Snit is out!
hootspah
Using Mac Soup, I downloaded the entire newsgroup ( over 100,000 posts)
and reading off-line, using that neat little thread tree that shows who
responded to who and in what order, I determined that the majority of
Snit's posts appear to be early in the topic with a seeming intent to
drive the topic OT or to start an argument, generally by playing the
devil's advocate. Since this is such a large group and I get no kicks
out of reading abusive, flaming or argumentative posts, I've decided to
KF all who follow those practices and that should shorten considerably
the time and effort required to navigate this newsgroup.
h
Snit
hootspah-CB6ED1...@news.sunsite.dk on 7/2/07 1:49 PM:
> It's not my practice to killfile anyone, but I did a little test.
> Using Mac Soup, I downloaded the entire newsgroup ( over 100,000 posts)
> and reading off-line, using that neat little thread tree that shows who
> responded to who and in what order, I determined that the majority of
> Snit's posts appear to be early in the topic with a seeming intent to
> drive the topic OT or to start an argument, generally by playing the
> devil's advocate.
Can you give some examples?
> Since this is such a large group and I get no kicks out of reading abusive,
> flaming or argumentative posts, I've decided to KF all who follow those
> practices and that should shorten considerably the time and effort required to
> navigate this newsgroup.
KF who you wish - me included - but if you are going to make accusations
about me I would appreciate some support.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "hootspah" <hoot...@yid.net> stated in post
> hootspah-CB6ED1...@news.sunsite.dk on 7/2/07 1:49 PM:
>
> > It's not my practice to killfile anyone, but I did a little test.
> > Using Mac Soup, I downloaded the entire newsgroup ( over 100,000 posts)
> > and reading off-line, using that neat little thread tree that shows who
> > responded to who and in what order, I determined that the majority of
> > Snit's posts appear to be early in the topic with a seeming intent to
> > drive the topic OT or to start an argument, generally by playing the
> > devil's advocate.
>
> Can you give some examples?
>
> > Since this is such a large group and I get no kicks out of reading abusive,
> > flaming or argumentative posts, I've decided to KF all who follow those
> > practices and that should shorten considerably the time and effort required
> > to
> > navigate this newsgroup.
>
> KF who you wish - me included - but if you are going to make accusations
> about me I would appreciate some support.
If it is arguing he wishes to avoid that's his business. It's ludicrous to ask
for examples of OT discussions where arguments are taking place... you, I and
many other posters have written them. You *appear* to want to be seen as honest
and honorable now... this post doesn't move in that direction.
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
Not Important
hootspah <hoot...@yid.net> wrote:
It looks like you'll soon be talking to yourself.
Snit
Cbfii.2962$rR....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net on 7/2/07 3:42 PM:
The funny thing is he chastises me for something he gives *no* example of
while clearly starting a thread in a way that is unambiguously designed to
troll (or renaming one - I did not check and it makes no difference). In
other words while whining about me starting arguments he clearly was trying
to start one of his own.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
noone-1F2AC7....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 7/2/07 2:54 PM:
> In article <C2AEB43C.86854%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "hootspah" <hoot...@yid.net> stated in post
>> hootspah-CB6ED1...@news.sunsite.dk on 7/2/07 1:49 PM:
>>
>>> It's not my practice to killfile anyone, but I did a little test.
>>> Using Mac Soup, I downloaded the entire newsgroup ( over 100,000 posts)
>>> and reading off-line, using that neat little thread tree that shows who
>>> responded to who and in what order, I determined that the majority of
>>> Snit's posts appear to be early in the topic with a seeming intent to
>>> drive the topic OT or to start an argument, generally by playing the
>>> devil's advocate.
>>
>> Can you give some examples?
>>
>>> Since this is such a large group and I get no kicks out of reading abusive,
>>> flaming or argumentative posts, I've decided to KF all who follow those
>>> practices and that should shorten considerably the time and effort required
>>> to
>>> navigate this newsgroup.
>>
>> KF who you wish - me included - but if you are going to make accusations
>> about me I would appreciate some support.
>
> If it is arguing he wishes to avoid that's his business. It's ludicrous to ask
> for examples of OT discussions where arguments are taking place... you, I and
> many other posters have written them. You *appear* to want to be seen as
> honest and honorable now... this post doesn't move in that direction.
Steve, the facts are clear: he made an accusation against me about my posts.
He offered zero support.
You can deny this if you want but the Google record is not going to change -
he did just that.
Frankly I find it sad that you feel the need to argue with me over
essentially everything. It simply does not speak well of you.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Not Important
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Not Important" <NotImp...@invalid.com> stated in post
> Cbfii.2962$rR....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net on 7/2/07 3:42 PM:
>
> > In article <hootspah-CB6ED1...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> > hootspah <hoot...@yid.net> wrote:
> >
> >> It's not my practice to killfile anyone, but I did a little test.
> >> Using Mac Soup, I downloaded the entire newsgroup ( over 100,000 posts)
> >> and reading off-line, using that neat little thread tree that shows who
> >> responded to who and in what order, I determined that the majority of
> >> Snit's posts appear to be early in the topic with a seeming intent to
> >> drive the topic OT or to start an argument, generally by playing the
> >> devil's advocate. Since this is such a large group and I get no kicks
> >> out of reading abusive, flaming or argumentative posts, I've decided to
> >> KF all who follow those practices and that should shorten considerably
> >> the time and effort required to navigate this newsgroup.
> >>
> >>
> >> h
> >
> > It looks like you'll soon be talking to yourself.
>
> The funny thing is he chastises me for something he gives *no* example of
> while clearly starting a thread in a way that is unambiguously designed to
> troll (or renaming one - I did not check and it makes no difference). In
> other words while whining about me starting arguments he clearly was trying
> to start one of his own.
I get this mental image of you and a sibling as children in the
back seat of the family car saying:
Mom, 'snits' touching me ...
and you responding much as you do now ...
I'm not touching you, you're touching me!
The problem is that by now you should've grown out of that type of
poke and complain interaction with others.
But, of course, you've haven't learned how to interact with others
in a more 'constructive' and mutually beneficial manner even now.
Snit
I do point out, as in this case, when people make accusations without any
support or are openly antagonistic. I see nothing wrong with that.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Who, other than you, would question the facts that he has written about here? No
one I ever saw. That you are seen asking for proof of what is f*cking obvious to
*everyone* who has posted here in the last 3 years is what makes you reek of
dishonesty. If you aren't flat out lying then you are an extreme mental case.
Snit
>> Steve, the facts are clear: he made an accusation against me about my posts.
>> He offered zero support.
>>
> Who, other than you, would question the facts that he has written about here?
> No one I ever saw. That you are seen asking for proof of what is f*cking
> obvious to *everyone* who has posted here in the last 3 years is what makes
> you reek of dishonesty. If you aren't flat out lying then you are an extreme
> mental case.
Not even you are denying he made an accusation, nor are you claiming he
supported it. I believe people have the obligation to support their
accusations; you show no such belief. No problem here: we are allowed to
have different moral codes - at least now we know how they differ.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-467A74....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 7/2/07 10:37 PM:
>
> >> Steve, the facts are clear: he made an accusation against me about my
> >> posts.
> >> He offered zero support.
> >>
> > Who, other than you, would question the facts that he has written about
> > here?
> > No one I ever saw. That you are seen asking for proof of what is f*cking
> > obvious to *everyone* who has posted here in the last 3 years is what makes
> > you reek of dishonesty. If you aren't flat out lying then you are an
> > extreme
> > mental case.
>
> Not even you are denying he made an accusation
Wrong. I clearly said he posted "facts". If you are *still* unable to comprehend
what you've read I suggest you get someone to help you.
> nor are you claiming he
> supported it. I believe people have the obligation to support their
> accusations; you show no such belief. No problem here: we are allowed to
> have different moral codes - at least now we know how they differ.
Yes, we do. I *clearly* stated that he posted "facts"... you then came along and
either lied or made another "mistake". Which is it?
Snit
> In article <C2AF3271.86924%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-467A74....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 7/2/07 10:37 PM:
>>
>>>> Steve, the facts are clear: he made an accusation against me about my
>>>> posts.
>>>> He offered zero support.
>>>>
>>> Who, other than you, would question the facts that he has written about
>>> here?
>>> No one I ever saw. That you are seen asking for proof of what is f*cking
>>> obvious to *everyone* who has posted here in the last 3 years is what makes
>>> you reek of dishonesty. If you aren't flat out lying then you are an
>>> extreme
>>> mental case.
>>
>> Not even you are denying he made an accusation
>>
> Wrong. I clearly said he posted "facts". If you are *still* unable to
> comprehend what you've read I suggest you get someone to help you.
>
>> nor are you claiming he supported it. I believe people have the obligation
>> to support their accusations; you show no such belief. No problem here: we
>> are allowed to have different moral codes - at least now we know how they
>> differ.
>
> Yes, we do. I *clearly* stated that he posted "facts"... you then came along
> and either lied or made another "mistake". Which is it?
Your belief of the accusation being a fact or not is irrelevant. As I note,
above, you and I simply differ on the responsibility of supporting
accusations: I believe people *should* support the accusations they post and
you show now such support.
There really is nothing to add, Steve. Feel free to get the last word.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Sandman
I think it would be appropriate to point out that Snit has signed an
agreement that aims to remedy all of that. I think he (and me) has
been very good at living by that agreement and I think it's
unnecessary - at the moment - to killfile him.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
>>> KF who you wish - me included - but if you are going to make
>>> accusations about me I would appreciate some support.
>>
>> If it is arguing he wishes to avoid that's his business. It's
>> ludicrous to ask for examples of OT discussions where arguments are
>> taking place... you, I and many other posters have written them.
>> You *appear* to want to be seen as honest and honorable now... this
>> post doesn't move in that direction.
>
> Steve, the facts are clear: he made an accusation against me about
> my posts. He offered zero support.
Yes, but he has no obligation to do so. Just ignore him and conclude -
to yourself - that he hasn't offered any support. No need to start an
argument over it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
It's quite relevant as this is more than just a mere accusation, it's what I
said it is... a fact. Even the guy you signed an agreement with acknowledged
that you are starting an argument here:
"No need to start an argument over it".
> As I note,
> above, you and I simply differ on the responsibility of supporting
> accusations: I believe people *should* support the accusations they post and
> you show now such support.
BS. Were I to show support you'd simply deny it. In fact, I just showed support
above... and you will deny it. You were unable to conclude for yourself and
ignore the OP (or myself)... you just had to start an argument over what he'd
written, (as Sandman pointed out). Elsewhere, you are seen starting an argument
with Edwin about the post he wrote regarding the iPhone... in another thread
where Sandman and at least 3 other people (one of them was you) were able to
garner Edwin's intent, yet, regarding that intent, you said that Edwin "stated
it very poorly." When I pointed it out to you your non-responsive reply was:
"Edwin was, and has been, making comments about the iPhone".
Stating the obvious that did not address the topic in any way was not a good
idea.
> There really is nothing to add, Steve. Feel free to get the last word.
--
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Snit has some stuff to live down... and it won't happen overnight.
Snit
mr-7E89F4.09...@News.Individual.NET on 7/3/07 12:13 AM:
My noting the fact is not starting an argument - but I have no intention of
continuing the debate.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-7E89F4.09...@News.Individual.NET on 7/3/07 12:13 AM:
>
> > In article <C2AEF135.8688A%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> KF who you wish - me included - but if you are going to make
> >>>> accusations about me I would appreciate some support.
> >>>
> >>> If it is arguing he wishes to avoid that's his business. It's
> >>> ludicrous to ask for examples of OT discussions where arguments are
> >>> taking place... you, I and many other posters have written them.
> >>> You *appear* to want to be seen as honest and honorable now... this
> >>> post doesn't move in that direction.
> >>
> >> Steve, the facts are clear: he made an accusation against me about
> >> my posts. He offered zero support.
> >
> > Yes, but he has no obligation to do so. Just ignore him and conclude -
> > to yourself - that he hasn't offered any support. No need to start an
> > argument over it.
> >
> My noting the fact is not starting an argument - but I have no intention of
> continuing the debate.
Another word you don't know the meaning of...
argument:
"an oral disagreement; verbal opposition"
"a discussion involving differing points of view"
"A discussion in which disagreement is expressed"
"a dispute"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument
Are you going to tell Sandman how he was using the word now? Will that be your
method of 'not' arguing here?
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <mr-66BC15.09...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <hootspah-CB6ED1...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> > hootspah <hoot...@yid.net> wrote:
> >
> > > It's not my practice to killfile anyone, but I did a little test.
> > > Using Mac Soup, I downloaded the entire newsgroup ( over 100,000 posts)
> > > and reading off-line, using that neat little thread tree that shows who
> > > responded to who and in what order, I determined that the majority of
> > > Snit's posts appear to be early in the topic with a seeming intent to
> > > drive the topic OT or to start an argument, generally by playing the
> > > devil's advocate. Since this is such a large group and I get no kicks
> > > out of reading abusive, flaming or argumentative posts, I've decided to
> > > KF all who follow those practices and that should shorten considerably
> > > the time and effort required to navigate this newsgroup.
> >
> > I think it would be appropriate to point out that Snit has signed an
> > agreement that aims to remedy all of that. I think he (and me) has
> > been very good at living by that agreement and I think it's
> > unnecessary - at the moment - to killfile him.
>
> Snit has some stuff to live down... and it won't happen overnight.
I know you think so. But effective as of the signing of the agreement,
his slate is clean as far as I'm concerned. I think he (and me) has
done a great job since the signing.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> > Yes, but he has no obligation to do so. Just ignore him and conclude -
> > to yourself - that he hasn't offered any support. No need to start an
> > argument over it.
>
> My noting the fact is not starting an argument - but I have no intention of
> continuing the debate.
Exactly. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I know I have no problem with you since then.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Likewise. :)
--
Sandman[.net]