Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"?
Steve Carroll
> Ezekiel stated in post isju78$c1n$1...@dont-email.me on 6/6/11 6:17 PM:
>
>>
>> "DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in message
>> news:isjoik$ef9$5...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 6/6/2011 11:03 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>>> cc<scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a
>>>> mess and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI
>>>> design and implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>>>
>>>
>>> How can it be a "science" when any old Joe can create a funky new
>>> UI that people immediately take to, ie Bryce and the Sims games and
>>> so on?
>>>
>>> Maybe lining things up and spacing them and using color and
>>> highlights, etc, could be "science", but I see it more as
>>> creativity or art.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To me UI design is a ratio/combination of the two. Anyone can whip
>> together a UI but the *best* designs have just the right amount of
>> science and art behind them. I don't think you can do a good job
>> with just one and not the other.
>
> Exactly: as is the case in pretty much any well done design, whether
> it is a car, a house, a plane, etc.
Before you kept telling cc it was all about science. Good to see you can
admit you were wrong.
Steve Carroll
> DFS stated in post isjoik$ef9$5...@dont-email.me on 6/6/11 4:41 PM:
>
>> On 6/6/2011 11:03 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>> cc<scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a
>>> mess and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI
>>> design and implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>>
>>
>> How can it be a "science" when any old Joe can create a funky new UI
>> that people immediately take to, ie Bryce and the Sims games and so
>> on?
>>
>> Maybe lining things up and spacing them and using color and
>> highlights, etc, could be "science", but I see it more as creativity
>> or art.
>
> a lot of science behind it - material science, aerodynamics (for a
> car), heating and cooling and much more. There is, of course, also a
> lot of art - and both are important.
>
> With UI development it is much the same - there is a lot of science
> behind the general principles (consistency / inconsistency, the way
> widgets work, metaphors, focus, etc.), but there is also a lot of art.
How much is a lot? If you really know what you are talking about Mr. IT
Teacher you should be able to give a percentage. Snit runs in 3... 2...
1...
100% predictable.
Steve Carroll
One of yours (forgeries) again, Snit?
Steve Carroll
One of yours (forgeries) again, Snit?
Steve Carroll
> On 6/6/2011 5:29 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> "Snit may be the first retraction of my general killfile
>>> amnesty. The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping,
>>> back-tracking, goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that
>>> effete candy-ass beggars belief."
>>>
>>
>> Well, nobody should do that.
>>
>> It is an unbelievable insult to all "effete candy-ass beggars" to be
>> compared to that filthy rat
>
>
> You quoted it wrong, dumbkopf.
>
> I didn't say that about Snit. Linosuck did - but first he asked his
> wife for an allowance and permission.
Speaking of Snit, do you see all of his forgeries of me? He forges my name
*a lot*. He is the one who is obsessed with me and is keeping the flame war
going, that is why it is called the Snit Circus.
Steve Carroll
> On 6/6/2011 10:51 AM, cc wrote:
>
>
>> Snit's biggest problem is not that he's a liar. It's that
>> he's a whiney little netnannying douchebag that can never own up to
>> being incorrect.
>
>
> Netnannies are annoying, no doubt about it, but Snit's no worse than
> any others. In fact, Hadron has netnannied me much more than Snit.
After reading what I have shown you how can you say Snit is no worse? Snit
has been pulling this shit for years and nobody has stopped him. Yet.
If we all call him on his shit and let the college he claims to work at know
and contact his wife maybe he will finally stop lying about me and making
claims about me having an ex. Nothing else short of that will get him to
stop.
> If Snit won't own up to being incorrect, and you have proof he is
> incorrect, sometimes you just have to drop it and move on.
>
> That's what we've all been doing with 7 and Rex Ballard for years and
> years.
High Plains Thumper
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Before you kept telling cc it was all about science. Good to see you
>> can admit you were wrong.
>
> One of yours (forgeries) again, Snit?
Reminds me a lot of Snit's "Steve Carroll's Dog", "Omar Murad Asfour" and
"Rhino Plastee" socks, LOL.
--
HPT
Snit
AM:
Right: accusations made by you and Steve which you not only failed to show
support for but ignored the counter-evidence to your accusations.
Par for course: you two back yourself into corners and then just spew
insults and accusations to try to put people on the defensive.
You must be proud.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> On 6/6/2011 10:40 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> On 6/6/2011 10:51 AM, cc wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Snit's biggest problem is not that he's a liar. It's that
>>>> he's a whiney little netnannying douchebag that can never own up to
>>>> being incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>> Netnannies are annoying, no doubt about it, but Snit's no worse than
>>> any others. In fact, Hadron has netnannied me much more than Snit.
>>
>> After reading what I have shown you how can you say Snit is no worse?
>
>
> follow any of his csma stuff, and just some of his cola posts.
>
> Your endless bullshit in the 'OT: This is for DFS' posts is NOT
> convincing in the least. Not saying Snit is 100% innocent of what you
> charge him with, but it's you that comes across as the obsessed and
> dishonest lunatic.
>
> Your list of "Snit's 7 Deadly Sins" is just pathetic:
>
> 1 - he falsely alleged you had a girlfriend
He made my wife think I might be cheating on her.
> 2 - he forged NNTP posting IDs
As he did so again just yesterday.
> 3 - he created disparaging webpages designed to humiliate people
His goal in life is to show he is right and humiliate others.
> 4 - he made 2-3 private emails available to the public without the
> permission of the other party
More than 2-3. More like 2-3 dozen.
> 5 - he misinterprets people's words to make it appear like they've
> said something they haven't
This is his M.O.
> 6 - he forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else
More like 2-3 dozen PDFs
> 7 - he managed to align scores of people against him based on behavior
> like the above and much more
I am sure you have seen the list of quotes that proves this.
> Say it ain't so!
>
> But wait, there's even more Snit "lies and wrongdoing":
>
> * he posted more than once as Brock McNuggets (I found 16 total)
Snit said just once. So now you know he is lying.
> * he contacted your ISP numerous times. How do you know? Regardless,
> given what you threatened him with, he was very likely justified.
Snit is the one who says it is bad to take things out of Usenet. He is a
hypocrite.
> * he claimed you paid/opened an account at his ISP. You claim you
> didn't.
I did not claim this. I did not do so. Snit lied.
> Those 10 offenses seem to be the sum total of everything you hold
> against him. Even if he did everything you allege - and I don't
> believe he did - do you really find it worth hundreds of posts over a
> 5-year
> period?
I respond to his lies and I will keep doing so as long as I want.
> Regardless, your repeated threats to contact his employer in an effort
> to get him fired makes you the jerk. If you had the courage of your
> convictions, you would've made good on the threat.
I never threatended to have him fired. Snit lied about that too.
> Bottom line: I would trust and believe Snit long before I would trust
> and believe you.
>
> He has NEVER "represented his employer on Usenet" (that I've seen) as
> you claimed yesterday.
He claims to be Michael Glasser and to work for Yavapai College in Prescott
AZ. I found /a/ Michael Glasser works there but it looks like Snit is
impersonating that person.
> I don't believe for a second he sexually harrassed a woman online -
> and so far you've failed to provide any proof of this very serious claim.
Many people said he did.
> You claimed his webpages were "disparaging" (curiously you again have
> no proof) but even if they did exist I'm 100% sure they weren't
> nearly as insulting as the things you've said about him. Snit's not
> a nasty person - though you and some of the others on csma are very nasty
> towards him.
He took the web pages down.
> You falsely claimed Snit emailed your wife/girlfriend (so says Snit).
> When he asked you to admit to this lie, you ran away in this thread
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/6d579d617ccf5f2d/55e53bd9b3ad2f48?hl=en%EF%BF%BDec6ced7e&
>
> So let's hear it: did he email your wife/girlfriend? Where's the
> email?
I do not share private emails like Snit does.
> While you're at it, where are the 2-3 "private" emails that Snit
> reposted without ed's permission?
In CSMA.
>> Snit
>> has been pulling this shit for years and nobody has stopped him. Yet. If
>> we all call him on his shit and let the college he claims to work
>> at know and contact his wife maybe he will finally stop lying about
>> me and making claims about me having an ex.
>
>
> I'll call him out if it's something I'm interested in and I happen to
> see it.
You admit you do not care that he lies.
> I'm not about to mess with his home or work life, unless he messes
> with mine. So there's no "we" here, Steve Carroll.
>
> By the way: is that your real name - got any proof you're not a
> forger/ID thief/liar/sex harrasser yourself?
Are you accusing me of being a sex harrasser? Snit is the one who claims he
sees no logical reason to disallow incest. Snit also claims to have kids.
How sick is that?
>> Nothing else short of that will get him to stop.
>
>
> Why do you worry so much about Snit, instead of Mac advocacy or
> technical flaming/debate? Wouldn't a killfile entry be much more
> effective? Oh, then you wouldn't have a reason to read csma.
>
> That Snit so dominates your Usenet life is not an indictment of him -
> it's an indictment of you.
Do you always support known liars? Are you Snit's sock or his shill?
Steve Carroll
Yet another forgery by Snit.
Steve Carroll
> On 6/7/2011 4:14 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On 6/6/2011 10:51 AM, cc wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Snit's biggest problem is not that he's a liar. It's that
>>>>>> he's a whiney little netnannying douchebag that can never own up
>>>>>> to being incorrect.
>>>
>>>>> Netnannies are annoying, no doubt about it, but Snit's no worse
>>>>> than any others. In fact, Hadron has netnannied me much more
>>>>> than Snit.
>>>
>>>> After reading what I have shown you how can you say Snit is no
>>>> worse?
>>>
>>> follow any of his csma stuff, and just some of his cola posts.
>>>
>>> Your endless bullshit in the 'OT: This is for DFS' posts is NOT
>>> convincing in the least. Not saying Snit is 100% innocent of what
>>> you charge him with, but it's you that comes across as the obsessed and
>>> dishonest lunatic.
>>>
>>> Your list of "Snit's 7 Deadly Sins" is just pathetic:
>>>
>>> 1 - he falsely alleged you had a girlfriend
>>> permission of the other party
>>> said something they haven't
>>> behavior like the above and much more
>>>
>>
>> 'wrongdoings' (especially since they're riddled with Snit lying, if
>> they are not outright lies themselves) any time you'd like to.
>
> There are degrees of "wrongdoing" of course. Except for the sexual
> harrassment charge you keep running away from, and possibly betraying
> Ed's confidence with the mythical emails, nothing you complain about
> is more than child's play.
If I can prove those two to you will you accept Snit is the lying
gluesniffer he is?
>>> But wait, there's even more Snit "lies and wrongdoing":
>>
>> You have no idea, that much is obvious.
>>
>>> * he posted more than once as Brock McNuggets (I found 16 total)
>>>
>>> * he contacted your ISP numerous times.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> How do you know?
>>
>> Other than the fact that he admitted it and they contacted me over
>> it, you mean? Have you been talking to Snit about the 'head in a vat'
>> experiment? He's quite fond of it, you know... you sound like you
>> might be, too.
>>
>> My prediction: Snit will now show you a post (where I had not yet
>> been contacted by my ISP over his BS, so it'll show me saying I
>> haven't been contacted) and he'll claim I lied when I said I hadn't
>> been contacted. You will fall for it hook line and sinker like you
>> did below because you're not only not smart enough to not listen to
>> Snit in the first place... but the simple concept of a timeline on
>> usenet doesn't occur to you.
>>
>> See... your main problem is that you think you're arguing with me...
>> but your real argument here is with reality.
>
> And I don't believe your *version of reality* nearly as much as I
> believe my own.
I am talking about reality. Do you believe it or not?
>> Google shows what it
>> shows. Some things can be interpreted more than one way, some things
>> can't. Snit uses the former to base his trolling MO on...
>
> And you use the latter, so what makes you any better?
>
>
>
>> he hasn't
>> figured out that the latter makes him look like a total idiot.
>
> He has never looked like an idiot to me, but you certainly have.
Are you his sock or his shill?
>> I just
>> netnanny Snit to death trying to get him to learn this simple
>> concept... but he fights me every step of the way:)
>
> It's very sad how he controls you.
Snit does not even control himself.
>>> Regardless,
>>> given what you threatened him with, he was very likely justified.
>>>
>>> * he claimed you paid/opened an account at his ISP. You claim you
>>> didn't. Those 10 offenses seem to be the sum total of everything you
>>> hold
>>> against him. Even if he did everything you allege - and I don't
>>> believe he did - do you really find it worth hundreds of posts over a
>>> 5-year period?
>>
>> You think Snit has limited his actions to the above? LOL!
>
> That's all you've talked about with me for days now. If you have
> more, I don't want to hear it, because it can't be any more petty and
> whiny
> than it is so far.
You do not want to hear the truth about Snit because you are his sock or his
shill. Which is it?
>>> Regardless, your repeated threats to contact his employer in an
>>> effort to get him fired makes you the jerk.
>>
>> Lying about what I did won't change the fact that you're Snit's bitch
>> this month (OK, it might take you longer than a month)
>
> It's no lie. You repeatedly threatened to contact his employer, and
> your intention was to get him fired. Period.
>
> You can deny it all you want - you're just a liar.
I never did that. You are listening to Snit and he is a liar.
>>> If you had the courage of your
>>> convictions, you would've made good on the threat.
>>
>> It wasn't a threat.
>
> It was a wimpy threat, repeated over and over in slight variations of:
>
> "I'm promising you that, unless you, or someone, can give me a sound
> reason not to, I intend on providing certain parties with information
> they can use to determine if there is a case of identity theft (a
> thing you have engaged in online) involving a person that represents them
> in
> their community."
>
> or
>
> "Providing Snit is telling the truth about working there, can *anyone*
> tell me why Yavapai college shouldn't be given the opportunity to see
> who is representing them on the internet by using their name on his
> website? Anyone? I think the taxpayers of AZ might also be very
> interested in this sort of a potential problem."
>
>
>
> You suck, Steve Carroll.
Is there any reason why Yavapai College should not know about an imposter?
>> In any event, even you must be smart enough to
>> know that you can't possibly have any knowledge on whether I, or
>> anyone else, contacted this college. Snit may not even know, for that
>> matter. Or he may know but would never admit to it. He alos may know
>> of things that have happened to him regarding his work, some of which
>> may be attributed to this school having their eyes opened (and he may
>> or may not be aware this is the reason).
>>
>> Do I think Snit would be honest about any of it? HELL no!
>>
>>> Bottom line: I would trust and believe Snit long before I would
>>> trust and believe you.
>>
>> Sure doesn't seem like it... I'm providing you with Snit's own words
>> form Google.
>>
>>> He has NEVER "represented his employer on Usenet" (that I've seen)
>>> as you claimed yesterday.
>>>
>>> I don't believe for a second he sexually harrassed a woman online -
>>> and so far you've failed to provide any proof of this very serious
>>> claim.
>
>
> And here you go again, for the 3rd time at least, running away from
> proving Snit sexually harrassed someone online.
He emailed my wife with comments I made online taken out of context and made
her think I might be having an affair. How is that not sexual harrasment?
> This claim of yours is far more serious than anything he said or did
> to you (that I'm aware of). This makes you the liar and the wrongdoer.
>
>
>
>>> You claimed his webpages were "disparaging" (curiously you again
>>> have no proof)
>>
>> Other than the "proof" that I pointed to Snit's admission (that even
>> shows him claiming he was "happy" to know his webpages annoyed me),
>> you mean?
>>
>> (Snit is a bit of a better liar than you... but you're getting
>> closer)
>>> but even if they did exist I'm 100% sure they weren't nearly as
>>> insulting as the things you've said about him. Snit's not a nasty
>>> person - though you and some of the others on csma are very nasty
>>> towards him.
>>
>> Some? How many are you trying to limit "some" to? I suspect, by this
>> point, Snit has began emailing you and showing you what he wants to
>> see,
>
> Now I see you're not just a plain old idiot, you're a paranoid idiot.
Seeing truth does not make one paranoid. I know all about his emails to
people in CSMA.
>> he's done this with those who listens to him for any length of
>> time or support him in any way. Then, eventually, they have their
>> eyes opened to reality. Do you think there aren't people on that
>> quotes list who didn't used to support Snit and 'back' him? Think
>> again;)
>
> He can't email me - he doesn't have my email address.
Prove it. You want me to prove my claims so prove yours.
I think you are lying.
>>> You falsely claimed Snit emailed your wife/girlfriend (so says
>>> Snit). When he asked you to admit to this lie, you ran away in this
>>> threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_thread/th...
>>
>> Lie? Geezus has Snit got you fooled, or what?
>>
>> Here is the original post I wrote, (written 5 days prior to the one
>> Snit handed you):
>>
>> "Sending the e-mail to my significant other with all that bullcrap in
>> it about Elizabot only made her laugh. I know you're pissed that your
>> 'sweet tomato' dropped a dime on you, but seriously, can't you do any
>> better than this? No, I can't prove it was you but who else would
>> bother? Who else would show such a limited imagination;)"
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/44ec480452a20add?hl=en&
>>
>>
>> Reality check: You can't claim I did it "falsely" any more than I can
>> prove Snit penned that email. This is a simple fact.
>
> You can't prove your SO received an email from Snit? How about the
> email itself, shown in a screenshot?
>
> Let me guess - she deleted it. Over here on cola we have another
> idiot (Tattoo Vampire) saying Snit contacted him by phone, and guess
> what? He has no proof, either.
>
> Snit, did you send an email to Steve Carroll's girlfriend/wife?
Who else would?
>> The difference between you and I (that the Google archive now shows)?
>>
>> Unlike you, right off the bat I flatly admitted I couldn't prove it
>> was Snit who wrote the email.
>
> I missed that. So if you can't prove it was him, why did you accuse
> him?
Who else would?
>> On the other hand, here you are, with nothing but Snit's version of
>> the "real world" (where he shows you only part of what happened, the
>> part he writes) and you're using that to state I "falsely claimed"
>> something.
>>
>> So what does that make you? Stupid? Dishonest? The combo-pack?
>
> I haven't seen Snit lie to me, but I have seen you lie to me.
>
> You're not trustworthy - why do you delude yourself that you are.
>
>
>
>>> So let's hear it: did he email your wife/girlfriend? Where's the
>>> email?
>>
>>
>> What's the difference if I can't prove it and said as much *before*
>> Snit led a fool like you on a fool's errand? Face it, you were duped
>> by Snit... until you wise up I suggest you get used to it;)
>
> Maybe I was duped by Snit. Who cares?
You were duped in the emails he sent you.
>>> While you're at it, where are the 2-3 "private" emails that Snit
>>> reposted without ed's permission?
>>
>> Why are you focusing on the content again? I pointed to Snit's
>> admission of having done so and ed making it clear Snit did it
>> without his permission/ Do you think people will be fooled by this
>> red herring? Geez, you're really not any smarter than Snit.
>
> And here we go again: no proof of these emails.
Who else would send them? If you think it was not Snit then who? And where
is the proof?
>> Hint: The email content doesn't change the fact that Snit betrayed a
>> trust (this is true even if you try to convince people otherwise)
>>
>> I suggest you don't openly display your poor character like this,
>> especially while you're so busy trying to convince readers that *I*
>> am the bad guy here... it really doesn't look good.
>
> Bad isn't the word: nasty, wimpy, threatening jerk is more like it.
You are Snit's shill.
>>>> Snit
>>>> has been pulling this shit for years and nobody has stopped him. Yet.
>>>> If we all call him on his shit and let the college he claims to
>>>> work at know and contact his wife maybe he will finally stop lying
>>>> about me and making claims about me having an ex.
>>>
>>> I'll call him out if it's something I'm interested in and I happen
>>> to see it.
>>
>> Yes, readers have seen what you're "interested" in... and, thus far
>> it has little, if anything, to do with honesty. I'm really not sure
>> what other point you think you're making by continuing. You've proven
>> you will overlook concrete proof from Google that I've refuted Snit's
>> claim that no one ever shows evidence of his lies and wrongdoings.
>> You keep tossing red herring while (apparently) believing that they
>> are not spotted as red herrings. You've even taken to changing a
>> claim Snit made to what (as you would have readers believe) I was
>> "hoping" for (a thing I wrote about in a thread you were quoting
>> from).
>
> Jeez. I see now you're far more obsessed and nutty than I thought
> Snit was.
> Get over yourself.
Stop sucking Snit's dick.
>>> I'm not about to mess with his home or work life, unless he messes
>>> with mine. So there's no "we" here, Steve Carroll.
>>
>> This is a public forum... there is always a "we" involved... in the
>> form of anyone reading.
>>
>>> By the way: is that your real name - got any proof you're not a
>>> forger/ID thief/liar/sex harrasser yourself?
>>
>> Sounds like Snit:
>
> No, it sounds like you.
You are Snit's shill and probably do what he does.
>> 'Let's just forget about all the proof that Snit IS what Carroll
>> claims... YOU, Carroll, must prove you're NOT like Snit.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Thinks this tactic will fool anyone with a brain that actually works?
>>
>> Hey! All you have to do now is find a website that I've written where
>> I am pointing to a community college and/or other businesses and
>> convince them that it's not a good idea to have my name associated
>> with them. Tell me you're going to do this on usenet and note my
>> response. Then compare it with Snit's responses.
>>
>> We can then talk about any differences ;)
>>
>> (dude. give this up, my truck isn't with you. What's worse is that I
>> feel like I'm battling a crippled person here, you forget that I have
>> the advantage of knowing all about Snit's history.
>
> Is that so? Why so much difficulty proving all this Snit "lying and
> wrongdoing"?
>
>
>
>> You have the disadvantage of learning about it the hard way;)
>
> There's nothing to learn.
>
>
>
>>>> Nothing else short of that will get him to stop.
>>>
>>> Why do you worry so much about Snit,
>>
>> You're using words like "worry" and "care"... to no avail.
>
> You're sniveling and dodging and running, to no avail.
>
>
>
>> As I said, I am here to challenge Snit's claim that no one ever shows
>> evidence of his lies and wrongdoings.
>
> You are here to spread your Snit obsession all over the place, and try
> to recruit others to it.
>
> It's bullshit.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Notably, there are very few people that are supporting this claim of
>> Snit's (that I've seen it's just you and Hadron - who is a total
>> idiot IMO)... so you're the guy that has his name on the marquee for
>> the time being ;)
>>
>>> instead of Mac advocacy or technical flaming/debate?
>>
>> Like you're confining yourself to here in Linuxville? You don't
>> think that's a tad hypocritical (an understatement if there ever was
>> one)?
>
>
> If there's anything I'm not, it's a hypocrite.
>
>
>
>
>>> Wouldn't a killfile entry be much more
>>> effective? Oh, then you wouldn't have a reason to read csma.
>>>
>>> That Snit so dominates your Usenet life is not an indictment of him
>>> - it's an indictment of you.
>>
>> I don't give Snit's 'psych degree' much credence, either;)
>
>
> He completely controls and dominates your time online. What does that
> say about you?
Steve Carroll
No, Steve Carroll did not. Snit is forging me again.
Seaendithas Chorster
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> No, Steve Carroll did not. Snit is forging me again.
Snit was forging my name in another forum. How can we get him to stop?
--
Lord Seaendithas
Seaendithas Chorster
> DFS stated in post isma4v$1c5$3...@dont-email.me on 6/7/11 3:53 PM:
>
> ...
>>>> I remember way back when I attend PCExpo in NYC and Microsoft had
>>>> an exhibit set up where people could get a goodie bag for spending
>>>> an hour or so playing around with what was to become Windows 95.
>>>
>>> I am unable to see how posting links to chaotic designs somehow
>>> infers there is no science to creating GOOD designs for UIs.
>>
>> So now only GOOD UI designs use scientific principles?
>
> I would say the science is a key element in making good UI designs...
> and as far as I can think of, this applies to any complex design work
> that is also functional: cockpits, cars, buildings, computer
> interfaces, etc.
>
>> You brought up the Airbus cockpit. Here's the A380 cockpit:
>> http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airbus-Industrie/Airbus-A380-841/0957790/L/
>>
>> Very chaotic and random-looking. No hint of science to my eyes -
>> just common sense control placement, alignment, and some creativity.
>>
>> And what appears to be wacky: it forces one of the pilots into
>> left-handed control of that joystick.
>
> Cockpit design was actually an early focus of the science:
>
> <http://www.usernomics.com/human-factors.html>
> -----
> Human Factors has its origins in the Industrial Revolution
> and emerged as a full-fledged discipline during World War II.
> It was recognized that aircraft cockpit design needed to
> consider the human interface for controls and displays.
>
> Today all large corporate and military manufacturers team
> design engineers with Engineering Psychologists to ensure
> optimum usability. Some of the prime industries relying on
> Human Factors for design consideration are: High Tech,
> aircraft, automobile, military, consumer products, and many
> other companies wanting an edge in the marketplace.
> -----
>
>>> A UI is much more than where things are. There are issues with
>>> response time, tactile feedback, longevity, working in different
>>> lighting etc etc.
>>>
>>> You think there is no science in designing the HUD for a fighter
>>> pilot.
>>
>> I think there is lots of science involved in capturing and
>> transmitting the data shown on a jet fighter HUD, but as far as
>> designing it - deciding how and what is displayed and which colors
>> to use and font sizes - I think it's just common sense and
>> creativity and judgement calls, coupled with the requirements of the
>> situation in which the HUD is used.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HUD_view.jpg
>>
>> What science says it has to be green, or a certain size font, or put
>> the time in the lower left?
>
> I would be shocked if there was not research on these things... but I
> do not know it. I suspect green was used in part because blue might
> blend in with the background and red or yellow might pull too much
> attention - but those are just guesses.
>
>> This one's very different - why? Because the designers wanted it to
>> be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8bmk4yZAJI
>>
>> Clearly the "science" of HUD design didn't dictate either design.
>
> John Denver died in a plane crash - attributed largely to a poor user
> interface. <http://seiz2day.com/sbmerk/JDenverCrash.html>
>
> I have read elsewhere about a commercial plane crash based on a poor
> UI, but cannot find the info now.
>
> But this is of *big* concern to the flight industry. Has been for
> many decades.
>
>>> Thats being ludicrous. Think out of the box a little and not just
>>> think of "UI" as a few controls on/in an edit form....
>>
>> This is a software group. When discussing user interface I think
>> about software.
>
> But the UI is more than that - it is the whole interface. That is why
> Apple, for example, does not have a touchscreen iMac. It would not
> make sense from a UI perspective, as it does with an iPad. The user
> interaction is very different.
This is the lying idiot you back. Are you as stupid as Snit needs you to
be?
--
Lord Seaendithas
Seaendithas Chorster
> On 6/7/2011 6:26 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> Fix the subject line and I'll respond.
You just did respond. You know you can't defend Snit so you removed all
content from your reply.
--
Lord Seaendithas
Seaendithas Chorster
> On Jun 7, 2:37 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 4:14 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 10:26 am, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 6/6/2011 10:40 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 6/6/2011 10:51 AM, cc wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Snit's biggest problem is not that he's a liar. It's that
>>>>>>> he's a whiney little netnannying douchebag that can never own
>>>>>>> up to being incorrect.
>>
>>>>>> Netnannies are annoying, no doubt about it, but Snit's no worse
>>>>>> than any others. In fact, Hadron has netnannied me much more
>>>>>> than Snit.
>>
>>>>> After reading what I have shown you how can you say Snit is no
>>>>> worse?
>>
>>>> follow any of his csma stuff, and just some of his cola posts.
>>
>>>> Your endless bullshit in the 'OT: This is for DFS' posts is NOT
>>>> convincing in the least. Not saying Snit is 100% innocent of what
>>>> you charge him with, but it's you that comes across as the
>>>> obsessed and dishonest lunatic.
>>
>>>> Your list of "Snit's 7 Deadly Sins" is just pathetic:
>>
>>>> 1 - he falsely alleged you had a girlfriend
>>>> 2 - he forged NNTP posting IDs
>>>> 3 - he created disparaging webpages designed to humiliate people
>>>> 4 - he made 2-3 private emails available to the public without the
>>>> permission of the other party
>>>> 5 - he misinterprets people's words to make it appear like they've
>>>> said something they haven't
>>>> 6 - he forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else
>>>> 7 - he managed to align scores of people against him based on
>>>> behavior like the above and much more
>>
>>>> Say it ain't so!
>>
>>> Feel free to explain to the reader how those things are not
>>> 'wrongdoings' (especially since they're riddled with Snit lying, if
>>> they are not outright lies themselves) any time you'd like to.
>>
>>
>>> You have no idea, that much is obvious.
>>
>
> I think I'll pass on that, but thanks for the suggestion.
COLA is not like CSMA. Snit got here without you to correct people so now
he has not just an army of socks but an army of shills. DFS, Hadron and DFS
are his biggest shills in COLA. That is why they are all hated here.
--
Lord Seaendithas
Seaendithas Chorster
> On 6/7/2011 10:04 PM, Snit wrote:
>> DFS stated in post ismj9s$l6i$4...@dont-email.me on 6/7/11 6:29 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Snit, did you send an email to Steve Carroll's girlfriend/wife?
>>>>
>>>> form. Ever.
>>>
>>> And I notice Steve Carroll cannot produce the alleged email.
>>
>> Being that it does not exist, that is not a surprise. Steve started
>> by just out and out blaming me for emailing me then admitting he had
>> no proof but claiming it had to be me because nobody else would or
>> some BS. Again, this was years ago and I do not recall the details.
>>
>>> And he can't produce your "disparaging, humiliating" webpages
>>> (which I would guess were very mild by comparison to the
>>> viciousness with which they attack you).
>>
>> I used to have quotes *by* him posted to a webpage... and, gasp,
>> referred to him as "Spin and Speak" or something like that.
>
> That's exactly what I figured it was like. Then the drama queen
> Carroll calls it "disparaging and humiliating".
Snit started with the posting of lies on the web. Now he cries when others
post pages about him.
>>> And he can't produce the "private" emails between you and ed that
>>> you violated ed's confidence with by posting them to csma. Did
>>> you? Why?
>>
>> I did post an email from ed - I do not recall the details. I
>> *believe* he had been trolling me in my email, but I really do not
>> remember.
>
> Well, for some reason *nobody* can produce them.
Prove that nobody can.
>>> And he can't produce the proof of you "sexually harrassing a woman
>>> online".
>>
>> Of course not - his ex (or not, whatever, I *do not* care) used to
>> obsess over me, far more than even he did. She:
>>
>> * posted information about me obtained from the college website
>> where I work, including what type of classes I teach and the days I
>> work.
>
> I guess you learned not to put your info out there and let it get
> associated with your Usenet nym if you're going to argue with idiots.
Snit likes to brag about where he works.
>> * found out my wife and I were expecting a child she repeatedly
>> whined that I would not discuss family planning options with *her*!
>>
>> * Accused me of raping her (we were never within 100 miles of each
>> other as far as I know... not even in the same state).
>
> No, she did not accuse you of rape (at least according to your PDF
> link below). She said you "raped" (in quotes) the newsgroup, and
> asked if you found rape funny.
>
> When you lie like that, you give them more ammo for attack.
Even you, a Snit shill, know Snit is a liar.
> Saying she accused you of rape is no better than Carroll accusing you
> of online sex harrassment.
Snit did sexually harrass Steve and Elizabot when he emailed Steve's wife
with lies about the two of them.
>> * Made public threats to contact the police and make false
>> accusations against me.
>>
>> * Tracked me down to where I work and threatened to send her
>> accusations to my employer
>>
>> And much more. Here, a fully documented PDF with quotes and links,
>> etc.
>> <http://www.2shared.com/document/NAcquOWe/EBot_Obsession_with_links.html?>
>>
>> The fact I documented this and shared it with the police lead to her
>> no longer posting (at the request of the police). Steve freaked out
>> and could not handle that I had taken things outside of Usenet... as
>> though I was doing anything other than protecting myself and my
>> family.
>
> Well, I think you took it too far, but if it made you feel better
> that's your business.
Snit is the one who insists it is not right to take things out of Usenet,
but he is the one who posted the web pages and called the police.
>>> And he can't produce proof of the "forged PDFs"
>>
>> None exist. Well, not from me anyway. :)
>>
>>> And he can't produce proof of you "representing your employer on
>>> Usenet".
>>
>> Nope: and his ex- admitted she is the one who tracked me down:
>>
>> <http://goo.gl/vBIJ2>
>> -----
>> But no one here knows your place of employment! I figured
>> it out...
>> -----
>>
>> So Steve's girlfriend or whatever tracks me down by digging through
>> my website and finding a list of bookmarks I had uploaded, then he
>> insists I am impersonating the person the two of them insist I am. I did
>> not, at the time, have a business website where I reference
>> the college. Steve is simply lying when he says he found out where
>> I work based on my making it public in Usenet (or even a website).
>>
>>> Basically, he can't produce 2/3 of the "evidence" of his claims
>>> against you. Based on your behavior on cola, I choose to believe
>>> you. Carroll will have to do a LOT better than he's done so far to
>>> change my mind.
>>
>> Well, I just decided I am sick of his BS and gave you a bit more of
>> the history. I generally do not given that the woman in question
>> has not bothered me in quite some time - but there you go, the
>> genesis of all of this. Steve got jealous of when she obsessed over
>> me to the point the police had to intervene. All documented and
>> proved, above...
>
>
> She's even sicker than Carroll (if it really is a she).
Everyone already knew where Snit worked.
> This bit about implying incest with your daughter crosses the line
> big time:
> Elizabot: "Here's a recent photo of a him with his daughter. You don't
> see any clothes on either one of them - just lots of bare skin.
> (Remember Snit has a tracking device on the picture, so keep that in
> mind if you choose to click the link.)
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/ash/21b/4.html"
If you saw him like that with your daughter would be OK with it?
> Note: a couple more posts and I'm done forever with this "csma
> circus".
Of course. You can not defend Snit now that even you have noted how much of
a liar he is.
--
Lord Seaendithas
Seaendithas Chorster
> DFS stated in post ismo5i$cpc$2...@dont-email.me on 6/7/11 7:52 PM:
>
>>>> And he can't produce the "private" emails between you and ed that
>>>> you violated ed's confidence with by posting them to csma. Did
>>>> you? Why?
>>>
>>> I did post an email from ed - I do not recall the details. I
>>> *believe* he had been trolling me in my email, but I really do not
>>> remember.
>>
>> Well, for some reason *nobody* can produce them.
>
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3184386337282367>
>
> Not a word about Carroll... but he still has his panties in a bunch
> over it. Over half a decade later, and Steve is obsessing over this.
>
> Seriously, what the hell is wrong with him?
What the hell is wrong with you to keep posting links to the email you
shared over and over for "over half a decade"? Why would you bring it up
again and post a link to it? Steve did not out of respect for ed.
Something you do not have.
--
Lord Seaendithas
Seaendithas Chorster
> On 6/8/2011 12:12 AM, Seaendithas Chorster wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2011 10:04 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> DFS stated in post ismj9s$l6i$4...@dont-email.me on 6/7/11 6:29 PM:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Snit, did you send an email to Steve Carroll's girlfriend/wife?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely not. Never. No contact with her in any way, shape or
>>>>>> form. Ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I notice Steve Carroll cannot produce the alleged email.
>>>>
>>>> Being that it does not exist, that is not a surprise. Steve
>>>> started by just out and out blaming me for emailing me then admitting
>>>> he
>>>> had no proof but claiming it had to be me because nobody else would or
>>>> some BS. Again, this was years ago and I do not recall the
>>>> details.
>>>>> And he can't produce your "disparaging, humiliating" webpages
>>>>> (which I would guess were very mild by comparison to the
>>>>> viciousness with which they attack you).
>>>>
>>>> I used to have quotes *by* him posted to a webpage... and, gasp,
>>>> referred to him as "Spin and Speak" or something like that.
>>>
>>> That's exactly what I figured it was like. Then the drama queen
>>> Carroll calls it "disparaging and humiliating".
>>
>> Snit started with the posting of lies on the web.
>
>
> Just like he's a sexual harrasser, rapist, forger of PDFs, emailer to
> Steve's wife, etc.
Do you have any proof he did not? If he did not then why would so many
people accuse him of it? A mass conspiracy or Snit it guilty. Which is
more likely?
>> Now he cries when others
>> post pages about him.
>
> All of your group, including Snit, whine and cry a LOT in csma. Do
> you ever talk about Macs and technology?
>
> Your little anti-Snit csma cabal is a damn disfunctional group, and
> Snit doesn't help by staying at the center. But that's his business.
Only a Snit shill would think there was a cabal against him. There are
people who speak the truth and then there are people like you and Snit.
Does he pay you to be his shill? If not he should.
>>>>> And he can't produce the "private" emails between you and ed that
>>>>> you violated ed's confidence with by posting them to csma. Did
>>>>> you? Why?
>>>>
>>>> I did post an email from ed - I do not recall the details. I
>>>> *believe* he had been trolling me in my email, but I really do not
>>>> remember.
>>>
>>> Well, for some reason *nobody* can produce them.
>>
>> Prove that nobody can.
>
> Idiot.
Translation: no.
I have seen these emails and completely understand why Steve would not make
them public. They are worse than anything you have found from Elizabot.
>>>>> And he can't produce the proof of you "sexually harrassing a woman
>>>>> online".
>>>>
>>>> Of course not - his ex (or not, whatever, I *do not* care) used to
>>>> obsess over me, far more than even he did. She:
>>>>
>>>> * posted information about me obtained from the college website
>>>> where I work, including what type of classes I teach and the days I
>>>> work.
>>>
>>> I guess you learned not to put your info out there and let it get
>>> associated with your Usenet nym if you're going to argue with
>>> idiots.
>>
>> Snit likes to brag about where he works.
>
> No he does not, that I've seen. Ever.
http://prescottcomputerguy.com/experience.html
He loves to brag about where he works now and has in the past. Or claims to
assuming he is not impersating the real Michael Glasser as is becoming
increasingly clear. Do you know of any college professor who would act the
way he does?
>>>> * found out my wife and I were expecting a child she repeatedly
>>>> whined that I would not discuss family planning options with *her*!
>>>>
>>>> * Accused me of raping her (we were never within 100 miles of each
>>>> other as far as I know... not even in the same state).
>>>
>>> No, she did not accuse you of rape (at least according to your PDF
>>> link below). She said you "raped" (in quotes) the newsgroup, and
>>> asked if you found rape funny.
>>>
>>> When you lie like that, you give them more ammo for attack.
>>
>> Even you, a Snit shill, know Snit is a liar.
>
>
> I shill myself, fool. And occasionally MS Office.
And for Snit.
> Yes, Snit lied that she accused him of rape (based only on that PDF),
> but it's actually the buffoonish Carroll that directly labeled him a
> rapist.
Snit is a Usenet rapist and a liar.
> Steve Carroll: "Snit is the biggest liar in Usenet history. He
> sexually harasses women and is a rapist."
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.macromedia.dreamweaver/msg/dda2940c4a5f470d?hl=en
>
>
> And Elizabot was nasty as all get-out, so she probably did call him a
> rapist at some point.
You defend Snit's sexual harrasment as you villify Elizabot for defending
herself. You do not even try to hide the fact you are a paid Snit shill.
<snip irrelevant bullshit>
> The more I read the csma bullshit (and I won't be reading it much
> longer), the more I see it's you freaks that are way out of control,
> and Snit for the most part just calmly sticks to the topic. I knew
> it would be like this because I've seen him in action on cola.
>
> My instincts to support Snit were 100% right.
Translation: he pays you enough to shill for him.
>>> Saying she accused you of rape is no better than Carroll accusing
>>> you of online sex harrassment.
>>
>> Snit did sexually harrass Steve and Elizabot when he emailed Steve's
>> wife with lies about the two of them.
>
> If he did email Steve's wife, why can nobody prove it?
Only a Snit shill would say Steve has to post such filthy lies about his
wife.
>>>> * Made public threats to contact the police and make false
>>>> accusations against me.
>>>>
>>>> * Tracked me down to where I work and threatened to send her
>>>> accusations to my employer
>>>>
>>>> And much more. Here, a fully documented PDF with quotes and links,
>>>> etc.
>>>> <http://www.2shared.com/document/NAcquOWe/EBot_Obsession_with_links.html?>
Dead link. Why is that?
>>>> The fact I documented this and shared it with the police lead to
>>>> her no longer posting (at the request of the police). Steve freaked
>>>> out and could not handle that I had taken things outside of
>>>> Usenet... as though I was doing anything other than protecting
>>>> myself and my family.
>>>
>>> Well, I think you took it too far, but if it made you feel better
>>> that's your business.
>>
>> Snit is the one who insists it is not right to take things out of
>> Usenet, but he is the one who posted the web pages and called the
>> police.
>
> He was paranoid and you nutjobs got to him. Proud of yourselves?
Snit admits to being mentally ill and for a long time I gave him a pass
because of that but it has gone too far and his mental illness is no longer
an excuse. He reaps what he sows.
> I'm surprised the police Snit contacted even listened to that pile of
> Usenet crap, though. I guess they're obligated to take every "threat"
> seriously.
Who said they did? Snit? And you beleive him? Elizabot stopped posting
because of the harrasment, not because of the police. Snit chased her off
like he chases off other women and blacks. Snit even calls blacks monkeys.
> So what? You sick fucks have no business threatening to contact his
> employer over Usenet arguments.
Do you think Yavapai College should know they have a likely impostor
claiming to work for them?
>>> This bit about implying incest with your daughter crosses the line
>>> big time:
>>> Elizabot: "Here's a recent photo of a him with his daughter. You
>>> don't see any clothes on either one of them - just lots of bare
>>> skin. (Remember Snit has a tracking device on the picture, so keep
>>> that in mind if you choose to click the link.)
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/ash/21b/4.html"
>>
>> If you saw him like that with your daughter would be OK with it?
>
> That's his own daughter. What does anyone else's daughter have to do
> with it? So why bring it up, unless it's another of your lame, sicko
> smear tactics.
Snit talks about how there is no logical reason to disallow incest and then
shows off almost pornographic images like that and you have no problem with
it.
>>> Note: a couple more posts and I'm done forever with this "csma
>>> circus".
>>
>> Of course. You can not defend Snit now that even you have noted how
>> much of a liar he is.
>
>
> He's not much of a liar at all. I see constant, moronic, blithering
> liars every day in cola, and Snit is no match for them.
You already admitted he lied. You are right though that Snit is no match
for reality.
--
Lord Seaendithas
cc
wrote:
>
> Snit is a Usenet rapist and a liar.
>
Interesting. What exactly is a Usenet rapist? Snit certainly has raped
my eyes with long, tedious, pointless posts full of misunderstood
quotes and an uncanny ability to completely dodge questions, but that
doesn't really seem worthy of a "Usenet rapist" title. Is he raping
Usenet itself, or individual posters? Should I carry a rape whistle to
avoid being Usenet raped by Snit?
Also, like DFS (allegedly), I fully support Snit's incest.
Seaendithas Chorster
> On Jun 8, 1:18 pm, "Seaendithas Chorster" <Seaendit...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Snit is a Usenet rapist and a liar.
>>
>
> Interesting. What exactly is a Usenet rapist?
Snit.
> Snit certainly has raped
> my eyes with long, tedious, pointless posts full of misunderstood
> quotes and an uncanny ability to completely dodge questions,
Great quote!
> but that
> doesn't really seem worthy of a "Usenet rapist" title. Is he raping
> Usenet itself, or individual posters? Should I carry a rape whistle to
> avoid being Usenet raped by Snit?
>
> Also, like DFS (allegedly), I fully support Snit's incest.
You are also one of Snit's shills.
--
Lord Seaendithas
High Plains Thumper
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> One of yours (forgeries) again, Snit?
>
> Reminds me a lot of Snit's "Steve Carroll's Dog", "Omar Murad Asfour"
> and "Rhino Plastee" socks, LOL.
Oh forgot, here is the link as proof Snit uses socks.
http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet
--
HPT
cc
I always defend Snit, even if he's clearly wrong. I won't bother to
take the time to go back and fully read the sources he is quoting from
because he has never taken anything out of context and fully
understands everything he reads. I don't need to check and see if what
he says about other posters is true. If he says a poster thinks UI
design is unimportant, then that poster must really think UI design is
unimportant, so I'll call them an idiot. I take everything Snit says
at face value because he is the most trustworthy poster of all time,
plus it would take a minor effort on my part to verify things. I am a
Snit shill.
Hadron
For all that you were totally wrong about UI design, research and
implementation. Totally. Why you didn't let it go and instead chose to
get dragged into a "Snit circus" still amazes me.
Snit
420db343-7ad0-4f09...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
5:48 AM:
LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
6:15 AM:
Oh, sure: all the stuff you say about cc and his errors is correct - but in
this case he was just noting how absurd Carroll is to call cc my "shill".
It is utterly insane.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
Well besides you being completely and totally full of shit on this
issue, would you like me to clear my posts, topics I wish to post on,
and who I would like to respond to, with you beforehand? Do I just
email millionsHaveBee...@clueless.com?
Hadron
You really did lose the plot on it. You were wrong. 100%. YOu were
provided links, patiently had things explained to you and you still
refused to let go of your initial misconceptions. I think primarily as a
result of your dislike for Snit.
What part of all the docs and links provided to you could you not
comprehend other than pretty much all of it?
Once again : do you really think the HUD, for example, in a modern
fighter plane isn'tdeveloped through the furthering of science? You DO
realise its a UI right?
I'm not going to do a Snit on you on this, but you really are being a
bit of a crybaby about this issue. Accept you were wrong, read up on it,
contact Airbus or Nasa and google up their development in UI
systems. You might learn something.
Millions, if not billions, are indeed spent on UI research and
development. Especially, but not limited to, in military research
establishments : scopes, night visions, remote navigation, remote
controls, etc etc etc etc. Its not only about, but does include, gui
widgets on screen. Do you really think, for example, no research has
gone into touch screen dynamics and interaction? Have you ever looked at
the steering column for a modern F1 car?
I dont want to argue with you - but you a are wrong. Totally and
utterly. With no room for error. Its not even debatable.
Steve Carroll
Geez... I hope you don't start writing stuff like this:
"Elizabot is a well known emotional pre-teen with a crush on me. She
got mad when she found out my wife was pregnant and demanded to talk
to me about my family planning decisions."
Snit
e60095f3-5277-4360...@16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
8:26 AM:
I would just like to see you explain why you insisted, repeatedly, that a
book all about the importance of the principles of consistency (and how to
best implement same) was, somehow, in support of your denial. Here, again,
is the cover to the book - just so you know which one is being discussed:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CUIfC.png>
And more info on it: <http://goo.gl/cZ3GL>. And, if you have an account,
the full text: <http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=67910>
Or maybe you can explain why you deny the importance of column 3 from here:
<http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/481/process_diagram.html>
You repeatedly focus on column 1 and then insist that since you claim to
have taken classes on those topics column 3 suddenly loses importance.
Of course, you will never do so... which means I just might have to take you
off the shill's-to-be-paid list! Carroll will be so happy!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
8:34 AM:
>> Well besides you being completely and totally full of shit on this
>> issue, would you like me to clear my posts, topics I wish to post on,
>> and who I would like to respond to, with you beforehand? Do I just
>> email millionsHaveBee...@clueless.com?
>
> You really did lose the plot on it. You were wrong. 100%. YOu were
> provided links, patiently had things explained to you and you still
> refused to let go of your initial misconceptions. I think primarily as a
> result of your dislike for Snit.
But Carroll says he is my shill. :)
> What part of all the docs and links provided to you could you not
> comprehend other than pretty much all of it?
>
> Once again : do you really think the HUD, for example, in a modern
> fighter plane isn'tdeveloped through the furthering of science? You DO
> realise its a UI right?
>
> I'm not going to do a Snit on you on this, but you really are being a
> bit of a crybaby about this issue. Accept you were wrong, read up on it,
> contact Airbus or Nasa and google up their development in UI
> systems. You might learn something.
Heck, he should just stop bringing it up and trolling me on his obvious
mistakes. Every time he does I can just point to
<http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/481/process_diagram.html> and
<http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=67910> and remind him how far from
reality his claims are.
> Millions, if not billions, are indeed spent on UI research and
> development. Especially, but not limited to, in military research
> establishments : scopes, night visions, remote navigation, remote
> controls, etc etc etc etc. Its not only about, but does include, gui
> widgets on screen. Do you really think, for example, no research has
> gone into touch screen dynamics and interaction? Have you ever looked at
> the steering column for a modern F1 car?
>
> I dont want to argue with you - but you a are wrong. Totally and
> utterly. With no room for error. Its not even debatable.
Exactly. Hence the reason why he is no longer a paid shill... I took him
off the payroll. Your check, by the way, is in the mail - sorry it is a bit
late this month. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> cc stated in post
> e60095f3-5277-4360-9734-bc125cd46...@16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
>
> I would just like to see you explain why you insisted, repeatedly, that a
> book all about the importance of the principles of consistency (and how to
> best implement same) was, somehow, in support of your denial. Here, again,
> is the cover to the book - just so you know which one is being discussed:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CUIfC.png>
>
> And more info on it: <http://goo.gl/cZ3GL>. And, if you have an account,
> the full text: <http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=67910>
>
> Or maybe you can explain why you deny the importance of column 3 from here:
> <http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/481/process_diagram.html>
>
> You repeatedly focus on column 1 and then insist that since you claim to
> have taken classes on those topics column 3 suddenly loses importance.
>
> Of course, you will never do so... which means I just might have to take you
> off the shill's-to-be-paid list! Carroll will be so happy!
I don't even know what his "denial" consists of. I do know that you
unequivocally told him you took "Classes" in direct response to him
querying you about "classes"... only to later claim that you didn't
know what classes he was talking about (in a thread where he
specifically quoted you saying you took them).
If you can point to this "denial" you claim he engaged in I'll look at
it. Or is this just another of your many unsupported claims?
cc
>
> You really did lose the plot on it. You were wrong. 100%. YOu were
> provided links, patiently had things explained to you and you still
> refused to let go of your initial misconceptions. I think primarily as a
> result of your dislike for Snit.
>
> What part of all the docs and links provided to you could you not
> comprehend other than pretty much all of it?
>
> Once again : do you really think the HUD, for example, in a modern
> fighter plane isn'tdeveloped through the furthering of science? You DO
> realise its a UI right?
Where did I ever say that? Where did I ever hint at something like
that? Is it because I said HCI is not a science? I stated multiple
times that HCI is art and science which in my opinion does not make it
science. So where exactly are you getting this claim?
> I'm not going to do a Snit on you on this, but you really are being a
> bit of a crybaby about this issue. Accept you were wrong, read up on it,
> contact Airbus or Nasa and google up their development in UI
> systems. You might learn something.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. You do know NASA has done
some actual HCI work that is not limited to quoting "consistency" out
of context from papers and pointing to the GNOME guidelines, don't
you. You know, some of that actually science like critical parameters.
> Millions, if not billions, are indeed spent on UI research and
> development. Especially, but not limited to, in military research
No shit! Where did I ever say otherwise? Please fucking quote me on
that one.
> establishments : scopes, night visions, remote navigation, remote
> controls, etc etc etc etc. Its not only about, but does include, gui
> widgets on screen. Do you really think, for example, no research has
> gone into touch screen dynamics and interaction? Have you ever looked at
> the steering column for a modern F1 car?
>
> I dont want to argue with you - but you a are wrong. Totally and
> utterly. With no room for error. Its not even debatable.
Totally wrong about what, exactly? What is it do you think I've said?
Because so far, I've never even claimed anything close to what you've
said. If you think I have, please quote me on that. You're just
repeating bullshit that Snit says I have said.
Since you're soooo far gone down a path of retardation, here is what I
said initially:
The GNOME guidelines are not the end all be all of HCI. They don't
even reference or use modern day HCI techniques. There are actual
scientific methods with provable results that you can use to verify
that your UI works as intended. There are actual techniques and
methods that you can use to help speed up development of your UI. None
of these methods involves quoting "consistency" from a paper. None of
these methods involve saying "consistency is always good," or even
"consistency is sometimes good." None of these methods apply a blanket
UI design. Each UI must be designed from the ground up. You cannot
compare by sight two UIs next to each other and say unequivocally
which one is better. You cannot say a UI design is bad because it is
not consistent just based on sight. There are actual scientific
methods for doing this. This is not even debatable and yet Snit and
seemingly yourself are trying. You can call/email/attend the classes
of any HCI professor anywhere, and they will tell you what I have just
told you, but in much better detail.
So how about you educate your fat self and I don't know, actually read
what I write instead of arguing against what Snit says I write. I
don't expect a response because I suspect you realize how dumb you
look.
Snit
a66f625e-9749-42f5...@m4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
9:28 AM:
>>> Well besides you being completely and totally full of shit on this
>>> issue, would you like me to clear my posts, topics I wish to post on,
>>> and who I would like to respond to, with you beforehand? Do I just
>>> email millionsHaveBeenSpentOnResea...@clueless.com?
>>
>> You really did lose the plot on it. You were wrong. 100%. YOu were
>> provided links, patiently had things explained to you and you still
>> refused to let go of your initial misconceptions. I think primarily as a
>> result of your dislike for Snit.
>>
>> What part of all the docs and links provided to you could you not
>> comprehend other than pretty much all of it?
>>
>> Once again : do you really think the HUD, for example, in a modern
>> fighter plane isn'tdeveloped through the furthering of science? You DO
>> realise its a UI right?
>
> Where did I ever say that? Where did I ever hint at something like
> that? Is it because I said HCI is not a science? I stated multiple
> times that HCI is art and science which in my opinion does not make it
> science. So where exactly are you getting this claim?
Aha! I think this is the first time you have said it is science (and art).
Cool.
>> I'm not going to do a Snit on you on this, but you really are being a
>> bit of a crybaby about this issue. Accept you were wrong, read up on it,
>> contact Airbus or Nasa and google up their development in UI
>> systems. You might learn something.
>
> I'm not sure where you're going with this. You do know NASA has done
> some actual HCI work that is not limited to quoting "consistency" out
> of context from papers and pointing to the GNOME guidelines, don't
> you. You know, some of that actually science like critical parameters.
Yawn. Whenever you are proved wrong you insist that the info you read is
"out of context". Boring. Remember, you are the one who insisted -
repeatedly - that the book "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency"
which talks about the importance of following such principles (and ways of
doing so) supported your silly denials of those principles. I mean, really,
how much more wrong could you be?
Even worse: to try to support your absurd claim, you pulled one paragraph
completely out of context... doing what you accuse me of (though you have
*no* examples). Ironic, eh? Your problem largely comes down to this:
<http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/481/process_diagram.html>. You focus
on column one and deny the importance of column three. Rinse and repeat, no
matter how much information you are shown about column three... and, wow,
there is a *lot*.
>> Millions, if not billions, are indeed spent on UI research and
>> development. Especially, but not limited to, in military research
>
> No shit! Where did I ever say otherwise? Please fucking quote me on
> that one.
You have claimed people only follow the science (at least some of it)
because they do not know better:
cc:
-----
No, every designer does not start from scratch. Some
designers follow your principals because, like you, they
don't know any better.
-----
Remember, what you call "my" principles are the principles supported by
science, experts, standards bodies, etc. Not "mine" at all - other than the
fact that unlike you I do not deny their importance. With that said, you do
not discount *all* of the research, you just focus on column 1 and ignore
the rest (or at least column 3).
>> establishments : scopes, night visions, remote navigation, remote
>> controls, etc etc etc etc. Its not only about, but does include, gui
>> widgets on screen. Do you really think, for example, no research has
>> gone into touch screen dynamics and interaction? Have you ever looked at
>> the steering column for a modern F1 car?
>>
>> I dont want to argue with you - but you a are wrong. Totally and
>> utterly. With no room for error. Its not even debatable.
>
> Totally wrong about what, exactly?
I gave two big examples, above: the claims about the book supporting your
denials and your denials of column 3 in HCI. You are completely wrong about
those two things... and those two things cover most of what we debated about
in terms of HCI.
And it is not like those are isolated incidents or oddities for you to be so
wrong... there are many examples, such as when you insisted that Carroll's
paper found in OCLC Systems & Services. Vol. 21 No. 3, 2005.pp. 167-180 is
just a student worksheet. Just amazingly wrong of you (a student worksheet
in a peer reviewed journal [1]... what?) - and pretty sad considering how
many times you accuse me of not being familiar with the literate we
reference.
[1] Note: your claim was not that it was *also* a student worksheet, you
denied it was a part of the paper
> What is it do you think I've said? Because so far, I've never even claimed
> anything close to what you've said. If you think I have, please quote me on
> that. You're just repeating bullshit that Snit says I have said.
I am the one who defends you and says you do not discount all of the science
behind HCI... so your claim there is completely wrong. You do, however,
repeatedly deny the importance of column 3. And you are wrong to do that,
too.
> Since you're soooo far gone down a path of retardation, here is what I
> said initially:
>
> The GNOME guidelines are not the end all be all of HCI.
Nor did anyone say there were. Your implication otherwise is wrong.
> They don't even reference or use modern day HCI techniques.
They absolutely do: largely the ones from column 3, though also others. So,
again, you are wrong.
> There are actual scientific methods with provable results that you can use to
> verify that your UI works as intended. There are actual techniques and methods
> that you can use to help speed up development of your UI.
Including using the general principles. Sure. But then you deny these
principles, even going so far as to deny that they are discussed in books
which have them as their sole focus!
> None of these methods involves quoting "consistency" from a paper.
What? You mean one has to do more than quote a word! Oh no! Again, your
implications are just silly. And wrong.
> None of these methods involve saying "consistency is always good," or even
> "consistency is sometimes good." None of these methods apply a blanket UI
> design. Each UI must be designed from the ground up.
cc 1:
-----
No, every designer does not start from scratch. Some
designers follow your principals because, like you, they
don't know any better.
-----
cc 2:
-----
Each UI must be designed from the ground up.
-----
Which one do you believe is right? LOL!
> You cannot compare by sight two UIs next to each other and say unequivocally
> which one is better. You cannot say a UI design is bad because it is not
> consistent just based on sight.
Sure you can (well, if you know the general goals of the design!) and I have
provided *many* examples:
From PCLOS:
Poorly done menus: <http://goo.gl/da15g>
Poorly done dialogs: <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>
Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs: <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>
Mouse pointers that do not do as they say: <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>
From Ubuntu:
Poorly done menus: <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>
Copy and paste oddities, etc: <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
The idea you cannot tell these weaknesses exist from the info provided is
just silly. Of course you can! Well, *I* and most others can... you claim
not to.
> There are actual scientific methods for doing this. This is not even debatable
> and yet Snit and seemingly yourself are trying. You can call/email/attend the
> classes of any HCI professor anywhere, and they will tell you what I have just
> told you, but in much better detail.
Yet you cannot find any evidence online for your absurd denials, nor explain
why you deny column 3 and why you make such absurd claims about books and
papers.
> So how about you educate your fat self and I don't know, actually read what I
> write instead of arguing against what Snit says I write. I don't expect a
> response because I suspect you realize how dumb you look.
Please stop misrepresenting what I say about you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 9:28 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
Oh, you're Hadron now? Well most of your idiocy is snipped below, but
two things:
> > Where did I ever say that? Where did I ever hint at something like
> > that? Is it because I said HCI is not a science? I stated multiple
> > times that HCI is art and science which in my opinion does not make it
> > science. So where exactly are you getting this claim?
>
> Aha! I think this is the first time you have said it is science (and art).
> Cool.
"Heck, even cc has admitted that the HCI research that has been
referenced may very well be based on scientific inquiry and processes,
but then wants to play games where he denies this is science." - Snit
**Feb 16, 2010**
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ac0fbf21ba35202e?hl=en&dmode=source
You're fucking wrong as usual. I've never said there are not
scientific aspects to it.
> > None of these methods involve saying "consistency is always good," or even
> > "consistency is sometimes good." None of these methods apply a blanket UI
> > design. Each UI must be designed from the ground up.
>
> cc 1:
> -----
> No, every designer does not start from scratch. Some
> designers follow your principals because, like you, they
> don't know any better.
> -----
>
> cc 2:
> -----
> Each UI must be designed from the ground up.
> -----
>
> Which one do you believe is right? LOL!
>
Both. They are not mutually exclusive. Having proven critical
parameters and widgets to start from does not mean you don't start
each design from the ground up.
Snit
1d43e13b-3564-4cfd...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
10:24 AM:
> Oh, you're Hadron now?
My, you do get confused easily!
> Well most of your idiocy is snipped below, but
> two things:
Of course you snipped - you always do when I talk about how absurd your
claims are. To recap, you asked where you were wrong and I noted many
examples:
1) Your insistence the book "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency"
supported your silly denials... it did not.
2) Your pulling of a quote from that book out of context to try to support
your silly claim.
3) Your denials of column 3 from here: <http://goo.gl/7KtN2>
4) Your insistence that you cannot tell the following examples of poor UI
are, well, examples of poor UI: <http://goo.gl/da15g>,
<http://goo.gl/C1kWI>, <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>,
<http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
5) Your insistence that Carroll published student worksheets in peer reviews
journals (you made this claim to deny the info was a part of the article)
You just repeatedly run from these things - which pretty much proves you
know how full of BS your posts on this topic have been. Face it: you had
very little idea on the topic of UI design / HCI and you made some absurd
comments. It happens... we all make mistakes. I just hope you can deal
with yours better than you have been.
>>> Where did I ever say that? Where did I ever hint at something like
>>> that? Is it because I said HCI is not a science? I stated multiple
>>> times that HCI is art and science which in my opinion does not make it
>>> science. So where exactly are you getting this claim?
>>
>> Aha! I think this is the first time you have said it is science (and art).
>> Cool.
>
> "Heck, even cc has admitted that the HCI research that has been
> referenced may very well be based on scientific inquiry and processes,
> but then wants to play games where he denies this is science." - Snit
> **Feb 16, 2010**
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ac0fbf21ba35202e?hl=
> en&dmode=source
>
> You're fucking wrong as usual. I've never said there are not
> scientific aspects to it.
Which is not the same as your current admission that it *is* science (as
well as art). As far as I can recall, you have denied it is science at all
up until now.
>>> None of these methods involve saying "consistency is always good," or even
>>> "consistency is sometimes good." None of these methods apply a blanket UI
>>> design. Each UI must be designed from the ground up.
>>
>> cc 1:
>> -----
>> No, every designer does not start from scratch. Some
>> designers follow your principals because, like you, they
>> don't know any better.
>> -----
>>
>> cc 2:
>> -----
>> Each UI must be designed from the ground up.
>> -----
>>
>> Which one do you believe is right? LOL!
>
> Both.
Every every UI must be designed from the ground up but not started from
scratch.
Makes complete sense. LOL!
> They are not mutually exclusive. Having proven critical parameters and widgets
> to start from does not mean you don't start each design from the ground up.
Twist all you want - your claims are clearly contradictory. Either they
start from scratch or they do not. Hint: they do not.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 10:24 AM:
>
> > Oh, you're Hadron now?
>
> My, you do get confused easily!
Why don't you let Hadron respond for himself? Oh right, the taint.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ac0fbf21ba3...
> > en&dmode=source
>
> > You're fucking wrong as usual. I've never said there are not
> > scientific aspects to it.
>
> Which is not the same as your current admission that it *is* science (as
> well as art). As far as I can recall, you have denied it is science at all
> up until now.
>
>
"I never said there wasn't science behind HCI. Please provide a quote
for that. In fact, you'll find I openly acknowledged that there was
science behind HCI. I claimed like many others, that that alone
doesn't make HCI a science." - cc March 10 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/72247123181051fb?hl=en&dmode=source
"I never said there weren't scientific aspects, just like there are
scientific aspects to painting a picture and composing a symphony.
That doesn't make any of them science." - cc June 6 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/39639fab28de08a6?hl=en&dmode=source
"I see Snit agrees, and I'm sure Hadron does as well. I've never said
anything different. I believe I said the exact same thing in this
thread. The only disagreement is that I call this combination of art
and science, "not science."" - cc June 7 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/26c48ca1f9df7947?hl=en&dmode=source
"I stated multiple times that HCI is art and science ****which in my
opinion does not make it science.**** - cc from like two posts ago.
So what has changed exactly?
>
> >>> None of these methods involve saying "consistency is always good," or even
> >>> "consistency is sometimes good." None of these methods apply a blanket UI
> >>> design. Each UI must be designed from the ground up.
>
> >> cc 1:
> >> -----
> >> No, every designer does not start from scratch. Some
> >> designers follow your principals because, like you, they
> >> don't know any better.
> >> -----
>
> >> cc 2:
> >> -----
> >> Each UI must be designed from the ground up.
> >> -----
>
> >> Which one do you believe is right? LOL!
>
> > Both.
>
> Every every UI must be designed from the ground up but not started from
> scratch.
>
> Makes complete sense. LOL!
Every building is started from the ground up. Is every building
started from scratch?
> > They are not mutually exclusive. Having proven critical parameters and widgets
> > to start from does not mean you don't start each design from the ground up.
>
> Twist all you want - your claims are clearly contradictory. Either they
> start from scratch or they do not. Hint: they do not.
>
According to your experiments in UIs class, I'm guessing.
cc
>
I'm also very pleased that this discussion is under the topic, DFS
supports Snit's incest.
Snit
ff371fd7-70aa-4307...@h7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
11:21 AM:
> On Jun 9, 1:40 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 1d43e13b-3564-4cfd-863e-9182bf0c5...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
>> 10:24 AM:
>>
>>> Oh, you're Hadron now?
>>
>> My, you do get confused easily!
>
> Why don't you let Hadron respond for himself? Oh right, the taint.
I could not prevent Hadron from posting even if I wanted to. You are just
spewing nonsense to try to move the goalpost away from your obvious
ignorance.
>>> Well most of your idiocy is snipped below, but
>>> two things:
>>
>> Of course you snipped - you always do when I talk about how absurd your
>> claims are. To recap, you asked where you were wrong and I noted many
>> examples:
>>
>> 1) Your insistence the book "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency"
>> supported your silly denials... it did not.
>> 2) Your pulling of a quote from that book out of context to try to support
>> your silly claim.
>> 3) Your denials of column 3 from here: <http://goo.gl/7KtN2>
>> 4) Your insistence that you cannot tell the following examples of poor UI
>> are, well, examples of poor UI: <http://goo.gl/da15g>,
>> <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>, <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>,
>> <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
>> 5) Your insistence that Carroll published student worksheets in peer reviews
>> journals (you made this claim to deny the info was a part of the article)
>>
>> You just repeatedly run from these things - which pretty much proves you
>> know how full of BS your posts on this topic have been. Face it: you had
>> very little idea on the topic of UI design / HCI and you made some absurd
>> comments. It happens... we all make mistakes. I just hope you can deal
>> with yours better than you have been.
And notice how you have *no* comment on any of this. As noted: you know you
have *no* leg to stand on. So why keep pretending you have not been
amazingly wrong? You clearly have been.
Your old claim that the science was not a part of it (before it was "behind"
it or there were scientific aspects but it was not science itself - not that
you ever really explained what that meant) to your new claim that it is
science *and* art. But based on your quotes, I see you have been going back
and forth on this for some time. OK. Whatever. Not really something I
care about.
>>>>> None of these methods involve saying "consistency is always good," or even
>>>>> "consistency is sometimes good." None of these methods apply a blanket UI
>>>>> design. Each UI must be designed from the ground up.
>>
>>>> cc 1:
>>>> -----
>>>> No, every designer does not start from scratch. Some
>>>> designers follow your principals because, like you, they
>>>> don't know any better.
>>>> -----
>>
>>>> cc 2:
>>>> -----
>>>> Each UI must be designed from the ground up.
>>>> -----
>>
>>>> Which one do you believe is right? LOL!
>>
>>> Both.
>>
>> Every every UI must be designed from the ground up but not started from
>> scratch.
>>
>> Makes complete sense. LOL!
>
> Every building is started from the ground up. Is every building
> started from scratch?
Oh give me a break. Building are physically built from the "ground up", but
their design is not done from the ground up. You used a metaphor and are
now talking about a literal interpretation for a physical item being built.
Built from the ground up, as an idiom, means to build it from nothing... and
houses are not built from nothing, they are based on massive amounts of work
that has come before them (at least professionally built ones!)
>>> They are not mutually exclusive. Having proven critical parameters and
>>> widgets
>>> to start from does not mean you don't start each design from the ground up.
>>
>> Twist all you want - your claims are clearly contradictory. Either they
>> start from scratch or they do not. Hint: they do not.
>>
>
> According to your experiments in UIs class, I'm guessing.
You sure try to move the topic to me a lot when you know you are wrong.
Remember: what classes you claim to have taken or what classes I have taken
are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Hence the reason you keep
running to that topic - to avoid talking about your errors. Your
humiliating errors (some of which are listed above - only to have you ignore
them... you have nothing to respond with, you made a fool of yourself and I
called you on it).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
5adf9a15-d385-4a5a...@b1g2000yql.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
11:23 AM:
> On Jun 9, 2:21 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
> I'm also very pleased that this discussion is under the topic, DFS
> supports Snit's incest.
Has anyone ever denied you are a troll? If not, why go so far out of your
way to prove it?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> 11:23 AM:
>
> > On Jun 9, 2:21 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm also very pleased that this discussion is under the topic, DFS
> > supports Snit's incest.
>
> Has anyone ever denied you are a troll?
Have you stopped beating your wife, Snit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
cc
> 11:21 AM:
>
> > On Jun 9, 1:40 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> cc stated in post
> >> 1d43e13b-3564-4cfd-863e-9182bf0c5...@x10g2000yqj.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
> >> 10:24 AM:
>
> >>> Oh, you're Hadron now?
>
> >> My, you do get confused easily!
>
> > Why don't you let Hadron respond for himself? Oh right, the taint.
>
> I could not prevent Hadron from posting even if I wanted to. You are just
> spewing nonsense to try to move the goalpost away from your obvious
> ignorance.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Well most of your idiocy is snipped below, but
> >>> two things:
>
> >> Of course you snipped - you always do when I talk about how absurd your
> >> claims are. To recap, you asked where you were wrong and I noted many
> >> examples:
Since you're whining that I ignored a list that contains either things
I've never said, or things so dumb that I can't possibly respond
("unicorns exist and you're denying it!!!"), I'll oblige and at least
respond to one.
> >> 4) Your insistence that you cannot tell the following examples of poor UI
> >> are, well, examples of poor UI: <http://goo.gl/da15g>,
> >> <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>, <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>,
> >> <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
>
So HCI is a science, correct? And I'm woefully ignorant in all things
HCI, right? Well I'd like to hear some science then. I don't need
hundreds of lines and quotes from random places, just straight from
the horse's ass. I already know you're going to dodge the question,
but why not try asking anyway, right. Using some science, explain why
those are examples of poor UI design. I don't see why you wouldn't be
able to use some scientific explanations to show me why. We'll ignore
whether or not you can tell based on sight that they're poor examples
of UI for right now. Maybe I am wrong about that, probably not. But
since HCI is a science, you should be able to prove to me that those
are poor UI designs. Give it to me short and sweet (and get your mind
out of the gutter you silly goose). Remember, we're all looking for
the science here. And don't be ashamed if you don't know how.
> >>>>> Where did I ever say that? Where did I ever hint at something like
> >>>>> that? Is it because I said HCI is not a science? I stated multiple
> >>>>> times that HCI is art and science which in my opinion does not make it
> >>>>> science. So where exactly are you getting this claim?
>
> >>>> Aha! I think this is the first time you have said it is science (and art).
> >>>> Cool.
>
> >>> "Heck, even cc has admitted that the HCI research that has been
> >>> referenced may very well be based on scientific inquiry and processes,
> >>> but then wants to play games where he denies this is science." - Snit
> >>> **Feb 16, 2010**
>
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ac0fbf21ba3...
> >>> en&dmode=source
>
> >>> You're fucking wrong as usual. I've never said there are not
> >>> scientific aspects to it.
>
> >> Which is not the same as your current admission that it *is* science (as
> >> well as art). As far as I can recall, you have denied it is science at all
> >> up until now.
>
> > "I never said there wasn't science behind HCI. Please provide a quote
> > for that. In fact, you'll find I openly acknowledged that there was
> > science behind HCI. I claimed like many others, that that alone
> > doesn't make HCI a science." - cc March 10 2010
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/72247123181...
> > en&dmode=source
>
> > "I never said there weren't scientific aspects, just like there are
> > scientific aspects to painting a picture and composing a symphony.
> > That doesn't make any of them science." - cc June 6 2011
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/39639fab28d...
> > en&dmode=source
>
> > "I see Snit agrees, and I'm sure Hadron does as well. I've never said
> > anything different. I believe I said the exact same thing in this
> > thread. The only disagreement is that I call this combination of art
> > and science, "not science."" - cc June 7 2011
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/26c48ca1f9d...
> > en&dmode=source
>
> > "I stated multiple times that HCI is art and science ****which in my
> > opinion does not make it science.**** - cc from like two posts ago.
>
> > So what has changed exactly?
>
> Your old claim that the science was not a part of it (before it was "behind"
Woah! Saying that there is science behind something is absolutely
saying that science is a part of it.
> it or there were scientific aspects but it was not science itself - not that
> you ever really explained what that meant) to your new claim that it is
How is that possibly hard to understand?
> science *and* art. But based on your quotes, I see you have been going back
I never said it wasn't science *and* art. I notice you put emphasis
around the "and" as well. Very important distinction, don't you think?
> and forth on this for some time. OK. Whatever. Not really something I
> care about.
>
>
So I guess you were in fact, wrong, and you won't be bringing it up
again then. Good to know.
cc
> 11:23 AM:
>
> > On Jun 9, 2:21 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm also very pleased that this discussion is under the topic, DFS
> > supports Snit's incest.
>
> Has anyone ever denied you are a troll? If not, why go so far out of your
> way to prove it?
>
Why is it trolling to note the absurdity of the title of this thread?
You're a fucking netnannying whiney fat headed bitch. That's not a
troll, that's just straight facts.
Snit
d9f1a48b-8ec2-4037...@h7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
12:05 PM:
Ah, so the "pleased" was sarcastic? If so, sorry I missed it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
5a6c4295-37c6-4727...@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
12:03 PM:
...
>>>> Of course you snipped - you always do when I talk about how absurd your
>>>> claims are. To recap, you asked where you were wrong and I noted many
>>>> examples:
>
> Since you're whining that I ignored a list that contains either things
> I've never said, or things so dumb that I can't possibly respond
> ("unicorns exist and you're denying it!!!"), I'll oblige and at least
> respond to one.
Good to see you renounce the others:
1) Your insistence the book "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency"
supported your silly denials... it did not.
You no longer claim, as you did before, that the noted book supports your
silly denials - and you accept it shows the importance of those principles.
Right?
2) Your pulling of a quote from that book out of context to try to support
your silly claim.
You deny you pulled up the following quote from the book and tried to use it
to support the claim I noted in 1, above:
-----
Consistency has no meaning on its own; It is inherently a
relational concept. Therefore to merely say that an interface
is consistent or that consistency is a goal of user interface
design is also meaningless.
----
3) Your denials of column 3 from here: <http://goo.gl/7KtN2>
And you no longer deny the importance of column 3, which includes:
"interface guidelines". Excellent!
5) Your insistence that Carroll published student worksheets in peer reviews
journals (you made this claim to deny the info was a part of the article)
And you denounce that claim of yours, too.
Good to see you finally come to your senses and denounce much of your past
absurdities and silly claims. I am impressed you would do so.
>>>> 4) Your insistence that you cannot tell the following examples of poor UI
>>>> are, well, examples of poor UI: <http://goo.gl/da15g>,
>>>> <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>, <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>,
>>>> <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
>
> So HCI is a science, correct?
We can go off on to other topics if you wish, but the comment was about your
claim that you cannot tell those are examples of poor UI.
Can you? Yes or no? To be clear: *I* can. And I can explain why they are
bad. Can you identify what makes them bad? So far it seems not. And this
is key: you are admitting you cannot tell something that anyone with even
common sense, no less a background in UI design, can tell you. Those
examples *are* bad. Period.
> And I'm woefully ignorant in all things HCI, right?
All things? Who knows... but you have made it very clear you do not have
the knowledge or background to be able to understand why those are examples
of poorly done UIs (or UI elements, really).
> Well I'd like to hear some science then.
You have been shown massive amounts of research and the like. You ignore or
call it student worksheets and the like.
> I don't need hundreds of lines and quotes from random places, just straight
> from the horse's ass. I already know you're going to dodge the question, but
> why not try asking anyway, right. Using some science, explain why those are
> examples of poor UI design.
Since you denounce peer reviews journals and books from some of the top
researches in the field, what would you accept? Bottom line, though, you
are admitting you cannot call those examples out as bad - you are admitting
you do not have the knowledge and background to do so.
Good. I agree: your knowledge and background in this area is clearly very
limited. I mean, really, look at these: <http://goo.gl/da15g>,
<http://goo.gl/C1kWI>, <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>,
<http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
If you cannot figure out why those are bad, as you admit, then you are
pretty much lost on any discussion of UI design.
> I don't see why you wouldn't be able to use some scientific explanations to
> show me why. We'll ignore whether or not you can tell based on sight that
> they're poor examples of UI for right now. Maybe I am wrong about that,
> probably not.
And here you are denying you can tell. LOL! Really... you are just lost.
Hey, why not pick one and I can explain it in more detail to you.
> But since HCI is a science, you should be able to prove to me
> that those are poor UI designs. Give it to me short and sweet (and get your
> mind out of the gutter you silly goose). Remember, we're all looking for the
> science here. And don't be ashamed if you don't know how.
Are you going to change your tune and stop denouncing peer reviewed articles
and books by top folks in the field? If so, I am happy to point you to them
again. If you are not willing to change your tune on that, though, I fear
we are at a stand-still. You reject the very evidence of the science you
ask for... which is your weakness, not mine.
...
>>> So what has changed exactly?
>>
>> Your old claim that the science was not a part of it (before it was "behind"
>
> Woah! Saying that there is science behind something is absolutely
> saying that science is a part of it.
You mean the very thing you denied has science in it. Got it. Remember,
your initial claim was that the "science" in it was a "soft science" which
you did not consider to be a science. Heck, you denied psychology was a
science. Remember your "rules and proofs" BS and how you used to say for
something to be a science it had to be "irrefutable"? Yeah... good to see
you renounce that, too.
>> it or there were scientific aspects but it was not science itself - not that
>> you ever really explained what that meant) to your new claim that it is
>
> How is that possibly hard to understand?
>
>> science *and* art. But based on your quotes, I see you have been going back
>
> I never said it wasn't science *and* art. I notice you put emphasis
> around the "and" as well. Very important distinction, don't you think?
Gee, so you were arguing against some straw man who was denying there is art
in UI design? Is that your current claim?
>> and forth on this for some time. OK. Whatever. Not really something I
>> care about.
>
> So I guess you were in fact, wrong, and you won't be bringing it up
> again then. Good to know.
What do you think I was wrong about? If you can quote my error I will have
no problem admitting to it as an error - if it really is an error.
Big "if". Not that I do no make errors - I do - but given your track record
on this topic I doubt you know enough to find any.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 12:03 PM:
>
>
> > But since HCI is a science, you should be able to prove to me
> > that those are poor UI designs. Give it to me short and sweet (and get your
> > mind out of the gutter you silly goose). Remember, we're all looking for the
> > science here. And don't be ashamed if you don't know how.
>
> Are you going to change your tune and stop denouncing peer reviewed articles
> and books by top folks in the field? If so, I am happy to point you to them
> again. If you are not willing to change your tune on that, though, I fear
> we are at a stand-still. You reject the very evidence of the science you
> ask for... which is your weakness, not mine.
>
Ahh, so you were going to quote from peer reviewed articles and books.
That was your "science." Got it. So do you think that when asked to
critique and evaluate a design in the those HCI classes, whose entire
semester of knowledge was transfered to you in a one sentence blurb,
that they expect quotations?
Snit
65a2626b-fa5f-4179...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 6/10/11
5:25 AM:
> On Jun 9, 4:51 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 5a6c4295-37c6-4727-9cbe-d2aa5213b...@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
>> 12:03 PM:
>>
>>
>>> But since HCI is a science, you should be able to prove to me
>>> that those are poor UI designs. Give it to me short and sweet (and get your
>>> mind out of the gutter you silly goose). Remember, we're all looking for the
>>> science here. And don't be ashamed if you don't know how.
>>
>> Are you going to change your tune and stop denouncing peer reviewed articles
>> and books by top folks in the field? If so, I am happy to point you to them
>> again. If you are not willing to change your tune on that, though, I fear
>> we are at a stand-still. You reject the very evidence of the science you
>> ask for... which is your weakness, not mine.
>
> Ahh, so you were going to quote from peer reviewed articles and books.
> That was your "science." Got it.
You made it sound like that is not sufficient. What science were you hoping
for?
> So do you think that when asked to critique and evaluate a design in the those
> HCI classes, whose entire semester of knowledge was transfered to you in a one
> sentence blurb, that they expect quotations?
One sentence blurbs? What? Your classes sucked. Really.
Ok: so even you admit that peer reviewed articles and books from the top
folks in the field are not sufficient for you (and, frankly, that was
already clear - look at how you repeatedly discounted such). So what would
you accept?
LOL!
The fact is you will accept *nothing*. You have your mind made up, have
come to absolutely absurd conclusions you cannot support, so you reject all
contrary info - no matter how solid. Hence the reason you ignore all
comments about "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency" and about the
list of HCI topics, split into columns that I repeatedly reference... you
know, the one where you just give a kneejerk denial of column three.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
He's raving at the moment. I still dont understand why.
http://www.controlassemblies.com/ControlPanelFabrication/ControlPanelTesting/tabid/850/Default.aspx
for one instance of obvious engineering science influences in UIs.
Snit
8:05 AM:
There is a lot of science and research... but he is offering examples where
it has gone wrong (I do that with OSs a lot... hard to fault him for it!)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 5:25 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 4:51 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> cc stated in post
> >> 5a6c4295-37c6-4727-9cbe-d2aa5213b...@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 6/9/11
> >> 12:03 PM:
>
> >>> But since HCI is a science, you should be able to prove to me
> >>> that those are poor UI designs. Give it to me short and sweet (and get your
> >>> mind out of the gutter you silly goose). Remember, we're all looking for the
> >>> science here. And don't be ashamed if you don't know how.
>
> >> Are you going to change your tune and stop denouncing peer reviewed articles
> >> and books by top folks in the field? If so, I am happy to point you to them
> >> again. If you are not willing to change your tune on that, though, I fear
> >> we are at a stand-still. You reject the very evidence of the science you
> >> ask for... which is your weakness, not mine.
>
> > Ahh, so you were going to quote from peer reviewed articles and books.
> > That was your "science." Got it.
>
> You made it sound like that is not sufficient. What science were you hoping
> for?
See below.
> > So do you think that when asked to critique and evaluate a design in the those
> > HCI classes, whose entire semester of knowledge was transfered to you in a one
> > sentence blurb, that they expect quotations?
>
> One sentence blurbs? What? Your classes sucked. Really.
Read much?
> Ok: so even you admit that peer reviewed articles and books from the top
> folks in the field are not sufficient for you (and, frankly, that was
> already clear - look at how you repeatedly discounted such). So what would
> you accept?
I accept that all *you* can provide are quotes from articles and
books. That's what I meant with "Got it." It's accepted. But you ran
from the question. I asked you to evaluate a design. Would your
evaluation consisting of quotes (which you don't have to provide, I
think we all agree that you can find quotes) be an acceptable
evaluation in any HCI class?
> LOL!
>
> The fact is you will accept *nothing*. You have your mind made up, have
> come to absolutely absurd conclusions you cannot support, so you reject all
> contrary info - no matter how solid. Hence the reason you ignore all
> comments about "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency" and about the
> list of HCI topics, split into columns that I repeatedly reference... you
> know, the one where you just give a kneejerk denial of column three.
>
I already accepted your answer. I asked for science and you said you
could provide quotes. You ignored my follow-up question, which I
repeated above. I have one additional follow-up question: Do you
consider quoting papers to be science?
cc
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> > cc stated in post
You never responded to my post. I asked specific questions to you and
you continue to run and suck Snit's dick. I guess it's easier to just
say I'm wrong, rather than actually discuss it.
Snit
06568f9b-13e3-43d0...@y30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 6/10/11
10:07 AM:
Yes. But if you just focus on "one sentence blurbs", then it seems you do
not. Why have that as a focus? Sure, I bet you meant that as an insult
against me... as a dodge for your discounting of peer reviewed articles and
books by the top folks in the field, but why? Why not just answer
questions? Why do you run so much and try to move goal posts?
The question is simple: you say you want more science. I note that you
reject peer reviewed journals and books by the top folks in the field... so
what will you accept as "science"?
>> Ok: so even you admit that peer reviewed articles and books from the top
>> folks in the field are not sufficient for you (and, frankly, that was
>> already clear - look at how you repeatedly discounted such). So what would
>> you accept?
>
> I accept that all *you* can provide are quotes from articles and
> books. That's what I meant with "Got it." It's accepted. But you ran
> from the question. I asked you to evaluate a design. Would your
> evaluation consisting of quotes (which you don't have to provide, I
> think we all agree that you can find quotes) be an acceptable
> evaluation in any HCI class?
You keep asking for the *science* behind my being able to tell these designs
are bad: <http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>,
I have shown you where peer reviewed articles and books from top people in
the field support my views... so what else do you want? Face it: you just
do not have the background or knowledge to be able to tell those are poorly
done UI elements... you already admitted this. Or are you back pedaling on
that now?
>> LOL!
>>
>> The fact is you will accept *nothing*. You have your mind made up, have
>> come to absolutely absurd conclusions you cannot support, so you reject all
>> contrary info - no matter how solid. Hence the reason you ignore all
>> comments about "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency" and about the
>> list of HCI topics, split into columns that I repeatedly reference... you
>> know, the one where you just give a kneejerk denial of column three.
> I already accepted your answer. I asked for science and you said you
> could provide quotes.
No. I did not. You made that up. I said I can point to peer reviewed
articles and to books from top folks in the field. Since these are not
enough for you, what would be?
> You ignored my follow-up question, which I
> repeated above. I have one additional follow-up question: Do you
> consider quoting papers to be science?
I consider your game playing to be idiotic. What... do you want me to run a
full scientific study for you now? I mean, really, you are just being
absurd.
The fact is you simply do not have the background or knowledge to know the
following designs are poorly done: <http://goo.gl/da15g>,
<http://goo.gl/C1kWI>, <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>,
<http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
You have made this clear. As such, you are admitting you are clueless on
the topic.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
e01c1a08-7bde-41df...@s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com on 6/10/11
10:10 AM:
...
>>> One sentence blurbs? What? Your classes sucked. Really.
>>
>>> Ok: so even you admit that peer reviewed articles and books from the top
>>> folks in the field are not sufficient for you (and, frankly, that was
>>> already clear - look at how you repeatedly discounted such). So what would
>>> you accept?
>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>>> The fact is you will accept *nothing*. You have your mind made up, have
>>> come to absolutely absurd conclusions you cannot support, so you reject all
>>> contrary info - no matter how solid. Hence the reason you ignore all
>>> comments about "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency" and about the
>>> list of HCI topics, split into columns that I repeatedly reference... you
>>> know, the one where you just give a kneejerk denial of column three.
>>
>> He's raving at the moment. I still dont understand why.
>>
>
> You never responded to my post. I asked specific questions to you and
> you continue to run and suck Snit's dick. I guess it's easier to just
> say I'm wrong, rather than actually discuss it.
You admit you do not have the background or knowledge to know the following
examples of UIs are poorly done: <http://goo.gl/da15g>,
<http://goo.gl/C1kWI>, <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>,
<http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
Then you say you want scientific evidence to support the claims that they
are, but you say peer reviewed journals and books from top folks in the
field are not sufficient... as you run from questions as to what would be
considered sufficient for you. The answer, of course, is *nothing*: you
have made up your mind that the basic principles of UI design are things you
wish to reject no matter how much evidence you see supporting their
importance (no less their existence). You also whine that people quote
"snippets" of the evidence instead, presumably, of quoting entire books to
you. I mean, really, how many more quotes and explanations and evidence do
you need?
Bottom line: you have admitted your ignorance and have shown you have no
idea how to grow past it, even with the help of others. This frustrates you
so you lash out and belittle others. So be it... it is not like you are
fooling anyone.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> >> folks in the field are not sufficient for you (and, frankly, that was
> >> already clear - look at how you repeatedly discounted such). So what would
> >> you accept?
>
> > I accept that all *you* can provide are quotes from articles and
> > books. That's what I meant with "Got it." It's accepted. But you ran
> > from the question. I asked you to evaluate a design. Would your
> > evaluation consisting of quotes (which you don't have to provide, I
> > think we all agree that you can find quotes) be an acceptable
> > evaluation in any HCI class?
>
> You keep asking for the *science* behind my being able to tell these designs
> are bad: <http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>,
> <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>, <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>,
> <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
>
> I have shown you where peer reviewed articles and books from top people in
> the field support my views... so what else do you want? Face it: you just
> do not have the background or knowledge to be able to tell those are poorly
> done UI elements... you already admitted this. Or are you back pedaling on
> that now?
>
You dodged the question again. Would providing quotations and sourcing
peer reviewed articles and books be enough for a professor of an HCI
class in this small design evaluation exercise?
> >> LOL!
>
> >> The fact is you will accept *nothing*. You have your mind made up, have
> >> come to absolutely absurd conclusions you cannot support, so you reject all
> >> contrary info - no matter how solid. Hence the reason you ignore all
> >> comments about "Coordinating user interfaces for consistency" and about the
> >> list of HCI topics, split into columns that I repeatedly reference... you
> >> know, the one where you just give a kneejerk denial of column three.
> > I already accepted your answer. I asked for science and you said you
> > could provide quotes.
>
> No. I did not. You made that up. I said I can point to peer reviewed
> articles and to books from top folks in the field. Since these are not
> enough for you, what would be?
Well I think we're basically saying the same thing. When I said "you
could provide quotes," I meant you could provide actual quotations
from articles and books. So what I was saying was that I asked for
science and you pointed to peer reviewed articles and books. I never
said these were not enough for me. I just asked additional follow-up
questions, which you're dodging.
> > You ignored my follow-up question, which I
> > repeated above. I have one additional follow-up question: Do you
> > consider quoting papers to be science?
>
> I consider your game playing to be idiotic. What... do you want me to run a
> full scientific study for you now? I mean, really, you are just being
> absurd.
So do you believe that the only two options are doing a full
scientific study (of which you are not specific) or using papers and
books?
Snit
8a472b40-4d52-4211...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com on 6/10/11
11:44 AM:
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
...
>> You keep asking for the *science* behind my being able to tell these designs
>> are bad: <http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>,
>> <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>, <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>,
>> <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
>>
>> I have shown you where peer reviewed articles and books from top people in
>> the field support my views... so what else do you want? Face it: you just
>> do not have the background or knowledge to be able to tell those are poorly
>> done UI elements... you already admitted this. Or are you back pedaling on
>> that now?
>>
>
> You dodged the question again. Would providing quotations and sourcing
> peer reviewed articles and books be enough for a professor of an HCI
> class in this small design evaluation exercise?
I am not interested in your side issues, but I will say that in *my* classes
I do more of what I do in COLA - I give not just what you list but examples
and show reasoning. If you want to know what a class is like, email someone
teaching one. Interesting how you are now making it quite clear that you
have never taken such a class (which, given your admission of your lack of
experience and knowledge, frankly is not surprising).
...
>>> I already accepted your answer. I asked for science and you said you
>>> could provide quotes.
>>
>> No. I did not. You made that up. I said I can point to peer reviewed
>> articles and to books from top folks in the field. Since these are not
>> enough for you, what would be?
>
> Well I think we're basically saying the same thing.
What you *think* is irrelevant. You claimed I said something I did not say.
As for the rest of your BS, you are just running scared. You have made it
very clear you have neither the background nor the experience to figure out
why the following are examples of poor UI choices: <http://goo.gl/da15g>,
<http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>. Additionally, you cannot even
imagine what it would take to get you to that level of understanding.
You have admitted to your ignorance on the topic of UI development and HCI -
which is quite contrary to your past claims. In other words: you are
admitting you lied previously.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> 11:44 AM:
>
> ...
>
> >> You keep asking for the *science* behind my being able to tell these designs
> >> are bad: <http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>,
> >> <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>, <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>,
> >> <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
>
> >> I have shown you where peer reviewed articles and books from top people in
> >> the field support my views... so what else do you want? Face it: you just
> >> do not have the background or knowledge to be able to tell those are poorly
> >> done UI elements... you already admitted this. Or are you back pedaling on
> >> that now?
>
> > You dodged the question again. Would providing quotations and sourcing
> > peer reviewed articles and books be enough for a professor of an HCI
> > class in this small design evaluation exercise?
>
> I am not interested in your side issues, but I will say that in *my* classes
> I do more of what I do in COLA
Trolling classes? No one will be surprised.
cc
> 11:44 AM:
>
> ...
>
> >> You keep asking for the *science* behind my being able to tell these designs
> >> are bad: <http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>,
> >> <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>, <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>,
> >> <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
>
> >> I have shown you where peer reviewed articles and books from top people in
> >> the field support my views... so what else do you want? Face it: you just
> >> do not have the background or knowledge to be able to tell those are poorly
> >> done UI elements... you already admitted this. Or are you back pedaling on
> >> that now?
>
> > You dodged the question again. Would providing quotations and sourcing
> > peer reviewed articles and books be enough for a professor of an HCI
> > class in this small design evaluation exercise?
>
> I am not interested in your side issues, but I will say that in *my* classes
> I do more of what I do in COLA - I give not just what you list but examples
> and show reasoning. If you want to know what a class is like, email someone
> teaching one. Interesting how you are now making it quite clear that you
> have never taken such a class (which, given your admission of your lack of
> experience and knowledge, frankly is not surprising).
>
Dodged question noted.
>
> >>> I already accepted your answer. I asked for science and you said you
> >>> could provide quotes.
>
> >> No. I did not. You made that up. I said I can point to peer reviewed
> >> articles and to books from top folks in the field. Since these are not
> >> enough for you, what would be?
>
> > Well I think we're basically saying the same thing.
>
>
Dodged question noted.
Well thanks. I believe I gathered all I needed to know from what you
did answer and what you ran from. If you wish to go back and actually
answer some questions, then I may have to change my mind, but I think
it's fairly obvious otherwise. You and Hadron can go back to being
butt-buddy retards and completely dodging any evidence/questions that
are designed to educate. I can't wait to see Hadron post another "cc,
you're usually reasonable, but the fact that you don't find UI design
important is ludicrous even though you've only actually said the exact
opposite" full-on retard post. Sorry to interrupt.
Snit
0b477aae-bf1b-487d...@c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com on 6/10/11
12:32 PM:
There is do dodging of any relevant questions. In the end, you have now
admitted you lied about having knowledge and experience in the area of HCI
and UIs. You lied. You have no idea how someone could tell these UIs are
poorly done: <http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>,
<http://goo.gl/IjlkV>, and you have no idea how you would even go about
gaining the knowledge.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
The biggest liar in COLA history calling someone a liar. How cute.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
All Snit ever does is dodge and lie as he kisses his buddies butts.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 11:00 am, "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On Jun 10, 7:34 am, High Plains Thumper <h...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>> High Plains Thumper stated:
>>>
>>>>>>> Like?
>>>
>>>>>> Not really... but not really a big deal, either. Just proves you
>>>>>> are insane and a suck up to Carroll.
>>>
>>>>> Typical Snit. Does gross snippage of evidence showing Snit is a
>>>>> bald faced liar then adds a nasty ad hominem kick. Those posters
>>>>> weren't Steve Carroll socks, neither were the others.
>>>
>>>>> Snit, the only one who gets busted by troll buddies .... Heh!
>>>
>>>> I like how Snit posts an unsupported list of names he wants people
>>>> to believe I posted with;) Snit apparently still believes that
>>>> people are as stupid as he needs them to be... but Google shows
>>>> otherwise... despite the 'lists' that Ebot put up of Snits nyms
>>>> (that I've pointed to elsewhere). Here's another list Sandman put
>>>> up that displays his hypocrisy:
>>>
>>>> http://goo.gl/ZyQPu
>>>
>>>> You might consider appending this to his quotes lists on the next
>>>> update (who knows... maybe more nyms will even be found).
>>>
>>>> I did use a few of the names on Snit's list... in the dozen or more
>>>> years I've been posting to csma and I explained why.
>>>
>>> I have not seen that. Which names and why? I am sure your list is
>>> not as long as Snit's and was not done to avoid kill filters.
>>
>> It's much more fun to let Snit attempt to "prove" which ones ;)
>>
>> I didn't use any for avoiding kill filters. A few were used when I
>> was having problems with a new version of MTNW on OSX and I said as
>> much. Snit, trying to make me look like a nymshifter to the extent
>> Google proves he is, tried to blow what I did way out of
>> proportion... like he did with his sigmond sock puppet he tried to
>> pin on others. But the facts show that I was in a discussion Snit
>> and Elizabot made an observation I had completely missed about this
>> other person who appeared (sigmond)... Elizabot wrote:
>>
>> <begin quote of Elizabot>
>>
>> Shut up, Snit. You're not fooling anybody.
>>
>> "Sigmond's" NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.117.214.4
>> Snit's NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.117.214.4 (from a different nesgroup):
>> From: Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> ?Approved: ASAPM Robomoderator
>> <asap...@stump.algebra.com> ?Message-ID: <BC172FBE.37F1C%snit-
>> nos...@cableone.net> ?NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.117.214.4
>>
>> Perhaps your are actually Snit's significant other. Whatever you are,
>> you are a ?pathetic sockpuppet.
>> <end quote of Elizabot>
>>
>> To which Snit replied with an amazing claim that someone had possibly
>> "snuck into" his house:
>>
>> "Wrong again - I have no idea who Sigmond is. Maybe someone who snuck
>> into
>> my house.
>> BTW: I just checked my IP, that is not it, though mine does begin
>> with ?24.117." - Snit
>>
>> (notice the *claim* about his IP address? - it lead to lots of fun ;)
>>
>> So, yes... that's Snit claiming that someone "snuck into" his house
>> and posted using the handle "sigmond" (he subsequently claimed this
>> was a 'sarcastic' remark; obviously, that's another word Snit
>> doesn't know the meaning of).
>>
>> Other posters (myself included) had the opportunity to notice and
>> comment on Elizabot's observation in the original thread it was ever
>> brought up in. Snit blew tons of smoke to try and escape that he'd
>> been busted, but reality shows what it does. for example, Mike Dee
>> replies to Elizabot with:
>>
>> "Proof of snit's schizo ability to argue "reason" with himself
>> [therefore he can also agree with himself]."
>>
>> And John Q. Public found out a bit more info and wrote:
>>
>> "Good call! I had forgotten about sock puppets.
>>
>> I have not been bothered to read Snit's postings since I figured out
>> who he is. I don't bother to filter his posts, I just consider the
>> source and skip to the next one when I see his name. I suppose that
>> you and Steve are still having fun, but sometimes reading this gets
>> tiresome.
>>
>> I did copy Sigmund's address and ran it through google. I wasn't
>> very ?surprised when it turned out that this is the only thread that
>> he has ?ever posted to.
>>
>> Nice try Snit!"
>>
>> Of course, then Snit started pinning his sigmond sock puppets on
>> others... and several other posters got involved and kicked the snot
>> outta Snit;)
>
> Translation: you have forgotten which ones you used. Why not just
> prove Snit wrong?
Stop forging my posts, Snit.
--
HPT
cc
>
> There is do dodging of any relevant questions.
Just because you don't see how they are relevant, does not make them
irrelevant. They will be waiting there for you should you choose to
not be a coward. And yes, I snipped your unsupported lies.
Snit
e38cfe8b-bf7e-4394...@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 6/10/11
12:59 PM:
You lied and admitted to it. But, fine, what *relevant* questions do you
think I did not answer? And how will it change the fact you have now
admitted you have no clue how to tell if the following are examples of
poorly done UIs: <http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>,
<http://goo.gl/IjlkV>. Really: once you made that admission; the admission
you do not have the background or knowledge to evaluate even *those*
painfully obvious examples of poorly done UIs, it is clear your whole BS
claims to knowledge in this area was a lie. You lied. You were busted.
Oh well. Now you just snip and run and beg to know what such classes are
like - the very type of classes you *used* to claim you had taken. And I
already answered what *I* did in such classes and what you should do if you
are interested in taking some.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
The question is why are you such a snivveling little bitch?
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
Stop forging my posts, Snit.
--
HPT
cc
Snit
526ed63f-4c6d-4fe7...@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 6/10/11
1:05 PM:
> On Jun 10, 4:03 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> e38cfe8b-bf7e-4394-a4cb-20276aaa7...@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 6/10/11
>> 12:59 PM:
>>
>>> On Jun 10, 3:39 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> There is do dodging of any relevant questions.
>>
>>> Just because you don't see how they are relevant, does not make them
>>> irrelevant. They will be waiting there for you should you choose to
>>> not be a coward. And yes, I snipped your unsupported lies.
>>
>> You lied and admitted to it. But, fine, what *relevant* questions do you
>> think I did not answer? And how will it change the fact you have now
>> admitted you have no clue how to tell if the following are examples of poorly
>> done UIs: <http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>,
>> <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>, <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>,
>> <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>. Really: once you made that admission; the admission
>> you do not have the background or knowledge to evaluate even *those*
>> painfully obvious examples of poorly done UIs, it is clear your whole BS
>> claims to knowledge in this area was a lie. You lied. You were busted.
>>
>> Oh well. Now you just snip and run and beg to know what such classes are
>> like - the very type of classes you *used* to claim you had taken. And I
>> already answered what *I* did in such classes and what you should do if you
>> are interested in taking some.
>
> Just because you don't see how they are relevant, does not make them
> irrelevant. They will be waiting there for you should you choose to
> not be a coward. And yes, I snipped your unsupported lies.
LOL! You could not even make up a question that has not been answered. And
you ran from your lies. But, hey, prove me wrong and explain what is wrong
with those UIs I link to, above.
But you cannot. You are *completely* clueless on the topic. Completely.
All your claims to the contrary were lies.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
I asked you to evaluate a few designs.
You responded that you could evaluate them by referencing articles and
books. Later you mentioned you could do a full-on scientific study.
Do you think either of those methods would satisfy an HCI professor
asking you to evaluate an HCI design?
A full scientific study is generic, what would you do in this study?
Are those the only two things you can do to evaluate a design?
Do you consider referencing articles and books to be science?
Snit
d85c7992-451d-4420...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com on 6/10/11
1:12 PM:
>>>>> Just because you don't see how they are relevant, does not make them
>>>>> irrelevant. They will be waiting there for you should you choose to not be
>>>>> a coward. And yes, I snipped your unsupported lies.
>>>>>
>>>> You lied and admitted to it. But, fine, what *relevant* questions do you
>>>> think I did not answer? And how will it change the fact you have now
>>>> admitted you have no clue how to tell if the following are examples of
>>>> poorly done UIs: <http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>,
>>>> <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>, <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>, <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>,
>>>> <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>. Really: once you made that admission; the admission
>>>> you do not have the background or knowledge to evaluate even *those*
>>>> painfully obvious examples of poorly done UIs, it is clear your whole BS
>>>> claims to knowledge in this area was a lie. You lied. You were busted.
>>>>
>>>> Oh well. Now you just snip and run and beg to know what such classes are
>>>> like - the very type of classes you *used* to claim you had taken. And I
>>>> already answered what *I* did in such classes and what you should do if you
>>>> are interested in taking some.
>>>>
>>> Just because you don't see how they are relevant, does not make them
>>> irrelevant. They will be waiting there for you should you choose to not be a
>>> coward. And yes, I snipped your unsupported lies.
>>>
>> LOL! You could not even make up a question that has not been answered. And
>> you ran from your lies. But, hey, prove me wrong and explain what is wrong
>> with those UIs I link to, above.
>>
>> But you cannot. You are *completely* clueless on the topic. Completely.
>> All your claims to the contrary were lies.
> I asked you to evaluate a few designs.
> You responded that you could evaluate them by referencing articles and
> books.
Where? And was this *after* you admitted you lied about your experience -
when you admitted to the above?
> Later you mentioned you could do a full-on scientific study.
When did I say I could do such by myself?
> Do you think either of those methods would satisfy an HCI professor
> asking you to evaluate an HCI design?
What professor? What the hell are you babbling about?
> A full scientific study is generic, what would you do in this study?
A study on what?
> Are those the only two things you can do to evaluate a design?
>
> Do you consider referencing articles and books to be science?
You are just lost... babbling off topic to try to deal with the fact you
were busted lying:
<http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>, <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>,
<http://goo.gl/4VWJl>, <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
Each of those is an example of poor UI design. This is obvious... but you
admit it goes beyond your ability to understand. Your BS about begging to
learn about classes and science is not even relevant.
You lied. Oh well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
...
> I asked you to evaluate a few designs.
What designs? I have no idea which ones you even mean... but then you claim
I am "running".
I call BS on that. Of course, the fact is I asked *you* if you could tell
if some UI elements were poorly done - and, if so, how you could tell:
<http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>, <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>,
<http://goo.gl/4VWJl>, <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>.
You admitted, contrary to your past claims, that you do not have the
background or knowledge to figure out why those are clearly bad. In other
words, you admitted you lied.
So stop trying to change the topic. Stop snipping and running. Stop adding
to your lies.
Any response you give which is just repetition of your past BS will be
ignored. You lied and then admitted to it... deal with it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
You need to start paying attention... he already told you what a
"science" is:
"The study of something (in a scientific way), *that* is a science.
Have you ever wondered what the "ology" part of so many sciences
means? " - Snit
Wow ;)
High Plains Thumper
What class did he learn that in?
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> On Jun 10, 1:30 pm, "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 11:00 am, "High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>> <asapm-...@stump.algebra.com> ?Message-ID: <BC172FBE.37F1C%snit-
> "wrong"?
Which names have you used and why? Snit is a known sock puppet user. Are
you?
--
HPT
cc
Wow. What a dodge. "An HCI professor" as in any.
> > A full scientific study is generic, what would you do in this study?
>
> A study on what?
The study you said you would do. Another dodge.
> > Are those the only two things you can do to evaluate a design?
>
> > Do you consider referencing articles and books to be science?
>
> You are just lost... babbling off topic to try to deal with the fact you
> were busted lying:
Wow, dodge #3!
> <http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>, <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>,
> <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>, <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
>
> Each of those is an example of poor UI design. This is obvious... but you
> admit it goes beyond your ability to understand. Your BS about begging to
> learn about classes and science is not even relevant.
>
> You lied. Oh well.
I didn't lie about anything. You do not know how to evaluate a design.
You have now proven this. Thanks.
Steve Carroll
After reading your arguments with him I'd say you're sounding kind of
whiny and bitchy;)
But then, you *are* talking about a guy that does stuff like:
<begin material Snit quoted of you>
cc 1:
-----
No, every designer does not start from scratch. Some
designers follow your principals because, like you, they
don't know any better.
-----
cc 2:
-----
Each UI must be designed from the ground up.
-----
<end material Snit quoted of you>
Snit quoted that as he asked you:
"Which one do you believe is right? LOL! "
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d648e42f763b3064?hl=en&
Snit's obviously trying to sell the idea that there is some sort of
inconsistency there. Is it another example of him being disingenuous?
Or his infamous reading comprehension problem?
Then there are Snit's many allegations talking about what you have
"admitted" to... here are a few (the last one, talking about
repetition, is my fav;)
"Bottom line: you have admitted your ignorance and have shown you have
no idea how to grow past it, even with the help of others. "
"Face it: you just do not have the background or knowledge to be able
to tell those are poorly done UI elements... you already admitted
this. Or are you back pedaling on that now?"
"You have admitted to your ignorance on the topic of UI development
and HCI - which is quite contrary to your past claims. In other
words: you are admitting you lied previously."
"In the end, you have now admitted you lied about having knowledge and
experience in the area of HCI and UIs. You lied."
"And how will it change the fact you have now admitted you have no
clue how to tell if the following are examples of poorly done UIs:"
"And was this *after* you admitted you lied about your experience -
when you admitted to the above?"
"You admitted, contrary to your past claims, that you do not have the
background or knowledge to figure out why those are clearly bad. In
other words, you admitted you lied."
"Any response you give which is just repetition of your past BS will
be ignored. You lied and then admitted to it... deal with it."
Fun stuff;)
High Plains Thumper
> Then there are Snit's many allegations talking about what you have
> "admitted" to... here are a few (the last one, talking about
> repetition, is my fav;) [...]
>
> "Any response you give which is just repetition of your past BS will be
> ignored. You lied and then admitted to it... deal with it."
Snit even gets busted by trolls! Speaking of repetition:
40- Hadron (COLA): "Would you please stop the whining. FFS he has you
jumping to his every post. How many more fucking times are you going to
post the same repetitive garbage? Please ..at least change the record
sometimes!!!!!!!" 13 Aug 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1e0ecbb776623473
114- Rotten Apple: "You make trolls like me look like choir boys." 14 Sep
2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7a92988bcbce8fdb
152- amicus_curious (COLA): "Where on earth do you get the idea that I am
arguing with you, little man? Is your name "Hadron"? Shoo! Go back to your
mail order business!" 29 May 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/00ee203fe6183b1b
The latest add:
153- nessuno (COLA):
Chris Ahlstrom: "Have you ever noticed that threads involving Snit, [...]
are a basically a waste of time?
nessuno: "Yep. I don't read them." 29 May 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/2f997598f0e25f9d
... the remaining 151 are here ;)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/53484e0b75d2b659
--
HPT
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll wrote:
> > Then there are Snit's many allegations talking about what you have
> > "admitted" to... here are a few (the last one, talking about
> > repetition, is my fav;) [...]
>
> > "Any response you give which is just repetition of your past BS will be
> > ignored. You lied and then admitted to it... deal with it."
>
> Snit even gets busted by trolls! Speaking of repetition:
>
> 40- Hadron (COLA): "Would you please stop the whining. FFS he has you
> jumping to his every post. How many more fucking times are you going to
> post the same repetitive garbage? Please ..at least change the record
> sometimes!!!!!!!" 13 Aug 2010
>
>
> 114- Rotten Apple: "You make trolls like me look like choir boys." 14 Sep
> 2009
>
>
> 152- amicus_curious (COLA): "Where on earth do you get the idea that I am
> arguing with you, little man? Is your name "Hadron"? Shoo! Go back to your
> mail order business!" 29 May 2011
>
>
> The latest add:
>
> 153- nessuno (COLA):
> Chris Ahlstrom: "Have you ever noticed that threads involving Snit, [...]
> are a basically a waste of time?
> nessuno: "Yep. I don't read them." 29 May 2011
>
>
> ... the remaining 151 are here ;)
>
Hey... I'm even offering to go over the history of quotes like these
with Snit... so he can exonerate himself from the charges all these
folks have made against him. I don't know if he's seen my offer or not
(he claims to have me kf'd - but he definitely reads at least some of
my posts). Seems to me he's jump at the chance to refute everyone's
claims about him, especially being that I offered to do all the
legwork of grabbing the history. Realistically, what does he have to
lose? I mean. it's not like it's possible for him to appear to be more
dishonest than he does now, right? He has everything to gain.
Snit
c287ab5d-8062-43d1...@m4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 6/13/11
4:37 AM:
...
>> <http://goo.gl/da15g>, <http://goo.gl/C1kWI>, <http://goo.gl/LHJJh>,
>> <http://goo.gl/4VWJl>, <http://goo.gl/pH2cv>, <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>
>>
>> Each of those is an example of poor UI design. This is obvious... but you
>> admit it goes beyond your ability to understand. Your BS about begging to
>> learn about classes and science is not even relevant.
>>
>> You lied. Oh well.
>
> I didn't lie about anything. You do not know how to evaluate a design.
> You have now proven this. Thanks.
You lied that you had experience with HCI / UI design - this lie was shown
when you admitted you do not have the background or knowledge to understand
why those examples show poor design. You lied. Why do you pretend
otherwise once you have admitted to it?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
--
This just in:
"You lied that you had experience with HCI / UI design - this lie was
shown when you admitted you do not have the background or knowledge to
High Plains Thumper
> cc stated:
>
>> I didn't lie about anything. You do not know how to evaluate a design.
>> You have now proven this. Thanks.
>
> You lied that you had experience with HCI / UI design - this lie was
> shown when you admitted you do not have the background or knowledge to
> understand why those examples show poor design. You lied. Why do you
> pretend otherwise once you have admitted to it?
Heh, heh, heh. cc expresses the truth. Snit does his usual snippage, then
denials and lies. Yet Snit has yet to answer these 153 poster quotes on
the Snit Circus found here, BTW:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/41cf935ccb9b37de
1- Adam Kesher: "Steve, IIRC Sandman's website has a member area and a
login. If you forget your password, you can ask it to e-mail it to you,
and a bot will send an e-mail. *That* is the e-mail Snit got from
Sandman's website, and yes he's that fucked in the head and starved for
attention that he'd claim it to be an e-mail from Sandman himself. So,
don't get sucked into his little circus. The e-mail, in this particular
instance, did probably originate from Sandman.net." 27 Feb 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dac74355552b4cc7
2- Alan Baker: "People's perceptions of you are *formed* by behaviour and
not withstanding your occasional on topic posts, I wish you'd leave too.
Please note that despite the amazing silliness that is Edwin, I have never
made the same wish of him." 27 Feb 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/4a7c3ebf3fc10221
3- Andrew J. Brehm: "You are not flamed because you speak the truth, you
are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the
newsgroup." 27 Feb 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/52eab53a559e00ce
4- AZ Nomad: "The fact that you routinely change your headers to weasel
out of killfiles proves that you're an asshole." 25 Jun 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/51b43d6c9613c9da
5- Andy/news/nospam: "Why do you keep these things up, Snit? Why not just
let them go away and show how responsible a member of CSMA you are? You
could show your enemies up by being better than them, rise above the low
level you so obviously dislike. Anything, just stop...." 26 Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d6ffb6b06aa237e5
6- B.B.: "Does the From: header contain the string "Snit"? If yes, then
troll. Otherwise, maybe. Dunno why I had my KF on you set to expire, but
it's fixed now." 13 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8a98d179b2ff9578
7- BaJoRi: "You know it, and I know it, and everyone else who has read
your idiocy knows it. I took your statement, showed it to be wrong, then
added even more, just to be a dick and REALLY show you to be a fool. You
need to judiciously snip out pertinent points because you are an
intellectually dwarfed turd-burglar." 11 Nov 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.vacation.las-vegas/msg/647944511b74b82f
8- bobinnv: "I learned some time ago how much better this group can be if
you kill file Snit. I have never understood why more people don't do the
same.." 5 Aug 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0706dbef8ce1f903
9- Bob B.: "This has always been pretty much a free-for-all group, but
since Snit showed up, its become almost impossible to have a decent
discussion about anything. The solution is to NOT REPLY TO SNIT. But for
some reason, some people just can't stop feeding him." 27 Dec 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3d2f1dff196ca190
10- °b° unny: Subject "snit makes me sad", Text "really actually =:-("
9 Oct 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4e31cb49c1e2d432
11- Brian: "LOL, Has anyone ever been more universally hated on the USENET
than Snit? Too bad he craves the hatred and negative attention. We will
read about him in the news some day soon going on a shooting rampage.
Somebody should get the pychopath some help before he VT's a bunch of
people. 29 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/66a89e4f5c89f489
12- buzz off: "Snit is obviously mentally ill, but you and Steve don't
help. You encourage him to post, which he doesn't need to do. We would all
be better off if you just ignore him. 17 Nov 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/2ed879f256677548
13- Carlo Coggi: "He must believe he is surrounded by 'trolls' ... in the
groups he trolls in, that is. I wondered if the idiotrollers like snit
would reply to this thread. Of course, I didn't see his posts, only your
reply". 07 Aug 2006 (available only in reply)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5ea48f7a84115fd1
14- C Lund: "Snit is not my responsibility. Maybe it's time for you to
learn how to use your kill-filter. I am assuming, of course, that your
Usenet browser has a kill-filter." 5 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/2c390a34b05b24a9
15- cc (COLA): "You are incapable of letting anything go. In fact, I
guarantee you will respond to this post in under 3 hours. Hell, I'd be
surprised if it takes longer than 30 minutes. If I really wanted to, I
could make this little side topic go on forever, because you are a
complete moron who just has to respond to anything written about or to
you, even if it just means repeating yourself." 1 Feb 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3712090033411605
16- Chance Furlong: "HPT, Wally, Sandman, C Lund, Steve Carroll and Tim
Adams are not trolls and do not troll. You, on the other hand, are a
troll." 27 Aug 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/28c267f26965b43f
17- Chris Ahlstrom (COLA): "I try to go more by the contents of the posts.
Although some clowns (e.g. Snit) spew out so much chaff it is not worth
the effort." 14 Feb 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8b6a982957c7c9d5
Chris Ahlstrom (COLA): "Actually, many of the advocates are sick to death
of Snit's never-ending puerile blather about trivialities. The occasional
reasonable conversations are too few and far between." 6 Mar 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/811326833ba71864
18- Chris Clement: "ugh....geez man.....let it go" 5 Jul 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ed093996df6547b2
19- chrisv (cola): "No, she called him 'shit', and rightly so, for they
way he was so ignominiously birthed into a toilet at the bus depot, and
simply refused to die, despite repeated flushes. It's now far too late to
*flush* him, but we can still *plonk* him..." 12 Sep 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/18099f8aa067f4a5
20- Code Orange: "Then why post it? What need is there for you to "win" an
argument? They don't like you, you don't like them. Why must you keep this
up? What results are you expecting?"
21- CozmicDebris: "I'm done with your three year old games. The archives
show my answers and your inability to process them. Keep posting your list
and proving that you are an idiot troll. I will not address it any
further- you being too stupid to realize and accept that is not my
problem". 22 Nov 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.attws/msg/0aa65b7a132dbfe8
22- cshenk: "I happen to believe him over you... and I doubt I'd be the
only person in this ng to do so. You have given people a lot of 'evidence'
that you are dishonest... as 'evidenced' by the quotes list." .... "Why
stop with Jonas? Why not call the entire list of people on your quotes
list 'liars'? After all, they have all labeled you a liar, troll or
worse." 27 Nov 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/909a59de04850ef5
23- Dave Fritzinger: "[snip of stuff I really don't care to read] Snit,
please go away. Get a life, meet a woman, do something, but please,
please, please, GO AWAY!!!!" 2 Jun 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/57bb2fc42ec0f290
24- Dawg Tail: "PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all
of them are making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many
diverse people who share a common perception where do you think the
problem lies? With Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't
require an advanced degree to figure out." 30 Dec 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/73edac32c3ad530b
25- Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought you knew
what a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was presented to you.
I guess I had too much confidence in you." 30 Nov 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3254ec7af27bfb0f
26- ed: "snit, you continually amaze me with how much of a liar and loser
you are. you may notice a semi-regular pattern with me where i stop
responding to your posts for stretches at a time, then start up responding
as if you were a normal person. i suppose it's tough for the magnitude of
your 'loserdom' to stick, so it loses some of it's sharpness when i stop
responding to you. you almost always start responding back in a semi
normal way, but inevitably degenerate. it's once again that time. i can
only ask that you pass my condolences to your wife and unborn child for
having to put up with such a dishonest fool as yourself. (well, if your
wife is a loser as well, just pass those condolences to the rug-rat to be;
if not, double condolences to her). " 30 Apr 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/71f74dd6d806ce77
27- Edward Stanfield: "Snit thinks the rules that apply to honest and
honorable people apply to him. That is absurd. He is the biggest liar in
Usenet history. Mackay posted the email to prove Snit was using sock
puppets and he still is. Snit can not give up his socks puppets and
shills. They are the only ones who ever support him." 28 Jan 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5b52494d96d12229
28- Edwin: "You've got to be out of your mind, Snit. You're the worst
troll this group has ever seen. You're a liar and a forger, and you've
almost destroyed this group single-handedly. For you to post a list of out
of context arguments, and lies, and forgeries about your enemies labled as
a "peace effort" has to be one of the craziest stunts you've pulled. It's
all about your sick need for attention, your need to be center stage at
all times. You'd publicly eat dog turd if you thought it would make people
look at you." 18 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/37e4a720619642a0
29- Elijah Baley: "Seriously, Snit, you need psychiatric help. Go see a
doctor." 24 Aug 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6f6c88356b54fc15
30- Elizabot v2.0.2: "I see you were unable to respond to the points in my
post and you are back to your repetitious regurgitation mode. How
childishly typical of you, Snit." 16 Nov 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/55214ccfb7414fe5
31- Fa-groon: "I don't read Snit period. He's been killfiled since the
first day I posted here. [....] I don't want to 'do like Snit'. As far as
I'm concerned, Snit doesn't even exist." 15 Aug 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dcfbff305ba8b7f0
32- fibercut: "That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to
CSMA I have seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides the
typical Mac vs. Windows typical argument. I feel that it is like being in
a room of really young children trying there best to best the other
person. The one common thing among all of this seems to be you. I hate to
be like this, but facts are facts. You seem to be in the middle of a great
percentage of arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs and more about
"look everybody, I think he lied". Is there no end then all this picking
at each other on such a personal level. CSMA has always been al little
adversarial but you have personally crank it up to the point that this
place is no longer fun. Congratulations on stopping CSMA and making this
place your own personal circus." 12 Jan 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/bbe695bbc3424ab6
33- Geezer:
Snit: "Steve Carroll has no sense of morality" Geezer: "Whined the guy who
cannot directly address those who uncover his lies and deceit;)" Snit:
"and no clue about the law."
Geezer: 'Said the guy who believes his unsupported opinions are "proof".
LOL! (snip more of Snit's unsupported lies)' 1 Jan 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d0517ced5134934d
34- Geoff M. Fitton (COLA): "The Prescott Computer Guy *still* showing how
stupid he is... What a mar00n". 30 Aug 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f9401b4b57c59865
35- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with the Snit (AKA
Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He will drive you crazy with
his twisted logic, his deep-rooted need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He
will move goalposts, set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with
his endless pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run.
NEVER engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger you
and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3d3af33ce25a11fd
36- gimme_this_gimme_that: "Hitting the vodka tonight Snit?" 4 Mar 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b457a7b378264794
37- Glenn Hall (COLA): "That person is like a constantly running toilet
that won't stop. Does he ever stop talking about UI consistency? No matter
what anyone replies, he adds a few more branches to the spider web as it
grows and grows. It's a waste of time." 31 Oct 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c8dd8a244fe1eb2c
38- Greycloud: "You really shouldn't lie like that. Everyone else notices
that you are not honest and you have no honor." 21 Jan 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3b92f11a1ab00f91
39- H: "Your crappy posts are still showing up in seperate threads, are
you doing this on purpose to piss people off? I dont ever censor people
cause that's just retarded but if you dont fix it I'm gonna have to cause
I dont wanna see your name 40 times in a row. So uh, change your client or
something". 12 Sep 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f36ee6b458c86499
40- Hadron (COLA): "Would you please stop the whining. FFS he has you
jumping to his every post. How many more fucking times are you going to
post the same repetitive garbage? Please ..at least change the record
sometimes!!!!!!!" 13 Aug 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1e0ecbb776623473
41- Henry Flam: "You on the other hand must be a deeply troubled
individual who has a fragile ego. I needn't agree nor disagree with the
points above. I don't care about them. Your constant complaints, whines,
rages, etc., wars with the regular Mac advocates, whom you mislabel as
trolls, arise from your sense that any conversation or thread must orbit
around you. People have pointed that out to you but you don't accept that.
Snit I feel sorry for you. Please go and see a doctor about your
solipsism. There must be a cure for you deep psychological travail." 18
Aug 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b9bb48e6e6da75c8
42- Heywood Mogroot: "*plonk*" Aug 19 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d8afd909a308b97f
43- -hh: 'Perversion has utterly nothing to do with the definition of
"synonymous". It is, however, a very clear example of how you attempt to
maliciously debase against anyone who disagrees with you. As such, I
consider this to be a purposeful attempt by you to try to libel me. This
is your only warning to consider rescinding your remark, with the reminder
that you, and you alone are responsible for that accusation, both in the
ethical as well as the full legal meaning of the word "responsible".' 25
Feb 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5496641a3426293a
44- High Plains Thumper: "Agreed except for Snit and socks (Joe Crump and
ad nauseum). I've got Snit kill binned, because he is the classic ad
hominem troll. At first he seems reasonable, but then it always degrades
into name calling bullying, the responder is a liar, etc. AKA the Snit
Circus of Pathological Lies. Perhaps the times he seems reasonable are
when he is properly controlled by medication." 21 Sep 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/249a598ec5aafe85
45- Homer (COLA): "I don't mean this as a personal insult, but I'm
perfectly serious when I say 'Snit' (Michael Glasser) is obviously
mentally ill, and needs help. I was going to suggest that someone alerts
his wife to the problem, but I have to assume she's already aware of his
condition, if she is in fact still living with him. It's possible, I
suppose, that he's already undergoing counselling and/or on medication,
but if he is then it doesn't seem to be helping much. Maybe he just missed
his 'meds' today (again, I mean that sincerely)." 26 Jan 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e061874ea94e9ce8
Homer: "Word of advice for anyone concerned: don't be tempted to get drawn
into a Snit circus, it's literally a waste of time. He's just an attention
seeker who'll keep stringing you along, in a never-ending circle of obtuse
questions, for which he has no genuine interest in the answers." 14 Oct
2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0d06eb2e900e3058
46- hophead: "I have been reading and occasionally posting to CSMA for a
long time now, since 1995 at least. There have always been trolls and
morons, but I've never seen anything quite so disruptive as the Snit
circus. Snit will *never* back down or stop, and neither will most of his
opponents. A good kill file is your only hope." 20 Aug 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3161a78667e299eb
47- Jamie Hart (cola): "It seems that since you are unable to offer
support for your statements, you're reduced to personal attacks on me.
Incidentally, anyone reading this post can see that I have offered no
straw men, and have only asked you to explain how the things you state as
facts can be true. I'm really sorry that you're taking this attitude, the
topic is an interesting one and I thought you might have some insights.
I've snipped the rest, since you dislike long posts and avoid answering
any of the questions I asked by saying everything was just repeated." 6
Dec 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8e07cde31f4eecf6
48- Jason McNorton: "You're one of the many, many paranoid people on
usenet that should be confined most likely. You sit there and refresh your
screen endlessly. You post the same nonsense over and over. Either you're
a super troll, or you're a super mess." 1 Nov 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7a8e091c0b248eb0
49- JEDIDIAH (cola): "You're simply full of shit." 27 Feb 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/cdddf5fd04d9afcb
50- Jeff B.: "Yo, Snit. We're not pals. I think you're a git." 23 Dec
2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0ec649345d433a2d
51- Jeff Hoppe: "This is a Macintosh Advocacy newsgroup. Not a 12-step
recovery plan. Your medical problems or conditions won't help me achieve a
greater understanding of my Mac. In fact, it detracts from it and those
kinds of discussions have no place in a newsgroup such as this." 18 Nov
2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/947a2cc0301a2862
52- Jesus: "Really, Snit. It's annoying. What are you accomplishing
besides being annoying? Is that your goal?" 25 Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e3d5029d34cde243
53- Jim Lee Jr.: "Snit, read the thread's title, is Bush mentioned in it?
You (and Carroll) ought to learn to stay on topic and not hijack threads."
54- Jim Polaski: "Why is it that nearly every thread you're involved in
seems like it turns into some tit-for-tat, dozens of responses to OT
things and garbage? Cmon there Snit. Someone has to take the lead and stop
this crap. Try. How about it?" 25 Apr 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5b5c22490ab9649b
55- Jim Richardson (cola): "And yet again, Snit runs away, rather than
actually provide evidence for his claims. Par for the course I suppose."
"Evasion noted. Snit runs away again rather than produce evidence for his
claims. At least come up with some original insults Snit! I mean, you
*are* capable of original thoughts! Right? Snit?" 8 Feb 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e33321cc3343fc44
56- Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo: "and Snithead has even farther to fall - in
a few weeks he'll be out on the street after midnight, yelling at
passersby 'sucky sucky, $2...'" 23 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57cf69f66571a5a7
57- John C. Randolph: "You're nothing but a troll yourself. What are you
bitching about?" 1 Dec 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/12ba528be5ad2665
58- JohnOfArc (cola): "I'm not sure "troll" does it justice- more like a
black hole! But hey, if we all promise to never again even entertain an
unkind thought re Apple, will you take it back and lock it up? Please??"
11 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e2891b1f3984e121
59- John Q. Public: "I have not been bothered to read Snit's postings
since I figured out who he is. I don't bother to filter his posts, I just
consider the source and skip to the next one when I see his name." 7 Jan
2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7d34c1bd05c877d2
60- John Slade: "I don't get posts from Snit. I wouldn't be shocked that
he has some kind of disorder. He made up stuff about being a computer
repairman and teacher. He's just plain loony and best ignored. Let him
deal with his disorder by medication. He's here to do one thing, get
attention from people. He says the crazy stuff just to get a reaction. You
say you like to beat him over the head. Well that's what he's counting on,
he says stuff he knows isn't true in hopes to get a rise out of people
like you. Ignore him, you won't regret it." 3 Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/394a53a65c28d314
John Slade: "Snit, you have a enough problems as it is without adding
drinking booze to the list. How the hell did you manage to get out of my
killfile? Oh well back into the cage you go, PLONK." 13 Oct 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.wine/msg/992a796786a541d8
61- Josh McKee: "I have no strawman so therefore it has to be in your
mind. .... What is obnoxious are your posts." 26 Jul 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3665b9e002d27c44
62- K E: "I haven't read this board for awhile but I see that even though
the trolls still roam free at least the worst troll of the lot is mostly
being ignored by readers on this bb. If the few stragglers that keep
replying to him would just stop responding to Snit at all this place could
be worth coming back to. There's a good chance he'll pack up and take his
trolling to more fertile ground." 22 Oct 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0b9dca7df1f677f4
63- KK: 'Whoa there, ad hominem man. You started off your sentence with
"Ah" like you'd just realized something profound.' 29 Oct 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.howard-stern/msg/6a89029a5b5be5f8
64- Kelsey Bjarnason (cola): "Funny how you simply don't bother reading
the posts that rip your entire thesis to bleeding gobbets of putrid
excrescence. Maybe some day you'll learn how to support your position,
instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming, hoping it'll
all go away." 7 Mar 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/96d064a7a5c6074a
65- Ku Karlovsky (cola): "You repeatedly chastise others for ad hominem
attacks while in the same sentence make your own ad hominem attacks. You
make silly claims and then avoid the subject of your silliness. You're a
liar and a hypocrite and you always have been." 14 Jul 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d1e3f9ac5c72c6ee
66- Lars Trager: "Yes, you are stupid." 7 Jan 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a9bedf6689f9a54f
67- Lawrence D'Oliveiro (COLA): "You seem to be full of complaints about
your inability to hold up your end
of the argument, aren’t you?" 16 Mar 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8ca5f48099696228
68- Lefty Bigfoot: "Okay, I tried to put up with it for a long time, but
the few times you post something worth reading just aren't worth it
anymore. *plonk*" 16 Dec 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5520adae01120e83
69- Liam Slider (cola): "Maybe he's responding to the fact you've been an
annoying little fuckwit lately. You started out with the pretense of
trying to be fair, but lately all there is from you in COLA is trashtalk
about Linux and you acting every bit the troll." 16 Jul 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ad7d6c42c5e4cf2f
70-libcrushersmith: "Snit also thinks Dan Rather still anchors CBS News
and that Gitmo terrorists are innocent! Any time Snit is cornered, he
changes the subject and will never admit he's wrong." 28 Jan 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/fbc516717f3b7ccf
71- libsnightmare: "You're a sore loser who has resorted to fifth grade
tactics. How fucking sad - all this clown has left is to edit posts and
post fake bullshit. You can't debate... so you lie. Once again, you have
proved Steve Carroll right about you. Sad..." 4 May 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a80c93f80bd6bc3e
72- Linonut (cola): "Snit may be the first retraction of my general
killfile amnesty. The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping,
back-tracking, goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that effete
candy-ass beggars belief". 30 Aug 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/cc4827fd7e8ad574
73- Lloyd Parsons: "Well, I don't know if Oxford is the most cretinous, I
would think that would be reserved for Snit! ;-)" 18 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b6cd3ac4bf1e08d6
74- Lewis: "hasn't this fight been going on for like 8 years now? I don't
think anything is ever going to fix snit." 02 Mar 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/98ef8bca6b3a9b34
75- Lusotec (COLA): "You have started threads on this subject many times,
and many times it has been explained to you how X copy & paste should work
and how bugs in a application are not bugs in the system, but still you
return to this subject and post the same false statements." 09 Mar 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/37032133fbe9db92
76- Marious Barrier (COLA): "I must recognize that it is the first time I
see that kind of troll, once that start asking moderately serious
questions and since the first answer, gradually starts to degenerate it
by, in many failed attempts of being sarcastic, inserting various indirect
insults and calling all people ignorant and unable to answer what he asks
for." 14 Oct 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c6607ea64f436821
77- Mark Kent (cola): "The problem with someone like Mr Glasser is the
same as it is with Mr Wong, even if he were to be honest now, it would be
impossible to determine where the honesty starts and the usual dishonesty
ends. In my primary school, one of the teachers was very keen on proverbs,
and I recall her going over the "cry wolf" story. Mr Glasser could "cry
wolf" over and over now, and I would not come to help him with his sheep,
because I do not know any way of determining if he's ever telling the
truth, or indeed, if he ever has." 2 Dec 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3f30aa1b65a972b3
78- Mayor of R'lyeh: "The fact is that he's probably pulling it to this
post since its all about him and he managed to make me think about him
today. A friend of mine has a toddler. I went over to her house and
videotaped her kid doing a bunch of cute toddler stuff then burned a DVD
of it for her. While we were watching the DVD her kid got mad. He got mad
because we quit making him the center of attention and made that kid on
the tv the center of attention. He even ran up to the tv and tried to
block our view of it. That's how Snit lives his whole life." 30 Sep 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9935f4154d5a290b
79- McGarnagle: "And you know when Snit is endorsed by two of the biggest
nutjobs in AGA - RichL and El Kabong - you know he's not very bright and a
loon." 31 Oct 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.guitar.amps/msg/e60a33341bff1309
80- Michelle Ronn: "The real topic here is that one someone refutes your
'facts', you run away and ignore them. Refuting your 'facts' is easily
done in this case. I did it, and you ignored it." 9 Feb 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c050c82720737b32
81- Mike: "Nonsense. I never see you "advocate" anything. All I see you
doing is engage in endless semantic arguments with everyone. You're the
TholenBot of CSMA. BTW, that's *not* a compliment!" 8 Jul 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7c5b72d70b87ffbd
82- Mike Dee: "I will no longer accuse you of lying here. Instead I can
only say that you are a complete and delusional kook that happens to
inhabit CSMA for the time being. That you are unaware of how deranged you
actually behave further reinforces this notion. Please seek professional
help."
"The point that keeps whooshing over your head Snit, is Elizabot made no
threat to you before you went to the police. She made a promise.
Admittedly, to your delusional spaced out paranoiac view point, Elizabot
was suddenly "threatening" to you. In so much as you had to take your
kooky self down to your local police shop and blub on their shoulders
about how much in danger you were in [sob, whine], and they had to waste
valuable policing time consoling you over your stupidity. I bet they have
Kook with a capital "K" written at the top of your profile, Snit." 2 Sep
2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9cf45bc88a324f40
83- mmoore321: "Snit is a human car-accident and we are all rubbernecking.
We know it is bad form, but yet strangely curious. Treat him the same way,
look but just keep moving on." 18 Aug 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f1c3041d89504c07
84- Mojo: "Actually, these facts piss everybody off because they are
off-topic, unnecessarily confrontational, extremely boring and clearly
show that you are crying out for attention." 20 Sep 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a38f07b9a4811a80
85- Mr. Blonde: "Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact that your
obsession with Sandman has actually grown since you claimed to KF him.
Killfilling someone generally implies you're ignoring that person, yet you
piggyback onto virtually every reply to him here and and check his
website's validation status more often than most people check their
e-mail. These are not the actions of a mentally balanced individual." 19
Jan 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/2b005666ab303e2b
86- MR_ED_of_Course: "Seriously, spend half a day at any pre-school or
kindergarten and see if the kids there can't teach you a thing or two
about social behavior." 16 May 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/55c03a6a0b7813a4
87- Muahman: "Ahhhh shit, another thread lost to the Snit retard circus!!!
I actually dread seeing Snit reply to a thread because that automatically
means it's in the toilet." 8 Jul 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/92e776d521dfa701
88- Mutley (AUK): "For the record ... I'll be done when I decide that
there's more shit on your face than there is on the sole of my shoe." 01
Nov 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1802ad3aa000098b
89- Nashton/Nasht0n: "Oh for crying out loud, if I wasn't convinced that
snit is a total loser, and I rarely call people losers, I certainly am
now. Why bother responding to his stupidities anyway?" 29 Nov 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/be1a326a81441508
90- New Bee: "Honest and honorable? You? You've either got a wry sense of
humor, or you're completely nuts. Either way you're just a waste of time,
and you've done more than anybody to make this group a cesspool. Then you
revel in wallowing in your own filth." 14 May 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/2856277b085d0274
91- none of your buisiness (COLA): "I am sorry, but I am going to have to
send you to the bin. You're perpetrating the Snit circus by responding to
all of his assinine posts. He is only here for one reason, to disrupt this
group, & you are helping him, as well as flatfish." 04 Jan 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a9b40ce46612fdc4
92- Not Important: "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." 03 Jul 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d16279e9003ca8f4
93- notlisted (COLA): "I actually like Apple. But I see you as an asshole
who spends an embarassing percentage of your life posting derogatory
comments about a computer operating system you obviously detest, and
insulting those who defend it in a newsgroup dedicated its advocacy.
That's almost the definition of being an asshole, and you have half a
dozen buddies who do the same thing. You excuse what you do by pretending
that you're merely pointing out problems in the hope that the system will
be improved, but that's an obvious lie whether it's you saying it or one
of your buds. You do it because you enjoy the feeling it gives you,
whatever that is." 07 Mar 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/90b57eaa796e8b14
94- OldCSMAer: "What's he been doing? Am I going to be sorry I killfiled
him?" 27 Nov 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/23b808d9646cd257
95- OldSage: "What drives me nuts is your unrelenting ability and desire
to argue on the head of a pin about the most trivial of things." 2 Oct
2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/88457f8e7c25273e
96- Oxford: "If you are using MT-Newswatcher: Select offending Author,
example Snit... Go to the Filters Menu, Choose 'Kill this Author' Click
'OK' Then Repeat with each annoying Author of your choice. Then to see
your work... Choose the Filter Menu again, Then 'Refilter Articles'...
Bam! No more boring, pointless bickering about nothing. Enjoy!!!!!" 14
Aug 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/1d7f9181e95ed9ec
97- Owl (COLA): "You have interacted with me often enough to know that I
never initiate personal attacks. I generally respond in kind. It is you
who usually fall off the civility wagon first, with your ironically
condescending canned responses that do nothing for your argument and
generally shine a spotlight on the desperation that you are so fearful of
projecting." 5 Mar 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8debf93e05da4d26
Owl (COLA): "You are a complete idiot and extremely dishonest. Consider
yourself permanently plonked." 29 Mar 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ba7797c5108b3c10
98- Patrick Nihill: "I mean, honestly, who would you rather discuss
something with; Dan, or someone like Zara? Or, for that matter, Snit, for
whom the work 'troll' seems so painfully inadequate?" 13 Aug 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f93db68e683ad769
99- Pawel Wojciak: "Jesus Christ, snit... <plonk> " 27 Jun 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/93afdfea4d4f491a
100- PC Guy: "Forget it Snit, you're a waste of time. For someone who
talks about everyone else not being "honest and honorable" you appear to
be the least honest and honorable of anyone here." 22 Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/36bf51df2a2662a4
101- Peter: "I've never felt the need to use the filters in Newswatcher
but I thought Id try the Kill this Author.. option with Snit. Ten seconds
later and he's gone! Amazing." 30 Dec 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/011eef01d7bcd56c
102- Peter Bjorn Perlso: "Plonked for 60 days. Now stfu and take your
argument with sandman into the private room." 13 Dec 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ae4651ec99be3c77
103- Peter Hayes: "True, but that removes Snit completely, and someti...
err..... occasiona.... errrrr..... once in a blue moon he has something
useful to say." 20 Mar 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8a31a47e26c5f5b7
104- Peter Jensen (cola): "Where has he ever said that they were not
different windowing environments? Message-ID, please. Experience has told
me not to trust you on anything without backing evidence." 30 Jun 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/cfd5de2006d42fdc
105- Peter Kohlmann (cola): "Snot Glasser is invading this group with his
inane drivel, so he has to bear what people think about that dishonest
retard. And just for the record: You *are* a Glasser sock" 30 Jan 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f3166f6fda92641b
106- PeterBP: "Oh will you stfu". 30 Mar 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3e88e9a86cb5483e
107- Phil Earnhardt: "You're only interested in trying to get superficial
snipes and extrapolate inappropriate conclusions." 1 Nov 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ad24a97d5dc86277
108- Rapskat (cola): "For instance, your sig you reference a long standing
war you have going with some person from csma. It's like you single out
persons to target your attentions upon and then continuously berate them
with constant barbs and goads to perpetuate their acrimonious responses,
which in turn you respond in kind, etc. ad infinitum. Above all things,
your affinity for Macs and your overbearing pompous nature aside, this is
what convinces me that your primary purpose for frequenting this and other
groups is to troll." 07 Sep 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a09c6b8e3e63f42d
109- RichardK: "Just killfile him already." 20 Jun 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/1c9e7ded2e95a582
110- Rick (cola): "Snit, you are a liar. And an ignorant one. You trash
people that are trying their level best to cope with a horrendous
situation. And you do it without the slightest idea of what is going on."
06 Sep 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fcad2955ac5cb03b
111- Rick G.: "Just to be plain here, I have no doubt that he is a troll.
I am tolerant of his nature, not blind to it. However, as a troll, he is
... somewhat clumsy." 22 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/198b88e3d0064a92
112- Robert F.: "Um, perhaps you misunderstand. I don't care if you quote
Mayor McCheese claiming the Earth is a flat plate perched on the shell of
a tortoise, I was merely pointing out that you run the risk of looking
ridiculous when you quote something patently stupid. If that's your goal,
you're on the right track, and more power to you." 11 Jan 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4dc22433eae8803d
113- RonB (COLA): "Snit is a crank fixated on one issue, who's thing is
twisting your words so he can win an argument against a straw man. That's
enough to killfile him." 1 Jan 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/ce8550d4cc5b1b42
RonB: (COLA): "Why do you bother responding to Snit? He makes no point, he
simply gainsays whatever you say. Just another version of Hadron's 'you're
a liar' mantra, which is about all he can muster nowadays." 27 May 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/279210dd877d7aa0
RonB (COLA): "Original subject line now killfiled. You can only talk about
the freaking clipboard for so many million freaking messages. As I said,
Snit has no common-sense, STOP mechanism. He's a mechanically obsessive
super crank and will go on forever. I'm not kidding about this, he will
*NEVER* *ever* stop." 6 Mar 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0df1e0164a8b586e
114- Rotten Apple: "You make trolls like me look like choir boys." 14 Sep
2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7a92988bcbce8fdb
115- Roy Culley (cola): "You appear to be in the latter category. Starting
crossposted threads for the simple purpose of hoping to generate a flame
war. If you truly want to learn more about Linux and how it can help you
and your supposed users why aren't you requesting help from a more
technical Linux newsgroup than an advocacy group? As the old saying goes,
those who can do, those who can't teach. Your posts seem to confirm that
saying IMHO." 12 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d521a80051e24d08
116- S'mee (Keith, rec.motorcycles): "Liar...forger and worthless. You
must be related to our resident racist troll, he lies as much as you." 29
Dec 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ab08c00330c8b58d
117- Sandman: "He is by far the most killfiled person in the -HISTORY- of
csma. I've never seen someone so disliked, almost hated, in a news group
before. He has the ability to turn just about any person against him in
just a few posts. On usenet, trolls do this daily, but the funny part with
Michael is that I actually think he DOESN'T consider himself be a troll -
damn what -EVERYONE ELSE- is calling him. Obviously they are wrong. Only
Tholen himself can match this behaviour." 18 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/51c0735c774215c2
118- sav: "You really need to take a rest somewhere nice. Honestly, even
the nutters who hang out down on Brighton seafront made more sense than
this. You been doing drugs or something?" 25 May 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/1b251baa5c641370
119- Sean Burke: If you're dumb enough to respond to snit, you're probably
dumb enough to click on a spam attachment that promises to remove smut
from your harddrive." 21 Jan 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e166032d8959c0e1
120- Sermo Malifer (COLA):
Snit: "Why do so many people in COLA argue *against* me..." Sermo Malifer:
"Because you're a narcissistic troll who posts trash just to get people
talking about you." 21 Jan 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5ddf14f502e9b3f1
121- spike1: "As for the original post, there's plenty of reason thought
and criteria. The reason is snit's here. The thought is probably to show
everyone here just how bad a troll snit is." 03 Dec 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c797d640e3b9fc12
122- ShutterBugz: "so snit-zel has some kind of problem expressing anger,
i guess. he has to vent his frustrations in other ways. and he thinks he's
making sense: well the syntax is there and he figures he's pretty smart.
indeed, he tells us, he's done the personality tests and the iq tests and
he's okay! aaaaahhhhh, you see he's soooooooo well adjusted." 3 Mar 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7f9fa1cf90490298
123- Steel (COLA): "You may not like the game, but nevertheless, it's just
a game. You play a game yourself don't kid yourself." 14 Oct 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/be1f49165984c350
124- Steve Carroll: "Snit isn't much more than a one trick pony and not
telling the whole story is one of his two main tricks. His other main
trick is to outright lie. Sprinkle in a bit of denial and you've gone a
long way towards defining his MO. The idea that Snit admits to his errors
is one of the biggest jokes on usenet." 28 Feb 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0cc84ece10726aac
125- Steve Mackay: "Just killfile Snit, the dishonest piece of elephant
dung, and all would go away. Sure, I got caught up in the "Snit Circus",
but then the cotton candy began to sour, and CSMA begun to smell like
elephant dung." 18 Aug 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9fc11094133dfcdf
126- Steven de Mena: "Sorry, you have now lost all credibility with me for
your rediculous argument regarding this." 26 Sep 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/1c8777d39c34e293
127- Steve Travis: "Oh oh... Now look what we've done. Snit has lost all
self respect and has sunk to the point of using words like 'asses' when
referring to others. Oh, how could the morally superior snit have fallen
so low.. Please take a moment out of your busy schedule to feel
embarassed for him. Or perhaps we should set up a fund to get him more
happy glue (and the appropriate plastic bags)." 27 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3edd9ab69425a6c5
128- Stuart Krivis: "You might as well just give up and plonk him then. A
snit is a snit is a snit and always will be." 15 Aug 2006 (post not
available except in reply)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5b382420a696f140
129- Tattoo Vampire (COLA): "In other words, in another attempt to troll,
you made yourself look like a fool. Again". 28 Aug 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b2676d3540e09f38
130- thanatoid: "Is business/personal life/etc. SO bad that you had to
create Snit? I really thought higher of you until Snit came in here, in
fact I find your site very nice and wish there was a shop like yours where
I live (well, I /think/...) Or is Snit really just someone whose HD you
accidentally wiped? Either way, it seems to have created a lot of, for
lack of a better word, unpleasantness - just from looking at today's
headers." 02 Jul 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/24hoursupport.helpdesk/msg/1c43a7415c97bfa1
131- The Lost Packet (COLA): "well, he's found a seat in my killbin, I
can't be doing with him." 27 Jan 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/2007526a552b3322
132- TheLetterK: "That is merely your perception, Shit. You're the one
lacking counter evidence, and your arguments basically amount to "I'm
right, nya nya nya." No matter how many examples someone points at to
demonstrate their claim, you blindly continue to insist that they provide
no evidence, or that the evidence given is irrelevant. Worse still, you
fall back on straw men and disingenuous quote mangling to portray the
argument in your favor. You are one of the worst trolls that inhabit CSMA,
Shit. *Edwin* is more prone to fits of reason than you are." 23 Sep 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d488596b57132124
133- Thufir: "You can "prove" that no one has disproved your "proof"?
Again, your assertion that no one has done so is even *less* convincing
than your claim that some PDF "proves" whatever point you're trying to
make precisely because I'm familiar with your MO. That is, you're a
dumb-ass who would claim that that something is proved when it's not, and
who would ignore counter-examples disproving your contention. I don't know
what this *ages old* thread is about, but I know that you're full of
shit." 21 Aug 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5114623055c01092
134-Tim Adams: "I'd kill file you but then I'd miss the fun. you see, you
never cease to amaze me at just how stupid you really are. Why just the
other day I had a great laugh when I saw you, the king of liars (in this
NG anyway) calling somebody else a liar." 13 Nov 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/40c7f9407179ff2a
135- Tim Crowley: "I don't know - I think you might have more compassion.
Snit is sick. He needs help. This is the only way the poor sick fool can
get attention. My fucking God, he's taken to hanging out with and
supporting racist pig fuckers like MuahMuah. It is true that no-one likes
him and those that pretend they do are just using him or don't know him -
but come on- it's not his fault. He's sick. Have some compassion, eh? All
these idiot trolls, Zara, Stew, Tommy, MuaaaahMuaaah, and Snit - they are
all so alike. I pity each and every one of them" 19 Apr 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/67f0f174110bfa0a
136- Tim Smith: "No, he didn't, and there is no reasonable way you could
actually believe he lied. You are purely trying to troll here." 14 Apr
2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6e3cfd9240ac4871
137- Timberwoof: "Plonk, Snit." 23 Apr 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/40c8df070c3e776c
138- tom_elam: "Killfile Steve C. and Snit" 07 Jul 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b50d0c973d21d995
139- TomB (COLA): "No Snit, you were flat out lying in an attempt to make
me look bad. Do you really have to sink to that level in order to 'be
right'? If so, you're pathetic. And I don't say this because I like to say
it." 07 Feb 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/43263f575ac40353
140- Tom Bates: "Do you have to turn any thread you post in into one of
your Circus acts?" 20 Feb 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/25f0e481b605e71f
141- Tommy: "In case you did not get it, I think the moral was: Stop
polluting the world with your infantile and obsessive "writings". You give
Mac advocacy a bad name. If that was your goal you have succeeded! That
also goes for all that bullshit on your website" 11 Jun 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/03610d2080321d33
142- Tony(UK) (COLA): "Your email address in your headers just about sums
the Linux world up. Nothing to do with the OS, it is the *uckwits involved
in the whole arena and have posted before on this. If in doubt, deride,
insult and attack. Look inwardly carefully before judging me." 10 Dec
2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/533042ed18cefba3
143- TravelinMan: "I still can't figure out what's wrong with Snit. Most
people have him kill-filed and the few who don't mostly restrict their
responses to 'why don't you go away, no one wants you here'. Just what
would keep someone in this group with all of that animosity? Must be some
kind of severe mental illness." 17 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/45197fbb46d491df
144- Wally: "Because by your own admission "honor and honesty" are nothing
more than a "game" to you, as such not only do you wish to define the
rules, but no doubt you will also attempt to alter or bend the rules when
inevitably things do not go to your liking, for this reason I doubt anyone
would be foolish enough to play your game." 16 May 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b9b3ed1ee20e5220
145- WhoMe: "F michael IS a teacher, it's no wonder he's home more than
he's anywhere near a classroom".
146- William Poaster: "Good grief. If anyone's having a mental breakdown
it's the Prescott Computer Guy, Michael Snit Glasser. What a f#cked up
mess he is." 29 Aug 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/914d1e74855fb461
147- William R. Walsh: "Now, if you'll excuse me, and accept my sincere
apologies for this, PLONK! Feel proud about that. You're the first person
to be plonked from my new computer! :-) " 10 Feb 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/313c7368f6369c49
148- Woofbert: "*Plonk*" 14 Jun 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/436e6b5333d747e0
149- zara: "Look - I'm not into combing through thousands of posts, to
prove what was said or not said - I leave stuff like that to people
without lives, like Snit. But it is assuredly, in the record. Ping Snit to
do a search - you will flatter him, and give meaning to his tawdry little
life." 25 Oct 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a1d4fc7120a6a538
150- Zaren Ankleweed: "And with that, Snit goes in the global killfile. No
subject, no author, no nothing. Buh-bye". 11 Sep 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/12f7c34f24d43624
151- Znu: "The Snit Circus has gotten particularly bad as of late. When I
set up my filters to kill all of Snit's posts, plus direct replies to them
(which is how I'm keeping things from now on), nearly 40% of the most
recent 1000 articles in CSMA go out the window. .... In all, something
like 50% of the traffic in this group is now related to Snit insanity.
.... I killfile Edwin because I don't have a patience to have discussions
with someone who deliberately tries to waste my time. But watching *other
people* tie him knots can be entertaining. The Snit-related posts are not
like this. They are endless repetitions of the exact same material and/or
arguments dating back *years* about who said what." 20 Apr 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9244dd79c682b2d6
152- amicus_curious (COLA): "Where on earth do you get the idea that I am
arguing with you, little man? Is your name "Hadron"? Shoo! Go back to your
mail order business!" 29 May 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/00ee203fe6183b1b
153- nessuno (COLA):
Chris Ahlstrom: "Have you ever noticed that threads involving Snit, [...]
are a basically a waste of time?
nessuno: "Yep. I don't read them." 29 May 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/2f997598f0e25f9d
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
Will this stop Snit from whining that we never quote him?
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
Snit will run from your offer.
--
HPT