be... though the screens have been slightly modified
>>> in
>>> the new version of Word.
>>
>> As if I have access to every version of Word...
>
> Is that how you justify your "error"?
>>
>>> Do you still deny your lie?
>>
>> What lie?
>
> Pick one.
How about "Snit is intelligent," or "Snit is wittty," or "Snit is a handsome
guy?" I never said those things, but they do make a fine assortment of
lies...
>>> Do you still claim that I ever suggested I
>>> could not use the feature?
>>
>> I never made such a claim. The lies are all your own.
>
> Your words are above.
Which ones, my real words, or what you said my words were?
> Even if you use Steve's silly semantic games on them,
> your claim is still a lie.
The only lies here are your own.
>>> Seems you confused the idea of my recognizing
>>> the weakness of the feature as a sign of not being able to use the
>>> feature.
>>
>> Seems that way to an idiot.
>
> It does seem that way to you, doesn't it.
Nope, but it does seem that way to you.
>> You can't make a liar out of me by putting words in my mouth.
>
> I have no control of the Google archive. Do a search and find your words
> for yourself.
No, you support your own claims.
Snit
>> Er? You did not support the claim, but you brought up the following quote of
>> mine, which in no way supports your claim that there is too much visual
>> clutter for me to be able to use the feature. In fact, the quote goes a good
>> way to *disproving* your claim.
>
> Only if "my claims" become claims that were made by you instead of by me.
No...pretty much any reading of your quote, even the "soft" interpretation
Steve wants to use and you have jumped on does not help your. Even if we
believe Steve, you were still lying.
>>>> To turn on and off the MS Office feature, you have to either build a
>>>> quick way yourself, as I have done, or go to a menu, select an
>>>> option to have a dialog pop up with an abundance of check boxes, tabs,
>>>> and other visually distracting options...
>>>>
>>>> That quote does not support your claim that I am unable to use the
>>>> specific
>>>
>>> I never wrote that you are "unable to use it," and you've failed to provide
>>> any quotes of me making such a claim.
>>
>> You claimed the feature had to much "visual clutter" for me to use it.
>
> Yes, you said you'd rather use a Mac instead, and you gave the "visual
> clutter" in the Word setup dialog as a big reason why.
I have repeatedly stated I use Word. Yes, I prefer the way other programs
handle that option. That does not support your claim that I was unable or
unwilling (however you wish to read it) to use the feature.
Your claim is a lie.
>> All the support you need for what? Be specific.
>
> That the dialog box to set up spell checking in word has too much "visual
> distraction" for you to use it.
But I do use it. I have never claimed to not use it. Your claim is a lie.
For that matter, you also were incorrect about how to even use the feature
in the then-newest version of Word. You stated:
Simply go to "Tools" in the main Word menu. Pick "Options." In the box
that comes up, pick the "Spelling and Grammar" tab. Uncheck "Check
spelling as you type" to turn off live spell checking.
When I told you about the then-newest version of Word not working quite this
way, uou stated:
Both MS-Word 97 and MS-Word XP work the way I described. What "modern
version" are you talking about (or making up)?
Clearly you did not even know how to get to the feature in the then-newest
version of Word (and insinuated I might even be making up some version of
Word!).
> That's why you set up a shortcut method to change it in Windows, and why you
> prefer to use a Mac instead.
Which is not the same thing as saying I am unable or unwilling to use the
less-well designed feature of Word.
>
>>>> Oh, the links also show you that you were wrong about what menu the
>>>> feature
>>>> can be found in some modern versions of Word.
>>>
>>> I never said anything about the features other than asking you to prove
>>> they where different between versions.
>>
>> You claimed it was in the Tools menu of all modern versions of Word. You
>> were wrong about that, too.
>
> Not at the time I wrote it. You finding a newer version much later doesn't
> count.
But it was not *just* the then-newest version of Word that did not have the
feature where you claimed it was... at least one other version newer than
Word 97 - a version you mentioned - did not work the way you claimed it
should.
On the very machines where it an be compared to the Cocoa method, though,
the feature does not work the way you said it should. Ironic being that your
claim was the feature is as easy to use as the Cocoa method.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
> Qf4rd.1009$nE7...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com on 11/30/04 12:56 PM:
>
>
> >> Er? You did not support the claim, but you brought up the following quote
> >> of
> >> mine, which in no way supports your claim that there is too much visual
> >> clutter for me to be able to use the feature. In fact, the quote goes a
> >> good
> >> way to *disproving* your claim.
> >
> > Only if "my claims" become claims that were made by you instead of by me.
>
> No...pretty much any reading of your quote, even the "soft" interpretation
> Steve wants to use and you have jumped on does not help your. Even if we
> believe Steve, you were still lying.
>
> >>>> To turn on and off the MS Office feature, you have to either build a
> >>>> quick way yourself, as I have done, or go to a menu, select an
> >>>> option to have a dialog pop up with an abundance of check boxes,
> >>>> tabs,
> >>>> and other visually distracting options...
> >>>>
> >>>> That quote does not support your claim that I am unable to use the
> >>>> specific
> >>>
> >>> I never wrote that you are "unable to use it," and you've failed to
> >>> provide
> >>> any quotes of me making such a claim.
> >>
> >> You claimed the feature had to much "visual clutter" for me to use it.
And he did so based on what you wrote.
> > Yes, you said you'd rather use a Mac instead, and you gave the "visual
> > clutter" in the Word setup dialog as a big reason why.
>
> I have repeatedly stated I use Word. Yes, I prefer the way other programs
> handle that option. That does not support your claim that I was unable or
> unwilling (however you wish to read it) to use the feature.
Poor attempt at a dodge. You also extolled your preference for your quicker
method of using it in Windows. That you "use Word" isn't remotely relevant here.
What is relevant is that you went out of your way to tell a poster about a
quicker method you created to use the feature in a thread where you were talking
about your preferences. You did it in a way that *suggested* you used one *over*
the other.
> Your claim is a lie.
>
> >> All the support you need for what? Be specific.
> >
> > That the dialog box to set up spell checking in word has too much "visual
> > distraction" for you to use it.
>
> But I do use it. I have never claimed to not use it. Your claim is a lie.
Horseshit. You asked Eddie to provide you with a post where you "suggest" that
you don't use it and he did that. What's notable is that you called him a liar
*before* he produced the suggestive post. Look again at what you wrote:
To turn on and off the MS Office feature, you have to either build a
quick way yourself, as I have done, or go to a menu, select an option to
have a dialog pop up with an abundance of check boxes, tabs, and other
visually distracting options...
Is this not YOU... telling a poster what YOU have done? See the clue words in
the statement, Snit? Words like "either" and "or". You clearly "suggest" that
you are doing one and not the other... and you cite the reason for *preferring*
to do so (visual distraction).
--
Steve C
Edwin
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
news:fretwizz-FCA287...@netnews.comcast.net...
Thank you, Steve. It's incredible that Snit's willful stupidity refuses
to let him see the points you and I have repeated to him so often. One can
only imagine that he doesn't really care about this issue at all, but rather
for the attention he can garner by posting ridiculous things.
I don't believe he cares about computer advocacy at all. Just having the
spotlight constantly aimed at himself.
--
"I will admit that I occasionally defend an Apple position I don't really
agree with. Advocacy is a game that I enjoy playing."
-- ZnU, March 17,2001
Steve Carroll
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
No question that he craves the spotlight:)
--
Steve C
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 41aac720$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/28/04 11:52 PM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip Snit's disgusting troll>
>>>
>>> So is this how you "open the offer to any and all of them"?
>>>
>>> You know, the offer to eliminate hostilities.
>>>
>>> Face the truth. You lied to me. Again.
>>
>>
>> While that post was not appropriate, Steve has yet to accept the offer.
>
> Apparently neither have you.
>
> "This offer is open to anyone who wants to end hostilities."
>
> That includes you, Snit. You have done nothing to end hostilities. In
> fact, you've acted in a way to increase hostilities.
No agreement has been reached between Steve and I, or, for that matter, you
and I.
The offer is still open... will you accept?
>
>> Do you think he will?
>
> How should I know?
Based on his past actions, he would never agree to end hostilities. He is
generally easy to predict.
>
> Do you deny that you made the offer to Steve?
Of course not. And it is still open.
>
> Do you deny that you include yourself in your offer?
I offer an offer that once both sides agree to it of course I would be held
to it as well. I do not expect any one sided agreements.
>
> Do you deny that you subsequently attacked him?
After the offer or the acceptance? The acceptance has not happened yet, so
there is no deal.
>
> He has not rejected your offer, yet you continue to act like he has, and
> you are acting in a way to increase hostilities. Your offer includes
> yourself, Snit. Too bad you weren't able to follow the terms of your own
> offer.
An offer and an agreement are not the same thing. Look at you - you made an
offer to me, and in the very same thread you tossed accusations at me.
>
> Your behavior is neither decent nor honorable, and your words ring hollow.
Do you think Steve's personal and bigoted accusations against me are any
better? I do not.
>
> But go ahead and pretend that your repulsive behavior is somehow
> justified in your eyes.
Have you not seen my apology? I have admitted it was not justified. Steve
has not posted a recent attack against me - as he has not even posted at
all, or at least that I have seen. My post was not appropriate.
>
> You have, in effect, done nothing to eliminate hostilities between
> yourself and the other posters here.
Steve is not all posters here.
I have done plenty to eliminate hostilities between you and I:
I have accepted your offer
I have extended a similar offer to you
I have not posted few if any accusations against you, despite you not
extending the same courtesy to me. While I can understand how our histories
would lead to this, you are clearly holding me to a much higher standard
than you hold yourself or Steve. I submit that this is not fair... while I
am treating you with a higher standard than you are treating me, it is not
something I owe you.
--
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41aac720$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 11/28/04 11:52 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>><snip Snit's disgusting troll>
>>
>>So is this how you "open the offer to any and all of them"?
>>
>>You know, the offer to eliminate hostilities.
>>
>>Face the truth. You lied to me. Again.
>
>
> While that post was not appropriate, Steve has yet to accept the offer.
Apparently neither have you.
"This offer is open to anyone who wants to end hostilities."
That includes you, Snit. You have done nothing to end hostilities. In
fact, you've acted in a way to increase hostilities.
> Do you think he will?
How should I know?
Do you deny that you made the offer to Steve?
Do you deny that you include yourself in your offer?
Do you deny that you subsequently attacked him?
He has not rejected your offer, yet you continue to act like he has, and
you are acting in a way to increase hostilities. Your offer includes
yourself, Snit. Too bad you weren't able to follow the terms of your own
offer.
Your behavior is neither decent nor honorable, and your words ring hollow.
But go ahead and pretend that your repulsive behavior is somehow
justified in your eyes.
You have, in effect, done nothing to eliminate hostilities between
yourself and the other posters here.
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
Snit
From that post:
>>> An asshole like you lies all the time.
>>
>> Wow... You can make unsupported accusations. Do you feel proud?
>
> You should ask that question of yourself for so many posts, asshole.
Wow... more name calling from you... but not even creative name calling.
What do you think your use of immature and uncreative name calling says
about you? My guess: you will have no idea.
--