Note to Sandman: please stop emailing me!
Snit
-----
Delivered-To: XX...@cableone.net
Return-Path: <m...@sandman.net>
Received: from psmtp.com ([::ffff:64.18.1.39])
by mail14.cableone.net with esmtp; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:57:24 -0700
id 00C8B79A.45E33BA4.00005D95
Received: from source ([194.71.21.100]) (using TLSv1) by
exprod6mx132.postini.com ([64.18.5.10]) with SMTP;
Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:51:20 EST
Received: from sandman.net (apa...@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by sandman.net (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id l1QK4CcC005083
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
for <kra...@cableone.net>; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:04:14 +0100
Received: (from apache@localhost)
by sandman.net (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id l1QK42wK005053;
Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:04:02 +0100
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:04:02 +0100
From: m...@sandman.net
Message-Id: <200702262004....@sandman.net>
X-Authentication-Warning: sandman.net: apache set sender to m...@sandman.net
using -f
To: XX...@cableone.net
Subject: Ditt lösenord
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-pstn-levels: (S:14.54349/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282
C:98.6951 )
X-pstn-settings: 2 (0.5000:0.5000) s gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c
X-pstn-addresses: from <m...@sandman.net> [18/1]
Here is your information:
Username: kra...@cableone.net
Password: snitislying
-----
But you are not obsessing over me, eh?
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> Just got this email:
_____________________________________________________
Snit's proof that he "Just got this email" from Sandman goes here:
_____________________________________________________
My prediction: Snit will *not* support his allegation that he got an
email from Sandman.
--
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Sandman is not a pro because "his site's didn't perfectly validate"-Snit
"Once we see or hear of couples - even a relatively small number - who
engage in legal, consensual,adult incestuous relationships, the whole
idea of incest with minors becomes thinkable." - Snit
Snit
noone-ECC019....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 2/26/07 6:35 PM:
> In article <C20888F8.79479%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> Just got this email:
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Snit's proof that he "Just got this email" from Sandman goes here:
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> My prediction: Snit will *not* support his allegation that he got an
> email from Sandman.
Ah, Steve, you think I made up all those headers you snipped, right? LOL!
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-ECC019....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 2/26/07 6:35 PM:
>
> > In article <C20888F8.79479%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> Just got this email:
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> > Snit's proof that he "Just got this email" from Sandman goes here:
> >
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> >
> > My prediction: Snit will *not* support his allegation that he got an
> > email from Sandman.
>
> Ah, Steve, you think I made up all those headers you snipped, right?
Gee, this isn't proof about the alleged email Snit claims he got... what
a shock;)
Snit
>> Ah, Steve, you think I made up all those headers you snipped, right?
>
> Gee, this isn't proof about the alleged email Snit claims he got... what
> a shock;)
Gee, Steve... you can't read headers... or do you think I made those all up?
LOL!
And you *still* deny you are consumed by your hatred.
Funny, eh?
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <C20888F8.79479%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
> > Just got this email:
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Snit's proof that he "Just got this email" from Sandman goes here:
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> My prediction: Snit will *not* support his allegation that he got an
> email from Sandman.
I've never emailed Michael in my life.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-A3C22E.08...@News.Individual.NET on 2/27/07 12:53 AM:
Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-A3C22E.08...@News.Individual.NET on 2/27/07 12:53 AM:
>
> > In article <noone-ECC019....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <C20888F8.79479%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> >> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just got this email:
> >>
> >> _____________________________________________________
> >> Snit's proof that he "Just got this email" from Sandman goes here:
> >>
> >>
> >> _____________________________________________________
> >>
> >> My prediction: Snit will *not* support his allegation that he got an
> >> email from Sandman.
> >
> > I've never emailed Michael in my life.
> >
> Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net.
Why do you feel he should explain something you can't even prove is
happening? I have a better idea, let's see your explanation why anyone
should believe that you got emailed at all.
Snit
> In article <C2098961.795D7%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-A3C22E.08...@News.Individual.NET on 2/27/07 12:53 AM:
>>
>>> In article <noone-ECC019....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <C20888F8.79479%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just got this email:
>>>>
>>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>> Snit's proof that he "Just got this email" from Sandman goes here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> My prediction: Snit will *not* support his allegation that he got an
>>>> email from Sandman.
>>>
>>> I've never emailed Michael in my life.
>>>
>> Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net.
>
> Why do you feel he should explain something you can't even prove is
> happening? I have a better idea, let's see your explanation why anyone
> should believe that you got emailed at all.
Gee, Steve... it was just yesterday when you snipped the email in question.
LOL!
But you deny you are consumed by your hatred. LOL!
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-3A6A90....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 2/27/07 8:03 AM:
>
> > In article <C2098961.795D7%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> >> mr-A3C22E.08...@News.Individual.NET on 2/27/07 12:53 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <noone-ECC019....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> >>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <C20888F8.79479%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> >>>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Just got this email:
> >>>>
> >>>> _____________________________________________________
> >>>> Snit's proof that he "Just got this email" from Sandman goes here:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _____________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> My prediction: Snit will *not* support his allegation that he got an
> >>>> email from Sandman.
> >>>
> >>> I've never emailed Michael in my life.
> >>>
> >> Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net.
> >
> > Why do you feel he should explain something you can't even prove is
> > happening? I have a better idea, let's see your explanation why anyone
> > should believe that you got emailed at all.
>
> Gee, Steve... it was just yesterday when you snipped the email in question.
Incorrect. I snipped what you presented as the email in question. Feel
free to prove your assertion that you "actually" received the presented
email and that it came from Jonas any time you'd like;)
Snit
>>>> Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net.
>>>
>>> Why do you feel he should explain something you can't even prove is
>>> happening? I have a better idea, let's see your explanation why anyone
>>> should believe that you got emailed at all.
>>
>> Gee, Steve... it was just yesterday when you snipped the email in question.
>
> Incorrect.
Yes, Steve, you did. You can lie about it all you want, Steve, but you did.
The Google record will not go away any time soon.
> I snipped what you presented as the email in question.
Which you just insinuated was not the same thing. Can you support your
insinuation? Of course not!
Wow, Steve... spewing accusations you cannot support.
> Feel free to prove your assertion that you "actually" received the presented
> email and that it came from Jonas any time you'd like;)
Feel free to prove your insinuation they are not the same. Hey, I presented
the entirety of the email... and you snipped and ran from it. Poor Steve...
I provided evidence and he provided... well... whining and trolling and
lying.
Snit
>> Ah, Steve, you think I made up all those headers you snipped, right?
>
> Gee, this isn't proof about the alleged email Snit claims he got... what
> a shock;)
Gee, Steve... you can't read headers... or do you think I made those all up?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-699244....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 2/27/07 9:08 AM:
>
> >>>> Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you feel he should explain something you can't even prove is
> >>> happening? I have a better idea, let's see your explanation why anyone
> >>> should believe that you got emailed at all.
> >>
> >> Gee, Steve... it was just yesterday when you snipped the email in question.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Yes, Steve, you did.
How can I snip an email (that you *claim* to have gotten in your inbox)
out of post I responded to using my newsreader?
> You can lie about it all you want, Steve, but you did.
> The Google record will not go away any time soon.
OK, show it in the google record.
>
> > I snipped what you presented as the email in question.
>
> Which you just insinuated was not the same thing.
Then your position is that they ARE the "same thing"... great. For my
part, I am flatly stating that, where you are involved, it is likely
they do not contain the exact same data... but I'll clarify even
further, just for you:
An email that you have received in your inbox is most definitely **NOT**
the "same thing" as some bit of text you presented on usenet.
Is that clear enough for you?
> Can you support your
> insinuation? Of course not!
>
> Wow, Steve... spewing accusations you cannot support.
>
> > Feel free to prove your assertion that you "actually" received the presented
> > email and that it came from Jonas any time you'd like;)
>
> Feel free to prove your insinuation they are not the same.
Feel free to prove you ever even got an email from Jonas.
> Hey, I presented the entirety of the email...
That's your viewpoint, one that you have yet to verify for onlookers.
From my viewpoint I can only state that you're *claiming* to have done
so... but you're the guy who make lots of claims that are proven false
every single day by numerous posters.
> and you snipped and ran from it. Poor Steve...
> I provided evidence and he provided... well... whining and trolling and
> lying.
Yes, you provided evidence that you apparently believed would convince
people that Jonas sent you an email... supported only by your word. How
many people do you figure you convinced with this "evidence"? I'm
providing evidence that would tend to undermine your *unsupported*
evidence... that being, your widely known penchant for grabbing the
spotlight... and stopping at nothing to get in it. Couple this with your
obsession to make Sandman look as you do and we get a clear picture.
Feel free to prove the email came from Jonas any time you'd like... in
fact, feel free to prove you weren't the author of said email or that
you even received one at all. See your problem YET? Here, let me distill
it for you so that even you stand a chance of comprehending it:
To date, the only thing your word is "evidence" of is that you are a
liar who will stop at nothing to get whatever attention he can grab.
Adam Kesher
> > Yes, Steve, you did.
>
> How can I snip an email (that you *claim* to have gotten in your inbox)
> out of post I responded to using my newsreader?
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.
Steve Carroll
"Adam Kesher" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> wrote:
Hmmm, I was unaware of that. You're right, though... I wouldn't put it
past Snit to pull a stunt like this. I woulda figured that Sandman
killed Snit's account, though. If this is what happened, perhaps Sandman
can trace the activity from Snit's request to Sandman's bot and then
back to Snit's place. Sandman... if you're reading this....
Snit
1172600089....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com on 2/27/07 11:14 AM:
I did not *ask* for an email from Sandman. If he has some sort of automated
system that is sending out emails that is *his* problem... I still got an
email from him.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Snit
All that weaseling from you, Steve, and you did not support your accusations
against me. In fact, Steve, you added to them.
1) You deny that the copy of the email that you snipped was what it was...
And you offer no evidence.
2) You claim to reason to believe I did not copy the email correctly...
And you offer no evidence.
Your continued accusations are noted... as is your complete lack of support.
Snit
> In article <1172600089....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> "Adam Kesher" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 27, 9:43 am, Steve Carroll <n...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, Steve, you did.
>>>
>>> How can I snip an email (that you *claim* to have gotten in your inbox)
>>> out of post I responded to using my newsreader?
>>
>> 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.
>
> Hmmm, I was unaware of that. You're right, though... I wouldn't put it
> past Snit to pull a stunt like this. I woulda figured that Sandman
> killed Snit's account, though. If this is what happened, perhaps Sandman
> can trace the activity from Snit's request to Sandman's bot and then
> back to Snit's place. Sandman... if you're reading this....
Sandman *claims* have me blocked from even seeing his site... though when I
last checked, just out of curiosity, I was able to see it fine... he is
screwing around with his firewall again... and he cannot figure it out.
My IP, if you check my headers, is not changing... or if my ISP does change
it then it stays in the same range.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <C2098961.795D7%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> > mr-A3C22E.08...@News.Individual.NET on 2/27/07 12:53 AM:
> >
> > > In article <noone-ECC019....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <C20888F8.79479%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > >> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Just got this email:
> > >>
> > >> _____________________________________________________
> > >> Snit's proof that he "Just got this email" from Sandman goes here:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _____________________________________________________
> > >>
> > >> My prediction: Snit will *not* support his allegation that he got an
> > >> email from Sandman.
> > >
> > > I've never emailed Michael in my life.
> > >
> > Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net.
>
> Why do you feel he should explain something you can't even prove is
> happening? I have a better idea, let's see your explanation why anyone
> should believe that you got emailed at all.
snit's apparently also never heard of automatic replies from web site when you
sign up on them. I know several newspapers and other places that do just that.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-D96B16.18...@news.west.earthlink.net on 2/27/07
4:19 PM:
> In article <noone-3A6A90....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <C2098961.795D7%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>>> mr-A3C22E.08...@News.Individual.NET on 2/27/07 12:53 AM:
>>>
>>>> In article <noone-ECC019....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>>>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <C20888F8.79479%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just got this email:
>>>>>
>>>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>>> Snit's proof that he "Just got this email" from Sandman goes here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> My prediction: Snit will *not* support his allegation that he got an
>>>>> email from Sandman.
>>>>
>>>> I've never emailed Michael in my life.
>>>>
>>> Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net.
>>
>> Why do you feel he should explain something you can't even prove is
>> happening? I have a better idea, let's see your explanation why anyone
>> should believe that you got emailed at all.
>
> snit's apparently also never heard of automatic replies from web site when you
> sign up on them. I know several newspapers and other places that do just that.
Ah, now you are doing Carroll's "mind reading trick" of knowing what I have
heard of.
LOL!
I never asked Sandman to email me, and yet he did. Now that there have been
reports that Sandman has an automated system for emailing it can easily be
used to verify if the email I pasted is real: someone can *ask* for one...
if it comes back like the one I pasted, well, then how else could I have
know what his emails look like if I did not get one.
Of course, having now posted that Sandman will quickly try to alter the way
those emails look... so someone has to test this *now*. And, Tim, remember
you lied about Sandman's CSS and HTML, so, no, your claims about his email
are of *zero* value.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Yet you never offered any proof of your claim, just like Steve has stated, and
you've never even mentioned that the email you got could have been from a bot
when you signed up to Sandman's blog. So typical of you snit.
~more babbling by the trolling idiot snit snipped
Snit
7:10 PM:
I copied and pasted the email into CSMA, including headers... what other
support are you looking for, Tim? Magic? LOL!
Heck, I even went so far as to describe how someone could verify it was the
same mail Sandman send out - assuming comments from others about his was
accurate.
Poor Tim... he just can't make a valid and honest point to save his life.
Must suck to be him.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Sandman
"Adam Kesher" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> wrote:
Haha! Yeah, Snit is that obsessed with me :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Sandman sends me an email and this shows something about me? LOL!
Hey, Sandman... I am blocked from your site... I can't use your automated
systems even if I wanted to... which I have no desire for anyway.
You sent me an email (or someone did from your system). I busted you on it.
Deal with it.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hmmm, I was unaware of that. You're right, though... I wouldn't put it
> past Snit to pull a stunt like this. I woulda figured that Sandman
> killed Snit's account, though. If this is what happened, perhaps Sandman
> can trace the activity from Snit's request to Sandman's bot and then
> back to Snit's place. Sandman... if you're reading this....
Snit did request for his password to be sent to him at
26/Feb/2007:21:04:02 and at 27/Feb/2007:05:07:55 using open proxies
(since he is still blocked from the server).
If he pasted the mail to csma, then everyone here knows his password
and login to the site, which I'm sure was his intention. He can now
claim that anyone has access to his account and whatever information
is posted in his blog is not from him.
Just so we know what to expect from him :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<teadams$2$0$0$3-D96B16.18...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Why do you feel he should explain something you can't even prove is
>> happening? I have a better idea, let's see your explanation why
>> anyone should believe that you got emailed at all.
>
> snit's apparently also never heard of automatic replies from web
> site when you sign up on them. I know several newspapers and other
> places that do just that.
It's no mystery. Snit asked the site to email his password to him
using an open proxy. He is that obsessed :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Ah, now Sandman has admitted that he - or his computer - emailed me. He
then accused me of initiating it... with no support.
Sorry to disappoint, Sandman, but I have no desire to see your site and
certainly no desire to ask your site to email me.
Snit
> In article <noone-36FE6F....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Hmmm, I was unaware of that. You're right, though... I wouldn't put it
>> past Snit to pull a stunt like this. I woulda figured that Sandman
>> killed Snit's account, though. If this is what happened, perhaps Sandman
>> can trace the activity from Snit's request to Sandman's bot and then
>> back to Snit's place. Sandman... if you're reading this....
>
> Snit did request for his password to be sent to him at
> 26/Feb/2007:21:04:02 and at 27/Feb/2007:05:07:55 using open proxies
> (since he is still blocked from the server).
I did no such thing. You are lying.
Hey! I bet Steve does not call you on your unsupported claim... poor guy,
he is so consumed by his hatred that he just cannot be rational.
> If he pasted the mail to csma, then everyone here knows his password
> and login to the site, which I'm sure was his intention.
I have no password or login to your site...
> He can now claim that anyone has access to his account and whatever
> information is posted in his blog is not from him.
>
> Just so we know what to expect from him :)
Ah, so unless I post some password you are not able to post to your site.
Riiiiiiight. Moron.
Adam Kesher
> Ah, now Sandman has admitted that he - or his computer - emailed me.
Do you get all excited when you get spam e-mails too? Because that's
how personal this supposed e-mail from Sandman was. You just may be
the most pathetic ihnabitant cyberspace has ever known.
Snit
The fact is Sandman is blabbing all sorts of lies about me... and frankly
not only do not want email from him, it helps folks see how pathetic he is
to email me *anything*.
Heck, have you seen his BS recently... he is going whacko. More whacko. :)
Sandman
"Adam Kesher" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> wrote:
Basically, he states a lie and then tries to bend reality around to
fit that lie.
Why not just killfile him? Most everyone else have.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <1172646295.4...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
> "Adam Kesher" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 27, 9:50 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, now Sandman has admitted that he - or his computer - emailed me.
>>
>> Do you get all excited when you get spam e-mails too? Because that's
>> how personal this supposed e-mail from Sandman was. You just may be
>> the most pathetic ihnabitant cyberspace has ever known.
>
> Basically, he states a lie
Where do you think I lied? Please support your accusation.
Oh.
You can't.
> and then tries to bend reality around to fit that lie.
>
> Why not just killfile him? Most everyone else have.
Which is why you copy my posts to your server... and create thread after
thread after thread about me. LOL!
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Adam Kesher
> Basically, he states a lie and then tries to bend reality around to
> fit that lie.
>
> Why not just killfile him? Most everyone else have.
I've decided to stop responding to him from this point on. There
really isn't anything to prove and it goes against my own conscience
to engage or provoke him further. It's like turning up the
electricity on the lab monkey - he's just going to fling more crap
around.
Sandman
"Adam Kesher" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> wrote:
Haha! He's been flinging crap around for the last four years here in
csma. He's never going to stop, and killfiling him won't make him stop
flinging crap at you, it will - however - shield you from being hit :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
So you're to technically incompetent to have type in the header information
which IS the viable option.
So a bot's reply is directly from Sandman. you sure are stupid.
>
> Heck, I even went so far as to describe how someone could verify it was the
> same mail Sandman send out - assuming comments from others about his was
> accurate.
So a bot's reply is directly from Sandman. You sure are stupid.
~babbling by the trolling idiot snit snipped
Tim Adams
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
It's a big mystery to snit, as he's to stupid to understand how that technology
works.
He's now bitching that, since his (home) ip address is 'blocked' from your site,
he couldn't have done it, totally ignoring the fact that he has used more than
one ip address with his sock puppet, including the open proxy in Germany.
Sandman
<teadams$2$0$0$3-4F0399.04...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> It's no mystery. Snit asked the site to email his password to him
>> using an open proxy. He is that obsessed :)
>
> It's a big mystery to snit, as he's to stupid to understand how that
> technology works.
>
> He's now bitching that, since his (home) ip address is 'blocked' from
> your site, he couldn't have done it, totally ignoring the fact that he
> has used more than one ip address with his sock puppet, including the
> open proxy in Germany.
He has already admitted that he is flooding my site.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
When? Where? Link? Post?
Oh... you are just lying.
Again.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Snit
2:39 AM:
> In article <mr-8E9357.06...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <teadams$2$0$0$3-D96B16.18...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
>> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why do you feel he should explain something you can't even prove is
>>>> happening? I have a better idea, let's see your explanation why
>>>> anyone should believe that you got emailed at all.
>>>
>>> snit's apparently also never heard of automatic replies from web
>>> site when you sign up on them. I know several newspapers and other
>>> places that do just that.
>>
>> It's no mystery. Snit asked the site to email his password to him
>> using an open proxy. He is that obsessed :)
>
> It's a big mystery to snit, as he's to stupid to understand how that
> technology works.
>
> He's now bitching that, since his (home) ip address is 'blocked' from your
> site, he couldn't have done it, totally ignoring the fact that he has used
> more than one ip address with his sock puppet, including the open proxy in
> Germany.
You forgot one things, Tim: Sandman has not posted a shred of evidence for
his ever increasingly bizarre accusations about me.
He did, however, claim I admitted to flooding his site... which I did not
ever say... but how would he even know if I had? He claims to have me kill
filed!
His lies are transparent! But yet you, like your co-troll buddies, jump up
and down to slap him on his back.
Pathetic.
Snit
2:35 AM:
> snipped
The best Tim Adams can do.
I copied and pasted an email Sandman sent to me... or his system did, but
not at my request.
Someone else claimed such emails can be requested by an automated system.
I pointed out that if someone were to get one of those emails then they
could compare it to the one Sandman sent me and see if they were the same.
Tim Adams cannot understand a word of the above... so he snips, runs, and
lies.
Oh well.
Snit
> In article
I have "admitted" to no such thing... but if I had, how would you have seen
it if you had me kill filed?
Do you even think about the BS you spew? Ever?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Adam Kesher" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> stated in post
> 1172646295.4...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com on 2/28/07 12:04 AM:
>
> > On Feb 27, 9:50 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, now Sandman has admitted that he - or his computer - emailed me.
> >
> >
> > Do you get all excited when you get spam e-mails too? Because that's
> > how personal this supposed e-mail from Sandman was. You just may be
> > the most pathetic ihnabitant cyberspace has ever known.
>
> The fact is Sandman is blabbing all sorts of lies about me... and frankly
> not only do not want email from him, it helps folks see how pathetic he is
> to email me *anything*.
>
> Heck, have you seen his BS recently... he is going whacko. More whacko. :)
It's no good, Snit... it should be obvious, even to you, that this guy's
already on to you. You'll have to look for aid and comfort elsewhere.
--
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Sandman is not a pro because "his site's didn't perfectly validate"-Snit
"Once we see or hear of couples - even a relatively small number - who
engage in legal, consensual,adult incestuous relationships, the whole
idea of incest with minors becomes thinkable." - Snit
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-F2B526....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 2/27/07 10:43 AM:
>
> > In article <C209B317.79628%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-699244....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 2/27/07 9:08 AM:
> >>
> >>>>>> Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why do you feel he should explain something you can't even prove is
> >>>>> happening? I have a better idea, let's see your explanation why anyone
> >>>>> should believe that you got emailed at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gee, Steve... it was just yesterday when you snipped the email in
> >>>> question.
> >>>
> >>> Incorrect.
> >>
> >> Yes, Steve, you did.
> >
> > How can I snip an email (that you *claim* to have gotten in your inbox)
> > out of post I responded to using my newsreader?
> >
> >> You can lie about it all you want, Steve, but you did.
> >> The Google record will not go away any time soon.
> >
> > OK, show it in the google record.
> >
> >>
> >>> I snipped what you presented as the email in question.
> >>
> >> Which you just insinuated was not the same thing.
> >
> > Then your position is that they ARE the "same thing"... great. For my
> > part, I am flatly stating that, where you are involved, it is likely
> > they do not contain the exact same data... but I'll clarify even
> > further, just for you:
> >
> > An email that you have received in your inbox is most definitely **NOT**
> > the "same thing" as some bit of text you presented on usenet.
> >
> > Is that clear enough for you?
> >
> >> Can you support your
> >> insinuation? Of course not!
> >>
> >> Wow, Steve... spewing accusations you cannot support.
> >>
> >>> Feel free to prove your assertion that you "actually" received the
> >>> presented
> >>> email and that it came from Jonas any time you'd like;)
> >>
> >> Feel free to prove your insinuation they are not the same.
> >
> > Feel free to prove you ever even got an email from Jonas.
> >
> >> Hey, I presented the entirety of the email...
> >
> > That's your viewpoint, one that you have yet to verify for onlookers.
> > From my viewpoint I can only state that you're *claiming* to have done
> > so... but you're the guy who make lots of claims that are proven false
> > every single day by numerous posters.
> >
> >> and you snipped and ran from it. Poor Steve...
> >> I provided evidence and he provided... well... whining and trolling and
> >> lying.
> >
> > Yes, you provided evidence that you apparently believed would convince
> > people that Jonas sent you an email... supported only by your word. How
> > many people do you figure you convinced with this "evidence"? I'm
> > providing evidence that would tend to undermine your *unsupported*
> > evidence... that being, your widely known penchant for grabbing the
> > spotlight... and stopping at nothing to get in it. Couple this with your
> > obsession to make Sandman look as you do and we get a clear picture.
> > Feel free to prove the email came from Jonas any time you'd like... in
> > fact, feel free to prove you weren't the author of said email or that
> > you even received one at all. See your problem YET? Here, let me distill
> > it for you so that even you stand a chance of comprehending it:
> >
> > To date, the only thing your word is "evidence" of is that you are a
> > liar who will stop at nothing to get whatever attention he can grab.
>
> All that weaseling from you, Steve, and you did not support your accusations
> against me. In fact, Steve, you added to them.
>
> 1) You deny that the copy of the email that you snipped was what it was...
> And you offer no evidence.
> 2) You claim to reason to believe I did not copy the email correctly...
> And you offer no evidence.
>
You have it all backwards... you have made the claim that Sandman is
emailing you... the burden of proving that belongs to you.
> Your continued accusations are noted... as is your complete lack of support.
I'm not making accusations, I'm merely pointing out that your word isn't
worth anything when you make your accusations. Your email might be real,
your copying of it into csma might be accurate... but you have failed to
prove your accusation that Sandman is emailing you. Look at this
thread's title... now read the following
Sandman: "I've never emailed Michael in my life."
You: "Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net."
Why are you asking him if you know he did it? Fact: An explanation has
been offered, one that suggests your thread title is not accurate. If
you'd like to attempt to prove the accusation in this thread's title go
right ahead... I'll gladly take a look... but, so far, what you have
offered is not proof of your accusation. Realize that I am giving you
far more than most people on this ng would give you... a chance to prove
your word is true. Most people ignore your accusations altogether
because you have cried wolf way too often and told too many lies on too
many things. Here is a chance to begin to correct that... I suggest you
do the 'honest and honorable' thing. Good luck...
Snit
> In article <C20A78E2.79742%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Adam Kesher" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> stated in post
>> 1172646295.4...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com on 2/28/07 12:04 AM:
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 9:50 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah, now Sandman has admitted that he - or his computer - emailed me.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you get all excited when you get spam e-mails too? Because that's
>>> how personal this supposed e-mail from Sandman was. You just may be
>>> the most pathetic ihnabitant cyberspace has ever known.
>>
>> The fact is Sandman is blabbing all sorts of lies about me... and frankly
>> not only do not want email from him, it helps folks see how pathetic he is
>> to email me *anything*.
>>
>> Heck, have you seen his BS recently... he is going whacko. More whacko. :)
>
> It's no good, Snit... it should be obvious, even to you, that this guy's
> already on to you. You'll have to look for aid and comfort elsewhere.
How do Sandman's unsupported and frankly whacked out and obsessive
accusations show he is "on to [me]"?
Snit
>> All that weaseling from you, Steve, and you did not support your accusations
>> against me. In fact, Steve, you added to them.
>>
>> 1) You deny that the copy of the email that you snipped was what it was...
>> And you offer no evidence.
>> 2) You claim to reason to believe I did not copy the email correctly...
>> And you offer no evidence.
>>
>
> You have it all backwards... you have made the claim that Sandman is
> emailing you... the burden of proving that belongs to you.
I did offer evidence... and even a way to verify it assuming other data
posted to CSMA was correct.
You, on the other hand, never supported your claim you had reason to believe
I did not do as I said.
And you *never* will provide support for your claim. Never, Steve. But you
deny you are consumed by your hatred.
>> Your continued accusations are noted... as is your complete lack of support.
>
> I'm not making accusations
Yes, Steve, you are. You did not just note that the sending of an email
cannot be proved (though I did offer support), you made the accusation of
having reason to believe I did not copy it correctly.
You will never support that accusation.
And you deny you are consumed with your hatred.
> , I'm merely pointing out that your word isn't worth anything when you make
> your accusations.
Another put down by Steve... without support. But you still deny you are
consumed by your hatred.
> Your email might be real, your copying of it into csma might
> be accurate... but you have failed to prove your accusation that Sandman is
> emailing you. Look at this thread's title... now read the following
>
> Sandman: "I've never emailed Michael in my life."
>
> You: "Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net."
>
> Why are you asking him if you know he did it? Fact: An explanation has
> been offered, one that suggests your thread title is not accurate. If
> you'd like to attempt to prove the accusation in this thread's title go
> right ahead... I'll gladly take a look... but, so far, what you have
> offered is not proof of your accusation. Realize that I am giving you
> far more than most people on this ng would give you... a chance to prove
> your word is true. Most people ignore your accusations altogether
> because you have cried wolf way too often and told too many lies on too
> many things. Here is a chance to begin to correct that... I suggest you
> do the 'honest and honorable' thing. Good luck...
Yawn. You are merely proving how consumed by your hatred you are, Steve.
Kinda funny... given your denial.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-9545E1....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 2/28/07 9:21 AM:
>
> >> All that weaseling from you, Steve, and you did not support your
> >> accusations
> >> against me. In fact, Steve, you added to them.
> >>
> >> 1) You deny that the copy of the email that you snipped was what it was...
> >> And you offer no evidence.
> >> 2) You claim to reason to believe I did not copy the email correctly...
> >> And you offer no evidence.
> >>
> >
> > You have it all backwards... you have made the claim that Sandman is
> > emailing you... the burden of proving that belongs to you.
>
> I did offer evidence...
I already agreed you 'offered' evidence, but that doesn't mean your
evidence supports your claim. Apparently you didn't read what you
responded to... gee, what a shock;)
> and even a way to verify it assuming other data
> posted to CSMA was correct.
Verify it regarding what?
> You, on the other hand, never supported your claim you had reason to believe
> I did not do as I said.
LOL! Get real... I have plenty of reasons to believe you are lying, as
does most every person in csma that has spotted that trait in you and
commented on it.
> And you *never* will provide support for your claim. Never, Steve. But you
> deny you are consumed by your hatred.
To whom do I need to support that you are a delusional liar? I see no
one but you asking.
> >> Your continued accusations are noted... as is your complete lack of
> >> support.
> >
> > I'm not making accusations
>
> Yes, Steve, you are. You did not just note that the sending of an email
> cannot be proved (though I did offer support), you made the accusation of
> having reason to believe I did not copy it correctly.
I have no reason to believe anything you write. It's no longer an
accusation, it's now widely acceptable as proven fact. The reason? It's
been proven over and over and over... to your repeated denials. You are
to blame for that, not me. Apparently you've forgotten I'm the guy that
tried to warn you about this happening.
> You will never support that accusation.
>
> And you deny you are consumed with your hatred.
>
> > , I'm merely pointing out that your word isn't worth anything when you make
> > your accusations.
>
> Another put down by Steve... without support.
Since when is pointing out what you have earned a "put down"?
> But you still deny you are
> consumed by your hatred.
>
> > Your email might be real, your copying of it into csma might
> > be accurate... but you have failed to prove your accusation that Sandman is
> > emailing you. Look at this thread's title... now read the following
> >
> > Sandman: "I've never emailed Michael in my life."
> >
> > You: "Then explain who is emailing me from m...@sandman.net."
> >
> > Why are you asking him if you know he did it? Fact: An explanation has
> > been offered, one that suggests your thread title is not accurate. If
> > you'd like to attempt to prove the accusation in this thread's title go
> > right ahead... I'll gladly take a look... but, so far, what you have
> > offered is not proof of your accusation. Realize that I am giving you
> > far more than most people on this ng would give you... a chance to prove
> > your word is true. Most people ignore your accusations altogether
> > because you have cried wolf way too often and told too many lies on too
> > many things. Here is a chance to begin to correct that... I suggest you
> > do the 'honest and honorable' thing. Good luck...
>
> Yawn. You are merely proving how consumed by your hatred you are, Steve.
> Kinda funny... given your denial.
The irony of you using a word like "denial" in response to that
paragraph would be funnier if it wasn't so sad. You trashed your
reputation... "deal with it".
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-BCD2F5....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 2/28/07 9:07 AM:
>
> > In article <C20A78E2.79742%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Adam Kesher" <PseuDoughI...@lycos.com> stated in post
> >> 1172646295.4...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com on 2/28/07 12:04 AM:
> >>
> >>> On Feb 27, 9:50 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ah, now Sandman has admitted that he - or his computer - emailed me.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Do you get all excited when you get spam e-mails too? Because that's
> >>> how personal this supposed e-mail from Sandman was. You just may be
> >>> the most pathetic ihnabitant cyberspace has ever known.
> >>
> >> The fact is Sandman is blabbing all sorts of lies about me... and frankly
> >> not only do not want email from him, it helps folks see how pathetic he is
> >> to email me *anything*.
> >>
> >> Heck, have you seen his BS recently... he is going whacko. More whacko.
> >> :)
> >
> > It's no good, Snit... it should be obvious, even to you, that this guy's
> > already on to you. You'll have to look for aid and comfort elsewhere.
>
> How do Sandman's unsupported and frankly whacked out and obsessive
> accusations show he is "on to [me]"?
Why do you ask?
Snit
Gee, Steve, such spewing of your above BS and you wonder how it is that you
give away your irrational and hatred that so consumes you.
LOL!
You really think your emotions do not show when you spew such things, don't
you? You have no idea why your accusations, puts downs, and other trolling
and flaming show, beyond any reasonable doubt, how badly your emotions
control you.
You have lost touch with reality, Steve, assuming you ever were in touch at
all.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Does engaging in amateur child psychology really dull the pain of the
fact that you have completely trashed your reputation on this ng?
Doesn't it occur to you that it must be a very strange world we live in
where the 'best Mac advocate' in csma is also the laughing stock of
csma? How do you account for such a bizarre condition? No, Snit... don't
worry... you don't *really* need to concern yourself with this;)
Snit
>> Gee, Steve, such spewing of your above BS and you wonder how it is that you
>> give away your irrational and hatred that so consumes you.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> You really think your emotions do not show when you spew such things, don't
>> you? You have no idea why your accusations, puts downs, and other trolling
>> and flaming show, beyond any reasonable doubt, how badly your emotions
>> control you.
>>
>> You have lost touch with reality, Steve, assuming you ever were in touch at
>> all.
>
> Does engaging in amateur child psychology really dull the pain of the
> fact that you have completely trashed your reputation on this ng?
Responding to your trolling is not good for a reputation... I can accept
that.
But the above info is correct... your hatred has consumed you and it shows
in your every post. It is the reason you cannot give a reasoned response to
the following:
-----
Really: what is the last post of yours where you were not
openly dishonest or, at best, clearly deceptive in your
comments to or about me? Pick a post, Steve... I bet you
cannot find a post of yours from the last *year* where I
cannot easily point to an unsupported accusation or
something which is at best deceptive if not outright
dishonest from you.
You will fail at that, yet you deny being consumed by your
hatred from me.
-----
Even you know you have lost any sense of even pretending to be honest or
honorable... and you know I am both. You can find *no* counter example for
either of us... you are *always* dishonest/dishonorable in at least some
area of your post. From what I have seen of the Google archives you were
not always so pathetic... but you have crumbled and no longer even have
control of your emotions - your emotions control you.
You pretend this is not the case, Steve, and you snip and run whenever I
point out how you have become... you are ashamed of yourself... as you
should be.
> Doesn't it occur to you that it must be a very strange world we live in
> where the 'best Mac advocate' in csma is also the laughing stock of
> csma? How do you account for such a bizarre condition? No, Snit... don't
> worry... you don't *really* need to concern yourself with this;)
Note how you run from anything dealing with the topic and spew your BS hate
filled claptrap. Really, Steve, you need to seek help.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-0E0360....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 2/28/07 12:57 PM:
>
>
> >> Gee, Steve, such spewing of your above BS and you wonder how it is that you
> >> give away your irrational and hatred that so consumes you.
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >>
> >> You really think your emotions do not show when you spew such things, don't
> >> you? You have no idea why your accusations, puts downs, and other trolling
> >> and flaming show, beyond any reasonable doubt, how badly your emotions
> >> control you.
> >>
> >> You have lost touch with reality, Steve, assuming you ever were in touch at
> >> all.
> >
> > Does engaging in amateur child psychology really dull the pain of the
> > fact that you have completely trashed your reputation on this ng?
>
> Responding to your trolling is not good for a reputation... I can accept
> that.
Get your money back, Snit... even I'm better at what you *claim* to have
gone to school for than you are.
LOL! I *knew* you wouldn't touch that reality;)
The topic is your still unsupported allegation that Sandman emailed you.
If I appear to be 'running' from it, it's only because I'm just behind
you and your smokescreen device. I'm close enough so that your smoke
doesn't affect me... which obviously bugs the hell outta you;)
Snit
>>> Does engaging in amateur child psychology really dull the pain of the
>>> fact that you have completely trashed your reputation on this ng?
>>
>> Responding to your trolling is not good for a reputation... I can accept
>> that.
>
> Get your money back, Snit... even I'm better at what you *claim* to have
> gone to school for than you are.
Gee, Steve, you are so damned proud of yourself for your little games...
ewwwww.... "psych me out!". LOL!
Come on, Steve, you wanted to know why it is that your intense hatred is so
clear - so I have been pointing it out. Now you are whining and crying. Oh
well.
>> But the above info is correct... your hatred has consumed you and it shows
>> in your every post. It is the reason you cannot give a reasoned response to
>> the following:
>>
>> -----
>> Really: what is the last post of yours where you were not
>> openly dishonest or, at best, clearly deceptive in your
>> comments to or about me? Pick a post, Steve... I bet you
>> cannot find a post of yours from the last *year* where I
>> cannot easily point to an unsupported accusation or
>> something which is at best deceptive if not outright
>> dishonest from you.
>>
>> You will fail at that, yet you deny being consumed by your
>> hatred from me.
>> -----
Funny how you run from that Steve. Repeatedly run.
You cannot find a single example in the last year where you have not been
dishonest / dishonorable.
Not one.
Poor Steve - even he knows he is an "asshole" with no leg to stand on. and,
of course, you *will* run from this... you are a coward as well as hateful
and angry. Oh well. That is your problem... clearly. :)
>> Even you know you have lost any sense of even pretending to be honest or
>> honorable... and you know I am both. You can find *no* counter example for
>> either of us... you are *always* dishonest/dishonorable in at least some
>> area of your post. From what I have seen of the Google archives you were
>> not always so pathetic... but you have crumbled and no longer even have
>> control of your emotions - your emotions control you.
>>
>> You pretend this is not the case, Steve, and you snip and run whenever I
>> point out how you have become... you are ashamed of yourself... as you
>> should be.
>>
>>> Doesn't it occur to you that it must be a very strange world we live in
>>> where the 'best Mac advocate' in csma is also the laughing stock of
>>> csma? How do you account for such a bizarre condition? No, Snit... don't
>>> worry... you don't *really* need to concern yourself with this;)
>>
>> Note how you run from anything dealing with the topic and spew your BS hate
>> filled claptrap. Really, Steve, you need to seek help.
>
> LOL! I *knew* you wouldn't touch that reality;)
>
> The topic is your still unsupported allegation that Sandman emailed you.
You mean the email I copied and pasted to CSMA and offered advice on how to
verify it. The one you snipped and ran from. That one?
LOL! And then you wonder why it is so easy to see how consumed by your
hatred you are.
Really, Steve, you cannot find a single example from the last year where you
have not been dishonorable in a post... not one... you vent your anger in
your every post - and in most cases your venting has been toward me.
> If I appear to be 'running' from it, it's only because I'm just behind
> you and your smokescreen device. I'm close enough so that your smoke
> doesn't affect me... which obviously bugs the hell outta you;)
Gee, Steve, and you wonder how it is your emotions can be so clearly seen.
LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-6CAC5E....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 2/28/07 1:40 PM:
>
> >>> Does engaging in amateur child psychology really dull the pain of the
> >>> fact that you have completely trashed your reputation on this ng?
> >>
> >> Responding to your trolling is not good for a reputation... I can accept
> >> that.
> >
> > Get your money back, Snit... even I'm better at what you *claim* to have
> > gone to school for than you are.
>
> Gee, Steve, you are so damned proud of yourself for your little games...
> ewwwww.... "psych me out!". LOL!
>
> Come on, Steve, you wanted to know why it is that your intense hatred is so
> clear - so I have been pointing it out. Now you are whining and crying. Oh
> well.
Pointing out how I am better than you are at what you claimed to have
gone to school for is "whining and crying"? Gotcha;)
No, the one you claimed Sandman sent to you. Still waiting for that
proof...
> and offered advice on how to
> verify it. The one you snipped and ran from. That one?
>
> LOL! And then you wonder why it is so easy to see how consumed by your
> hatred you are.
>
> Really, Steve, you cannot find a single example from the last year where you
> have not been dishonorable in a post... not one... you vent your anger in
> your every post - and in most cases your venting has been toward me.
>
> > If I appear to be 'running' from it, it's only because I'm just behind
> > you and your smokescreen device. I'm close enough so that your smoke
> > doesn't affect me... which obviously bugs the hell outta you;)
>
> Gee, Steve, and you wonder how it is your emotions can be so clearly seen.
Let's see, you've told what I "think"... you've told what I "thought"...
you've told me how I "feel"... you've told me how I've "felt"... now you
tell me what I "wonder". Yep... it's a helluva life you lead through
me, isn't is? LOL!
> LOL!
Exactly;)
NRen2k5
> In article <noone-ECC019....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <C20888F8.79479%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> Just got this email:
>> _____________________________________________________
>> Snit's proof that he "Just got this email" from Sandman goes here:
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________
>>
>> My prediction: Snit will *not* support his allegation that he got an
>> email from Sandman.
>
We know you don't have a life.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
IF you would learn to read, you would have seen evidence, some of which YOU
posted that supports his claim.
>
> He did, however, claim I admitted to flooding his site... which I did not
Yet even I commented on that FACT when you stated it. So funny that you've
forgotten it already, but typical.
> ever say... but how would he even know if I had? He claims to have me kill
> filed!
>
> His lies are transparent! But yet you, like your co-troll buddies, jump up
> and down to slap him on his back.
>
> Pathetic.
--
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-FD9A7B.04...@news.west.earthlink.net on 2/28/07
> 2:35 AM:
>
> > snipped
>
> The best
michael glasser can do is snip away ALL content and RUN
run mikey run.
Snit
3:07 PM:
>>> It's a big mystery to snit, as he's to stupid to understand how that
>>> technology works.
>>>
>>> He's now bitching that, since his (home) ip address is 'blocked' from your
>>> site, he couldn't have done it, totally ignoring the fact that he has used
>>> more than one ip address with his sock puppet, including the open proxy in
>>> Germany.
>>
>> You forgot one things, Tim: Sandman has not posted a shred of evidence for
>> his ever increasingly bizarre accusations about me.
>
> IF you would learn to read, you would have seen evidence, some of which YOU
> posted that supports his claim.
Ah... slam me with it, Tim. Show those links and those quotes... just shove
it down my throat where Sandman... or I... or *anyone*... shows support for
his claims of:
* not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
* "flooding" his site
* using proxy servers to get around firewalls
* posting comments to him in URLs...
Come on, Tim! Here is your grand chance to finally make a point and show
where these things are! You can do it!
LOL! No... Tim... you cannot. You are merely lying. And I, of course, am
openly mocking your lies.
>> He did, however, claim I admitted to flooding his site... which I did not
>
> Yet even I commented on that FACT when you stated it. So funny that you've
> forgotten it already, but typical.
And the quote is... well... now where did you put it, Tim. Funny how you
cannot find it, eh?
>> ever say... but how would he even know if I had? He claims to have me kill
>> filed!
>>
>> His lies are transparent! But yet you, like your co-troll buddies, jump up
>> and down to slap him on his back.
>>
>> Pathetic.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Snit
3:08 PM:
> snipped
Poor Snip-And-Run-Tim strikes *again*!
LOL!
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-5BF843.17...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
^^^^^^^^
> >Tim: Sandman has not posted a shred of evidence for
> > his ever increasingly bizarre accusations about me.
>
> IF you would learn to read, you would have seen evidence, some of which YOU
> posted that supports his claim.
What I wanna know is... how did you manage to forget "one things" ?
> >
> > He did, however, claim I admitted to flooding his site... which I did not
>
> Yet even I commented on that FACT when you stated it. So funny that you've
> forgotten it already, but typical.
He did that with his admissions of ID forging, too.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-5BF843.17...@news.west.earthlink.net on 2/28/07
> 3:07 PM:
>
> >>> It's a big mystery to snit, as he's to stupid to understand how that
> >>> technology works.
> >>>
> >>> He's now bitching that, since his (home) ip address is 'blocked' from your
> >>> site, he couldn't have done it, totally ignoring the fact that he has used
> >>> more than one ip address with his sock puppet, including the open proxy in
> >>> Germany.
> >>
> >> You forgot one things, Tim: Sandman has not posted a shred of evidence for
> >> his ever increasingly bizarre accusations about me.
> >
> > IF you would learn to read, you would have seen evidence, some of which YOU
> > posted that supports his claim.
>
> Ah... slam me with it, Tim.
That's all he does is "slam" you with it ... geez, you're clit must be
numb by now. I guess that's why you can't feel it when he keeps slammin'
you with it;)
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-315548.17...@news.west.earthlink.net on 2/28/07
> 3:08 PM:
>
> > snipped
>
> Poor
snit, still running by cutting out all the content. So typical of the trolling
idiot.
Snit
AM:
>> You forgot one things, Tim: Sandman has not posted a shred of evidence for
>> his ever increasingly bizarre accusations about me.
>
> IF you would learn to read, you would have seen evidence, some of which YOU
> posted that supports his claim.
Ah... slam me with it, Tim. Show those links and those quotes... just shove
it down my throat where Sandman... or I... or *anyone*... shows support for
his claims of:
* not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
* "flooding" his site
* using proxy servers to get around firewalls
* posting comments to him in URLs...
Come on, Tim! Here is your grand chance to finally make a point and show
where these things are! You can do it!
LOL! No... Tim... you cannot. You are merely lying. And I, of course, am
openly mocking your lies.
>> He did, however, claim I admitted to flooding his site... which I did not
>
> Yet even I commented on that FACT when you stated it. So funny that you've
> forgotten it already, but typical.
And the quote is... well... now where did you put it, Tim. Funny how you
cannot find it, eh?
Tim runs like the coward he is in 3... 2... 1...
You simply have no idea how predictable your trolling is, Tim... do you?
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-5BF843.17...@news.west.earthlink.net on 2/28/07
> 3:07 PM:
>
> >>> It's a big mystery to snit, as he's to stupid to understand how that
> >>> technology works.
> >>>
> >>> He's now bitching that, since his (home) ip address is 'blocked' from your
> >>> site, he couldn't have done it, totally ignoring the fact that he has used
> >>> more than one ip address with his sock puppet, including the open proxy in
> >>> Germany.
> >>
> >> You forgot one things, Tim: Sandman has not posted a shred of evidence for
> >> his ever increasingly bizarre accusations about me.
> >
> > IF you would learn to read, you would have seen evidence, some of which YOU
> > posted that supports his claim.
>
> Ah... slam me with it, Tim.
Have at it snit.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/20ac1f11d6
27e924/c40edc90da0d19a3?lnk=st&q=&rnum=10&hl=en#c40edc90da0d19a3
Assuming you really know how to read and can understand what you read, you'll
find all you need to back up the claim made by Sandman.
~More babbling by the trolling idiot snit snipped
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-A3C31A.04...@news.west.earthlink.net on 3/1/07 2:48
> AM:
>
> >> You forgot one things, Tim: Sandman has not posted a shred of evidence for
> >> his ever increasingly bizarre accusations about me.
> >
> > IF you would learn to read, you would have seen evidence, some of which YOU
> > posted that supports his claim.
>
> Ah... slam me with it, Tim.
All done snit, but in case you have problems, here it is again:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/20ac1f11d6
27e924/c40edc90da0d19a3?lnk=st&q=&rnum=10&hl=en#c40edc90da0d19a3
Enjoy eating your own words.
~more babbling by the trolling idiot snit snipped
Snit
PM:
> In article <C20B4F06.79867%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-5BF843.17...@news.west.earthlink.net on 2/28/07
>> 3:07 PM:
>>
>>>>> It's a big mystery to snit, as he's to stupid to understand how that
>>>>> technology works.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's now bitching that, since his (home) ip address is 'blocked' from your
>>>>> site, he couldn't have done it, totally ignoring the fact that he has used
>>>>> more than one ip address with his sock puppet, including the open proxy in
>>>>> Germany.
>>>>
>>>> You forgot one things, Tim: Sandman has not posted a shred of evidence for
>>>> his ever increasingly bizarre accusations about me.
>>>
>>> IF you would learn to read, you would have seen evidence, some of which YOU
>>> posted that supports his claim.
>>
>> Ah... slam me with it, Tim. Show those links and those quotes... just shove
>> it down my throat where Sandman... or I... or *anyone*... shows support for
>> his claims of:
>>
>> * not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
>> * "flooding" his site
>> * using proxy servers to get around firewalls
>> * posting comments to him in URLs...
>>
>> Come on, Tim! Here is your grand chance to finally make a point and show
>> where these things are! You can do it!
>
> Have at it snit.
Excellent! Let's see which of the above points you support with that
link... I am just so proud of you for trying!
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/20ac1f1
> 1d6 27e924/c40edc90da0d19a3?lnk=st&q=&rnum=10&hl=en#c40edc90da0d19a3
A link from to a post from Sandman where he denies I accessed his site from
my IP. Ok... point by point... what claims does that support:
* not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
Well... no... does not say a thing about that. Not related at all, really.
* "flooding" his site
Well... OK, if I am not accessing his site then I am *not* flooding his
site... so unless you make bizarre jumps then the post you pointed to is
contrary to this claim of Sandman's. You're not doing so well here, Tim...
* using proxy servers to get around firewalls
Nope... no evidence of that, either... though I suppose this accusations
tied with the last is a start for the bizarre jumps I referenced above.
Certainly no support for the claims though... drat!
* posting comments to him in URLs...
An... nope... not a shred of evidence for that, either.
Damn, Tim... four claims... and you failed to offer even poor support for
any of them. You suck at this whole "support" thing, don't you. I mean,
wow... just wow... you just blew it big time.
> Assuming you really know how to read and can understand what you read, you'll
> find all you need to back up the claim made by Sandman.
Oh, Tim, I am sure you are just eager to explain how the post you linked to
supports those claims by Sandman... oh, just rub it in... I can take it...
as much as I am sure it will hurt.
LOL!
Oh, and yes, Tim... I am openly mocking your ignorance... just thought you
might want to know - being how difficult you find it to understand simple
things, maybe that was too subtle for you. :)
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Snit
PM:
> In article <C20C1035.798FB%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-A3C31A.04...@news.west.earthlink.net on 3/1/07 2:48
>> AM:
>>
>>>> You forgot one things, Tim: Sandman has not posted a shred of evidence for
>>>> his ever increasingly bizarre accusations about me.
>>>
>>> IF you would learn to read, you would have seen evidence, some of which YOU
>>> posted that supports his claim.
>>
>> Ah... slam me with it, Tim.
>
> All done snit, but in case you have problems, here it is again:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/20ac1f1
> 1d6
> 27e924/c40edc90da0d19a3?lnk=st&q=&rnum=10&hl=en#c40edc90da0d19a3
>
> Enjoy eating your own words.
>
> ~more babbling by the trolling idiot snit snipped
Hey, Tim, you already tried that BS line before... from my reply:
-----
Excellent! Let's see which of the above points you support with that
link... I am just so proud of you for trying!
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/20ac1f1
> 1d6 27e924/c40edc90da0d19a3?lnk=st&q=&rnum=10&hl=en#c40edc90da0d19a3
A link from to a post from Sandman where he denies I accessed his site from
my IP. Ok... point by point... what claims does that support:
* not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
Well... no... does not say a thing about that. Not related at all, really.
* "flooding" his site
Well... OK, if I am not accessing his site then I am *not* flooding his
site... so unless you make bizarre jumps then the post you pointed to is
contrary to this claim of Sandman's. You're not doing so well here, Tim...
* using proxy servers to get around firewalls
Nope... no evidence of that, either... though I suppose this accusations
tied with the last is a start for the bizarre jumps I referenced above.
Certainly no support for the claims though... drat!
* posting comments to him in URLs...
An... nope... not a shred of evidence for that, either.
Damn, Tim... four claims... and you failed to offer even poor support for
any of them. You suck at this whole "support" thing, don't you. I mean,
wow... just wow... you just blew it big time.
-----
You are really pathetic, Tim.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Said the guy who keeps posting the same nonsense over and over... as if
"actual" reality would change as a result;)
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
poor snit, doesn't understand the difference between a link to a post and a
link to a thread. Read it - the thread that is. IF you able to do that, you will
see where you admitted flooding his site.
~babbling from the idiot trolling snit snipped
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
too bad it wasn't a 'link to a post' but a link to a thread. I thoughnt you knew
the difference but apparently you don't. Now try reading the thread, if your
capable.
~babbling but the trolling idiot snit snipped
Snit
PM:
> In article <C20B4F06.79867%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-5BF843.17...@news.west.earthlink.net on 2/28/07
>> 3:07 PM:
>>
>>>>> It's a big mystery to snit, as he's to stupid to understand how that
>>>>> technology works.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's now bitching that, since his (home) ip address is 'blocked' from your
>>>>> site, he couldn't have done it, totally ignoring the fact that he has used
>>>>> more than one ip address with his sock puppet, including the open proxy in
>>>>> Germany.
>>>>
>>>> You forgot one things, Tim: Sandman has not posted a shred of evidence for
>>>> his ever increasingly bizarre accusations about me.
>>>
>>> IF you would learn to read, you would have seen evidence, some of which YOU
>>> posted that supports his claim.
>>
>> Ah... slam me with it, Tim. Show those links and those quotes... just shove
>> it down my throat where Sandman... or I... or *anyone*... shows support for
>> his claims of:
>>
>> * not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
>> * "flooding" his site
>> * using proxy servers to get around firewalls
>> * posting comments to him in URLs...
>>
>> Come on, Tim! Here is your grand chance to finally make a point and show
>> where these things are! You can do it!
>
> Have at it snit.
Excellent! Let's see which of the above points you support with that
link... I am just so proud of you for trying!
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/20ac1f1
> 1d6 27e924/c40edc90da0d19a3?lnk=st&q=&rnum=10&hl=en#c40edc90da0d19a3
A link from to a post from Sandman where he denies I accessed his site from
my IP. Ok... point by point... what claims does that support:
* not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
Well... no... does not say a thing about that. Not related at all, really.
* "flooding" his site
Well... OK, if I am not accessing his site then I am *not* flooding his
site... so unless you make bizarre jumps then the post you pointed to is
contrary to this claim of Sandman's. You're not doing so well here, Tim...
* using proxy servers to get around firewalls
Nope... no evidence of that, either... though I suppose this accusations
tied with the last is a start for the bizarre jumps I referenced above.
Certainly no support for the claims though... drat!
* posting comments to him in URLs...
An... nope... not a shred of evidence for that, either.
Damn, Tim... four claims... and you failed to offer even poor support for
any of them. You suck at this whole "support" thing, don't you. I mean,
wow... just wow... you just blew it big time.
> Assuming you really know how to read and can understand what you read, you'll
> find all you need to back up the claim made by Sandman.
Oh, Tim, I am sure you are just eager to explain how the post you linked to
Snit
PM:
>> A link from to a post
>
> too bad it wasn't a 'link to a post' but a link to a thread.
You still completely failed to defend your co-troll Sandman. Here, again,
are his accusations:
* not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
* "flooding" his site
* using proxy servers to get around firewalls
* posting comments to him in URLs...
Can you find a *shred* of evidence for any of them?
PS: pointing to a thread with about 100 posts is, well, a pathetic excuse
for your failure.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-98EE12.20...@news.west.earthlink.net on 3/2/07 6:24
> PM:
>
>>> A link from to a post
>>
>> too bad it wasn't a 'link to a post' but a link to a thread.
>
> You still completely failed to defend your co-troll Sandman. Here, again,
> are his accusations:
>
> * not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
*That* is not an accusation Snit!
You're welcome!
Oh yes and just to save time...My answering machine answering an incoming
call would not be considered the same as me answering that call!
just as a bot replying in a manner it was designed to is not the same as a
person who set up the bot replying!
<The rest of Snits post which is likely as accurate as his statement above
snipped!>
Snit
C20F68AB.2B3EC%wa...@wally.world.net on 3/3/07 2:03 AM:
> On 3/3/07 10:56 AM, in article C20E23D4.79E8C%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-98EE12.20...@news.west.earthlink.net on 3/2/07 6:24
>> PM:
>>
>>>> A link from to a post
>>>
>>> too bad it wasn't a 'link to a post' but a link to a thread.
>>
>> You still completely failed to defend your co-troll Sandman. Here, again,
>> are his accusations:
>>
>> * not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
>
> *That* is not an accusation Snit!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2pyake
>
> You're welcome!
He accuses me of lying when I state the truth... and, of course, you snipped
his other accusations *and* you snipped your co-trolls bogus attempts to
support Sandman as well.
Don't you silly trolls *ever* get tired of being so wrong? Ever?
>
> Oh yes and just to save time...My answering machine answering an incoming
> call would not be considered the same as me answering that call!
You are now babbling off topic... as is your wont.
> just as a bot replying in a manner it was designed to is not the same as a
> person who set up the bot replying!
If my computer were to start faxing you garbage it would still be my
fault...
> <The rest of Snits post which is likely as accurate as his statement above
> snipped!>
And, of course, you run like the coward you are.
Damn, Wally, why are you so pathetic? Really? What is it in your life that
lead you to be such a miserable person?
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
poor snit, caught up in a 'cut and paste' reply and totally ignoring reality.
Why is that snit?
~snip
> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/20ac1
> > f1
> > 1d6 27e924/c40edc90da0d19a3?lnk=st&q=&rnum=10&hl=en#c40edc90da0d19a3
>
> A link from to a post from Sandman
Still haven't learned the difference between a post and a thread I see. So
typical of you snit. Running from reality suits you so well.
> where he denies I accessed his site from
> my IP. Ok... point by point... what claims does that support:
The thread, which you apparently are to ignorant to read and comprehend,
supports Sandman's claim that you've flooded his site, just like I've said.
~more babbling by the trolling idiot snit snipped again.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-98EE12.20...@news.west.earthlink.net on 3/2/07 6:24
> PM:
>
> >> A link from to a post
> >
> > too bad it wasn't a 'link to a post' but a link to a thread.
>
> You still completely failed to defend your co-troll Sandman.
Proving once again that snit can't comprehend the written word.
~more babbling from the trolling idiot snit snipped.
Snit
AM:
all that from Tim... and he cannot support his co-troll's accusations of:
* lying about getting an email from him
* "flooding" his site
* using proxy servers to get around firewalls
* posting comments to him in URLs...
Funny, Tim... how pathetic you are at this whole "support" thing.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Snit
AM:
> snipped
Tim runs, but he fails to support his co-troll's accusations of:
* lying about getting an email from him
* "flooding" his site
* using proxy servers to get around firewalls
* posting comments to him in URLs...
Funny, Tim... how pathetic you are at this whole "support" thing.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Steve Carroll
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> On 3/3/07 10:56 AM, in article C20E23D4.79E8C%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> > teadams$2$0$0$3-98EE12.20...@news.west.earthlink.net on 3/2/07 6:24
> > PM:
> >
> >>> A link from to a post
> >>
> >> too bad it wasn't a 'link to a post' but a link to a thread.
> >
> > You still completely failed to defend your co-troll Sandman. Here, again,
> > are his accusations:
> >
> > * not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
>
> *That* is not an accusation Snit!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2pyake
>
> You're welcome!
>
> Oh yes and just to save time...My answering machine answering an incoming
> call would not be considered the same as me answering that call!
LOL!
>
> just as a bot replying in a manner it was designed to is not the same as a
> person who set up the bot replying!
>
> <The rest of Snits post which is likely as accurate as his statement above
> snipped!>
--
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C20F68AB.2B3EC%wa...@wally.world.net on 3/3/07 2:03 AM:
>
>> On 3/3/07 10:56 AM, in article C20E23D4.79E8C%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID,
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>>> teadams$2$0$0$3-98EE12.20...@news.west.earthlink.net on 3/2/07 6:24
>>> PM:
>>>
>>>>> A link from to a post
>>>>
>>>> too bad it wasn't a 'link to a post' but a link to a thread.
>>>
>>> You still completely failed to defend your co-troll Sandman. Here, again,
>>> are his accusations:
>>>
>>> * not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net
>>
>> *That* is not an accusation Snit!
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2pyake
>>
>> You're welcome!
>
> He accuses me of lying when I state the truth...
Now *that is* an accusation! well done Snit.
"not sending the email I got from m...@sandmam.net"-Snit
Would be a denial Snit... not an accusation!
It has been explained to you how the email did not originate from Sandman
directly! forgotten already?
> and, of course, you snipped his other accusations
I snipped the *only* accusations not the *other* accusations!
> *and* you snipped your co-trolls bogus attempts to
> support Sandman as well.
I snipped whatever was not relevant to my point...that being your inability
to distinguish between what was and what was not an accusation!
> Don't you silly trolls *ever* get tired of being so wrong? Ever?
>>
>> Oh yes and just to save time...My answering machine answering an incoming
>> call would not be considered the same as me answering that call!
>
> You are now babbling off topic... as is your wont.
A bit too deep for you Snit?....OK!
>> just as a bot replying in a manner it was designed to is not the same as a
>> person who set up the bot replying!
>
> If my computer were to start faxing you garbage it would still be my
> fault...
Of course it would you loon!
Why and for what purpose would you have your computer *set up* to fax me
anything?
Of course it would be your mistake/fault if your computer started faxing me
for absolutely no reason, have you experienced your computer making such
arbitrary decisions before Snit?....do tell! :-)
Has anyone blamed you for receiving a legitimate email from m...@sandmam.net?
That's some persecution complex you have there Snit!
>> <The rest of Snits post which is likely as accurate as his statement above
>> snipped!>
>
> And, of course, you run like the coward you are.
Never happened!
> Damn, Wally, why are you so pathetic? Really? What is it in your life that
> lead you to be such a miserable person?
It's your delusion, don't let me interrupt it Snit!
Snit
Lovely obfuscations, Wally... but piss poor defense of your co-trolls.
In the end Sandman is *still* responsible for what his computer does... so
if he wants to whine that it was his computer that emailed me and not him
that does not excuse his emailing of me... no more than Tim Adams excuse for
his trolling not *really* being trolling because it was in his .sig and was
automated.
Funny how you refuse to state they are responsible for their actions... and
defend them when they whine they are not. Pathetic.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> all that from Tim... and he cannot support his co-troll's accusations of:
>
> * lying about getting an email from him
> * "flooding" his site
> * using proxy servers to get around firewalls
> * posting comments to him in URLs...
That is a fairly good effort of *altering* your previous list of
*accusations* Snit which of course were not all accusations at all, and I
will take some credit for having you put a bit of thought into that, however
the first one is still giving you heaps of trouble I see!
"* lying about getting an email from him"-Snit
Whereas that is at least now an accusation, it is obviously one that you
have hurriedly made up!
"from him" implies from Sandman!, But if Sandman had no knowledge that you
or someone acting as you was arranging for the bot at sandman.net to send
you via email a password etc then he (Sandman) simply could not be lying
when he said that he did not send it!
So far you have failed miserably to disprove Sandman's assertion that...
"I've never emailed Michael in my life."-Sandman
It should be noted that Sandman has never accused you of lying about
'getting' the email, only about who sent it! you really should try and
follow his example Snit!
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Bit close to the bone there was I Snit?
>>>> <The rest of Snits post which is likely as accurate as his statement above
>>>> snipped!>
>>>
>>> And, of course, you run like the coward you are.
>>
>> Never happened!
>>
>>> Damn, Wally, why are you so pathetic? Really? What is it in your life that
>>> lead you to be such a miserable person?
>>
>> It's your delusion, don't let me interrupt it Snit!
>>
> Lovely obfuscations, Wally... but piss poor defense of your co-trolls.
Good job it was never intended to be that then Snit!
> In the end Sandman is *still* responsible for what his computer does...
But not for who gets it to do it, or why! I must have missed where Sandman
disowned responsibility for his site! LOL!
> so
> if he wants to whine that it was his computer that emailed me and not him
> that does not excuse his emailing of me...
Apart from the fact that *he* didnšt you mean? :-)
> no more than Tim Adams excuse for
> his trolling not *really* being trolling because it was in his .sig and was
> automated.
This may surprise you Snit but I firmly believe that Tim makes every post
personally! I consider your point so weak to not even be considered straw!
But you using that analogy does highlight quite nicely how you do indeed
know that Sandman is not directly responsible for the email that you
received (allegedly received).
> Funny how you refuse to state they are responsible for their actions... and
> defend them when they whine they are not. Pathetic.
What you find funny Snit is beyond my control..remember I have seen some of
the delusions that you term facts!
Sandman
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> >> just as a bot replying in a manner it was designed to is not the same as a
> >> person who set up the bot replying!
> >
> > If my computer were to start faxing you garbage it would still be my
> > fault...
>
> Of course it would you loon!
>
> Why and for what purpose would you have your computer *set up* to fax me
> anything?
>
> Of course it would be your mistake/fault if your computer started faxing me
> for absolutely no reason, have you experienced your computer making such
> arbitrary decisions before Snit?....do tell! :-)
>
> Has anyone blamed you for receiving a legitimate email from m...@sandmam.net?
He is still trying to make it seem like I personally emailed him?
Hilarious. He surfed to [1] and had the password sent to him. It's
even in my logs.
[1] http://csma.sandman.net/member/login
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <C2106237.2BF5F%wa...@wally.world.net>,
> Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>
>>>> just as a bot replying in a manner it was designed to is not the same as a
>>>> person who set up the bot replying!
>>>
>>> If my computer were to start faxing you garbage it would still be my
>>> fault...
>>
>> Of course it would you loon!
>>
>> Why and for what purpose would you have your computer *set up* to fax me
>> anything?
>>
>> Of course it would be your mistake/fault if your computer started faxing me
>> for absolutely no reason, have you experienced your computer making such
>> arbitrary decisions before Snit?....do tell! :-)
>>
>> Has anyone blamed you for receiving a legitimate email from m...@sandmam.net?
>
> He is still trying to make it seem like I personally emailed him?
He absolutely is! But as Steve has pointed out numerous times...People just
aren't as stupid as he needs them to be! :-)
Snit
mr-F6EA50.08...@News.Individual.NET on 3/4/07 12:31 AM:
Gee, and Wally denied that you lied about my doing so... LOL!
Steve Carroll
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> On 4/3/07 4:31 PM, in article mr-F6EA50.08...@News.Individual.NET,
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <C2106237.2BF5F%wa...@wally.world.net>,
> > Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> just as a bot replying in a manner it was designed to is not the same as
> >>>> a
> >>>> person who set up the bot replying!
> >>>
> >>> If my computer were to start faxing you garbage it would still be my
> >>> fault...
> >>
> >> Of course it would you loon!
> >>
> >> Why and for what purpose would you have your computer *set up* to fax me
> >> anything?
> >>
> >> Of course it would be your mistake/fault if your computer started faxing
> >> me
> >> for absolutely no reason, have you experienced your computer making such
> >> arbitrary decisions before Snit?....do tell! :-)
> >>
> >> Has anyone blamed you for receiving a legitimate email from
> >> m...@sandmam.net?
> >
> > He is still trying to make it seem like I personally emailed him?
>
> He absolutely is! But as Steve has pointed out numerous times...People just
> aren't as stupid as he needs them to be! :-)
Unfortunately, Snit is a poor student.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
snit still hasn't figured out how to read a thread from the first post to the
last. So typical, cause if he did, he would see all the proof he's been looking
for.
~babbling from the trolling idiot snit snipped
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-90E158.10...@news.west.earthlink.net on 3/3/07 8:07
> AM:
>
> > snipped
>
> Tim runs,
but it's snit that deletes all the content of the thread and runs away. So
typical.
Tim Adams
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
You expect snit to understand something so technically advanced as that?
> It's even in my logs.
>
> [1] http://csma.sandman.net/member/login
--
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-F6EA50.08...@News.Individual.NET on 3/4/07 12:31 AM:
>
>> In article <C2106237.2BF5F%wa...@wally.world.net>,
>> Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> just as a bot replying in a manner it was designed to is not the same as a
>>>>> person who set up the bot replying!
>>>>
>>>> If my computer were to start faxing you garbage it would still be my
>>>> fault...
>>>
>>> Of course it would you loon!
>>>
>>> Why and for what purpose would you have your computer *set up* to fax me
>>> anything?
>>>
>>> Of course it would be your mistake/fault if your computer started faxing me
>>> for absolutely no reason, have you experienced your computer making such
>>> arbitrary decisions before Snit?....do tell! :-)
>>>
>>> Has anyone blamed you for receiving a legitimate email from m...@sandmam.net?
>>
>> He is still trying to make it seem like I personally emailed him?
>> Hilarious. He surfed to [1] and had the password sent to him. It's
>> even in my logs.
>>
>> [1] http://csma.sandman.net/member/login
>>
> Gee, and Wally denied that you lied about my doing so... LOL!
Why wouldnšt I deny that Sandman lied?...there is nothing to support that he
did!
Snit
> Why wouldnąt I deny that Sandman lied?...there is nothing to support that he
> did!
>
He claims I "surfed" to his site and had my password sent to me... in the
email. That is a clear lie... being that I did no such thing. You denied
he was spreading that lie.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>> Why wouldnšt I deny that Sandman lied?...there is nothing to support that he
>> did!
>>
> He claims I "surfed" to his site and had my password sent to me... in the
> email.
Snit I realize that you are not very good at this, but, you are condemning
yourself...
"... and had my password sent to me"
Who's password would you have expected to be sent to you? You clearly claim
it to be your password!
Perhaps as is quite often the case with you you simply have not stated what
it was you meant to say! let me be of assistance... if you wish to claim
that the user name/password info sent to you by the automatic process at
Sandman's site was not instigated by you then simply say that!, but frankly
for you to call it "my password" does you no service in that regard.
> That is a clear lie... being that I did no such thing.
As far as Sandman was concerned he had no hands on dealing with the info
that was dispatched to you, that was done automatically! do you have any
thing that shows anything contrary to that? If not then your claim of a
clear lie is either wishful thinking or a deliberate distortion of the
truth!
> You denied he was spreading that lie.
Look up what constitutes a lie Snit and you will discover that Sandman had
to know that what he was saying was not true! Nowhere have you been able to
demonstrate that Snit, therefore you have failed miserably to show that
Sandman lied......you merely claiming it does not constitute proof, outside
of your own delusions anyway!
Sandman
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
It's not a matter of true or false. His request for his password is in
the logs. It's no mystery. He requested his password to be sent to him
and it was. It is quite clear that he did so with the sole intention
to make it seem like I am emailing him, as if that would be something
that reflected badly on me.
Either way, I've not emailed him. Not now, not ever.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I never requested any password. You are lying.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Snit
> In article <C2106237.2BF5F%wa...@wally.world.net>,
Gee, and Wally denied that you lied about my doing so... LOL!
--
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > [1] http://csma.sandman.net/member/login
>
> Gee, and Wally denied that you lied about my doing so... LOL!
1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is
bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially
in a forum like this.
2) Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
3) Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with
problems as they arise.
4) Agree to let the past go...
--
Sandman[.net]