Steve: please read
Snit
it worthwhile to do anything about your Sigmond claims - after all, this is
Usenet and it does not really matter that you lie. Once Ed pointed out the
connection with your well known obsession, it became clear that you had
crossed a line.
I have been told that nothing will be done until or unless you post as
Sigmond again, or otherwise do something that suggests you are taking things
to such an extreme. I was asked to not share my correspondence from them.
In any case, you should have the details now in your e-mail.
Seeing how this has gotten out of hand, I think it is best if I not discuss
your sock puppet with you, at least for a while.
I know you will deny and lie and do whatever else you want... that is OK...
as long as you stop posting as Sigmond, or really, any other name and
claiming it is me. I have also contacted our mutual ISP and asked them to
remove your account... I have yet to receive a reply, but I would assume you
and I both will soon.
Seems your little game is over.
Don't believe me: post as Sigmond again... and them claim it was me.
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
Steve Mackay
> By now you should have the e-mail from your ISP.
Nope, that is, if you're talking about me.
> Until now I did not find
> it worthwhile to do anything about your Sigmond claims -
That is because you *ARE* sigmond, and I have all the proof needed. But
hey, the facts have never gotten in the way of you telling more lies.
> after all, this is
> Usenet and it does not really matter that you lie.
I haven't, but don't let that get in the way of another good conspiracy
theory. They are quite entertaining.
> Once Ed pointed out the
> connection with your well known obsession, it became clear that you had
> crossed a line.
And where is this connection, Snit/Sigmond/Supergoober?
> I have been told that nothing will be done until or unless you post as
> Sigmond again, or otherwise do something that suggests you are taking things
> to such an extreme.
You weren't told anthing, because you've never contacted anyone, because
you are Sigmond. But please continue this lie, it is entertaining me.
> I was asked to not share my correspondence from them.
Of COURSE you were, LOL!!!!!!
> In any case, you should have the details now in your e-mail.
sure, but you see, ISPs can trace this sort of thing, and you obviously
are doing nothing but trolling, and lying.
>
> Seeing how this has gotten out of hand, I think it is best if I not discuss
> your sock puppet with you, at least for a while.
What sockpuppet is that?
>
> I know you will deny and lie and do whatever else you want... that is OK...
> as long as you stop posting as Sigmond, or really, any other name and
> claiming it is me. I have also contacted our mutual ISP and asked them to
> remove your account... I have yet to receive a reply, but I would assume you
> and I both will soon.
>
> Seems your little game is over.
The game of watching you lie, and make conspiracy theories? Not, that will
never be over while you're still here.
> Don't believe me: post as Sigmond again... and them claim it was me.
I've never posted as Sigmond, Steve C. hasn't posted as Sigmond. You're
just pissed because you've been caught in one too many lies by Steve C,
Elizabot, ed, Sandman, Edmin, foo, Wally, Alan Baker, and
myself(appologies to the other's I've forgotten).
Wally
----------
In article <BCC992C9.4FC2B%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>, Snit
<sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
<snip>
You should not be able to type with the kind of restraints you should be
wearing, get them checked!
Nashton
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:02:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>
>>By now you should have the e-mail from your ISP.
>
>
> Nope, that is, if you're talking about me.
>
>
>>Until now I did not find
>>it worthwhile to do anything about your Sigmond claims -
>
>
> That is because you *ARE* sigmond, and I have all the proof needed. But
> hey, the facts have never gotten in the way of you telling more lies.
Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>after all, this is
>>Usenet and it does not really matter that you lie.
>
>
> I haven't, but don't let that get in the way of another good conspiracy
> theory. They are quite entertaining.
You are far too easily entertained, then. You should really, really,
really consider buying, renting or stealing a life.
Steve CD: Probably another one of your personae.
EBot: Biggest tease, biatch to hit csma
"Show me" Baker and well as for poor Wally, not much to brag about there.
Sandman: I was surprised to see him also attack Snit, but he's shown his
lack of objectivity by refusing to admit he's a troll by his very own
criteria.
Edwin? Never read any of his posts that demonstrated that he sided with
you. But lying seems to flow naturally from you, as do profanities,
insults and a general feeling that you are *one* *very* miserable
individual.
Now that the armchair trollbuster general has his mob-army ready to
attack.....
What's next?
Nicolas
Sandman
Nashton <na...@smash.cash> wrote:
> > I've never posted as Sigmond, Steve C. hasn't posted as Sigmond. You're
> > just pissed because you've been caught in one too many lies by Steve C,
> > Elizabot, ed, Sandman, Edmin, foo, Wally, Alan Baker, and
> > myself(appologies to the other's I've forgotten).
>
> Steve CD: Probably another one of your personae.
> EBot: Biggest tease, biatch to hit csma
> "Show me" Baker and well as for poor Wally, not much to brag about there.
> Sandman: I was surprised to see him also attack Snit, but he's shown his
> lack of objectivity by refusing to admit he's a troll by his very own
> criteria.
I haven't attacked anyone. Michael asked me for objective criteria and I gave
it to him, there is nothing more to it. I also predicted what would happen if I
did, which turned out to be quite correct.
Michael has answered with such nonsense that if one replies to a trolling post,
you're trolling. Or when I accomodating his request of providing objective
criteria for his trolling - he accused me of attacking him.
I don't know you very much Nicolas, nor do I have experience enough with you to
form a grounded opinion about you. But I find it odd to say the least that you
(alone) are sticking up for Michael no matter what. I think I've mentioned
before that the reason might be that you and Michael share "enemies" in here
and you support him for that. But when Michael does things like create a
sockpuppet and then lie about it, or tries to forge a NNTP-posting-host to
attack another poster, and you still blindedly follows him around like a little
dog supporting him one starts to wonder.
Not meant as an attack or insult - as I said, I don't know you enough. But you
did comment (falsely) about my participations in his trolling threads so I felt
that I should do the same.
--
Sandman[.net]
Nashton
No. You submitted criteria. You fulfilled said criteria. You refused to
aknowledge above fact. Case closed.
I do not form opinions based on mob mentality. There has been no
evidence presented that is rigorous enough or objective enough in order
for me to form an opinion about the matter, in fact, the only "evidence"
presented was from a party that has shown his(their) lack of class,
character and propensity for profanity since this whole thing started,
not to mention his extreme hatred for Snit. Now you're saying that it's
odd that I'm the only one that agrees with Snit because we share the
same "enemies". Did it ever occur to you that we share "enemies" because
we disagree on whether Snit is what this mob alleges him to be? OTOH,
you fail to see that evidence presented by Steve(s) is wanting and that
he(they) have more of a motive to lie about Snit than I have to side
with him.
Take a look within yourself and tell me that this whole thing hasn't
left a bitter taste in everybody's mouth. Steve(s) has been so
malicious, so childish and profane in his persecution of Snit, that one
would believe Snit killed his cat or did him(them) some irreparable
harm. When will this nonsense end and when will serious posters such as
you realize that nobody deserves to be treated this way, no matter how
good it makes Steeve(s) feel to be a bully or to what degree it is
therapeutic to his(their) apparently booooring existence.
Nicolas
Nashton
Wally, give up the one-liners, you suck at it;)
Nicolas
Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:02:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> > By now you should have the e-mail from your ISP.
>
> Nope, that is, if you're talking about me.
Nah... and it's not me, either. But I think I know... Snit keeps talking
about the -'other' other- Steve. No doubt this is the 'Steve' he sees
when he looks in the mirror. This is the REALLY bad Steve that has been
pretending to be sigmond... you know, the one that Snit suggested snuck
into his house. Guess who lets him in?
Steve
Snit
gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
be good to clear this whole thing up.
At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a court
room or, well, anything important. You know...
Wally
----------
In article <pr2pc.39939$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Nashton
<na...@smash.cash> wrote:
If 4 out of 5 people *SUFFER* from diarrhoea...... You'd be the one that
enjoys it! ;=)
> Nicolas
Snit
on 5/14/04 4:11 AM:
> In article <gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> Nashton <na...@smash.cash> wrote:
>
>>> I've never posted as Sigmond, Steve C. hasn't posted as Sigmond. You're
>>> just pissed because you've been caught in one too many lies by Steve C,
>>> Elizabot, ed, Sandman, Edmin, foo, Wally, Alan Baker, and
>>> myself(appologies to the other's I've forgotten).
>>
>> Steve CD: Probably another one of your personae.
>> EBot: Biggest tease, biatch to hit csma
>> "Show me" Baker and well as for poor Wally, not much to brag about there.
>> Sandman: I was surprised to see him also attack Snit, but he's shown his
>> lack of objectivity by refusing to admit he's a troll by his very own
>> criteria.
>
> I haven't attacked anyone. Michael asked me for objective criteria and I gave
> it to him, there is nothing more to it. I also predicted what would happen if
> I did, which turned out to be quite correct.
My prediction was that you would not supply objective criteria that applied
to me, but did not apply to you, the Steve's, Elizabot, and others.
I was correct.
>
> Michael has answered with such nonsense that if one replies to a trolling
> post, you're trolling.
No... I have have never claimed that. Since you just lied, you are, by your
own criteria, trolling.
> Or when I accomodating his request of providing objective criteria for his
> trolling - he accused me of attacking him.
I asked for objective criteria that included me and excluded you and
others... you did not provide that. You did everything you could to return
the name "troll" to me... which is part of your objective criteria for being
a troll. You were trolling.
>
> I don't know you very much Nicolas, nor do I have experience enough with you
> to form a grounded opinion about you. But I find it odd to say the least that
> you (alone) are sticking up for Michael no matter what.
It is clear you do not know him - there are many places we disagree. The
claim that we stick up for each other has been shown to be false. Hey, here
is a test: can you find any post where the Steve's and Elizabot have real
disagreement? Seems they share a single brain.
> I think I've mentioned before that the reason might be that you and Michael
> share "enemies" in here and you support him for that. But when Michael does
> things like create a sockpuppet and then lie about it, or tries to forge a
> NNTP-posting-host to attack another poster, and you still blindedly follows
> him around like a little dog supporting him one starts to wonder.
I took Steve's dare to show his threats were empty. My ISP never even
contacted me, no less removed my account. It did prompt me, along with the
evidence that Ed found, to contact his ISP and mine to check into this whole
silliness.
>
> Not meant as an attack or insult - as I said, I don't know you enough. But you
> did comment (falsely) about my participations in his trolling threads so I
> felt that I should do the same.
You felt someone else had made false claims... so you decided to do the
same.
How is that not trolling?
Snit
pr2pc.39939$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 4:53 AM:
Let us even assume that what Steve claims is true - that my health problems
(http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/anxiety) have somehow lead to my doing
irrational things to somehow upset him. Keep in mind that his claim is
based on extreme ignorance of what an anxiety disorder is, but let us accept
his view for a moment... that he has seen what my doctors and others in the
real world have not and that I have some sort of mental illness that makes
me do whatever it is he claims I do.
Does that excuse the attacks against me? Of course not. Steve and Elizabot
have a history of bullying people... I decided to not back down to see what
would happen. They have shown that they will go to any extreme - track me
down, threaten to call the police with false allegations, attack anyone who
does not agree with them (I do not believe Nashton has even taken a side -
just said he does not have an opinion one way or the other), they have lied,
dug up my families name and continually used it in veiled threats...
And this is all assuming that what is claimed against me is true... there
still is no excuse for their behavior.
It is like saying that since some of the people in Iraq said mean things
about Saddam it was OK for him to do what he did to his people - of course,
that is a much more extreme example... but the idea is the same.
It is good that I keep this whole thing in perspective... it is just a
Usenet advocacy group after all. I know Steve likes to see it as much
more... but that just ain't so.
Steve Carroll
Nashton <na...@smash.cash> wrote:
> Steve Mackay wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:02:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
> >
> >
> >>By now you should have the e-mail from your ISP.
> >
> >
> > Nope, that is, if you're talking about me.
> >
> >
> >>Until now I did not find
> >>it worthwhile to do anything about your Sigmond claims -
> >
> >
> > That is because you *ARE* sigmond, and I have all the proof needed. But
> > hey, the facts have never gotten in the way of you telling more lies.
>
> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
It all sounds good (yeah... right;)... but if Snit has credibility
problems, they cannot be laid on my, (or anyone's) doorstep. Besides, no
one 'hates' anyone here... it's all just NG fun. If you remember, even
Snit admits to this. He likes to yank people's chains.
About having 'evidence' that he knew who sigmond was, Snit wrote;
"Once they run out of steam a bit, I will post it, if for
not other reason that to yank their chains and get them all fired up
again."
Does this sound like he wants people to leave him alone? He asks for
what he gets, Nic... plain and simple. His goal is to 'fire up' and it's
stated quite clearly above. For you to pretend anyone is attacking him
is ridiculous. He's taunting people and they respond. It's just NG fun,
as Snit himself has stated many times. He has flatly stated that he sees
"Mac trolling" as fun. I'll admit, that he sees whining about the shit
that he has stirred up as 'fun', too, doesn't make a lot of sense but
it's quite obvious this is a large component of what he comes in here
for. He provokes others to a response and then whines that he is being
attacked. This is his form of entertainment... we simply give it to him.
> >>after all, this is
> >>Usenet and it does not really matter that you lie.
> >
> >
> > I haven't, but don't let that get in the way of another good conspiracy
> > theory. They are quite entertaining.
>
> You are far too easily entertained, then. You should really, really,
> really consider buying, renting or stealing a life.
What about your life? Are you not here commenting?
Yeah, Snit doesn't do any of that himself, does he?
> "Show me" Baker and well as for poor Wally, not much to brag about there.
> Sandman: I was surprised to see him also attack Snit, but he's shown his
> lack of objectivity by refusing to admit he's a troll by his very own
> criteria.
You're forgetting a bunch of other posters who have all commented on
Snit's activity, Nic. We can now add Woofbert's name to the list of
those that consider him a troll. That only approximately 6 people (out
of the 25 or so regulars) confront Snit on his horsecrap, doesn't mean
the others don't see that he is trolling.
> Edwin? Never read any of his posts that demonstrated that he sided with
> you.
It's not a matter of siding with anyone. Edwin spotted Snit for what he
is, too.
> But lying seems to flow naturally from you, as do profanities,
> insults and a general feeling that you are *one* *very* miserable
> individual.
> Now that the armchair trollbuster general has his mob-army ready to
> attack.....
> What's next?
So, in your opinion, Snit's activities had nothing to do with the
general consensus that has formed? You'll just overlook those activities
and toss the blame in my lap because I was able to get people to 'side'
against Snit... gotcha. Just one question. How did I accomplish this
task?
None so blind as those who will not see...
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
You're assuming I believe you have health problems. I don't. In fact, I
don't believe anything you have written on the internet. I have no
reason to do so. For all I know you have created an online persona over
a period of years to garner sympathy for your victim mentality, which
may or may not be real. Why do I feel this way? You have gone MUCH
further than anyone I have ever seen in the way of trying to destroy
your online credibility wrt truth.
> Steve and Elizabot have a history of bullying people...
Really? Care to share this history? What's wrong? The posts at google
show others are combatting the same way we both ever have? Wow, what a
shock... and in a computer advocacy NG even. Hey, I have an idea! Why
not create a post that asks the constituents of this NG how accurate you
assertion here is?
> I decided to not back down to see what
> would happen. They have shown that they will go to any extreme - track me
> down, threaten to call the police with false allegations, attack anyone who
> does not agree with them (I do not believe Nashton has even taken a side -
> just said he does not have an opinion one way or the other), they have lied,
> dug up my families name and continually used it in veiled threats...
>
> And this is all assuming that what is claimed against me is true... there
> still is no excuse for their behavior.
If what being claimed about you is true, is there an excuse for YOUR
behavior? Attitudes are reactive, Snit; you took psychology (so you
claim)... one would think you'd know all this. Or was that all just more
of your hooey?
> It is like saying that since some of the people in Iraq said mean things
> about Saddam it was OK for him to do what he did to his people - of course,
> that is a much more extreme example... but the idea is the same.
>
> It is good that I keep this whole thing in perspective... it is just a
> Usenet advocacy group after all. I know Steve likes to see it as much
> more... but that just ain't so.
What Steve? Forget the fact that your webpage about me screams otherwise
(IOW, it's you who sees this as much more), if you cannot distinguish
between posters and some 'Steve' or other that has you all tied up in
knots, no one will believe you aren't merely projecting here.
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
(snip)
>
> It is clear you do not know him - there are many places we disagree. The
> claim that we stick up for each other has been shown to be false. Hey, here
> is a test: can you find any post where the Steve's and Elizabot have real
> disagreement? Seems they share a single brain.
Why? Because we both recognize you for what you are? Hate to tell you
this but so do about 20 or so others in here. That only half a dozen of
them confront your bullshit regularly doesn't mean those others don't
recognize it for what it is, they just aren't interested in the game.
What? Isn't 6 or so enough to satisfy your need for attention anymore?
Part of why you come here is to provoke and subsequently whine you are
being attacked. You have stated it's all in good fun... I'm just
obliging you with some of the 'fun' you seek.
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>
> > Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
> > that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
> > persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
> > Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>
> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
> be good to clear this whole thing up.
So clear it up. If you're not sigmond and have proof, why waste time
with all this posturing? Oh, that's right... you like the spotlight on
you and don't want to give it up so quickly.
> At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a court
> room or, well, anything important. You know...
No... tell us:)
Steve
Snit
fretwizz-B9766D...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 8:46 AM:
This says a lot about your denial of reality.
> In fact, I
> don't believe anything you have written on the internet.
Of course not... those that habitually lie assume others are doing the same.
Remember how I have shown that the way you "get" me is to take advantage of
my open and honest nature... I assume that others are as I am - open and
honest - and you assume others are all lying.
In any case, you have commented on my health problems, and even tried to
make fun of my having taken medications to help control my health problems.
Your denial here is a clear lie.
> I have no reason to do so.
From your perspective, where everything is a lie, of course not.
> For all I know you have created an online persona over a period of years to
> garner sympathy for your victim mentality, which may or may not be real. Why
> do I feel this way? You have gone MUCH further than anyone I have ever seen in
> the way of trying to destroy your online credibility wrt truth.
I have stood up to you and Elizabot... and you two have gone ballistic and
gone to such extremes as to leave no doubt about what cretins you are.
>
>> Steve and Elizabot have a history of bullying people...
>
> Really? Care to share this history? What's wrong? The posts at google
> show others are combatting the same way we both ever have? Wow, what a
> shock... and in a computer advocacy NG even. Hey, I have an idea! Why
> not create a post that asks the constituents of this NG how accurate you
> assertion here is?
I have posted many quotes that show not just people disagreeing with you,
but pointing out your bullying. Not over a several month period. Not over
one incident. But repeatedly over the years.
>
>> I decided to not back down to see what
>> would happen. They have shown that they will go to any extreme - track me
>> down, threaten to call the police with false allegations, attack anyone who
>> does not agree with them (I do not believe Nashton has even taken a side -
>> just said he does not have an opinion one way or the other), they have lied,
>> dug up my families name and continually used it in veiled threats...
>>
>> And this is all assuming that what is claimed against me is true... there
>> still is no excuse for their behavior.
>
> If what being claimed about you is true, is there an excuse for YOUR
> behavior? Attitudes are reactive, Snit; you took psychology (so you
> claim)... one would think you'd know all this. Or was that all just more
> of your hooey?
Do you have a point? I have been honest in admitting my trolling... you
have lied. That does not excuse my behavior, but your lying about it trough
denial puts your behavior in perspective... again - I am open and honest,
and you repeatedly lie.
>
>> It is like saying that since some of the people in Iraq said mean things
>> about Saddam it was OK for him to do what he did to his people - of course,
>> that is a much more extreme example... but the idea is the same.
>>
>> It is good that I keep this whole thing in perspective... it is just a
>> Usenet advocacy group after all. I know Steve likes to see it as much
>> more... but that just ain't so.
>
> What Steve? Forget the fact that your webpage about me screams otherwise
> (IOW, it's you who sees this as much more), if you cannot distinguish
> between posters and some 'Steve' or other that has you all tied up in
> knots, no one will believe you aren't merely projecting here.
I see you speaking for the whole group again? Is this group csma, all of
Usenet, or your make believe jury in your make believe trial?
Snit
> In article <BCCA2D55.4FCD3%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>
>> It is clear you do not know him - there are many places we disagree. The
>> claim that we stick up for each other has been shown to be false. Hey, here
>> is a test: can you find any post where the Steve's and Elizabot have real
>> disagreement? Seems they share a single brain.
>
> Why? Because we both recognize you for what you are?
Who said anything about the disagreement being about me. You see, I do not
see all of Usenet to be about me... as you have just shown yourself to. You
and Elizabot are obsessed, to the point that you just showed you think
*everything* you two could possibly discuss or disagree about would be about
me.
I am not that important, Steve... really. I am just one person. Why you
two are so obsessed is just... weird.
<snip>
Snit
> In article <BCCA2BD2.4FCCF%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>
>>> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>
>> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
>> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
>> be good to clear this whole thing up.
>
> So clear it up. If you're not sigmond and have proof, why waste time
> with all this posturing? Oh, that's right... you like the spotlight on
> you and don't want to give it up so quickly.
I will not go against the wishes of the ISP's in question.
Do you really think people care enough about this silliness of yours to get
some spot light? I do not.
>
>> At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a court
>> room or, well, anything important. You know...
>
> No... tell us:)
I have... repeatedly. Steve - csma is not a court room. You need to accept
that.
Steve Carroll
Missed this the first time. You starting this thread by writing:
"I have also contacted our mutual ISP and asked them to remove your
account."
What's this new line above about contacting the ISP's (as in, MORE than
one ISP)?
Steve
Snit
Talk to Ed... he is the one who did the research for me. I never imagined
your obsession was as strong as he showed...
In any case, as far as I am concerned, until or unless you and the other
Steve start posting as Sigmond again, or creating new Sock puppets to accuse
me of, or otherwise go outside the bounds of reasonable decency, the game is
over.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-35D057...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 9:00 AM:
>
> > In article <BCCA2D55.4FCD3%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> > Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >>
> >> It is clear you do not know him - there are many places we disagree. The
> >> claim that we stick up for each other has been shown to be false. Hey,
> >> here
> >> is a test: can you find any post where the Steve's and Elizabot have real
> >> disagreement? Seems they share a single brain.
> >
> > Why? Because we both recognize you for what you are?
>
> Who said anything about the disagreement being about me.
Given the thread we are holding this discussion in, I asked you the
obvious question. But for laughs, we'll play it your way:) Because we
have never had any real disagreement means we are of a like mind? Is the
rest of the world this black and white to you? Does it not occur to you
that we haven't spent a lot of time communicating about various topics
to make such a black and white statement as you have made above? Or is
the statement actually born of the fact that we both see you for what
you are and challenged you on it? Take your choice, Snit:) Reality check
and BIG hint for Snit: The one topic we HAVE spent time on and agreed
about is... wait for it... YOU. This just happens to be the topic that
this thread owes it existence to. I haven't had 'real disagreemment'
with many of the posters that have come through here. Do I share a
single brain with them, as well, oh obsessive one?
> You see, I do not
> see all of Usenet to be about me... as you have just shown yourself to.
I have? Where? As for your part, you have amply shown you must be in the
spotlight.
> You and Elizabot are obsessed, to the point that you just showed you think
> *everything* you two could possibly discuss or disagree about would be about
> me.
I dunno about Elizabot but I'm just giving you what you want... NG fun.
> I am not that important, Steve... really. I am just one person. Why you
> two are so obsessed is just... weird.
Yeah... and your webpage about me shows just how weird *I* am. LOL!
Steve
Snit
> In article <BCCA3EC3.4FD18%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
>> fretwizz-35D057...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 9:00 AM:
>>
>>> In article <BCCA2D55.4FCD3%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is clear you do not know him - there are many places we disagree. The
>>>> claim that we stick up for each other has been shown to be false. Hey,
>>>> here is a test: can you find any post where the Steve's and Elizabot have
>>>> real disagreement? Seems they share a single brain.
>>>
>>> Why? Because we both recognize you for what you are?
>>
>> Who said anything about the disagreement being about me.
>
> Given the thread we are holding this discussion in, I asked you the
> obvious question.
Nashton and I mostly agree about you... we disagree elsewhere. Based on the
*context* and the *content* you still blew it and showed your obsession with
me.
> But for laughs, we'll play it your way:)
My way is the honest way... and you just laugh about it. That in itself is
telling.
> Because we have never had any real disagreement means we are of a like mind?
> Is the rest of the world this black and white to you? Does it not occur to you
> that we haven't spent a lot of time communicating about various topics to make
> such a black and white statement as you have made above? Or is the statement
> actually born of the fact that we both see you for what you are and challenged
> you on it? Take your choice, Snit:) Reality check and BIG hint for Snit: The
> one topic we HAVE spent time on and agreed about is... wait for it... YOU.
> This just happens to be the topic that this thread owes it existence to. I
> haven't had 'real disagreemment' with many of the posters that have come
> through here. Do I share a single brain with them, as well, oh obsessive one?
In other words, you can not point to where you have and Elizabot have ever
disagreed. You two seem to share one brain... mob mentality at least.
>
>> You see, I do not
>> see all of Usenet to be about me... as you have just shown yourself to.
>
>
> I have? Where? As for your part, you have amply shown you must be in the
> spotlight.
LOL... your obsession with me is based on my wanting the spot light? LOL...
that is funny... if you think that, why do you keep giving it to me? Oh,
yeah, because you are a poor misunderstood troll hunter.
>
>> You and Elizabot are obsessed, to the point that you just showed you think
>> *everything* you two could possibly discuss or disagree about would be about
>> me.
>
> I dunno about Elizabot but I'm just giving you what you want... NG fun.
Is that how you justify your lying... today? You seem to have a new
justification for your lies and attacks every other day...
>
>> I am not that important, Steve... really. I am just one person. Why you
>> two are so obsessed is just... weird.
>
> Yeah... and your webpage about me shows just how weird *I* am. LOL!
Is that what this is all about to you? The fact that I showed how much of a
lying scumbag you are ... to the extent that you refer to a page filled with
quotes from you as a page filled with lies.
Steve Mackay
My bet is you will never post a shred of proof.
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-B9766D...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 8:46 AM:
>
<snip>
>> In fact, I
>> don't believe anything you have written on the internet.
>
> Of course not... those that habitually lie assume others are doing the same.
> Remember how I have shown that the way you "get" me is to take advantage of
> my open and honest nature... I assume that others are as I am - open and
> honest - and you assume others are all lying.
But snit, you are lying. You know it, _everyone_ but your ass licking side
kick doesn't realize it. You've yet to answer my question concerning this
supposed "hack" to you. Because either way you answer it, you've lied. So
which one was it?
a.) You lied about the "hacking" attempt, since nobody knew your IP
address.
b.) You lied about the email you sent me, and that is your IP address in
the email.
c.) all of the above.
So just answer the question. Just a simple A B or C. My guess is you'll
not answer this question whatsoever, And either try to steer around it, or
create yet another conspiracy theory.
Steve Mackay
> Steve Mackay wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 May 2004 22:02:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>By now you should have the e-mail from your ISP.
>>
>>
>> Nope, that is, if you're talking about me.
>>
>>
>>>Until now I did not find
>>>it worthwhile to do anything about your Sigmond claims -
>>
>>
>> That is because you *ARE* sigmond, and I have all the proof needed. But
>> hey, the facts have never gotten in the way of you telling more lies.
>
> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
> that 2+2=4?
I've never commented on this silly 2+2=4
> You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
No, I will however approach him on his lies. Ignore what you will, I don't
really care.
LOL, okay........
> EBot: Biggest tease, biatch to hit csma
What was that you said about profanities?
> "Show me" Baker and well as for poor Wally, not much to brag about
> there. Sandman:
And you're the model of CSMA, eh 'lil nicky?
> I was surprised to see him also attack Snit, but he's
> shown his lack of objectivity by refusing to admit he's a troll by his
> very own criteria.
I've never seen Sandman "attack" Snit. However I have seen him confront
him. This does show how you will defend Snit on anything. And you've shown
your lack of objectivity by ignoring snit's many lies, and deceptions,
while blindly following him around, defending him.
> Edwin? Never read any of his posts that demonstrated that he sided with
> you.
I never said he sided with me. Do you join snit in reading what you want
into things? I did say he's caught Snit in lies. But then again, who
hasn't?
> But lying seems to flow naturally from you, as do profanities,
> insults and a general feeling that you are *one* *very* miserable
> individual.
Actually, I am quite happy. Just because I see you as Snit's ass licking
sidekick doesn't make _me_ miserable.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-C9B743...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 9:39 AM:
>
> > In article <BCCA3EC3.4FD18%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> > Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> >> fretwizz-35D057...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 9:00 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <BCCA2D55.4FCD3%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> >>> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> (snip)
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It is clear you do not know him - there are many places we disagree.
> >>>> The
> >>>> claim that we stick up for each other has been shown to be false. Hey,
> >>>> here is a test: can you find any post where the Steve's and Elizabot
> >>>> have
> >>>> real disagreement? Seems they share a single brain.
> >>>
> >>> Why? Because we both recognize you for what you are?
> >>
> >> Who said anything about the disagreement being about me.
> >
> > Given the thread we are holding this discussion in, I asked you the
> > obvious question.
>
> Nashton and I mostly agree about you... we disagree elsewhere. Based on the
> *context* and the *content* you still blew it and showed your obsession with
> me.
So what that you two agree? It's irrelevant because you are the person
who made the statement to me, not the other way around. This is a poor
smokescreen, even for you.
> > But for laughs, we'll play it your way:)
>
> My way is the honest way... and you just laugh about it. That in itself is
> telling.
>
> > Because we have never had any real disagreement means we are of a like
> > mind?
> > Is the rest of the world this black and white to you? Does it not occur to
> > you
> > that we haven't spent a lot of time communicating about various topics to
> > make
> > such a black and white statement as you have made above? Or is the
> > statement
> > actually born of the fact that we both see you for what you are and
> > challenged
> > you on it? Take your choice, Snit:) Reality check and BIG hint for Snit:
> > The
> > one topic we HAVE spent time on and agreed about is... wait for it... YOU.
> > This just happens to be the topic that this thread owes it existence to. I
> > haven't had 'real disagreemment' with many of the posters that have come
> > through here. Do I share a single brain with them, as well, oh obsessive
> > one?
>
> In other words, you can not point to where you have and Elizabot have ever
> disagreed. You two seem to share one brain... mob mentality at least.
It's irrelevant, oh binary thinker:)
> >> You see, I do not
> >> see all of Usenet to be about me... as you have just shown yourself to.
> >
> >
> > I have? Where? As for your part, you have amply shown you must be in the
> > spotlight.
>
> LOL... your obsession with me is based on my wanting the spot light? LOL...
> that is funny... if you think that, why do you keep giving it to me? Oh,
> yeah, because you are a poor misunderstood troll hunter.
>
> >
> >> You and Elizabot are obsessed, to the point that you just showed you think
> >> *everything* you two could possibly discuss or disagree about would be
> >> about
> >> me.
> >
> > I dunno about Elizabot but I'm just giving you what you want... NG fun.
Nope... I'm going by what you claim all of this is. You remember, your
reason for yanking my chain was to have fun.
> Is that how you justify your lying... today? You seem to have a new
> justification for your lies and attacks every other day...
> >
> >> I am not that important, Steve... really. I am just one person. Why you
> >> two are so obsessed is just... weird.
> >
> > Yeah... and your webpage about me shows just how weird *I* am. LOL!
>
> Is that what this is all about to you? The fact that I showed how much of a
> lying scumbag you are ... to the extent that you refer to a page filled with
> quotes from you as a page filled with lies.
No... I'm having fun, just like you are:)
Steve
Nashton
> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>
>
>>Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>
>
> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me.
I agree. It's a normal human response. They're trying to weisel out of
it by exageration. Like little children compounding a lie with more lies...
In any case, I will
> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
> be good to clear this whole thing up.
They'll be refuting it until the cows come home, knowing the mob.
> At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a court
> room or, well, anything important. You know...
In real life, they strike me as the kind that would put their tail
between their legs and run so fast, their shorts wouldn't have time to
say goodbuy to their behinds;)
Nicolas
Nashton
Shhhh, don't burst his bubble. Judging by the effort and time he's
putting into this, Usenet is his whole Cosmos;)
Nicolas
Sandman
> > Or when I accomodating his request of providing objective criteria for his
> > trolling - he accused me of attacking him.
>
> I asked for objective criteria that included me and excluded you and
> others... you did not provide that.
Two incorrect statements. When being called a troll, you merely asked according
to which objective criteria, you were given that.
The objective criterias of being a troll to which you fit and I do not:
- Starts threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
- Ignoring onslaughts of evidence when proven wrong.
- Creating and maintaining a web page solely devoted to
antagonizing and defaming another poster.
- Quote-scavenging for negative remarks about a poster.
- Disrupting the group by creating numerous off-topic threads.
- Desperately trying to claim that the numerous people that all point at you
calling you a troll are in fact themselves trolls and you are not.
- Making accusation based on made up nonsense instead of actual facts.
- Attempting to forge a NNTP-posting-host in an attempt to antagonize another
poster
- Create one or more sockpuppets
- Attempting to twist posters words to mean something else or the direct
opposite when the intention was crystal clear.
- Intercepting threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
- Reply with total gibberish in attempt to dodge an issue.
I know you won't have the guts to reply to this post in this group as you
didn't have with the last time I dropped it on you.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Mackay
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>
>>
>>>Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>>that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>>persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>>Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>
>>
>> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me.
>
> I agree. It's a normal human response. They're trying to weisel out of
> it by exageration. Like little children compounding a lie with more lies...
Please tell me where _I_ have lied.
>
> In any case, I will
>> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
>> be good to clear this whole thing up.
>
> They'll be refuting it until the cows come home, knowing the mob.
Of course _I_ will. If he does in fact(which I'm not sure, he doesn't
mention which Steve)mean me, it is a lie.
>
>> At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a court
>> room or, well, anything important. You know...
>
> In real life, they strike me as the kind that would put their tail
> between their legs and run so fast, their shorts wouldn't have time to
> say goodbuy to their behinds;)
No, that definately explains you. I would bet my life on it.
Sandman
Nashton <na...@smash.cash> wrote:
> > Not meant as an attack or insult - as I said, I don't know you enough. But
> > you did comment (falsely) about my participations in his trolling threads
> > so I felt that I should do the same.
>
> No. You submitted criteria. You fulfilled said criteria.
Of course I didn't. I just posted some more in a recent post - I fit none of
these criiteria:
- Starts threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
- Ignoring onslaughts of evidence when proven wrong.
- Creating and maintaining a web page solely devoted to
antagonizing and defaming another poster.
- Quote-scavenging for negative remarks about a poster.
- Disrupting the group by creating numerous off-topic threads.
- Desperately trying to claim that the numerous people that all point at you
calling you a troll are in fact themselves trolls and you are not.
- Making accusation based on made up nonsense instead of actual facts.
- Attempting to forge a NNTP-posting-host in an attempt to antagonize another
poster
- Create one or more sockpuppets
- Attempting to twist posters words to mean something else or the direct
opposite when the intention was crystal clear.
- Intercepting threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
- Reply with total gibberish in attempt to dodge an issue.
> You refused to acknowledge above fact.
I'm sorry, Nicolas, but you are wrong.
> Case closed.
I'm glad that this issue is relying on the case being "open" to you or not. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> Let us even assume that what Steve claims is true - that my health problems
> (http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/anxiety) have somehow lead to my doing
> irrational things to somehow upset him. Keep in mind that his claim is
> based on extreme ignorance of what an anxiety disorder is, but let us accept
> his view for a moment... that he has seen what my doctors and others in the
> real world have not and that I have some sort of mental illness that makes
> me do whatever it is he claims I do.
>
> Does that excuse the attacks against me?
Would your mental illness excuse your attacks against other posters here? You
are the one running a web page intended to antagonize a poster on this group.
Steve (mackay, at least, dunno about Carrol) has said some really stupid things
in this group from time to time, which I'm sure he is aware of, but he hasn't -
to my knowledge - created sock puppets or web pages designed to defaming
another poster - as you have.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> > For all I know you have created an online persona over a period of years
> > to garner sympathy for your victim mentality, which may or may not be
> > real. Why do I feel this way? You have gone MUCH further than anyone I
> > have ever seen in the way of trying to destroy your online credibility wrt
> > truth.
>
> I have stood up to you and Elizabot... and you two have gone ballistic and
> gone to such extremes as to leave no doubt about what cretins you are.
Just wanted to point out that that was typical name calling.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-EECF6D...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 9:17 AM:
>
> > In article <BCCA2BD2.4FCCF%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> > Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
> >> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
> >>
> >>> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
> >>> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
> >>> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
> >>> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
> >>
> >> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
> >> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
> >> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
> >> be good to clear this whole thing up.
> >>
> >> At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a court
> >> room or, well, anything important. You know...
> >
> > Missed this the first time. You starting this thread by writing:
> >
> > "I have also contacted our mutual ISP and asked them to remove your
> > account."
> >
> > What's this new line above about contacting the ISP's (as in, MORE than
> > one ISP)?
>
> Talk to Ed... he is the one who did the research for me. I never imagined
> your obsession was as strong as he showed...
LOL!! I saw ed's 'research', Snit:
This post shows even ed believes you are full of it. And what's this
pretense regarding my obsession? You have claimed I had this obsession
for a long time, now you claim it's worse than you previously imagined?
Give it a rest, Mikey. Who do you think you're fooling with your antics?
Do you think this new juvenile trick of yours will accomplish anything
other than to make you look more delusional?
> In any case, as far as I am concerned, until or unless you and the other
> Steve start posting as Sigmond again, or creating new Sock puppets to accuse
> me of, or otherwise go outside the bounds of reasonable decency, the game is
> over.
OK, so you are claiming that we BOTH are sigmond. At least we are
getting somewhere with whom you are blaming in this delusion. I thought
you said the game had gone on long enough and you had proof? Go ahead
and post that proof. Tell my ISP all about. Or is this just another Snit
pile of dung? I have not received any email from my ISP like you claimed
I should have by now and I'd bet my eyes that Steve M hasn't either.
Guess why? Because YOU are sigmond.
Steve
Steve Mackay
Is _this_ what he's talking about, as far as "ed's research"? Does he not
realize that this totally disproves his conspiracy theory? How on earth
could _I_ get an account in Ariz, living in WI?
>
> This post shows even ed believes you are full of it. And what's this
> pretense regarding my obsession? You have claimed I had this obsession
> for a long time, now you claim it's worse than you previously imagined?
> Give it a rest, Mikey. Who do you think you're fooling with your antics?
> Do you think this new juvenile trick of yours will accomplish anything
> other than to make you look more delusional?
>
>> In any case, as far as I am concerned, until or unless you and the other
>> Steve start posting as Sigmond again, or creating new Sock puppets to accuse
>> me of, or otherwise go outside the bounds of reasonable decency, the game is
>> over.
>
> OK, so you are claiming that we BOTH are sigmond. At least we are
> getting somewhere with whom you are blaming in this delusion. I thought
> you said the game had gone on long enough and you had proof? Go ahead
> and post that proof. Tell my ISP all about. Or is this just another Snit
> pile of dung? I have not received any email from my ISP like you claimed
> I should have by now and I'd bet my eyes that Steve M hasn't either.
> Guess why? Because YOU are sigmond.
>
> Steve
I've not been contacted by any ISP. And I'd bet my life I wont ever
concerning this issue. He'd get laughed at by any ISP complaint
department. Since neither one of us has created sockpuppets like he
falsely claims.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-486861...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 9:03 AM:
>
> > In article <BCCA2BD2.4FCCF%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> > Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
> >> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
> >>
> >>> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
> >>> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
> >>> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
> >>> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
> >>
> >> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
> >> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
> >> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
> >> be good to clear this whole thing up.
> >
> > So clear it up. If you're not sigmond and have proof, why waste time
> > with all this posturing? Oh, that's right... you like the spotlight on
> > you and don't want to give it up so quickly.
>
> I will not go against the wishes of the ISP's in question.
IOW, like everything else you post, this was just another pile of shit.
Gee, color me shocked.
>
> Do you really think people care enough about this silliness of yours to get
> some spot light? I do not.
> >
> >> At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a court
> >> room or, well, anything important. You know...
> >
> > No... tell us:)
>
> I have... repeatedly. Steve - csma is not a court room. You need to accept
> that.
Only one problem for you here... I never stated that csma was a
courtroom. That you feel compelled to continually remind people of
realities you think they don't realize speaks volumes about your
propensity to project your non-realities onto others:)
Steve
Snit
pan.2004.05.14...@hotmail.com on 5/14/04 12:26 PM:
While I have been asked to not post the copy, I have the e-mails that claim
otherwise... I suppose the ISP's could be lying / wrong.
In any case, I seriously doubt you will post as Sigmond again. And you will,
of course, remain in denial mode.
As long as the stupidity stops, I am happy.
Seems I won. :)
Snit
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:13:38 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
>> fretwizz-B9766D...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 8:46 AM:
>>
> <snip>
>
>>> In fact, I
>>> don't believe anything you have written on the internet.
>>
>> Of course not... those that habitually lie assume others are doing the same.
>> Remember how I have shown that the way you "get" me is to take advantage of
>> my open and honest nature... I assume that others are as I am - open and
>> honest - and you assume others are all lying.
>
> But snit, you are lying. You know it, _everyone_ but your ass licking side
> kick doesn't realize it. You've yet to answer my question concerning this
> supposed "hack" to you. Because either way you answer it, you've lied. So
> which one was it?
>
> a.) You lied about the "hacking" attempt, since nobody knew your IP
> address.
> b.) You lied about the email you sent me, and that is your IP address in
> the email.
> c.) all of the above.
Neither... your straw men do not concern me.
>
> So just answer the question. Just a simple A B or C. My guess is you'll
> not answer this question whatsoever, And either try to steer around it, or
> create yet another conspiracy theory.
>
>
>
--
Snit
Bw8pc.40087$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 11:49 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>
>>
>>> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>
>>
>> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me.
>
> I agree. It's a normal human response. They're trying to weisel out of
> it by exageration. Like little children compounding a lie with more lies...
>
> In any case, I will
>> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
>> be good to clear this whole thing up.
>
> They'll be refuting it until the cows come home, knowing the mob.
Hmmm, before I contact the ISP's, this brings up a good question: what would
I need to produce to have them admit to their lies?
Steves: it is up to you... what evidence do you want me to post to show your
lies in this whole thing. I will ask the ISP's to send me whatever you
want.
>
>> At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a court
>> room or, well, anything important. You know...
>
> In real life, they strike me as the kind that would put their tail
> between their legs and run so fast, their shorts wouldn't have time to
> say goodbuy to their behinds;)
>
> Nicolas
>
--
Alan Baker
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
Only in your pathetic mind, Sigmond.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Snit
on 5/14/04 11:56 AM:
> In article <BCCA2D55.4FCD3%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>> Or when I accomodating his request of providing objective criteria for his
>>> trolling - he accused me of attacking him.
>>
>> I asked for objective criteria that included me and excluded you and
>> others... you did not provide that.
>
> Two incorrect statements. When being called a troll, you merely asked
> according
> to which objective criteria, you were given that.
>
> The objective criterias of being a troll to which you fit and I do not:
>
> - Starts threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
You post to threads with that sole intention. Why the distinction?
> - Ignoring onslaughts of evidence when proven wrong.
Fits you to a tee. And does not fit me.
> - Creating and maintaining a web page solely devoted to
> antagonizing and defaming another poster.
Well, OK.
> - Quote-scavenging for negative remarks about a poster.
Can you prove that? (see if you get the irony)
> - Disrupting the group by creating numerous off-topic threads.
What is off topic in csma?
> - Desperately trying to claim that the numerous people that all point at you
> calling you a troll are in fact themselves trolls and you are not.
When have I denied my trolling - as you have. Seems you lying make you the
bigger troll though...
> - Making accusation based on made up nonsense instead of actual facts.
LOL... so you get to decide truth...
> - Attempting to forge a NNTP-posting-host in an attempt to antagonize another
> poster
Well, he did dare me... but yeah...
> - Create one or more sockpuppets
Brock McNuggets?
> - Attempting to twist posters words to mean something else or the direct
> opposite when the intention was crystal clear.
Are you claiming Steve does not do this? How about just snipping the
*entire* content of the post you are responding to... you do that.
Hmmmm....
> - Intercepting threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
You again.
> - Reply with total gibberish in attempt to dodge an issue.
Hmmm, have you done that? Not sure... but when have I ever done that to
"dodge an issue". I do that from time to time when an issue is beaten to
death...
>
> I know you won't have the guts to reply to this post in this group as you
> didn't have with the last time I dropped it on you.
There... another lie from you. Welcome to the troll club.
Snit
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:49:05 +0000, Nashton wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>>> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>>> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>>> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>>> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>>> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me.
>>
>> I agree. It's a normal human response. They're trying to weisel out of
>> it by exageration. Like little children compounding a lie with more lies...
>
> Please tell me where _I_ have lied.
Do you not know? If so, that tells us how deep your sickness goes.. or,
more likely, how much you are just playing around on Usenet.
Steve Mackay
uh huh, tell us some more there mikey.
>
> In any case, I seriously doubt you will post as Sigmond again.
Why would I post as your sockpuppet? I never have in the past.
> And you will,
> of course, remain in denial mode.
Yes, I will continue to truthfully deny your lies.
>
> As long as the stupidity stops, I am happy.
You're going stop posting!!!???! Please don't get my hopes up like that.
>
> Seems I won. :)
More empty victories?
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> In fact, I don't believe anything you have written on the internet.
> >>
> >> Of course not... those that habitually lie assume others are doing the
> >> same. Remember how I have shown that the way you "get" me is to take
> >> advantage of my open and honest nature... I assume that others are as I
> >> am - open and honest - and you assume others are all lying.
> >
> > But snit, you are lying. You know it, _everyone_ but your ass licking side
> > kick doesn't realize it. You've yet to answer my question concerning this
> > supposed "hack" to you. Because either way you answer it, you've lied. So
> > which one was it?
> >
> > a.) You lied about the "hacking" attempt, since nobody knew your IP
> > address. b.) You lied about the email you sent me, and that is your IP
> > address in the email. c.) all of the above.
>
> Neither... your straw men do not concern me.
What is your ip?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> > The objective criterias of being a troll to which you fit and I do not:
> >
> > - Starts threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
>
> You post to threads with that sole intention.
Incorrect.
> > - Ignoring onslaughts of evidence when proven wrong.
>
> Fits you to a tee. And does not fit me.
Incorrect.
> > - Creating and maintaining a web page solely devoted to
> > antagonizing and defaming another poster.
>
> Well, OK.
>
> > - Quote-scavenging for negative remarks about a poster.
>
> Can you prove that? (see if you get the irony)
Is that an actual request?
> > - Disrupting the group by creating numerous off-topic threads.
>
> What is off topic in csma?
Your agenda.
> > - Desperately trying to claim that the numerous people that all point at
> > you calling you a troll are in fact themselves trolls and you are not.
>
> When have I denied my trolling
Above.
> > - Making accusation based on made up nonsense instead of actual facts.
>
> LOL... so you get to decide truth...
No, facts does that.
> > - Attempting to forge a NNTP-posting-host in an attempt to antagonize
> > another poster
>
> Well, he did dare me... but yeah...
>
> > - Create one or more sockpuppets
>
> Brock McNuggets?
Sigmond is the only one I have proof of.
> > - Attempting to twist posters words to mean something else or the direct
> > opposite when the intention was crystal clear.
>
> Are you claiming Steve does not do this?
Steve is irrelevant.
> > - Intercepting threads with the sole intention to antagonize another
> > poster.
>
> You again.
Incorrect.
> > - Reply with total gibberish in attempt to dodge an issue.
>
> Hmmm, have you done that? Not sure... but when have I ever done that to
> "dodge an issue". I do that from time to time when an issue is beaten to
> death...
Incorrect.
You didn't refute a single objective criteria.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Mackay
Thanks for proving my point.
Steve Mackay
Come on, tell me specificly where I've lied.
Elizabot
> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>
>
>>Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>
>
> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
> be good to clear this whole thing up.
I've been humiliated?
You really *are* delusional!
Let me guess. You contacted some ISPs with false claims and now you are
in trouble.
[snip]
Elizabot
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
>
>
>>In article <BCCA2BD2.4FCCF%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
>>
>>
>>>"Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>>>gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>>>that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>>>persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>>>Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>>
>>>It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>>>before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
>>>contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
>>>be good to clear this whole thing up.
>>>
>>>room or, well, anything important. You know...
>>
>>Missed this the first time. You starting this thread by writing:
>>
>>"I have also contacted our mutual ISP and asked them to remove your
>>account."
>>
>>What's this new line above about contacting the ISP's (as in, MORE than
>>one ISP)?
>
>
> Talk to Ed... he is the one who did the research for me.
Interesting. I used arin to track you down and you say I'm obsessed. Ed
used arin to get the same information I did and you call it research.
I don't really expect you to understand the irony in this.
[snip]
Elizabot
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-35D057...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 9:00 AM:
>
>
>>In article <BCCA2D55.4FCD3%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
>>Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>
>>>It is clear you do not know him - there are many places we disagree. The
>>>claim that we stick up for each other has been shown to be false. Hey, here
>>>is a test: can you find any post where the Steve's and Elizabot have real
>>>disagreement? Seems they share a single brain.
>>
>>Why? Because we both recognize you for what you are?
>
>
> Who said anything about the disagreement being about me. You see, I do not
> see all of Usenet to be about me... as you have just shown yourself to. You
> and Elizabot are obsessed, to the point that you just showed you think
> *everything* you two could possibly discuss or disagree about would be about
> me.
>
> I am not that important, Steve... really. I am just one person. Why you
> two are so obsessed is just... weird.
>
> <snip>
Snit: Exchange all your troll points to buy a clue and then get a life.
Elizabot
> Sandman wrote:
>
>> In article <gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
>> Nashton <na...@smash.cash> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I've never posted as Sigmond, Steve C. hasn't posted as Sigmond. You're
>>>> just pissed because you've been caught in one too many lies by Steve C,
>>>> Elizabot, ed, Sandman, Edmin, foo, Wally, Alan Baker, and
>>>> myself(appologies to the other's I've forgotten).
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve CD: Probably another one of your personae.
>>> EBot: Biggest tease, biatch to hit csma
>>> "Show me" Baker and well as for poor Wally, not much to brag about
>>> there.
>>> Sandman: I was surprised to see him also attack Snit, but he's shown
>>> his lack of objectivity by refusing to admit he's a troll by his very
>>> own criteria.
>>
>>
>>
>> I haven't attacked anyone. Michael asked me for objective criteria and
>> I gave it to him, there is nothing more to it. I also predicted what
>> would happen if I did, which turned out to be quite correct.
>>
>> Michael has answered with such nonsense that if one replies to a
>> trolling post, you're trolling. Or when I accomodating his request of
>> attacking him.
>>
>> with you to form a grounded opinion about you. But I find it odd to
>> say the least that you (alone) are sticking up for Michael no matter
>> what. I think I've mentioned before that the reason might be that you
>> and Michael share "enemies" in here and you support him for that. But
>> when Michael does things like create a sockpuppet and then lie about
>> it, or tries to forge a NNTP-posting-host to attack another poster,
>> and you still blindedly follows him around like a little dog
>> supporting him one starts to wonder.
>>
>> Not meant as an attack or insult - as I said, I don't know you enough.
>> But you did comment (falsely) about my participations in his trolling
>> threads so I felt that I should do the same.
>
>
> aknowledge above fact. Case closed.
Usenet is not a court!
> I do not form opinions based on mob mentality. There has been no
> evidence presented that is rigorous enough or objective enough in order
> for me to form an opinion about the matter, in fact, the only "evidence"
> presented was from a party that has shown his(their) lack of class,
> character and propensity for profanity since this whole thing started,
> not to mention his extreme hatred for Snit. Now you're saying that it's
> odd that I'm the only one that agrees with Snit because we share the
> same "enemies". Did it ever occur to you that we share "enemies" because
> we disagree on whether Snit is what this mob alleges him to be? OTOH,
> you fail to see that evidence presented by Steve(s) is wanting and that
> he(they) have more of a motive to lie about Snit than I have to side
> with him.
> Take a look within yourself and tell me that this whole thing hasn't
> left a bitter taste in everybody's mouth. Steve(s) has been so
> malicious, so childish and profane in his persecution of Snit, that one
> would believe Snit killed his cat or did him(them) some irreparable
> harm. When will this nonsense end and when will serious posters such as
> you realize that nobody deserves to be treated this way, no matter how
> good it makes Steeve(s) feel to be a bully or to what degree it is
> therapeutic to his(their) apparently booooring existence.
>
> Nicolas
Congratulatons!
I don't recall you ever having made such a lengthy post without
slandering me!!!
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
LOL! I missed that one when I read it earlier. Good point.
> I don't really expect you to understand the irony in this.
He definitely won't. BTW, are you we share the same brain? Well, it's
true, ask Snit... the logic being that we haven't had a real
disagreement like Snit has had with Nashton. That's all it took and we
are crowded in the cranium all to hell. Can you imagine:)
Steve
Steve Mackay
Nuh uh! I can't imagine! There, Snit should be happy. We've had a
disagreement :)
Elizabot
I disagree. ;-)
> Well, it's
> true, ask Snit... the logic being that we haven't had a real
> disagreement like Snit has had with Nashton.
Apparently Snit doesn't understand that some people do not feel a need
to be combative all the time.
> That's all it took and we
> are crowded in the cranium all to hell. Can you imagine:)
Not really. I suspect it's another of his projections.
Snit
> In article <BCCA3F19.4FD19%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
>> fretwizz-486861...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 9:03 AM:
>>
>>> In article <BCCA2BD2.4FCCF%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>>>> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>>>> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>>>> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>>>> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>>>
>>>> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>>>> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
>>>> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
>>>> be good to clear this whole thing up.
>>>
>>> So clear it up. If you're not sigmond and have proof, why waste time
>>> with all this posturing? Oh, that's right... you like the spotlight on
>>> you and don't want to give it up so quickly.
>>
>> I will not go against the wishes of the ISP's in question.
>
> IOW, like everything else you post, this was just another pile of shit.
> Gee, color me shocked.
What makes you think I wish to go against what any representatives of any
ISP has specifically and directly asked me to do?
>
>>
>> Do you really think people care enough about this silliness of yours to get
>> some spot light? I do not.
>>>
>>>> At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a court
>>>> room or, well, anything important. You know...
>>>
>>> No... tell us:)
>>
>> I have... repeatedly. Steve - csma is not a court room. You need to accept
>> that.
>
> Only one problem for you here... I never stated that csma was a
> courtroom.
You have repeated *treated* it as such, so much that you decided what the
"jury" would think about some argument, and then decided what this
mythological jury would have some doubt... this you thought was a logical
refutation... it was not... it was your delusion. There was no jury. There
was no court room. These are things you have repeatedly insisted on - as
that is the only way your claimed "trick" makes any sense.
> That you feel compelled to continually remind people of
> realities you think they don't realize speaks volumes about your
> propensity to project your non-realities onto others:)
Steve, this is what this whole thing is all about. I humiliated you by
repeatedly pointing out your lies with regards to the Bush argument... and
so you created Sigmond to get revenge. You are not smart enough to do this
yourself, so you had some people help you. It is not hard to see...
Snit
on 5/14/04 12:44 PM:
Not one I care to share... why do you ask?
Snit
on 5/14/04 12:48 PM:
> In article <BCCA6EBF.4FD99%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>> The objective criterias of being a troll to which you fit and I do not:
>>>
>>> - Starts threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
>>
>> You post to threads with that sole intention.
>
> Incorrect.
I did a little searching on this... here are some examples:
Message-ID: <mr-DBD415.10...@individual.net>
Message-ID: <mr-413F6B.22...@individual.net>
Message-ID: <mr-D0583F.09...@individual.net>
Message-ID: <mr-4A3C74.09...@individual.net>
Message-ID: <mr-502315.22...@individual.net>
Message-ID: <mr-011588.22...@individual.net>
Message-ID: <mr-7AF3F6.22...@individual.net>
Message-ID: <mr-257F06.12...@individual.net>
And some older ones
Message-ID: <mr-31DD61.08...@news.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <mr-995047.12...@news.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <mr-4C1F7E.08...@news.fu-berlin.de>
In fact, when I did a search on your posts, I found that many threads you
entered you did so for the clear purpose of antagonizing... not all... but
at least half of the ones I checked.
You are clearly lying here...
>
>>> - Ignoring onslaughts of evidence when proven wrong.
>>
>> Fits you to a tee. And does not fit me.
>
> Incorrect.
I have just posted evidence that proves you wrong. Will you ignore it and
continue your denial?
>
>>> - Creating and maintaining a web page solely devoted to
>>> antagonizing and defaming another poster.
>>
>> Well, OK.
>>
>>> - Quote-scavenging for negative remarks about a poster.
>>
>> Can you prove that? (see if you get the irony)
>
> Is that an actual request?
Yes, please... of course, to do so, you will need to quote-scavenge for
negative remarks about me. But yes, I would like to see your evidence to
support this claim, and then I will also enjoy you trying to claim you have
not done so. All will amuse me.
>
>>> - Disrupting the group by creating numerous off-topic threads.
>>
>> What is off topic in csma?
>
> Your agenda.
And what agenda do you think I have? Seems this vague answering with
insults is a clear form of trolling. Will you still deny you are trolling?
>
>>> - Desperately trying to claim that the numerous people that all point at
>>> you calling you a troll are in fact themselves trolls and you are not.
>>
>> When have I denied my trolling
>
> Above.
Where?
>
>>> - Making accusation based on made up nonsense instead of actual facts.
>>
>> LOL... so you get to decide truth...
>
> No, facts does that.
Facts as you see them?
>
>>> - Attempting to forge a NNTP-posting-host in an attempt to antagonize
>>> another poster
>>
>> Well, he did dare me... but yeah...
>>
>>> - Create one or more sockpuppets
>>
>> Brock McNuggets?
>
> Sigmond is the only one I have proof of.
How did Steve get into this conversation? The implications of your comments
are an insult and, dare I say, a trolling. You are trolling.
>
>>> - Attempting to twist posters words to mean something else or the direct
>>> opposite when the intention was crystal clear.
>>
>> Are you claiming Steve does not do this?
>
> Steve is irrelevant.
Well, yes he is. Why do you keep brining him up?
>
>>> - Intercepting threads with the sole intention to antagonize another
>>> poster.
>>
>> You again.
>
> Incorrect.
Look at the list above... will you continue to lie and deny the overwhelming
evidence? Will you continue to troll?
>
>>> - Reply with total gibberish in attempt to dodge an issue.
>>
>> Hmmm, have you done that? Not sure... but when have I ever done that to
>> "dodge an issue". I do that from time to time when an issue is beaten to
>> death...
>
> Incorrect.
Your claim does not make a case... can you support anything you ever say, or
do you *just* troll?
>
> You didn't refute a single objective criteria.
LOL... based on your view of the facts? The "facts" as seen by someone who
is clearly trolling *and* lying about it? You will need to actually
*support* your claims if you want to make a case (and, no, Steve, I do not
mean a court case....)
Snit
You had one?
Snit
Do you really not know? Really? Come on... you tell us. Don't tell me
that you can not think of *one* place where you have lied...
I do not accept that you are really that delusional.
Snit
40a53d11$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 2:41 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>
>>
>>> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>
>>
>> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
>> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
>> be good to clear this whole thing up.
>
> I've been humiliated?
Yes.
>
> You really *are* delusional!
>
> Let me guess. You contacted some ISPs with false claims and now you are
> in trouble.
What trouble am I in? What are you talking about?
>
> [snip]
Snit
40a53d15$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 2:41 PM:
Did you make that up all by yourself or find it on one of those cleverl
insult pages on the net?
Snit
40a53d13$0$207$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 2:41 PM:
Do you not understand the concept of context?
>
> I don't really expect you to understand the irony in this.
I do not expect you to admit to your obsession, though it is very clear.
>
> [snip]
Snit
40a53d1a$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 2:41 PM:
I see you suffer from the same delusion Steve does, where you think any
reference to a "case" involves a court room.
You two do not even disagree about your extreme delusions...
Snit
Wow... you two agree about another comment that is irrational. What a
surprise....
group think at its finest!
Snit
40a559cc$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 4:44 PM:
> Apparently Snit doesn't understand that some people do not feel a need
> to be combative all the time.
This may be the most ironic comment I have ever seen on Usenet. I mean...
really.
Steve Mackay
I didn't think you could.
Steve Mackay
Evasion, typical troll tactic. You can't answer them, because answering
the questions would prove you're a liar in any case.
Snit
alangbaker-545D6...@news.telus.net on 5/14/04 12:39 PM:
> In article <BCCA6D28.4FD90%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> pan.2004.05.14...@hotmail.com on 5/14/04 12:26 PM:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 May 2004 19:16:04 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <BCCA4071.4FD1F%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
>>>> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
>>>>> fretwizz-EECF6D...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 9:17 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <BCCA2BD2.4FCCF%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
>>>>>> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>>>>>>> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>>>>>>> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>>>>>>> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>>>>>>> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be good to clear this whole thing up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a
>>>>>>> court
>>>>>>> room or, well, anything important. You know...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Missed this the first time. You starting this thread by writing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I have also contacted our mutual ISP and asked them to remove your
>>>>>> account."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's this new line above about contacting the ISP's (as in, MORE than
>>>>>> one ISP)?
>>>>>
>> In any case, I seriously doubt you will post as Sigmond again. And you will,
>> of course, remain in denial mode.
>>
>> As long as the stupidity stops, I am happy.
>>
>> Seems I won. :)
>
> Only in your pathetic mind, Sigmond.
Seems that Sigmond is gone... and that Steve knows better than to post with
that name again.
Seems we should all be happy.
Snit
> uh huh, tell us some more there mikey.
I have been telling you, and others, for quite some time. Why not listen?
>
>>
>> In any case, I seriously doubt you will post as Sigmond again.
>
>
> Why would I post as your sockpuppet? I never have in the past.
No, but you have posted as Sigmond, which was the topic. How did Brock
McNuggets enter the conversation?
>
>> And you will,
>> of course, remain in denial mode.
>
> Yes, I will continue to truthfully deny your lies.
See... you are in denial mode. Try honesty for a change... hey... wasn't it
you asking for examples of your lies... here you go. That was easy.
>
>>
>> As long as the stupidity stops, I am happy.
>
> You're going stop posting!!!???! Please don't get my hopes up like that.
Wow... meaningless insults from you. Who would have guessed!
>
>>
>> Seems I won. :)
>
> More empty victories?
well, beating you and your buddies is pretty empty. :)
Snit
on 5/14/04 12:14 PM:
> In article <BCCA2FA6.4FCE2%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> Let us even assume that what Steve claims is true - that my health problems
>> (http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/anxiety) have somehow lead to my doing
>> irrational things to somehow upset him. Keep in mind that his claim is
>> based on extreme ignorance of what an anxiety disorder is, but let us accept
>> his view for a moment... that he has seen what my doctors and others in the
>> real world have not and that I have some sort of mental illness that makes
>> me do whatever it is he claims I do.
>>
>> Does that excuse the attacks against me?
>
> Would your mental illness excuse your attacks against other posters here? You
> are the one running a web page intended to antagonize a poster on this group.
Is that what this is all about to you? My little site about Steve's lies
and immoral behavior?
As far as my health problems, they are tied to a faulty heart valve and a
dysfunctional autonomic nervous system, if you care.
>
> Steve (mackay, at least, dunno about Carrol) has said some really stupid
> things in this group from time to time, which I'm sure he is aware of, but he
> hasn't - to my knowledge - created sock puppets or web pages designed to
> defaming another poster - as you have.
Well, I have created the web page... so if you want to hold that against me,
so be it.
As far as the Steve's, I actually see Mackay as the *much* more reasonable
and honorable of the two... Carroll is just a not-so-bright bully.
Snit
>> I do not accept that you are really that delusional.
>
> I didn't think you could.
>
Ok... I guess I do accept that you are that delusional.
Seems you win a point. :)
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 40a53d11$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 2:41 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>"Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>>>gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>>>that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>>>persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>>>Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>>
>>>
>>>It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>>>before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
>>>contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
>>>be good to clear this whole thing up.
>>
>>I've been humiliated?
>
>
> Yes.
Nope.
>>You really *are* delusional!
>>
>>Let me guess. You contacted some ISPs with false claims and now you are
>>in trouble.
>
>
> What trouble am I in? What are you talking about?
The trouble you've gotten yourself in.
Elizabot
Boring!
Elizabot
Yep. Do you understand that you are a psychopath who has been stalking
me on the internet and harassing me and that having your location could
be useful?
>>I don't really expect you to understand the irony in this.
>
>
> I do not expect you to admit to your obsession, though it is very clear.
Blah, blah, blah.
If you are going to continue to troll here, then you should drop your sig.
Elizabot
I see you are sarcasm impaired.
> You two do not even disagree about your extreme delusions...
Not even original.
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 40a559cc$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 4:44 PM:
>
>
>>Apparently Snit doesn't understand that some people do not feel a need
>>to be combative all the time.
>
>
> This may be the most ironic comment I have ever seen on Usenet. I mean...
> really.
You are just jealous because I do not argue with the Steves.
Elizabot
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in mr-CB5E50.21...@individual.net
> on 5/14/04 12:14 PM:
>
>
>>In article <BCCA2FA6.4FCE2%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
>>Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Let us even assume that what Steve claims is true - that my health problems
>>>(http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/anxiety) have somehow lead to my doing
>>>irrational things to somehow upset him. Keep in mind that his claim is
>>>based on extreme ignorance of what an anxiety disorder is, but let us accept
>>>his view for a moment... that he has seen what my doctors and others in the
>>>real world have not and that I have some sort of mental illness that makes
>>>me do whatever it is he claims I do.
>>>
>>>Does that excuse the attacks against me?
>>
>>Would your mental illness excuse your attacks against other posters here? You
>>are the one running a web page intended to antagonize a poster on this group.
>
>
> Is that what this is all about to you? My little site about Steve's lies
> and immoral behavior?
>
> As far as my health problems, they are tied to a faulty heart valve and a
> dysfunctional autonomic nervous system, if you care.
Do you think that beahving as you are in here is healthy for you?
Snit
LOL... yeah... and care to answer where your EXIF data evidence went? Oh
yeah... you lost it... I mean you threw it away on purpose!
Too funny...
The funny thing with the hacking comment above is that you immediately
jumped in and assumed it was about you... why is that?
As far as any further comment about it, I have shared it with the ISP's that
needed to know and have agreed to not discuss it on Usenet.
But I assume you had figured that out from the e-mails you have gotten from
the ISP's themselves.
Snit
40a56807$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 5:44 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>> 40a53d11$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 2:41 PM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>>>> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>>>> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>>>> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>>>> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>>>> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
>>>> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
>>>> be good to clear this whole thing up.
>>>
>>> I've been humiliated?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Nope.
Yes squared.
>
>>> You really *are* delusional!
>>>
>>> Let me guess. You contacted some ISPs with false claims and now you are
>>> in trouble.
>>
>>
>> What trouble am I in? What are you talking about?
>
> The trouble you've gotten yourself in.
What trouble is that?
Snit
40a5680f$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 5:45 PM:
Termites!
Elizabot
Yet here you are talking about it on Usenet. Go figure.
Snit
40a56823$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 5:45 PM:
I see you are back peddling... Again.
>
>> You two do not even disagree about your extreme delusions...
>
> Not even original.
No... that is kinda the point.
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 40a56807$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 5:44 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>>>40a53d11$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 2:41 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>>>>>gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>>>>>that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>>>>>persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>>>>>Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>>>>>before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
>>>>>contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
>>>>>be good to clear this whole thing up.
>>>>
>>>>I've been humiliated?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
> Yes squared.
Nope.
>>>>You really *are* delusional!
>>>>
>>>>Let me guess. You contacted some ISPs with false claims and now you are
>>>>in trouble.
>>>
>>>
>>>What trouble am I in? What are you talking about?
>>
>>The trouble you've gotten yourself in.
>
>
>
> What trouble is that?
You should know.
Elizabot
Nope. That's *your* game.
>>>You two do not even disagree about your extreme delusions...
>>
>>Not even original.
>
>
> No... that is kinda the point.
You have no point.
Snit
40a5682c$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 5:45 PM:
Of course you do not... why would you. Would mean the group think engine
would be broken.
Snit
40a56883$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 5:46 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in mr-CB5E50.21...@individual.net
>> on 5/14/04 12:14 PM:
>>
>>
>>> In article <BCCA2FA6.4FCE2%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
>>> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let us even assume that what Steve claims is true - that my health problems
>>>> (http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/anxiety) have somehow lead to my doing
>>>> irrational things to somehow upset him. Keep in mind that his claim is
>>>> based on extreme ignorance of what an anxiety disorder is, but let us
>>>> accept
>>>> his view for a moment... that he has seen what my doctors and others in the
>>>> real world have not and that I have some sort of mental illness that makes
>>>> me do whatever it is he claims I do.
>>>>
>>>> Does that excuse the attacks against me?
>>>
>>> Would your mental illness excuse your attacks against other posters here?
>>> You
>>> are the one running a web page intended to antagonize a poster on this
>>> group.
>>
>>
>> Is that what this is all about to you? My little site about Steve's lies
>> and immoral behavior?
>>
>> As far as my health problems, they are tied to a faulty heart valve and a
>> dysfunctional autonomic nervous system, if you care.
>
> Do you think that beahving as you are in here is healthy for you?
In what way? I think having fun is a good part of health...
>
>>> Steve (mackay, at least, dunno about Carrol) has said some really stupid
>>> things in this group from time to time, which I'm sure he is aware of, but
>>> he
>>> hasn't - to my knowledge - created sock puppets or web pages designed to
>>> defaming another poster - as you have.
>>
>>
>> Well, I have created the web page... so if you want to hold that against me,
>> so be it.
>>
>> As far as the Steve's, I actually see Mackay as the *much* more reasonable
>> and honorable of the two... Carroll is just a not-so-bright bully.
>>
--
Snit
40a56974$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 5:51 PM:
Details you dope.
>
>> But I assume you had figured that out from the e-mails you have gotten from
>> the ISP's themselves.
>>
--
Snit
40a56a52$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 5:54 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>> 40a56807$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 5:44 PM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>>>> 40a53d11$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 2:41 PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>>>>>> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>>>>>> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>>>>>> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>>>>>> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>>>>>> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be good to clear this whole thing up.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been humiliated?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>>
>> Yes squared.
>
> Nope.
Ha ha! Squared is more than just a nope. I win. And no noping from you!
>
>>>>> You really *are* delusional!
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me guess. You contacted some ISPs with false claims and now you are
>>>>> in trouble.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What trouble am I in? What are you talking about?
>>>
>>> The trouble you've gotten yourself in.
>>
>>
>>
>> What trouble is that?
>
> You should know.
I should? Well I do... no trouble at all!
Snit
40a56a88$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/14/04 5:55 PM:
Wow... your arguments used to be at least somewhat meaningful. Did Steve
get mad at you 'cause you were making him look dumb. Um... more dumb?
>
>>>> You two do not even disagree about your extreme delusions...
>>>
>>> Not even original.
>>
>>
>> No... that is kinda the point.
>
> You have no point.
If I have no point, look to see who is stupid enough to argue against "no
point"
Steve Mackay
More evasion from Snit.
I answered your question. I threw them away. You're doing nothing but
avoiding the question.
>
> Too funny...
>
> The funny thing with the hacking comment above is that you immediately
> jumped in and assumed it was about you... why is that?
Has it ever mattered?
>
> As far as any further comment about it, I have shared it with the ISP's that
> needed to know and have agreed to not discuss it on Usenet.
>
While you contacting _anyone's_ ISP is complete bullshit. Are you
admitting I knew your IP address then?
> But I assume you had figured that out from the e-mails you have gotten
> from the ISP's themselves.
LOL, right...
1st you need to contact an ISP, 2nd you need something concrete to contact
them about. Which you have, nor will ever have either. Because I've never
been guilty of the lies you spew.
But, on 2nd thought, I wouldn't put it past you to lie to someone else's
ISP. But they found your "evidence" for what it is... A fabrication, and
wont even bother enough to send me an emai.
Steve Mackay
Why would Steve C. or myself post as your proven sockpuppet? You stopped
posting as Sigmond almost within the hour I busted you on it. After
changing your IP address though.
Snit
>> LOL... yeah... and care to answer where your EXIF data evidence went? Oh
>> yeah... you lost it... I mean you threw it away on purpose!
>
> More evasion from Snit.
How is your claim that you threw away your only "proof" an evasion on my
part?
>
> I answered your question. I threw them away. You're doing nothing but
> avoiding the question.
Why do you expect people to believe your lie?
In order to pretend that your claims make sense, we must agree that:
You spent a moderate to high amount of effort to collect
evidence, were successful in gathering your proof, and
then purposely threw it away because, as you now claim, you
did not care about it.
>>
>> The funny thing with the hacking comment above is that you immediately
>> jumped in and assumed it was about you... why is that?
>
> Has it ever mattered?
Has it ever mattered that you made this assumption? Has it mattered that
this assumption of yours gave far more away than you intended to... sure.
And you claim you never lie... pashaw!
>>
>> As far as any further comment about it, I have shared it with the ISP's that
>> needed to know and have agreed to not discuss it on Usenet.
>
> While you contacting _anyone's_ ISP is complete bullshit. Are you
> admitting I knew your IP address then?
Are you denying it? You have my IP from the *real* e-mail I sent you... not
the one that was posted here.
Here is a quick test: let me see your supposed e-mail from me to examine it
for myself... or did you throw that away, too?
>
>> But I assume you had figured that out from the e-mails you have gotten
>> from the ISP's themselves.
>
> LOL, right...
> 1st you need to contact an ISP, 2nd you need something concrete to contact
> them about. Which you have, nor will ever have either. Because I've never
> been guilty of the lies you spew.
Seems you claimed you had contacted ISP's and that my account was about to
be terminated... that never happened. Once you contacted ISP's, and Ed
provided data that showed your obsession (even if he reads it differently),
it became clear that contacting ISP's myself was in order.
>
> But, on 2nd thought, I wouldn't put it past you to lie to someone else's
> ISP. But they found your "evidence" for what it is... A fabrication, and
> wont even bother enough to send me an emai.
You seem to forget that the ISP's in question can look in their logs for the
proof.
Your game is up. Just as you challenged me, I challenge you and Steve: post
as Sigmond again...
Snit
>> Seems that Sigmond is gone... and that Steve knows better than to post with
>> that name again.
>
> Why would Steve C. or myself post as your proven sockpuppet?
And you claim you never lie. Caught you again. Silly Troll.
> You stopped posting as Sigmond almost within the hour I busted you on it.
> After changing your IP address though.
What IP address was that?
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >> Does that excuse the attacks against me?
> >
> > Would your mental illness excuse your attacks against other posters here?
> > You are the one running a web page intended to antagonize a poster on this
> > group.
>
> Is that what this is all about to you? My little site about Steve's lies
> and immoral behavior?
Given the lengthy objective list of objective criteria why you are a troll -
obviously not.
> As far as my health problems, they are tied to a faulty heart valve and a
> dysfunctional autonomic nervous system, if you care.
I don't.
> > Steve (mackay, at least, dunno about Carrol) has said some really stupid
> > things in this group from time to time, which I'm sure he is aware of, but
> > he hasn't - to my knowledge - created sock puppets or web pages designed
> > to defaming another poster - as you have.
>
> Well, I have created the web page... so if you want to hold that against me,
> so be it.
I.e. you are a troll.
> As far as the Steve's, I actually see Mackay as the *much* more reasonable
> and honorable of the two... Carroll is just a not-so-bright bully.
If I were you, I wouldn't comment about any other persons intelligence.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> The objective criterias of being a troll to which you fit and I do not:
> >>>
> >>> - Starts threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
> >>
> >> You post to threads with that sole intention.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> I did a little searching on this... here are some examples:
>
> Message-ID: <mr-DBD415.10...@individual.net>
My reply to one of your lies about not being Sigmond where I state the fact
that you are Sigmond and that it has been proving.
> Message-ID: <mr-413F6B.22...@individual.net>
Accomodating your request for objective criteria for why you are a troll
> Message-ID: <mr-D0583F.09...@individual.net>
A reply to one of your trolling where I express my lack of understanding.
> Message-ID: <mr-4A3C74.09...@individual.net>
A reply to a trolling of yours where I express my lac of understanding.
> Message-ID: <mr-502315.22...@individual.net>
A request to you to go troll another group instead of this one.
> Message-ID: <mr-011588.22...@individual.net>
Me being upset about you starting to troll here again.
> Message-ID: <mr-7AF3F6.22...@individual.net>
No interception, a first level reply.
You didn't get a single quote right, Michael - do try again.
> > Incorrect.
>
> I have just posted evidence that proves you wrong.
No, you haven't.
> >>> - Quote-scavenging for negative remarks about a poster.
> >>
> >> Can you prove that? (see if you get the irony)
> >
> > Is that an actual request?
>
> Yes, please... of course, to do so, you will need to quote-scavenge for
> negative remarks about me.
Of course not, you have an url to your quote-scvanaging, I only have to mention
it, no scavanging involved.
> >> What is off topic in csma?
> >
> > Your agenda.
>
> And what agenda do you think I have?
To antagonize a number of posters here.
> >>> - Making accusation based on made up nonsense instead of actual facts.
> >>
> >> LOL... so you get to decide truth...
> >
> > No, facts does that.
>
> Facts as you see them?
No.
> >>> - Create one or more sockpuppets
> >>
> >> Brock McNuggets?
> >
> > Sigmond is the only one I have proof of.
>
> How did Steve get into this conversation?
He didn't.
> The implications of your comments
> are an insult and, dare I say, a trolling. You are trolling.
Incorrect, given that I speak the truth.
> >>> - Attempting to twist posters words to mean something else or the direct
> >>> opposite when the intention was crystal clear.
> >>
> >> Are you claiming Steve does not do this?
> >
> > Steve is irrelevant.
>
> Well, yes he is. Why do you keep brining him up?
I don't, you do.
> >>> - Intercepting threads with the sole intention to antagonize another
> >>> poster.
> >>
> >> You again.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Look at the list above... will you continue to lie and deny the overwhelming
> evidence?
There is no evidence above.
> >> Hmmm, have you done that? Not sure... but when have I ever done that to
> >> "dodge an issue". I do that from time to time when an issue is beaten to
> >> death...
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Your claim does not make a case... can you support anything you ever say, or
> do you *just* troll?
I've always supported everything I say. Your troll game is to ignore it.
> > You didn't refute a single objective criteria.
>
> LOL... based on your view of the facts?
No, based on the actual facts.
Here is the list again, of objective criteria of trolling that fit you, not me:
- Starts threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
- Ignoring onslaughts of evidence when proven wrong.
- Creating and maintaining a web page solely devoted to
antagonizing and defaming another poster.
- Quote-scavenging for negative remarks about a poster.
- Disrupting the group by creating numerous off-topic threads.
- Desperately trying to claim that the numerous people that all point at you
calling you a troll are in fact themselves trolls and you are not.
- Making accusation based on made up nonsense instead of actual facts.
- Attempting to forge a NNTP-posting-host in an attempt to antagonize another
poster
- Create one or more sockpuppets
- Attempting to twist posters words to mean something else or the direct
opposite when the intention was crystal clear.
- Intercepting threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
- Reply with total gibberish in attempt to dodge an issue.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in mr-F91704.21...@individual.net
> on 5/14/04 12:44 PM:
>
> > In article <BCCA6D56.4FD92%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> > Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> In fact, I don't believe anything you have written on the internet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course not... those that habitually lie assume others are doing the
> >>>> same. Remember how I have shown that the way you "get" me is to take
> >>>> advantage of my open and honest nature... I assume that others are as I
> >>>> am - open and honest - and you assume others are all lying.
> >>>
> >>> But snit, you are lying. You know it, _everyone_ but your ass licking side
> >>> kick doesn't realize it. You've yet to answer my question concerning this
> >>> supposed "hack" to you. Because either way you answer it, you've lied. So
> >>> which one was it?
> >>>
> >>> a.) You lied about the "hacking" attempt, since nobody knew your IP
> >>> address. b.) You lied about the email you sent me, and that is your IP
> >>> address in the email. c.) all of the above.
> >>
> >> Neither... your straw men do not concern me.
> >
> > What is your ip?
>
> Not one I care to share... why do you ask?
If you share it, you could actually begin to attempt at trying to counter the
onslaught of evidence that you are Sigmond. Not that we'd know if you'd be
honest enough o share your actual IP, though.
--
Sandman[.net]
Nashton
> In article <BCCA3F19.4FD19%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
>>fretwizz-486861...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 9:03 AM:
>>
>>
>>>In article <BCCA2BD2.4FCCF%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
>>>Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
>>>>gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
>>>>>that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
>>>>>persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
>>>>>Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
>>>>
>>>>It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like never
>>>>before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I will
>>>>contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it would
>>>>be good to clear this whole thing up.
>>>
>>>So clear it up. If you're not sigmond and have proof, why waste time
>>>with all this posturing? Oh, that's right... you like the spotlight on
>>>you and don't want to give it up so quickly.
>>
>>I will not go against the wishes of the ISP's in question.
>
>
> IOW, like everything else you post, this was just another pile of shit.
> Gee, color me shocked.
>
>
>>Do you really think people care enough about this silliness of yours to get
>>some spot light? I do not.
>>
>>>>At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a court
>>>>room or, well, anything important. You know...
>>>
>>>No... tell us:)
>>
>>I have... repeatedly. Steve - csma is not a court room. You need to accept
>>that.
>
>
> Only one problem for you here... I never stated that csma was a
> courtroom.
You sure act as though it were one;)
That you feel compelled to continually remind people of
> realities you think they don't realize speaks volumes about your
> propensity to project your non-realities onto others:)
Wha...? LOL, you're reaching there buddy;)
Nicolas
> Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
You've already displayed your lack of originality, numerous times. Now,
back to your perch:)
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-5D4BBD...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 4:05 PM:
>
> > In article <40a53d13$0$207$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> > Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Snit wrote:
> >>> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> >>> fretwizz-EECF6D...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/14/04 9:17 AM:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> In article <BCCA2BD2.4FCCF%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> >>>> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Nashton" <na...@smash.cash> wrote in
> >>>>> gb1pc.39907$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 5/14/04 3:28 AM:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Is this the same kind of "proof" that you and the mob used to refute
> >>>>>> that 2+2=4? You have shown to be capable of hating and maliciously
> >>>>>> persecuting Snit, this alone is enough proof that you and your comrade
> >>>>>> Supertrollbuster Man would resort to anything to discredit Snit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is clear that the Steve's and Elizabot have been humiliated like
> >>>>> never
> >>>>> before - and are doing anything they can to attack me. In any case, I
> >>>>> will
> >>>>> contact the ISP's again to see what they will allow me to post... it
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> be good to clear this whole thing up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At the same time... who really cares? This is a Usenet forum, not a
> >>>>> court
> >>>>> room or, well, anything important. You know...
> >>>>
> >>>> Missed this the first time. You starting this thread by writing:
> >>>>
> >>>> "I have also contacted our mutual ISP and asked them to remove your
> >>>> account."
> >>>>
> >>>> What's this new line above about contacting the ISP's (as in, MORE than
> >>>> one ISP)?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Talk to Ed... he is the one who did the research for me.
> >>
> >> Interesting. I used arin to track you down and you say I'm obsessed. Ed
> >> used arin to get the same information I did and you call it research.
> >
> > LOL! I missed that one when I read it earlier. Good point.
>
> Wow... you two agree about another comment that is irrational. What a
> surprise....
>
> group think at its finest!
That you think it's irrational is a good thing... like a Good
Housekeeping Seal of Approval for sanity:)
Steve