Steve Carroll v. Justice Black
Snit
In a legal context:
I believe Bush is actually guilty of a crime based on the fact
that he committed an illegal act.
You believe that for Bush to be actually guilty he would have
to be found so in a court of law.
Is that a fair representation of your view? I think it is, but am open to
you making corrections as needed.
Now let us look at this link:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/393/410.html
SPINELLI v. UNITED STATES, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)
Justice Black, in a dissenting view
----- Start Quotes -----
I believe the Court is moving rapidly ... toward the holding that no
magistrate can issue a warrant unless ... he can be persuaded that the
suspect defendant is actually guilty of a crime.
----- End Quotes -----
Justice Black shows concern that the "Probable cause" clause of the 14th
Amendment is being pushed to the level of having to show that the defendant
is "actually guilty of a crime".
Do you think Justice Black was commenting on the standard reaching the level
where
1) you would have to show someone did the crime with certainty... which
is a higher standard than "probable cause"
2) you would have to have a trial and find someone guilty in order to be
able to gather evidence of the crime
Of course the answer is clear... Justice Black is using the concept of being
"actually guilty" in the same way I am when I say Bush is "actually guilty".
Would you agree?
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
Wally
----------
In article <BD8B98C5.8EE5%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Quick review:
>
> In a legal context:
>
> I believe Bush is actually guilty of a crime based on the fact
> that he committed an illegal act.
>
> You believe that for Bush to be actually guilty he would have
> to be found so in a court of law.
>
> Is that a fair representation of your view? I think it is, but am open to
> you making corrections as needed.
>
>
> Now let us look at this link:
>
> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/393/410.html
>
> SPINELLI v. UNITED STATES, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)
> Justice Black, in a dissenting view
>
> ----- Start Quotes -----
>
> I believe the Court is moving rapidly ... toward the holding that no
> magistrate can issue a warrant unless ... he can be persuaded that the
> suspect defendant is actually guilty of a crime.
>
> ----- End Quotes -----
"Argued October 16-17 1968" anybody wish to define
"moving rapidly" 1968 for Christ's sake!
> Justice Black shows concern that the "Probable cause" clause of the 14th
> Amendment is being pushed to the level of having to show that the defendant
> is "actually guilty of a crime".
>
> Do you think Justice Black was commenting on the standard reaching the level
> where
>
> 1) you would have to show someone did the crime with certainty... which
> is a higher standard than "probable cause"
>
> 2) you would have to have a trial and find someone guilty in order to be
> able to gather evidence of the crime
>
>
> Of course the answer is clear... Justice Black is using the concept of being
> "actually guilty" in the same way I am when I say Bush is "actually guilty".
>
> Would you agree?
With Justice Black? well The Supreme Court of the United States didn't seem
to!
http://www.tamiu.edu/~nmomayezi/brief-1.htm
Snit
6zw9d.2890812$6p.4...@news.easynews.com on 10/8/04 6:25 AM:
>> In a legal context:
>>
>> I believe Bush is actually guilty of a crime based on the fact
>> that he committed an illegal act.
>>
>> You believe that for Bush to be actually guilty he would have
>> to be found so in a court of law.
>>
>> Is that a fair representation of your view? I think it is, but am open to
>> you making corrections as needed.
>>
>>
>> Now let us look at this link:
>>
>> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/393/410.html
>>
>> SPINELLI v. UNITED STATES, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)
>> Justice Black, in a dissenting view
>>
>> ----- Start Quotes -----
>>
>> I believe the Court is moving rapidly ... toward the holding that no
>> magistrate can issue a warrant unless ... he can be persuaded that the
>> suspect defendant is actually guilty of a crime.
>>
>> ----- End Quotes -----
>
> "Argued October 16-17 1968" anybody wish to define
> "moving rapidly" 1968 for Christ's sake!
Argued in Oct. of '68
Decided in Jan '69.
Referenced in '04.
Is this troubling to you?
>> Justice Black shows concern that the "Probable cause" clause of the 14th
>> Amendment is being pushed to the level of having to show that the defendant
>> is "actually guilty of a crime".
>>
>> Do you think Justice Black was commenting on the standard reaching the level
>> where
>>
>> 1) you would have to show someone did the crime with certainty... which
>> is a higher standard than "probable cause"
>>
>> 2) you would have to have a trial and find someone guilty in order to be
>> able to gather evidence of the crime
>>
>>
>> Of course the answer is clear... Justice Black is using the concept of being
>> "actually guilty" in the same way I am when I say Bush is "actually guilty".
>>
>> Would you agree?
>
> With Justice Black? well The Supreme Court of the United States didn't seem
> to!
>
> http://www.tamiu.edu/~nmomayezi/brief-1.htm
Not sure what your point is - maybe that, as I said, Justice Black was
offering a dissenting opinion? Is that your point? If so, you completely
missed mine. I am not talking about the specific case, but the use of the
phrase "actually guilty" in a legal context to mean something different than
having been *found* guilty.
In any case, I am waiting for Steve, not you, to embarrass himself by
nit-picking and twisting and playing his normal semantic games. He *will*
do this in order to try to convince... someone... that he is correct.
Surely he must know that "someone" is not me - as I have shown him clearly
that I am not going to fall for his games. The scary thing is the "someone"
might be himself - he might *really* believe the garbage he spews.
Once *he* does go against *this* Supreme Court justice's comments (or
"creatively" interprets them), I will start listing other Supreme Court
decisions that use the phrases "legally guilty" or "actually guilty" in ways
that show that multiple Justices of the Supreme Court have used the words in
much the way I have - and they have done so for many years in many Supreme
Court decisions.
With this added piece of info, we will have Steve going against:
- Every source I can find, including multiple legal dictionaries
- Every source Steve has found
- The very definition that Steve is using
- Common sense, based on court pleas coming before court findings
- The way Supreme Court justices use the words
- Rick G., who both Steve and I have stated we trust
And on Steve's side he will have
- You? Are you sticking with his view on this?
- Um, Elizabot and Steve M. might jump in to offer moral
support, but they will not talk about the actual issue
being that they will not be able to swallow his BS.
- Anyone else? Anything?
Shhh, don't tell Steve. I still want him to step into this "trap".
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> Quick review:
>
> In a legal context:
>
> I believe Bush is actually guilty of a crime based on the fact
> that he committed an illegal act.
Good to see you FINALLY changed your wording to reflect the fact that is
is only your belief that Bush is guilty.
> You believe that for Bush to be actually guilty he would have
> to be found so in a court of law.
>
> Is that a fair representation of your view? I think it is, but am open to
> you making corrections as needed.
The context was a legal context, therefore, I am talking about being
*legally* guilty. This should be obvious after only what... a year of
discussion ? :)
>
> Now let us look at this link:
>
> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/393/410.html
>
> SPINELLI v. UNITED STATES, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)
> Justice Black, in a dissenting view
>
> ----- Start Quotes -----
>
> I believe the Court is moving rapidly ... toward the holding that no
> magistrate can issue a warrant unless ... he can be persuaded that the
> suspect defendant is actually guilty of a crime.
>
> ----- End Quotes -----
>
> Justice Black shows concern that the "Probable cause" clause of the 14th
> Amendment is being pushed to the level of having to show that the defendant
> is "actually guilty of a crime".
>
> Do you think Justice Black was commenting on the standard reaching the level
> where
>
> 1) you would have to show someone did the crime with certainty... which
> is a higher standard than "probable cause"
>
> 2) you would have to have a trial and find someone guilty in order to be
> able to gather evidence of the crime
>
>
> Of course the answer is clear... Justice Black is using the concept of being
> "actually guilty" in the same way I am when I say Bush is "actually guilty".
>
> Would you agree?
Gee, you're not dense, are ya?:) I am not contending that being
*actually* guilty is the same thing as being *legally* guilty, quite the
opposite. My contention is that in a legal context, the word *guilty*
has a very specific meaning... and it doesn't even mean you are
guaranteed to have committed the crime you are alleged to have
committed. Why do you think Black used the term *actually guilty*? He
didn't say *legally* guilty, did he? He is CLEARLY recognizing what I
have been telling you... that there IS a difference.
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
And with each listing, you will be supporting MY argument every step of
the way. My entire argument is based on the fact that the term guilty
has a specific meaning in a legal context. List away, Snit:)
> With this added piece of info, we will have Steve going against:
>
> - Every source I can find, including multiple legal dictionaries
>
> - Every source Steve has found
>
> - The very definition that Steve is using
>
> - Common sense, based on court pleas coming before court findings
>
> - The way Supreme Court justices use the words
>
> - Rick G., who both Steve and I have stated we trust
Wait a minute here:) Where did I say I would *trust* Rick's word on this
issue? Where did I say I would trust *ANYONE'S* word on it?
> And on Steve's side he will have
>
> - You? Are you sticking with his view on this?
>
> - Um, Elizabot and Steve M. might jump in to offer moral
> support, but they will not talk about the actual issue
> being that they will not be able to swallow his BS.
>
> - Anyone else? Anything?
>
> Shhh, don't tell Steve. I still want him to step into this "trap".
Trying to drum up a consensus again:)
--
Steve C
Wally
----------
In article <BD8C03E0.8F14%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote in post
> 6zw9d.2890812$6p.4...@news.easynews.com on 10/8/04 6:25 AM:
>
>>> In a legal context:
>>>
>>> I believe Bush is actually guilty of a crime based on the fact
>>> that he committed an illegal act.
>>>
>>> You believe that for Bush to be actually guilty he would have
>>> to be found so in a court of law.
>>>
>>> Is that a fair representation of your view? I think it is, but am open to
>>> you making corrections as needed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now let us look at this link:
>>>
>>> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/393/410.html
>>>
>>> SPINELLI v. UNITED STATES, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)
>>> Justice Black, in a dissenting view
>>>
>>> ----- Start Quotes -----
>>>
>>> I believe the Court is moving rapidly ... toward the holding that no
>>> magistrate can issue a warrant unless ... he can be persuaded that the
>>> suspect defendant is actually guilty of a crime.
>>>
>>> ----- End Quotes -----
>>
>> "Argued October 16-17 1968" anybody wish to define
>> "moving rapidly" 1968 for Christ's sake!
>
> Argued in Oct. of '68
> Decided in Jan '69.
> Referenced in '04.
Overruled 1983...in Illinois v. Gates.
> Is this troubling to you?
Only your dishonesty troubles me, more than it troubles you it would seem, I
guess it comes down to what you are used to!
>>> Justice Black shows concern that the "Probable cause" clause of the 14th
>>> Amendment is being pushed to the level of having to show that the defendant
>>> is "actually guilty of a crime".
14th Amendment?
There should be a limit set as to how many corners one person can paint
themselves into,
Justice Black........"the suspect defendant"
Snit........"the defendant"
I am sure Snit will claim that the significance of this not so subtle
difference escapes him,
no big surprise there!
<snip>
Snit
What was overruled - the case, which is not the context of bringing up the
quote, or the actual wording used by Justice Black.
>
>> Is this troubling to you?
Wow... no real answer to this. I snipped your meaningless insults.
>
>>>> Justice Black shows concern that the "Probable cause" clause of the 14th
>>>> Amendment is being pushed to the level of having to show that the defendant
>>>> is "actually guilty of a crime".
>
> 14th Amendment?
>
> There should be a limit set as to how many corners one person can paint
> themselves into,
>
> Justice Black........"the suspect defendant"
>
> Snit........"the defendant"
>
> I am sure Snit will claim that the significance of this not so subtle
> difference escapes him,
> no big surprise there!
You do realize the context was about the word "guilty", right?
Snit
fretwizz-51A7FF...@netnews.comcast.net on 10/8/04 10:37 AM:
Wow! No comment from Steve.
Then what did Justice Black mean by "actually guilty"? Seems you have not
come up with your spin on that one. Will you, or will you just obfuscate
and hope I forget all about Supreme Court justices using words the way I do
and showing your claim to be utter BS.
>
>> With this added piece of info, we will have Steve going against:
>>
>> - Every source I can find, including multiple legal dictionaries
>>
>> - Every source Steve has found
>>
>> - The very definition that Steve is using
>>
>> - Common sense, based on court pleas coming before court findings
>>
>> - The way Supreme Court justices use the words
I notice you have no comment on the above... LOL.
>> - Rick G., who both Steve and I have stated we trust
>
> Wait a minute here:) Where did I say I would *trust* Rick's word on this
> issue? Where did I say I would trust *ANYONE'S* word on it?
LOL! Um, ok... so you stand completely on your own and trust nobody and no
source... not even your own it turns out.
>
>> And on Steve's side he will have
>>
>> - You? Are you sticking with his view on this?
>>
>> - Um, Elizabot and Steve M. might jump in to offer moral
>> support, but they will not talk about the actual issue
>> being that they will not be able to swallow his BS.
>>
>> - Anyone else? Anything?
>>
>> Shhh, don't tell Steve. I still want him to step into this "trap".
>
> Trying to drum up a consensus again:)
Is that the game you will run to? Why not... you have used it before.
Snit
> Gee, you're not dense, are ya?:) I am not contending that being
> *actually* guilty is the same thing as being *legally* guilty, quite the
> opposite.
Quote from you:
Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or
being *actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing
> My contention is that in a legal context, the word *guilty*
> has a very specific meaning... and it doesn't even mean you are
> guaranteed to have committed the crime you are alleged to have
> committed. Why do you think Black used the term *actually guilty*? He
> didn't say *legally* guilty, did he? He is CLEARLY recognizing what I
> have been telling you... that there IS a difference.
So you take back your claim of:
Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or
being *actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
But now you say:
Why do you think Black used the term *actually guilty*? He
didn't say *legally* guilty, did he? He is CLEARLY recognizing what I
have been telling you... that there IS a difference.
Seems in your newest flip flop you are agreeing with me when I said:
I am not arguing that he is *theoretically* guilty. I am arguing that
he is *actually* guilty.
Why is that? Why did you argue with me then, but now have switched to argue
my side of the issue?
LOL. Yeah... he used the word the way *I* have, and you think it supports
your claim. Well, it does... it supports the claim you have today, and the
claim I have been making for a long, long time.
In fact, when you once asked me:
Do you agree with the idea that Bush is legally guilty?
I responded with:
No. I do not believe he has been found guilty in a court of law.
I do believe he has broken a law.
And, as I have said before:
You claim I have shown that I believe Bush is legally guilty
Even if somehow you could have come to that conclusion based off of
something I said - which has not been shown - I have corrected your
error many, many times.
My argument is that Bush is *actually* guilty of breaking the law... not
that he has been found *legally* guilty in a court of law.
Steve Carroll
"Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
LOL!
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Wrong. It's about the word guilty in a LEGAL context. What need do
judges have of the term *actually guilty* if it doesn't differ from the
term *legally guilty*, Snit? See your problem YET? ROTFL!
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
What's to comment on? That in a LEGAL context being guilty is ALWAYS
arrived at via a 'finding'? Gee... I've only stated it a zillion times
now:)
He means something different than *legally guilty*, doesn't he Snit? And
when you say YES... I will then point out that this has been my argument
the entire time. Now, are you dizzy enough from all your spinning YET?
LOL!
> Seems you have not
> come up with your spin on that one. Will you, or will you just obfuscate
> and hope I forget all about Supreme Court justices using words the way I do
> and showing your claim to be utter BS.
> >
> >> With this added piece of info, we will have Steve going against:
> >>
> >> - Every source I can find, including multiple legal dictionaries
> >>
> >> - Every source Steve has found
> >>
> >> - The very definition that Steve is using
> >>
> >> - Common sense, based on court pleas coming before court findings
> >>
> >> - The way Supreme Court justices use the words
>
> I notice you have no comment on the above... LOL.
What's to comment on? Where is anything from any of these sources that
is at odds with my argument that being guilty in a legal sense is not
the same as other forms of being guilty?
> >> - Rick G., who both Steve and I have stated we trust
> >
> > Wait a minute here:) Where did I say I would *trust* Rick's word on this
> > issue? Where did I say I would trust *ANYONE'S* word on it?
>
> LOL! Um, ok... so you stand completely on your own and trust nobody and no
> source... not even your own it turns out.
You made a claim and are now not backing it up when asked. Duly noted.
> >> And on Steve's side he will have
> >>
> >> - You? Are you sticking with his view on this?
> >>
> >> - Um, Elizabot and Steve M. might jump in to offer moral
> >> support, but they will not talk about the actual issue
> >> being that they will not be able to swallow his BS.
> >>
> >> - Anyone else? Anything?
> >>
> >> Shhh, don't tell Steve. I still want him to step into this "trap".
> >
> > Trying to drum up a consensus again:)
>
> Is that the game you will run to? Why not... you have used it before.
Ah yes... the ol' shine the light on the other guy routine... one of
your favorties:) I brought it up because you have stated, more than
once, that you look at only the facts and not the person saying the
facts. But in MY case, it's obvious that you can only see the person
because when I state a fact you see only my picture in your mind and the
need for revenge:)
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
> fretwizz-2DA41D...@netnews.comcast.net on 10/8/04 10:22 AM:
>
> > Gee, you're not dense, are ya?:) I am not contending that being
> > *actually* guilty is the same thing as being *legally* guilty, quite the
> > opposite.
>
> Quote from you:
>
> Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or
> being *actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In a LEGAL sense, that statement isn't an error. That's why I used the
qualifier in that statement that I did... "in a legal sense". Do you
know what a qualifier is? If you understood things like qualifiers, you
would have read the statement as follows:
Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
"in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
It was more expeditious to put in the qualifier "in a legal sense". Why?
Because I only need to write the phrase "in a legal sense" ONE time and
it applies to ALL those terms? Pretty neat, huh? Perhaps someday you'll
learn about things like context and qualifiers...
In any event, that's not what Black is saying though, is it? He is
drawing the distinction between legal guilt and ACTUALLY having
committed the crime... the same distinction that *I* am drawing.
> > My contention is that in a legal context, the word *guilty*
> > has a very specific meaning... and it doesn't even mean you are
> > guaranteed to have committed the crime you are alleged to have
> > committed. Why do you think Black used the term *actually guilty*? He
> > didn't say *legally* guilty, did he? He is CLEARLY recognizing what I
> > have been telling you... that there IS a difference.
>
> So you take back your claim of:
>
> Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or
> being *actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
>
> But now you say:
>
> Why do you think Black used the term *actually guilty*? He
> didn't say *legally* guilty, did he? He is CLEARLY recognizing what I
> have been telling you... that there IS a difference.
>
> Seems in your newest flip flop you are agreeing with me when I said:
>
> I am not arguing that he is *theoretically* guilty. I am arguing that
> he is *actually* guilty.
>
> Why is that? Why did you argue with me then, but now have switched to argue
> my side of the issue?
I haven't... but you have read things this way. You are constantly
showing that you are unable to comprehend what you read. This is no
different. Apparently, you don't even realize that you are agreeing with
me in principle while stumbling over the definition... and context is
the reason why.
>
>
>
> LOL. Yeah... he used the word the way *I* have, and you think it supports
> your claim. Well, it does... it supports the claim you have today, and the
> claim I have been making for a long, long time.
>
> In fact, when you once asked me:
>
> Do you agree with the idea that Bush is legally guilty?
>
> I responded with:
>
> No. I do not believe he has been found guilty in a court of law.
> I do believe he has broken a law.
>
> And, as I have said before:
>
> You claim I have shown that I believe Bush is legally guilty
>
> Even if somehow you could have come to that conclusion based off of
> something I said - which has not been shown - I have corrected your
> error many, many times.
>
> My argument is that Bush is *actually* guilty of breaking the law... not
> that he has been found *legally* guilty in a court of law.
But he's NOT *actually* guilty of breaking the law for the reasons I
have stated. This phrase STILL puts the definition of the word guilty in
a legal context and my same argument applies. Adding *actually* in
there... just because Justice Black used it, doesn't change a thing
because he didn't use it this way... where the mixing of contexts is
occurring with what you are saying and what you are arguing. He did it
to draw the distinction that you are missing. Amazingly, you HAVE made
the distinction before when you have recognized that there is a
difference between committing a crime and being found guilty of
committing that crime. The latter is the condition of being guilty in a
legal sense. The former is what Black is referring to as *actually
guilty*. He is CLEARLY drawing a distinction that coincides with what I
have been telling you. Being guilty, in a LEGAL sense, is different from
other forms of being guilty. You can ALLEGE that Bush is *actually*
guilty of committing the crimes you are alleging he committed but you
have no authority to unequivocally state that he is actually guilty of
breaking the law... and I am not going to give it to you. I'll wager
that neither Bush, nor anyone else, will give it to you, either.
--
Steve C
Snit
> Ah yes... the ol' shine the light on the other guy routine...
Yes, Steve, I like to shine the light on your lies...
So tell me again, in a legal context, are being *actually* guilty of
breaking the law and being *legally* guilty of breaking the law the same
thing or are they "quite the opposite"?
LOL...
Spin away Steve.
--
Two quotes from Steve Carroll:
I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
as being *legally* guilty, quite the opposite.
Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
Snit
>> You do realize the context was about the word "guilty", right?
>
> Wrong. It's about the word guilty in a LEGAL context. What need do
> judges have of the term *actually guilty* if it doesn't differ from the
> term *legally guilty*, Snit? See your problem YET? ROTFL!
LOL... whatever, Steve... when you pick one side to for your case, let me
know...
--
Two quotes from Steve Carroll:
Snit
>> Quote from you:
>>
>> Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or
>> being *actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> In a LEGAL sense, that statement isn't an error.
> Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
> being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
> "in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
Really... then why did you tell me:
Gee, you're not dense, are ya?:) I am not contending that being
*actually* guilty is the same thing as being *legally* guilty, quite the
opposite. My contention is that in a legal context, the word *guilty*
has a very specific meaning... and it doesn't even mean you are
guaranteed to have committed the crime you are alleged to have
committed. Why do you think Black used the term *actually guilty*? He
didn't say *legally* guilty, did he? He is CLEARLY recognizing what I
have been telling you... that there IS a difference.
Or do you mean that a Supreme Court justice in a legal opinion was not
speaking in a legal context?
--
Two quotes from Steve Carroll:
Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
*actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
> fretwizz-24D1D4...@netnews.comcast.net on 10/8/04 12:55 PM:
>
> >> You do realize the context was about the word "guilty", right?
> >
> > Wrong. It's about the word guilty in a LEGAL context. What need do
> > judges have of the term *actually guilty* if it doesn't differ from the
> > term *legally guilty*, Snit? See your problem YET? ROTFL!
>
>
> LOL... whatever, Steve... when you pick one side to for your case, let me
> know...
I've picked a side. You're the one with the problem in consistency.
From your new sig:
"Two quotes from Steve Carroll:
Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
*actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
as being *legally* guilty, quite the opposite."
Yup... and I still contend they are not the same thing. The first
statement you are quoting isn't at odds with the second statement when
you consider the fact that I used a qualifier in the first statement...
note the words "in a legal sense". Do you know what a qualifier is? If
you understood things like qualifiers, you would have read the statement
as follows:
Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
"in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
It was more expeditious to put in the qualifier "in a legal sense". Why?
Because I only need to write the phrase "in a legal sense" ONE time and
it applies to ALL those terms? Pretty neat, huh? I was forced to go
through all of this because of your inability to comprehend what you
were reading and your need for tautology. You put every word you could
think of in front of the word guilty trying to make reality disappear.
Perhaps someday you'll learn about things like context and qualifiers:)
In any event, this new problem of yours came from your inability to
comprehend the words you quoted of Justice Black, where he is drawing
the distinction between legal guilt and ACTUALLY having committed the
crime... the same distinction that *I* am drawing.
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
> fretwizz-7C75CB...@netnews.comcast.net on 10/8/04 1:07 PM:
>
> > Ah yes... the ol' shine the light on the other guy routine...
>
> Yes, Steve, I like to shine the light on your lies...
>
> So tell me again, in a legal context, are being *actually* guilty of
> breaking the law and being *legally* guilty of breaking the law the same
> thing or are they "quite the opposite"?
They are not the same thing. I suggest you read below... or better yet,
get your mommy to read it to you:)
> LOL...
>
> Spin away Steve.
From your new sig:
***************************************************************
"Two quotes from Steve Carroll:
Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
*actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
as being *legally* guilty, quite the opposite."
***************************************************************
Snit
Spin away... just keep spinning away... :)
Yes, Justice Black is talking about the difference between being found
guilty and being actually guilty.
I say Bush is one, and you pretend I say the other.
--
Quiz: which of the following quotes is a lie?
1) Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
*actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
2) I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
Snit
In which quote were you not talking in a legal context?
--
Quiz: which of the following quotes is a lie?
1) Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
*actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
2) I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
I am talking in a legal context in the first and drawing a distinction
between a legal guilt and actual guilt in the second. Nothing difficult
about it.
From your new sig:
***************************************************************
"Two quotes from Steve Carroll:
Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
*actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
as being *legally* guilty, quite the opposite."
***************************************************************
The first statement you are quoting isn't at odds with the second
statement when you consider the fact that I used a qualifier in the
first statement... note the words "in a legal sense". Do you know what
a qualifier is? If you understood things like qualifiers, you would have
read the statement as follows:
Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
"in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
It was more expeditious to put in the qualifier "in a legal sense". Why?
Because I only need to write the phrase "in a legal sense" ONE time and
it applies to ALL those terms? Pretty neat, huh? I was forced to go
through all of this because of your inability to comprehend what you
were reading and your need for tautology. You put every word you could
think of in front of the word guilty trying to make reality disappear.
Perhaps someday you'll learn about things like context and qualifiers:)
In any event, this new problem of yours came from your inability to
comprehend the words you quoted of Justice Black, where he is drawing
the distinction between legal guilt and ACTUALLY having committed the
crime... the same distinction that *I* am drawing.
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
> fretwizz-5FD390...@netnews.comcast.net on 10/8/04 2:05 PM:
>
> >> Quote from you:
> >>
> >> Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or
> >> being *actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > In a LEGAL sense, that statement isn't an error.
>
> > Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
> > being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
> > "in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
>
> Really... then why did you tell me:
>
> Gee, you're not dense, are ya?:) I am not contending that being
> *actually* guilty is the same thing as being *legally* guilty, quite the
> opposite. My contention is that in a legal context, the word *guilty*
> has a very specific meaning... and it doesn't even mean you are
> guaranteed to have committed the crime you are alleged to have
> committed. Why do you think Black used the term *actually guilty*? He
> didn't say *legally* guilty, did he? He is CLEARLY recognizing what I
> have been telling you... that there IS a difference.
>
> Or do you mean that a Supreme Court justice in a legal opinion was not
> speaking in a legal context?
I mean that he was drawing a distinction between actual guilt and legal
guilt. Have you not yet grasped this? The two are NOT the same thing and
this is the point.
From your new sig:
***************************************************************
"Two quotes from Steve Carroll:
Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
*actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
as being *legally* guilty, quite the opposite."
***************************************************************
The first statement you are quoting isn't at odds with the second
statement when you consider the fact that I used a qualifier in the
first statement... note the words "in a legal sense". Do you know what
a qualifier is? If you understood things like qualifiers, you would have
read the statement as follows:
Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
"in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
It was more expeditious to put in the qualifier "in a legal sense". Why?
Because I only need to write the phrase "in a legal sense" ONE time and
it applies to ALL those terms? Pretty neat, huh? I was forced to go
through all of this because of your inability to comprehend what you
were reading and your need for tautology. You put every word you could
think of in front of the word guilty trying to make reality disappear.
Perhaps someday you'll learn about things like context and qualifiers:)
In any event, this new problem of yours came from your inability to
comprehend the words you quoted of Justice Black, where he is drawing
the distinction between legal guilt and ACTUALLY having committed the
crime... the same distinction that *I* am drawing.
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
No... you are saying that 'Bush is guilty of breaking the law'. Whether
he is guilty of *actually having committed the crimes you allege he has
committed is an entirely different thing because the only way you can BE
guilty of breaking the law is to have had a court determination stating
that you are. Up until that point, in a legal context, you can only make
an allegation because you are not authorized to make a legal
determination.
--
Steve C
Snit
Guilt of what, Steve... oh yea... actual guilt of breaking the law vs. legal
guilty of breaking the law.
Both in a legal context.
--
Quiz: which of the following quotes is a lie?
1) Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
*actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
2) I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
Snit
> Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
> being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
> "in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
Steve, in a legal context when discussing the breaking of a law, are being
*actually* guilty and *legally* guilty "the same thing" or "quite the
opposite"?
--
Quiz: which of the following quotes is a lie?
1) Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
*actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
2) I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Not quite:) When Black uses the term *actually guilty* he means actually
having committed the crime. He is holding this up against the concept of
legal guilty where this isn't necessarily the case. You STILL don't get
this yet? It's REALLY not hard.
From your new sig:
***************************************************************
"Two quotes from Steve Carroll:
Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
*actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
as being *legally* guilty, quite the opposite."
***************************************************************
The first statement you are quoting isn't at odds with the second
statement when you consider the fact that I used a qualifier in the
first statement... note the words "in a legal sense". Do you know what
a qualifier is? If you understood things like qualifiers, you would have
read the statement as follows:
Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
"in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
It was more expeditious to put in the qualifier "in a legal sense". Why?
Because I only need to write the phrase "in a legal sense" ONE time and
it applies to ALL those terms? Pretty neat, huh? I was forced to go
through all of this because of your inability to comprehend what you
were reading and your need for tautology. You put every word you could
think of in front of the word guilty trying to make reality disappear.
Perhaps someday you'll learn about things like context and qualifiers:)
In any event, this new problem of yours came from your inability to
comprehend the words you quoted of Justice Black, where he is drawing
the distinction between legal guilt and ACTUALLY having committed the
crime... the same distinction that *I* am drawing.
--
Snit: "In my view, Bush is guilty based on #1 and #2, but not #3 (he is
morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty)."
Snit: "Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
> fretwizz-CCDC3F...@netnews.comcast.net on 10/8/04 5:08 PM:
>
> > Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
> > being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
> > "in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
>
>
> Steve, in a legal context when discussing the breaking of a law, are being
> *actually* guilty and *legally* guilty "the same thing" or "quite the
> opposite"?
I've already answered this.
From your new sig:
***************************************************************
"Two quotes from Steve Carroll:
Being guilty, being found guilty, being determined guilty or being
*actually* guilty, in a legal sense, all mean the same thing.
I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing
as being *legally* guilty, quite the opposite."
***************************************************************
The first statement you are quoting isn't at odds with the second
statement when you consider the fact that I used a qualifier in the
first statement... note the words "in a legal sense". Do you know what
a qualifier is? If you understood things like qualifiers, you would have
read the statement as follows:
Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a legal sense",
being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or being *actually* guilty
"in a legal sense", all mean the same thing.
It was more expeditious to put in the qualifier "in a legal sense". Why?
Because I only need to write the phrase "in a legal sense" ONE time and
it applies to ALL those terms? Pretty neat, huh? I was forced to go
through all of this because of your inability to comprehend what you
were reading and your need for tautology. You put every word you could
think of in front of the word guilty trying to make reality disappear.
Perhaps someday you'll learn about things like context and qualifiers:)
In any event, this new problem of yours came from your inability to
comprehend the words you quoted of Justice Black, where he is drawing
the distinction between legal guilt and ACTUALLY having committed the
crime... the same distinction that *I* am drawing.
--
Snit: "In my view, Bush is guilty based on #1 and #2, but not #3 (he is
morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty)."
Snit: "Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
Steve C
Elizabot v2.0.2
LOL!
--
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Wally
----------
In article <BD8C2EA3.8F52%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Then why did Snit list that it was referenced in 04 if "the case" was
superfluous to him referencing it?
And why could Snit not bring himself to use the phrase that Justice Black
actually used?..was there a reason that "the suspect defendant" gets the
Snit treatment and becomes "the defendant" you can bet your sweet life there
was. lol
>>> Is this troubling to you?
>
> Wow... no real answer to this. I snipped your meaningless insults.
Oh no fair!.... NO insult directed at you is "meaningless" LOL
>>
>>>>> Justice Black shows concern that the "Probable cause" clause of the 14th
>>>>> Amendment is being pushed to the level of having to show that the
defendant
>>>>> is "actually guilty of a crime".
>>
>> 14th Amendment?
>>
>> There should be a limit set as to how many corners one person can paint
>> themselves into,
>>
>> Justice Black........"the suspect defendant"
>>
>> Snit........"the defendant"
>>
>> I am sure Snit will claim that the significance of this not so subtle
>> difference escapes him,
>> no big surprise there!
>
> You do realize the context was about the word "guilty", right?
Still finding it impossible to comment on your altering what someone
actually said I see.
The context was as Snits OP said it was..."In a legal context:"
He then references Justice Blacks comments in
"SPINELLI v. UNITED STATES, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)
Justice Black, in a dissenting view"
Comments that refer to "the suspect defendant" his comments are aimed at a
system that had in his view 'raised the bar' beyond a level that he
considered acceptable wrt the standard of evidence needed to obtain a search
and seizure warrant, as it may be the evidence obtained after the execution
of this warrant that permitted the authorities to raise the status of this
"suspect defendant" to that of "defendant" clearly at this point those
bringing the prosecution consider this "defendant" guilty, actually guilty,
legally guilty, use whatever guilty term you wish (In a legal context).
Justice Black on the other hand never commented on the guilt or otherwise
wrt "the suspect defendant" he said that he believed that the system was
moving toward a time where the Magistrate would need to be *PERSUADED* that
the suspect defendant is actually guilty, that is a far cry from the "the
suspect defendant" being *PROVEN* to be actually guilty Snit seems not to
understand the difference between *PERSUADED* and *PROVEN*, as can be seen
by his conclusion that...
"Of course the answer is clear... Justice Black is using the concept of
being "actually guilty" in the same way I am when I say Bush is "actually
guilty".
Snit..."Bush is "actually guilty"
Justice Black..."I believe the Court is moving rapidly ... toward the
holding that no magistrate can issue a warrant unless ... he can be
persuaded that the suspect defendant is actually guilty of a crime."
Snit would have everyone believe that there is no difference between the
two, I believe the there is a vast difference.
Steve Carroll
"Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
Frankly, Snit's argument is so at odds on this I fail to see how he can
muster up what it takes to keep bringing it up. Of course you are right
here... there IS a difference and that is my point. Snit keeps harping
on the fact that Bush hasn't been FOUND guilty, as if this is a weakness
for me while I point out his error. Well, here is an excerpt of
something I just finished writing to Snit regarding the definition of
the word guilty that HE provided me. I think you'll find it interesting:)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the definition that YOU provided acknowledges that a finding is an
instrumental part of the definition:
3) LEGALITY: determination from a jury or other legal
proceeding; adjudication
It's not only PART of the definition, it essentially IS the definition!
A determination is a finding. Additionally, you keep saying that you are
NOT talking about adjudication, yet, the very definition YOU provided to
me makes it very clear that, along with a determination, adjudication IS
part of the definition. Forget my definition... your own definition is
at odds with everything you are saying.
Look at a bit more of where the above came from. These are your words:
Begin Quotes--------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************************
1) MORALITY: responsible
2) CRIMINOLOGY: similar to economic debt; any act which makes you
owe society (for example: breaking of a law)
3) LEGALITY: determination from a jury or other legal
proceeding; adjudication
4) PSYCHOLOGY: regret
Definition #3 ties most closely to your semantic side issue of the
origin of the word, and #4 does not tie into anything in context (other
than what you should be feeling), but I add it simply to have all major
definitions.
In my view, Bush is guilty based on #1 and #2, but not #3 (he is morally
and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty). He may or may not feel
regret, so I do not know about #4.
******************************************************************
End Quotes--------------------------------------------------------
As I said earlier, you have clarified the context and have repeatedly
stated you are talking about this in a legal sense. As this plainly
shows, Even YOU say that Bush is not guilty in a legal sense! Your
position that 'Bush is guilty of breaking the law' doesn't jibe with
your own definition and view as shown here. You keep harping on the fact
that Bush isn't yet FOUND guilty, as if the concept of a finding is a
weakness to my argument... but it isn't... it's a strength because it
underscores the difference in definition. Even YOUR provided definition,
limited as it is, clearly shows this is the case.
Is pointing out these realities a semantic game in your 'view'?
Snit
> Frankly, Snit's argument is so at odds on this I fail to see how he can
> muster up what it takes to keep bringing it up. Of course you are right
> here... there IS a difference and that is my point. Snit keeps harping
> on the fact that Bush hasn't been FOUND guilty, as if this is a weakness
> for me while I point out his error. Well, here is an excerpt of
> something I just finished writing to Snit regarding the definition of
> the word guilty that HE provided me. I think you'll find it interesting:)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Even the definition that YOU provided acknowledges that a finding is an
> instrumental part of the definition:
>
> 3) LEGALITY: determination from a jury or other legal
> proceeding; adjudication
>
> It's not only PART of the definition, it essentially IS the definition!
> A determination is a finding. Additionally, you keep saying that you are
> NOT talking about adjudication, yet, the very definition YOU provided to
> me makes it very clear that, along with a determination, adjudication IS
> part of the definition. Forget my definition... your own definition is
> at odds with everything you are saying.
I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing as being
*legally* guilty, quite the opposite. Why do you think Black used the term
*actually guilty*? He didn't say *legally* guilty, did he? He is clearly
recognizing what I have been telling you... that there *is* a difference.
What's clear is that Justice Black is making a distinction between a
situation where a person has *actually* committed the crime (what he and I
call being "actually guilty") and being *legally* guilty.
He did all of this, of course, in a legal context.
> Look at a bit more of where the above came from. These are your words:
>
> Begin Quotes--------------------------------------------------------
> ******************************************************************
>
> 1) MORALITY: responsible
>
> 2) CRIMINOLOGY: similar to economic debt; any act which makes you
> owe society (for example: breaking of a law)
>
> 3) LEGALITY: determination from a jury or other legal
> proceeding; adjudication
>
> 4) PSYCHOLOGY: regret
>
> Definition #3 ties most closely to your semantic side issue of the
> origin of the word, and #4 does not tie into anything in context (other
> than what you should be feeling), but I add it simply to have all major
> definitions.
>
> In my view, Bush is guilty based on #1 and #2, but not #3 (he is morally
> and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty). He may or may not feel
> regret, so I do not know about #4.
>
> ******************************************************************
> End Quotes--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> As I said earlier, you have clarified the context and have repeatedly
> stated you are talking about this in a legal sense.
Where have I suggested Bush is guilty in a legal sense? Seems you are
confused about context again. Let me be very clear with you (again): Bush
is not guilty in a legal sense (if you take that to mean legally guilty).
What makes you think all arguments that take place in a legal *context* must
be talking about *legal* guilt. They *also* can be talking about being
guilty of committing a crime. Justice Black uses the phrase this way in his
legal opinion... clearly in a legal context. This has been talked about for
a long, long time - and was clarified for you by George Graves when he wrote
"A legal argument is obviously one that is based on the law and/or some
justice system."
> As this plainly shows, Even YOU say that Bush is not guilty in a legal sense!
Right. Bush is not guilty in a legal sense (if you take that to mean
legally guilty). Never suggested he was.
> Your position that 'Bush is guilty of breaking the law' doesn't jibe with your
> own definition and view as shown here.
I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing as being
*legally* guilty, quite the opposite. Why do you think Black used the term
*actually guilty*? He didn't say *legally* guilty, did he? He is clearly
recognizing what I have been telling you... that there *is* a difference.
> You keep harping on the fact that Bush isn't yet FOUND guilty, as if the
> concept of a finding is a weakness to my argument... but it isn't... it's a
> strength because it underscores the difference in definition. Even YOUR
> provided definition, limited as it is, clearly shows this is the case.
I am not contending that being *actually* guilty is the same thing as being
*legally* guilty, quite the opposite.
> Is pointing out these realities a semantic game in your 'view'?
When you confuse contexts and try to twist words as much as you do above,
sure it is. Notice how often I was able to use quotes from you (sometimes
with typos fixed) to argue *against* you. When I can do that so easily, as
I can clearly do, you are playing silly games.
--
Steve Carroll dreams I am a strawberry:
http://snipurl.com/9nuf
Nashton
*PLONK* to you too, EBot.
Playing second fiddle to Carroll is the reason.
Nicolas
Steve Carroll
Nashton <na...@smash.cash> wrote:
And I'm sure she's just crushed over it:) Did you just move next door to
Snit, by any chance? Maybe the fumes are drifting over to your house...
--
Snit: "In my view, Bush is guilty based on #1 and #2, but not #3 (he is
morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty)."
Snit: "Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
Steve C
Elizabot v2.0.2
*PLONK* back at you, filthy adulterer.
Snit
416aeca8$0$209$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 1:27 PM:
Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based accusations
against you. If you need police report numbers or other info from me, feel
free to e-mail me.
Elizabot v2.0.2
Says the guy who made all those disgusting incest comments to and about me.
Snit
>> Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based accusations
>> against you. If you need police report numbers or other info from me, feel
>> free to e-mail me.
>
> Says the guy who made all those disgusting incest comments to and about me.
Such as?
You did make these comments:
I've had a change of heart on my position concerning incest,
and not because I've spoken with anyone about incest. (Go ahead
and call me a liar, Snit.)
Y'all go ahead and do whatever you fucking want. ;)
FUCK your brother, sister, mother, father, aunt, uncle,
cousin.... grandma, grandpa, whomever. And procreate or don't.
The health concerns of you and yours are not my concern. If you
are so horny and stupid to do fuck your family, well, then, by
all means, knock your filthy socks off.
Just don't expect others' to pay for your idiocy and gimpy
kids. I have no sympathy to waste on peoples like you. And I
hope to God I'm dead and buried before the likes of yous
overturn the Law.
---
Don't forget to fuck your *dead* relatives (can't forget them),
dead and/or alive pets, mammals, reptiles, birds, whatever, (you
oughta get the point), other animate or inanimate objects,
figures of speech, colors, visible or invisible imaginary
friends, knotholes, twigs, bumpy or non-bumpy things, slimy or
non-slimy things and/or whatever floats your boat and/or sinks
it. Etc.
SO what comments of mine are you in reference to? Perhaps when I pointed
out your challenges:
I do not know if you were the victim, the perpetrator, a willing
participant, the result of... or perhaps even none of the above... all I
know is that you get more irrational than your norm when the topic is
brought up.
And you do.
Elizabot v2.0.2
You left out:
"Oh, and don't forget, S&S, to go fuck yourself, too."
I then went on to tell you I didn't wish to speak with you on that topic
anymore, but you wouldn't take no for an answer.
I said I was done discussing incest:
You responded to it so I know you saw it. But you couldn't stop yourself
from responding and goading me further:
I was attempting to talk with Snuggles about a different topic:
but you kept jumping in with posts about incest such as:
I'm just pointing out what a disgusting person you are. You don't see
anything wrong with continuing to sexually harrass someone who has stated
"I told you that I no longer wished to speak with you about incest
MULTIPLE TIMES. That fact that you keep trying to shove the topic down
my throat in light of that fact indicates that you are a highly abusive
and disturbed individual."
Snit
If you said you were done, then why did you bring it up in this thread?
Look up - you were the one to bring incest into the conversation.
Do you ever keep your word?
>
> You responded to it so I know you saw it. But you couldn't stop yourself
> from responding and goading me further:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5lojt
Please note that I do not even use the word "incest" in my response.
>
> I was attempting to talk with Snuggles about a different topic:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/444k2
You mean when you were discussing, as you said then:
How about if teachers and their students do what Snit discussed here
Why do you obsess over me so much?
>
> but you kept jumping in with posts about incest such as:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4qxpb
You mean where I pointed out your reference to the topic... and your
apparent obsession.
>
> I'm just pointing out what a disgusting person you are. You don't see
> anything wrong with continuing to sexually harrass someone who has stated
>
> "I told you that I no longer wished to speak with you about incest
> MULTIPLE TIMES. That fact that you keep trying to shove the topic down
> my throat in light of that fact indicates that you are a highly abusive
> and disturbed individual."
If you do not want to discuss it, please stop bringing the topic up, as you
did in this completely unrelated thread.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 416af8f8$0$214$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 2:19 PM:
[snip]
>
> If you do not want to discuss it, please stop bringing the topic up, as you
> did in this completely unrelated thread.
You unnecessarily brought up the stuff with the police when you said you
wouldn't do that unless you believed that I was a serious threat.
Is that what you now believe again? That I am a serious threat to
Nashton? LMAO!!!
As I stated, I'm just showing what a disgusting and dishonest person you
are.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 416af8f8$0$214$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 2:19 PM:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> If you do not want to discuss it, please stop bringing the topic up, as you
>> did in this completely unrelated thread.
>
> You unnecessarily brought up the stuff with the police when you said you
> wouldn't do that unless you believed that I was a serious threat.
What do the police have to do with incest?
I do not see the connection.
>
> Is that what you now believe again? That I am a serious threat to
> Nashton? LMAO!!!
No. I believe you *may* be heading that way.
>
> As I stated, I'm just showing what a disgusting and dishonest person you
> are.
Is that why you keep brining up incest after you said you did not want to
discuss it?
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 416b03cb$0$213$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 3:05 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>>416af8f8$0$214$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 2:19 PM:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>If you do not want to discuss it, please stop bringing the topic up, as you
>>>did in this completely unrelated thread.
>>
>>You unnecessarily brought up the stuff with the police when you said you
>>wouldn't do that unless you believed that I was a serious threat.
>
>
> What do the police have to do with incest?
Oh, I snipped too much. I guess your memory has too much glue haze for
you to remember something you responded to less than 2 hours ago. I was
responding to your comments to Nashton:
"Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based
accusations against you. If you need police report numbers or other
info from me, feel free to e-mail me."
I guess it's too complicated for you to understand my point, but I shall
endeavor to explain it to you anyway.
I suppose that it is your position that incest is not sex based. I've
already heard enough about your sex based accusations against me.
You said you would bring up the police if you thought I represented a
serious threat to someone. I doubt Nashton finds me to be a serious threat.
You broke your word, but that doesn't surprise me.
> I do not see the connection.
I am not surprised.
>>Is that what you now believe again? That I am a serious threat to
>>Nashton? LMAO!!!
>
>
> No.
Then stop harassing me.
> I believe you *may* be heading that way.
That's because you are delusional.
>>As I stated, I'm just showing what a disgusting and dishonest person you
>>are.
>
>
> Is that why you keep brining up incest after you said you did not want to
> discuss it?
Asked and answered.
Why do you have to ask me so many times? What's your problem?
Snit
>>>> If you do not want to discuss it, please stop bringing the topic up, as you
>>>> did in this completely unrelated thread.
>>>
>>> You unnecessarily brought up the stuff with the police when you said you
>>> wouldn't do that unless you believed that I was a serious threat.
>>
>> What do the police have to do with incest?
>
> Oh, I snipped too much. I guess your memory has too much glue haze for
> you to remember something you responded to less than 2 hours ago. I was
> responding to your comments to Nashton:
>
> "Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based
> accusations against you. If you need police report numbers or other
> info from me, feel free to e-mail me."
And you responded by bringing up incest - something you said you did not
want to talk about... specifically with me. Why did *you* bring up the
topic with me again?
> I guess it's too complicated for you to understand my point, but I shall
> endeavor to explain it to you anyway.
There was no reason for *you* to bring up incest when *I* was talking about
the police... but you did. I do not want to know why you made that jump in
topics.
> I suppose that it is your position that incest is not sex based.
I stated:
Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based
accusations against you. If you need police report numbers or
other info from me, feel free to e-mail me.
Please note, I talked about your "sex based accusations" and about the
police, not *anything* about incest.
"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex". Heck, when the
word "sex" is brought up, most people would not even consider the concept of
"incest". You did.
The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
> I've already heard enough about your sex based accusations against me.
Good. I see no reason to re-hash them.
> You said you would bring up the police if you thought I represented a
> serious threat to someone.
>
> I doubt Nashton finds me to be a serious threat.
Who asked what you "find"? You have never admitted the harm your threats,
if carried out, could have had against me. You have never apologized for or
rescinded your threats against me. What could possibly make you think I
care what you "find" about your threats or possible threats against others?
As far as your level of threat to Nashton, I will let him make his own mind
up on that - and share information if I also see the need and he requests
it.
You are close to crossing a line.
> You broke your word, but that doesn't surprise me.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/57tk5
That is where I stated:
My point stands. I am glad to see you acknowledge that I have posted
it.
Let me be perfectly clear: If someone else needs to contact legal
authorities to handle your threats, as I was forced to do, I would be
happy to provide them with all the information I have. This information
would include both what was posted in csma and other information that I
never posted. At least for now I do not see the point in sharing it, as
you do not seem to be making the same type of threats you did in the
past.
I hope it never comes to that. Seriously.
The point stands. I hope you do not escalate things with Naston (or anyone
else) and now that you have been reminded of the potential consequences of
your actions I seriously doubt you will.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 416b0b48$0$213$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 3:37 PM:
>
>
>>>>>If you do not want to discuss it, please stop bringing the topic up, as you
>>>>>did in this completely unrelated thread.
>>>>
>>>>You unnecessarily brought up the stuff with the police when you said you
>>>>wouldn't do that unless you believed that I was a serious threat.
>>>
>>>What do the police have to do with incest?
>>
>>Oh, I snipped too much. I guess your memory has too much glue haze for
>>you to remember something you responded to less than 2 hours ago. I was
>>responding to your comments to Nashton:
>>
>>"Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based
>>accusations against you. If you need police report numbers or other
>>info from me, feel free to e-mail me."
>
>
> And you responded by bringing up incest - something you said you did not
> want to talk about... specifically with me. Why did *you* bring up the
> topic with me again?
I was talking about how you've harassed me and that the most recent
topic you harassed me on was incest. It doesn't surprise me that you are
unable to comprehend my true point and that you focus on that particular
side issue instead.
>
>>I guess it's too complicated for you to understand my point, but I shall
>>endeavor to explain it to you anyway.
>
>
> There was no reason for *you* to bring up incest when *I* was talking about
> the police... but you did. I do not want to know why you made that jump in
> topics.
I was right. It's too complicated for you. You just don't get it, do
you? (rhetorical question)
>
>>I suppose that it is your position that incest is not sex based.
>
>
> I stated:
>
> Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based
> accusations against you. If you need police report numbers or
> other info from me, feel free to e-mail me.
>
> Please note, I talked about your "sex based accusations" and about the
> police, not *anything* about incest.
I was right. It's too complicated for you. You just don't get it, do
you? (rhetorical question)
> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex". Heck, when the
> word "sex" is brought up, most people would not even consider the concept of
> "incest". You did.
>
> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incest
The fact that you equate your harassing of me with incest is indeed odd
behavior on your part.
>
>>I've already heard enough about your sex based accusations against me.
>
>
> Good. I see no reason to re-hash them.
>
>
>>You said you would bring up the police if you thought I represented a
>>serious threat to someone.
>>
>>I doubt Nashton finds me to be a serious threat.
>
>
> Who asked what you "find"?
Who cares what a delusional glue head like you "believes"? LOL!!
> You have never admitted the harm your threats,
> if carried out, could have had against me. You have never apologized for or
> rescinded your threats against me. What could possibly make you think I
> care what you "find" about your threats or possible threats against others?
You cross the line, I call the police. Simple concept. It's a threat
only if you intend to cross the line.
> As far as your level of threat to Nashton, I will let him make his own mind
> up on that - and share information if I also see the need and he requests
> it.
>
> You are close to crossing a line.
Nope, you are. And you are trying to bully me.
I've been getting lots of odd phone calls from Arizona lately and have
been considering contacting the police. I've kept all of them on my
caller ID box.
>
>>You broke your word, but that doesn't surprise me.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/57tk5
>
>
> That is where I stated:
>
> My point stands. I am glad to see you acknowledge that I have posted
> it.
>
> Let me be perfectly clear: If someone else needs to contact legal
> authorities to handle your threats, as I was forced to do, I would be
> happy to provide them with all the information I have. This information
> would include both what was posted in csma and other information that I
> never posted. At least for now I do not see the point in sharing it, as
> you do not seem to be making the same type of threats you did in the
> past.
>
> I hope it never comes to that. Seriously.
>
> The point stands.
No it doesn't. Nashton doesn't *need* to contact legal authorities.
You dishonestly snipped out the part of the post where you stated you
"believed" (LOL!!) such.
Elizabot: Is that what you now believe again? That I am a serious threat
to Nashton? LMAO!!!
Snit: No. I believe you *may* be heading that way.
You said you didn't believe I am a serious threat. It is obvious that
you are just harassing me and that you will never stop because of your
sick obsession.
> I hope you do not escalate things with Naston (or anyone
> else) and now that you have been reminded of the potential consequences of
> your actions I seriously doubt you will.
I have done nothing wrong. If you interfere with my life, there will be
very serious consequences.
Snit
>>> I suppose that it is your position that incest is not sex based.
>>
>> I stated:
>>
>> Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based
>> accusations against you. If you need police report numbers or
>> other info from me, feel free to e-mail me.
>>
>> Please note, I talked about your "sex based accusations" and about the
>> police, not *anything* about incest.
>>
>> "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex". Heck, when the
>> word "sex" is brought up, most people would not even consider the concept of
>> "incest". You did.
>>
>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incest
Yes, the concept of incest would bring up the subject of sex. That has
never been in question. What has been in question is why you jumped to the
idea of "incest" at the mention of the word "sex".
Look here (your own source):
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sex
The definition of "sex" does not even mention incest. Why would it? When
most people think of the word "sex", incest does not come to mind. For you
it does.
I do not want to know why you think of "incest" when the word "sex" is used.
>> As far as your level of threat to Nashton, I will let him make his own mind
>> up on that - and share information if I also see the need and he requests
>> it.
>>
>> You are close to crossing a line.
>
> Nope, you are. And you are trying to bully me.
Letting you know my likely legal and moral reactions to your threats is not
bullying.
>
> I've been getting lots of odd phone calls from Arizona lately and have
> been considering contacting the police. I've kept all of them on my
> caller ID box.
Why would you even tell me about your private life? Really. I have no
desire to know *anything* about your private life. Please do not share
anything about your private life with me.
>>> You broke your word, but that doesn't surprise me.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/57tk5
>>
>>
>> That is where I stated:
>>
>> My point stands. I am glad to see you acknowledge that I have posted
>> it.
>>
>> Let me be perfectly clear: If someone else needs to contact legal
>> authorities to handle your threats, as I was forced to do, I would be
>> happy to provide them with all the information I have. This information
>> would include both what was posted in csma and other information that I
>> never posted. At least for now I do not see the point in sharing it, as
>> you do not seem to be making the same type of threats you did in the
>> past.
>>
>> I hope it never comes to that. Seriously.
>>
>> The point stands.
>
> No it doesn't. Nashton doesn't *need* to contact legal authorities.
Not yet. He may. If you place him, or anyone, in that position, I will
share with them any and all information about the threats you made to me
that placed me in that situation.
>
> You dishonestly snipped out the part of the post where you stated you
> "believed" (LOL!!) such.
>
> Elizabot: Is that what you now believe again? That I am a serious threat
> to Nashton? LMAO!!!
>
> Snit: No. I believe you *may* be heading that way.
>
> You said you didn't believe I am a serious threat. It is obvious that
> you are just harassing me and that you will never stop because of your
> sick obsession.
As I said, if you cross the line I will make the information available to
Nashton... or anyone... if they ask.
>
>> I hope you do not escalate things with Naston (or anyone
>> else) and now that you have been reminded of the potential consequences of
>> your actions I seriously doubt you will.
>
> I have done nothing wrong.
The fact that you believe this is disturbing.
> If you interfere with my life, there will be very serious consequences.
Of course, but I have never suggested I would ever want to even *know* about
your life - no less interfere with it. What would *possibly* make you think
I would even want to come within 10 miles of you or have *any* contact with
you outside of csma? Heck, I would not even mind if you took a permanent
vacation from csma.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 416b1746$0$211$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 4:29 PM:
You snipped out the heart of my argument, and instead focused on the
side issue. Most dishonest on your part. I'll put my argument back in:
>> I was talking about how you've harassed me and that the most recent
>> topic you harassed me on was incest. It doesn't surprise me that you are
>> unable to comprehend my true point and that you focus on that particular
>> side issue instead.
>>
and:
>> I was right. It's too complicated for you. You just don't get it, do
>> you? (rhetorical question)
I see that your are incapable of addressing my points. No surprise, really.
>>>>I suppose that it is your position that incest is not sex based.
>>>
>>>I stated:
>>>
>>> Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based
>>> accusations against you. If you need police report numbers or
>>> other info from me, feel free to e-mail me.
>>>
>>>Please note, I talked about your "sex based accusations" and about the
>>>police, not *anything* about incest.
>>>
>>>"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex". Heck, when the
>>>word "sex" is brought up, most people would not even consider the concept of
>>>"incest". You did.
>>>
>>>The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incest
You dishonestly snipped out this part of my argument, which addresses
the heart of the matter in which I was speaking, and did not address it
either:
>> The fact that you equate your harassing of me with incest is indeed odd
>> behavior on your part.
>>
Your dishonesty is duly noted.
>
> Yes, the concept of incest would bring up the subject of sex. That has
> never been in question. What has been in question is why you jumped to the
> idea of "incest" at the mention of the word "sex".
>
> Look here (your own source):
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sex
>
> The definition of "sex" does not even mention incest. Why would it? When
> most people think of the word "sex", incest does not come to mind. For you
> it does.
>
> I do not want to know why you think of "incest" when the word "sex" is used.
Not only did you continue on about the side issue, you snipped a major
point of mine. You are all too dishonest.
And don't forget this that you snipped without noting:
>> You cross the line, I call the police. Simple concept. It's a threat
>> only if you intend to cross the line.
Your dishonesty with your snipping is so completely predictable.
>>>As far as your level of threat to Nashton, I will let him make his own mind
>>>up on that - and share information if I also see the need and he requests
>>>it.
>>>
>>>You are close to crossing a line.
>>
>>Nope, you are. And you are trying to bully me.
>
>
> Letting you know my likely legal and moral reactions to your threats is not
> bullying.
And I'm just letting you know my likely legal actions to your morally
reprehensible sexual harassment or any other harassment from you is not
a threat, but a promise.
>>I've been getting lots of odd phone calls from Arizona lately and have
>>been considering contacting the police. I've kept all of them on my
>>caller ID box.
>
>
> Why would you even tell me about your private life? Really. I have no
> desire to know *anything* about your private life. Please do not share
> anything about your private life with me.
You do indeed have a reading comprehension problem.
>>>>You broke your word, but that doesn't surprise me.
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/57tk5
>>>
>>>
>>>That is where I stated:
>>>
>>> My point stands. I am glad to see you acknowledge that I have posted
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Let me be perfectly clear: If someone else needs to contact legal
>>> authorities to handle your threats, as I was forced to do, I would be
>>> happy to provide them with all the information I have. This information
>>> would include both what was posted in csma and other information that I
>>> never posted. At least for now I do not see the point in sharing it, as
>>> you do not seem to be making the same type of threats you did in the
>>> past.
>>>
>>> I hope it never comes to that. Seriously.
>>>
>>>The point stands.
>>
>>No it doesn't. Nashton doesn't *need* to contact legal authorities.
>
>
> Not yet. He may. If you place him, or anyone, in that position, I will
> share with them any and all information about the threats you made to me
> that placed me in that situation.
But I didn't, and so you are simply harassing me.
Show him all the posts of you libeling me too while you're at it. Oh,
wait. He's already read and responded to many of them. Nicolas has been
in this newsgroup much longer than you. He doesn't need your help. You
are simply using him as an excuse to harass me.
>>You dishonestly snipped out the part of the post where you stated you
>>"believed" (LOL!!) such.
>>
>>Elizabot: Is that what you now believe again? That I am a serious threat
>>to Nashton? LMAO!!!
>>
>>Snit: No. I believe you *may* be heading that way.
>>
>>You said you didn't believe I am a serious threat. It is obvious that
>>you are just harassing me and that you will never stop because of your
>>sick obsession.
>
>
> As I said, if you cross the line I will make the information available to
> Nashton... or anyone... if they ask.
I see you are unable to address my point where you stated that you did
not believe I was a threat to Nashton. Your obsession (or is it the
glue) has blinded you to reality.
>>>I hope you do not escalate things with Naston (or anyone
>>>else) and now that you have been reminded of the potential consequences of
>>>your actions I seriously doubt you will.
>>
>>I have done nothing wrong.
>
>
> The fact that you believe this is disturbing.
I suppose it would be to a delusional glue head like yourself. I'm sure
you find lots of things "disturbing."
>>If you interfere with my life, there will be very serious consequences.
>
>
> Of course, but I have never suggested I would ever want to even *know* about
> your life - no less interfere with it. What would *possibly* make you think
> I would even want to come within 10 miles of you or have *any* contact with
> you outside of csma?
You don't seriously expect me to believe a compulsive liar like
yourself, do you? (rhetorical question)
Besides, you've already taken your obsession out into real life by
claiming to have filed a complaint against me. That *certainly* is
taking your obsession with me outside of csma. But I don't expect a
delusional glue head like you to understand your own lies and
inconsistencies.
> Heck, I would not even mind if you took a permanent
> vacation from csma.
Dream on.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 416b579a$0$209$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 9:03 PM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> >> 416b1746$0$211$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 4:29 PM:
> >
> > You snipped out the heart of my argument, and instead focused on the
> > side issue. Most dishonest on your part. I'll put my argument back in:
>
> You brought up the concept of "incest" almost entirely out of the blue -
> even though you had told me you would not talk to me about that topic.
>
> I made the mistake of asking why you think of "incest" when people use the
> word "sex". It was a mistake on my part to ask you about it - you will
> never understand the depravity it implies about you or seek the professional
> help you that might do you good, and I have no desire to know the details
> about your thoughts on the subject or why you relate it so closely to the
> concept of sex.
>
> In the course of the discussion you felt the "need" to start telling me
> about your private life. Let me be very clear: I have no desire to know
> about your private life. I do not want to know who you call or who calls
> you or what type movies you watch. If you feel the need to share it with
> csma, please do not talk about your private life in posts directed toward
> me.
Same ol' context problem, eh, Snit... hah. Her comment was an indirect
reference "Says the guy who made all those disgusting incest comments to
and about me". Given that her motive is what she stated:
"I'm just pointing out what a disgusting person you are."
...it's perfectly logical for her to immediately follow your post how
she did in an indirect fashion, even if she has no desire of discussing
incest with you. See, it's called context and you really should have a
go at it someday:) I have no reason to question her motive... OTOH, your
motives are generally questioned by all. What's wrong, 'teacher'? You're
not able to bully a woman who *actually* stands up to you? LOL!
--
Snit: "In my view, Bush is guilty based on #1 and #2, but not #3 (he is
morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty)."
Snit, speaking in a legal context: "Bush is guilty of breaking the law"
Steve C
Elizabot v2.0.2
Stop the glue stuff, Snit.
Then again, maybe you're going to use this as an "example" for your "class."
I'll show them another great example of how you like to repeatedly post
the same argument. You've already conducted one such experiment today.
Show them this one where he ignored you for the most part:
or how about these:
You have 19 posts whereas he has only 6 responses:
Why don't you show your class *these* examples of you own "stupid and
disingenuous" behavior?
lol
Snit wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 416b1746$0$211$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 4:29 PM:
>
>
>>>>I suppose that it is your position that incest is not sex based.
>>>
>>>I stated:
>>>
>>> Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based
>>> accusations against you. If you need police report numbers or
>>> other info from me, feel free to e-mail me.
>>>
>>>Please note, I talked about your "sex based accusations" and about the
>>>police, not *anything* about incest.
>>>
>>>"Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex". Heck, when the
>>>word "sex" is brought up, most people would not even consider the concept of
>>>"incest". You did.
>>>
>>>The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incest
>
>
> Yes, the concept of incest would bring up the subject of sex. That has
> never been in question. What has been in question is why you jumped to the
> idea of "incest" at the mention of the word "sex".
>
> Look here (your own source):
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sex
>
> The definition of "sex" does not even mention incest. Why would it? When
> most people think of the word "sex", incest does not come to mind. For you
> it does.
>
> I do not want to know why you think of "incest" when the word "sex" is used.
>
>
>>>As far as your level of threat to Nashton, I will let him make his own mind
>>>up on that - and share information if I also see the need and he requests
>>>it.
>>>
>>>You are close to crossing a line.
>>
>>Nope, you are. And you are trying to bully me.
>
>
> Letting you know my likely legal and moral reactions to your threats is not
> bullying.
>
>>I've been getting lots of odd phone calls from Arizona lately and have
>>been considering contacting the police. I've kept all of them on my
>>caller ID box.
>
>
> Why would you even tell me about your private life? Really. I have no
> desire to know *anything* about your private life. Please do not share
> anything about your private life with me.
>
>
>>>>You broke your word, but that doesn't surprise me.
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/57tk5
>>>
>>>
>>>That is where I stated:
>>>
>>> My point stands. I am glad to see you acknowledge that I have posted
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Let me be perfectly clear: If someone else needs to contact legal
>>> authorities to handle your threats, as I was forced to do, I would be
>>> happy to provide them with all the information I have. This information
>>> would include both what was posted in csma and other information that I
>>> never posted. At least for now I do not see the point in sharing it, as
>>> you do not seem to be making the same type of threats you did in the
>>> past.
>>>
>>> I hope it never comes to that. Seriously.
>>>
>>>The point stands.
>>
>>No it doesn't. Nashton doesn't *need* to contact legal authorities.
>
>
> Not yet. He may. If you place him, or anyone, in that position, I will
> share with them any and all information about the threats you made to me
> that placed me in that situation.
>
>>You dishonestly snipped out the part of the post where you stated you
>>"believed" (LOL!!) such.
>>
>>Elizabot: Is that what you now believe again? That I am a serious threat
>>to Nashton? LMAO!!!
>>
>>Snit: No. I believe you *may* be heading that way.
>>
>>You said you didn't believe I am a serious threat. It is obvious that
>>you are just harassing me and that you will never stop because of your
>>sick obsession.
>
>
> As I said, if you cross the line I will make the information available to
> Nashton... or anyone... if they ask.
>
>>>I hope you do not escalate things with Naston (or anyone
>>>else) and now that you have been reminded of the potential consequences of
>>>your actions I seriously doubt you will.
>>
>>I have done nothing wrong.
>
>
> The fact that you believe this is disturbing.
>
>
>>If you interfere with my life, there will be very serious consequences.
>
>
> Of course, but I have never suggested I would ever want to even *know* about
> your life - no less interfere with it. What would *possibly* make you think
> I would even want to come within 10 miles of you or have *any* contact with
> you outside of csma? Heck, I would not even mind if you took a permanent
> vacation from csma.
>
>
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>
>>>"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>>416b1746$0$211$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 4:29 PM:
>>
>>You snipped out the heart of my argument, and instead focused on the
>>side issue. Most dishonest on your part. I'll put my argument back in:
>
[snip Snit's side argument about incest and put my argument back in]
[You just can't help yourself, can you? (rhetorical question)]
>> I was talking about how you've harassed me and that the most recent topic you harassed me on was incest. It doesn't surprise me that you are unable to comprehend my true point and that you focus on that particular side issue instead.
You are incapable of addressing this point.
or this one:
"The fact that you equate your harassing of me with incest is indeed odd
behavior on your part."
or this one:
"I see you are unable to address my point where you stated that you did
not believe I was a threat to Nashton. Your obsession (or is it the
glue) has blinded you to reality."
Poor little troll snit. You are unable to spin yourself out of your
lies, so you snip out my arguments. All to obvious.
> In the course of the discussion you felt the "need" to start telling me
> about your private life.
Liar. I mentioned receiving strange phone calls from your home area and
how I'm considering contacting the police.
If I find that the phone number that I'm getting these phone calls is
from someone who knows you or can be associated with you somehow, you'll
hear from your local police.
> Let me be very clear: I have no desire to know
> about your private life. I do not want to know who you call or who calls
> you or what type movies you watch.
I never told you any of that. Sounds like you are fishing for information.
Let me be very clear: if I find that you or your friends have been
calling my house, you will hear from your local police department, and I
*will* be pressing charges.
> If you feel the need to share it with
> csma, please do not talk about your private life in posts directed toward
> me.
You seem to take way too much interest in *any* of my posts, even those
*not directed* at you, and especially if I make an off-color comment/joke.
It is because you are completely obsessed with me.
Maybe you should mind your own business and not butt in when I'm
responding to other posters. Especially when you admit that you *don't*
believe I'm a threat to them. It's all too obvious that you are simply
harassing me.
You should consider controlling your obsession by not responding to my
posts. I predict you won't be able to do that. You are too obsessed.
Poor little snit.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 416b579a$0$209$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 9:03 PM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>>> 416b1746$0$211$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 4:29 PM:
>>>
>>> You snipped out the heart of my argument, and instead focused on the
>>> side issue. Most dishonest on your part. I'll put my argument back in:
>>
>> You brought up the concept of "incest" almost entirely out of the blue - even
>> though you had told me you would not talk to me about that topic.
>>
>> I made the mistake of asking why you think of "incest" when people use the
>> word "sex". It was a mistake on my part to ask you about it - you will never
>> understand the depravity it implies about you or seek the professional help
>> you that might do you good, and I have no desire to know the details about
>> your thoughts on the subject or why you relate it so closely to the concept
>> of
>> sex.
>>
>> In the course of the discussion you felt the "need" to start telling me about
>> your private life. Let me be very clear: I have no desire to know about your
>> private life. I do not want to know who you call or who calls you or what
>> type movies you watch. If you feel the need to share it with csma, please do
>> not talk about your private life in posts directed toward me.
>
>>> I was talking about how you've harassed me and that the most recent topic
>>> you harassed me on was incest. It doesn't surprise me that you are unable to
>>> comprehend my true point and that you focus on that particular side issue
>>> instead.
>
> You are incapable of addressing this point.
What comment of mine did you think was harassing you. Please give the
specific quote and provide a link.
Oh wait. You have no point. Why is it you want me to comment on a point
you never really made. Ok, I will comment:
You are a lying sack of shit.
Happy?
>> In the course of the discussion you felt the "need" to start telling me
>> about your private life.
>
> Liar. I mentioned receiving strange phone calls from your home area and
> how I'm considering contacting the police.
Are these calls not a part of your private life? I suppose not, at least
not any more, now that you have made them public. Again, let me be very
clear: I do not want to know about your private life even if you make it
public. I do not care who calls you. I do not care who you call. I do not
care what you do for entertainment - what movies you go to, who you "hang
out" with, what you do for a living... I do not care. I do not want to
know. I do not want you to discuss any of this with me.
> If I find that the phone number that I'm getting these phone calls is
> from someone who knows you or can be associated with you somehow, you'll
> hear from your local police.
And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will contact
you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you really are).
In other words: Who cares? Are you making an accusation?
>> Let me be very clear: I have no desire to know
>> about your private life. I do not want to know who you call or who calls
>> you or what type movies you watch.
>
> I never told you any of that. Sounds like you are fishing for information.
Fishing? I am telling you to *stop* telling me about your private life.
While I can not prevent you from spewing your personal data all over the
'net, I want it made very that I have told you specifically to *not* tell me
*anything* about your life.
> Let me be very clear: if I find that you or your friends have been
> calling my house, you will hear from your local police department, and I
> *will* be pressing charges.
Are you making an accusation? If so, what, specifically, are you claiming?
I have no clue who is calling you... and I do not want you to tell me
*anything* about who you chat with in the real world. Do you get it: I do
not want or care to know about your private life... *even if* you pretend
you are just making silly accusations.
>> If you feel the need to share it with
>> csma, please do not talk about your private life in posts directed toward
>> me.
>
> You seem to take way too much interest in *any* of my posts, even those
> *not directed* at you, and especially if I make an off-color comment/joke.
Do you make any other type of post? Rarely...
> It is because you are completely obsessed with me.
Says the "woman" who at least used to post about me ... oh, what was it, 95
to 98 percent of the time. I am sure you remember the exact percentage -
hell you freaked out about being 1 or 2% off.
> Maybe you should mind your own business and not butt in when I'm
> responding to other posters. Especially when you admit that you *don't*
> believe I'm a threat to them. It's all too obvious that you are simply
> harassing me.
You were close to crossing the line with Nashton. As I predicted, my
comments to you prevented you from even balancing the line with him - I do
not believe I have seen you posting to him or harassing him since.
> You should consider controlling your obsession by not responding to my
> posts. I predict you won't be able to do that. You are too obsessed.
> Poor little snit.
Hmmm, isn't that type comment what you refer to as "bullying". LOL! Is
that the way you intend to come across, as a bully?
Above you whine that I do not comment, then by the end of the post you
complain that I probably *will* comment. Do you not see the hypocrisy in
your own complaints?
Feel free to respond or not - just as I will respond or not to you. It is
the nature of a public forum... I do not share your obsession where I post
about or to one person the vast, vast majority of the time.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
You've played this sophomoric game of bluff with me on a few things and
it was all bullshit. What new delusion of yours makes you think you'll
be believed now? The only 'information' you have was your local cop
telling you the same things many here have:)
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 416b6513$0$213$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 10:01 PM:
>>>>You snipped out the heart of my argument, and instead focused on the
>>>>side issue. Most dishonest on your part. I'll put my argument back in:
Looks like you snipped my argument and added back your side issue stuff
about incest. How typical. I won't keep adding my argument back. If you
were unable to address it the other two times, I doubt that you'll be
able to address it this time either. I will save it for another time.
[snip stuff you repeated below and other side issues]
>>>>I was talking about how you've harassed me and that the most recent topic
>>>>you harassed me on was incest. It doesn't surprise me that you are unable to
>>>>comprehend my true point and that you focus on that particular side issue
>>>>instead.
>>
>>You are incapable of addressing this point.
>
> What comment of mine did you think was harassing you. Please give the
> specific quote and provide a link.
I see you are still in denial about my point. Sad, really.
Any comment about incest you made to me concerning the topic after I
told you I didn't wish to speak with you about that topic anymore is
harassing.
The date on that post was: 2004-09-11 11:56:05 PST
You responded to it so I know you saw it. This is just another one of
your stupid games.
I already addressed this a couple of hours previous to your post in this
very thread: http://tinyurl.com/69qru
> Oh wait. You have no point. Why is it you want me to comment on a point
> you never really made.
Incorrect.
> Ok, I will comment:
>
> You are a lying sack of shit.
>
> Happy?
Your ad hominem is not necessary.
>>>In the course of the discussion you felt the "need" to start telling me
>>>about your private life.
>>
>>Liar. I mentioned receiving strange phone calls from your home area and
>>how I'm considering contacting the police.
>
> Are these calls not a part of your private life? I suppose not, at least
> not any more, now that you have made them public. Again, let me be very
> clear: I do not want to know about your private life even if you make it
> public. I do not care who calls you. I do not care who you call. I do not
> care what you do for entertainment - what movies you go to, who you "hang
> out" with, what you do for a living... I do not care. I do not want to
> know. I do not want you to discuss any of this with me.
Yet you feel it appropriate to ask my views on incest, and keep
bookmarks on your website on old posts about my health issues and my
community. You certainly have lots of questions for someone who claims
not to want to know anything about me. Go figure.
>>If I find that the phone number that I'm getting these phone calls is
>>from someone who knows you or can be associated with you somehow, you'll
>>hear from your local police.
>
> And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will contact
> you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you really are).
Another personal attack. You are becoming irrational.
> In other words: Who cares? Are you making an accusation?
My words are clear. You sound paranoid. You sound like you are hiding
something.
>>>Let me be very clear: I have no desire to know
>>>about your private life. I do not want to know who you call or who calls
>>>you or what type movies you watch.
>>
>>I never told you any of that. Sounds like you are fishing for information.
>
> Fishing? I am telling you to *stop* telling me about your private life.
> While I can not prevent you from spewing your personal data all over the
> 'net, I want it made very that I have told you specifically to *not* tell me
> *anything* about your life.
You can't order me around like this. I'll write anything I want. If you
don't wish to read my posts, then don't. Very simple.
>>Let me be very clear: if I find that you or your friends have been
>>calling my house, you will hear from your local police department, and I
>>*will* be pressing charges.
>
> Are you making an accusation? If so, what, specifically, are you claiming?
Poor Snit displays his reading comprehension problems once again.
> I have no clue who is calling you... and I do not want you to tell me
> *anything* about who you chat with in the real world. Do you get it: I do
> not want or care to know about your private life...
You lie again. You have bookmarks on your website about my personal
health issues that I posted in another newsgroup a few years ago, and
the website for the community in which I live, among other things. You
have an unnatural and perverse interest in my personal history.
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/bookmarks.html (near the bottom)
You are a stalker, a freak, and a liar to boot.
> *even if* you pretend you are just making silly accusations.
There you go again. I haven't checked the number with the police yet. If
you'd only learn to read properly, then maybe you won't get so wound up.
If the number is not associated with you in any way, then you have
nothing to worry about.
Why are you so worried?? Regardless of what a delusional freak like you
might believe, I have never threatened you with false charges.
>>>If you feel the need to share it with
>>>csma, please do not talk about your private life in posts directed toward
>>>me.
>>
>>You seem to take way too much interest in *any* of my posts, even those
>>*not directed* at you, and especially if I make an off-color comment/joke.
>
> Do you make any other type of post? Rarely...
I could say the same about you, except that you harass multiple posters.
>>It is because you are completely obsessed with me.
>
> Says the "woman" who at least used to post about me ... oh, what was it, 95
> to 98 percent of the time. I am sure you remember the exact percentage -
> hell you freaked out about being 1 or 2% off.
Your lying with statistics proves nothing.
>>Maybe you should mind your own business and not butt in when I'm
>>responding to other posters. Especially when you admit that you *don't*
>>believe I'm a threat to them. It's all too obvious that you are simply
>>harassing me.
>
> You were close to crossing the line with Nashton. As I predicted, my
> comments to you prevented you from even balancing the line with him - I do
> not believe I have seen you posting to him or harassing him since.
Of course you haven't seen me posting to him. That just proves how
irrationally you react to my posts. Thanks for pointing that out.
>>You should consider controlling your obsession by not responding to my
>>posts. I predict you won't be able to do that. You are too obsessed.
>>Poor little snit.
>
> Hmmm, isn't that type comment what you refer to as "bullying". LOL! Is
> that the way you intend to come across, as a bully?
How is suggesting that you should consider controlling yourself
bullying? Oh, it's not. I believe it would be in your own best interest
for you to control yourself. Perhaps you disagree.
> Above you whine that I do not comment, then by the end of the post you
> complain that I probably *will* comment. Do you not see the hypocrisy in
> your own complaints?
Context, Snit, context. You *really* have a problem with that.
I was predicting that you wouldn't control yourself, and I was correct.
> Feel free to respond or not - just as I will respond or not to you. It is
> the nature of a public forum... I do not share your obsession where I post
> about or to one person the vast, vast majority of the time.
So whines the completely obsessed guy who makes irrational personal
attacks, has harassed and/or annoyed nearly *everybody* who regularly
posts to this newsgroup, and has dragged this newsgroup into his work
life. Your obsession has blinded you to your unprofessional behavior.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> I want it on record that I do not want you telling me about your private
> life. And you, in response, have told me I cannot stop you from doing so.
> The fact that you feel such a strong need to tell me about your private life
> is quite sad (being that is the *only* thing I asked of you).
Another blatant lie.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 416cef12$0$214$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/13/04 2:02 AM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> >> 416b6513$0$213$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 10:01 PM:
> >
> >>>>> You snipped out the heart of my argument, and instead focused on the
> >>>>> side issue. Most dishonest on your part. I'll put my argument back in:
> >
> > Looks like you snipped my argument and added back your side issue stuff
> > about incest.
>
> You, not I, brought up the concept of incest in this conversation. Why are
> you denying that? Why are you lying?
>
> <snip>
>
> >> What comment of mine did you think was harassing you. Please give the
> >> specific quote and provide a link.
> >
> > I see you are still in denial about my point. Sad, really.
> >
> > Any comment about incest you made to me concerning the topic after I
> > told you I didn't wish to speak with you about that topic anymore is
> > harassing.
>
> Then why did *you* bring it up.
Gee... she's only told you 2 or 3 times now. I realize this is far from
the 647 you usually require but why not give the NG a break...
Snit
>> You, not I, brought up the concept of incest in this conversation. Why are
>> you denying that? Why are you lying?
>
> No, I brought up an example about how you've harassed me, but you are
> too irrationally caught up about the side issue of incest to see that.
Again, this is the context of how you brought up incest:
Then why did *you* bring it up. Based on your own definition - *you* are
the one harassing, since *you* are the one who brought up the concept of
incest.
I wrote:
Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based accusations
against you. If you need police report numbers or other info from me,
feel free to e-mail me.
Note there is *nothing* that even hints at incest in that comment. Your sex
based accusations, as far as I know, did not include the concept if
incest... are you suggesting they did?
You replied:
Says the guy who made all those disgusting incest comments to and
about me.
Now I do not agree with you that bringing up a topic in a public forum, even
one you do not want to discuss, is harassment. It is not. Your feeling
that it is such is merely a sign of your victim attitude - you *want* to
feel victimized, so you make up silly definitions to support your claim.
But the sad thing is, *I* am not the one who fit your silly victim-attitude
definition of harassment - *you* are: you are the one who brought up
"incest" into this conversation. While that is not harassment, it *is*
grossly hypocritical of you.
For the record, the only truly harassing things I can think of from csma are
the things you have done: threatening to present false accusations to the
police, suggesting people send your lies to my employer, and other things
that take silly csma battles out to the "real world". You, and your buddy
Steve, like to say my responses to your harassment is somehow a form of
harassment itself. Utter and complete BS.
As far as you mining for data on my website - says a lot about you. I have
no obligation to not bookmark comments from you. Knowing you have been
making absurd threats against me, I would be silly to not maintain evidence
that may be needed in the future. As I said, if Nashton or anyone else
needs my information, I will provide it to them.
This reminder has potentially stopped you from making the same form of
threats against Nashton as you have against me.
Snit
I wrote:
You replied:
> I was looking up information on myself in Google and I found your web
> page that way. But I've already explained this to you.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=izbet287&btnG=Google+Search
>
> Look. *Your* web page is the first hit when I google that handle. Weird.
This does not explain how you found images of me from other pages on my
website and even copied, modified, and posted some of those images to your
own site.
You have clearly been data mining on my site.
>
>> I have no obligation to not bookmark comments from you. Knowing you have
>> been making absurd threats against me, I would be silly to not maintain
>> evidence that may be needed in the future. As I said, if Nashton or anyone
>> else needs my information, I will provide it to them.
>
> Whatever. You admitted that you did not believe I was a serious threat
> to Nashton.
You were close to crossing a line. Do you not know what that phrase means?
> Therefore the only rational conclusion is that you brought up that police
> issue to harass me.
Good to see you admit that when your claim that I was "close to crossing a
line" was done simply to harass me. My use of the phrase, however, was not
done for that reason.
> I've recently provided another example where you've harassed me, but you got
> too caught up in the side issue of the topic where you harassed me to make any
> sense.
You brought up an example where you jumped to the concept of incest, blamed
me, and then erroneously called it harassment.
>
> You said you would bring up the police if you thought I represented a
> serious threat to someone. Nashton doesn't find me to be a serious
> threat. And he's been posting here much longer than you.
You were close to crossing a ling. Do you need to
>
> Face it. You broke your word. That makes you a liar.
What word of mine did I break? If you become a possible threat to anyone,
as you have with me, I *will* provide them with any and all information they
need to defend themselves from your attacks.
Being that you backed away from the line with Naston - possibly based on my
reminder - I have not e-mailed him with any information.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> In article <BD9292BC.9CFC%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>>I want it on record that I do not want you telling me about your private
>>life. And you, in response, have told me I cannot stop you from doing so.
>>The fact that you feel such a strong need to tell me about your private life
>>is quite sad (being that is the *only* thing I asked of you).
>
>
> Another blatant lie.
Indeed.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 416d4e5e$0$215$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/13/04 8:48 AM:
>>>
>>>>>You, not I, brought up the concept of incest in this conversation. Why are
>>>>>you denying that? Why are you lying?
>>>>
>>>>No, I brought up an example about how you've harassed me, but you are
>>>>too irrationally caught up about the side issue of incest to see that.
>
>
> Again, this is the context of how you brought up incest:
>
> Then why did *you* bring it up. Based on your own definition - *you* are
> the one harassing, since *you* are the one who brought up the concept of
> incest.
>
> I wrote:
>
> Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based accusations
> against you.
It seems?
You aren't even sure and you brought up the police.
> If you need police report numbers or other info from me,
> feel free to e-mail me.
Yep. You definitely broke your word. Therefore you were stating that to
harass me.
> Note there is *nothing* that even hints at incest in that comment.
The commonality is your harassment.
> Your sex
> based accusations, as far as I know, did not include the concept if
> incest... are you suggesting they did?
It's not about incest. It's about your harassment.
> You replied:
>
> Says the guy who made all those disgusting incest comments to and
> about me.
Yep. Last time you were harassing me.
> http://snipurl.com/9ql0
>
> Now I do not agree with you that bringing up a topic in a public forum, even
> one you do not want to discuss, is harassment.
I've already outlined how it was harassment.
> It is not. Your feeling
> that it is such is merely a sign of your victim attitude - you *want* to
> feel victimized, so you make up silly definitions to support your claim.
> But the sad thing is, *I* am not the one who fit your silly victim-attitude
> definition of harassment - *you* are: you are the one who brought up
> "incest" into this conversation. While that is not harassment, it *is*
> grossly hypocritical of you.
The harassment is in your *libeling* me about having to contact the
police because of me.
> For the record, the only truly harassing things I can think of from csma are
> the things you have done: threatening to present false accusations to the
> police,
I said I would contact the police if you crossed the line. I did not
inform you of what the charges were. You are lying about the false charges.
> suggesting people send your lies to my employer,
I don't think someone who's written the things like you've written about
me should be around children.
> and other things
> that take silly csma battles out to the "real world".
You are the one who has actually taken your flame wars into the real
world. You been to the police, and now you are using your flame war in
your work life. Most unprofessional.
> You, and your buddy
> Steve, like to say my responses to your harassment is somehow a form of
> harassment itself. Utter and complete BS.
Straw man.
>>>As far as you mining for data on my website - says a lot about you.
>>
>>I was looking up information on myself in Google and I found your web
>>page that way. But I've already explained this to you.
>>
>>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=izbet287&btnG=Google+Search
>>
>>Look. *Your* web page is the first hit when I google that handle. Weird.
>
>
> This does not explain how you found images of me from other pages on my
> website and even copied, modified, and posted some of those images to your
> own site.
>
> You have clearly been data mining on my site.
I felt entitled to. You had references to me on your website. I had to
look through the rest of it to see if you had more.
>>>I have no obligation to not bookmark comments from you. Knowing you have
>>>been making absurd threats against me, I would be silly to not maintain
>>>evidence that may be needed in the future. As I said, if Nashton or anyone
>>>else needs my information, I will provide it to them.
>>
>>Whatever. You admitted that you did not believe I was a serious threat
>>to Nashton.
>
>
> You were close to crossing a line. Do you not know what that phrase means?
You obviously don't, as you continue to libel me.
>
>>Therefore the only rational conclusion is that you brought up that police
>>issue to harass me.
>
>
> Good to see you admit that when your claim that I was "close to crossing a
> line" was done simply to harass me. My use of the phrase, however, was not
> done for that reason.
I have no idea how you drew that conclusion from my statement.
>
>>I've recently provided another example where you've harassed me, but you got
>>too caught up in the side issue of the topic where you harassed me to make any
>>sense.
>
>
> You brought up an example where you jumped to the concept of incest, blamed
> me, and then erroneously called it harassment.
Incorrect.
>>You said you would bring up the police if you thought I represented a
>>serious threat to someone. Nashton doesn't find me to be a serious
>>threat. And he's been posting here much longer than you.
>
>
> You were close to crossing a ling. Do you need to
to what?
>>Face it. You broke your word. That makes you a liar.
>
>
> What word of mine did I break? If you become a possible threat to anyone,
> as you have with me, I *will* provide them with any and all information they
> need to defend themselves from your attacks.
Oh, now it's a possible threat. You really need to back off from your libel.
> Being that you backed away from the line with Naston - possibly based on my
> reminder - I have not e-mailed him with any information.
I see you still provide no proof for this claim of yours. Not surprising
at all.
Snit
> In article <BD9292BC.9CFC%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 416cef12$0$214$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/13/04 2:02 AM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>>> 416b6513$0$213$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/11/04 10:01 PM:
>>>
>>>>>>> You snipped out the heart of my argument, and instead focused on the
>>>>>>> side issue. Most dishonest on your part. I'll put my argument back in:
>>>
>>> Looks like you snipped my argument and added back your side issue stuff
>>> about incest.
>>
>> You, not I, brought up the concept of incest in this conversation. Why are
>> you denying that? Why are you lying?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> What comment of mine did you think was harassing you. Please give the
>>>> specific quote and provide a link.
>>>
>>> I see you are still in denial about my point. Sad, really.
>>>
>>> Any comment about incest you made to me concerning the topic after I
>>> told you I didn't wish to speak with you about that topic anymore is
>>> harassing.
>>
>> Then why did *you* bring it up.
>
>
> Gee... she's only told you 2 or 3 times now. I realize this is far from
> the 647 you usually require but why not give the NG a break...
Actually, Elizabot has repeatedly lied and claimed that I brought it up, and
then even characterized that as "harassment". Her claim is easily shown to
be false:
------
I wrote:
Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based accusations
against you. If you need police report numbers or other info from me,
feel free to e-mail me.
Note there is *nothing* that even hints at incest in that comment. Your sex
based accusations, as far as I know, did not include the concept if
incest... are you suggesting they did?
You replied:
Says the guy who made all those disgusting incest comments to and
about me.
Now I do not agree with you that bringing up a topic in a public forum, even
one you do not want to discuss, is harassment. It is not. Your feeling
that it is such is merely a sign of your victim attitude - you *want* to
feel victimized, so you make up silly definitions to support your claim.
But the sad thing is, *I* am not the one who fit your silly victim-attitude
definition of harassment - *you* are: you are the one who brought up
"incest" into this conversation. While that is not harassment, it *is*
grossly hypocritical of you.
For the record, the only truly harassing things I can think of from csma are
the things you have done: threatening to present false accusations to the
police, suggesting people send your lies to my employer, and other things
that take silly csma battles out to the "real world". You, and your buddy
Steve, like to say my responses to your harassment is somehow a form of
harassment itself. Utter and complete BS.
Snit
I stated:
Nashton, it seems as though Elizabot is now making sex based accusations
against you. If you need police report numbers or other info from me,
feel free to e-mail me.
Elizabot responded with:
Says the guy who made all those disgusting incest comments to and
about me.
Hence Elizabot brought up incest. Not I. "She" even said so "herself" in
this post:
In that same post "she" talks about how "she" made a supposition that I did
not jump to the idea of "incest" from the word "sex" because "she" thinks I
feel "incest is not sex based".
As I told "her", this is a bizarre accusation - normal, healthy people do
not think of "incest" when the concept of "sex" is mentioned - and if they
*do* make that mistake they show some embarrassment about it - not surprise
that others do not think the same way. I do not immediately relate the
concept of "sex" to "incest". Perhaps both you and Elizabot do. That is
not my concern, and I do not want to know why the two of you - who do seem
very close - also share that particular... quirk, to use am inoffensive
term.
Then "she" went on to tell me personal details about "her" life and phone
calls "she" is getting.
All of this was after "she" told me "she" did not want to talk to me about
incest.
I think "her" confusion there, especially in the context of the other
obsessions and problems "she" has shared with us in csma, make it likely
that should seek professional help. Your comments in here, as much as you
think may be supporting "her", do not encourage "her" to head toward the
help "she" likely needs.
<snip the rest of your blathering>
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Did she *actually * lie... or did YOU just 'find' this to be the case? :)
I read it, Snit... and the fact remains, Ebot told you WHY she wrote
what she did. Being that it is me you are now trying to convince, I
would say I believe her comment was an indirect reference to "the guy
who made all those disgusting incest comments to and about me". Given
that her motive is what she stated (several times now), it's perfectly
logical for her to have immediately followed your post in the manner she
did, even if she had no intention of discussing incest with you. I have
no reason to question her motive on this... that it was done for the
reason she told you it was done. *Actually*, you don't have a reason
either... you're only doing it to remain at the center of some turmoil
or other.
Elizabot v2.0.2
LOL
> I read it, Snit... and the fact remains, Ebot told you WHY she wrote
> what she did. Being that it is me you are now trying to convince, I
> would say I believe her comment was an indirect reference to "the guy
> who made all those disgusting incest comments to and about me". Given
> that her motive is what she stated (several times now), it's perfectly
> logical for her to have immediately followed your post in the manner she
> did, even if she had no intention of discussing incest with you. I have
> no reason to question her motive on this... that it was done for the
> reason she told you it was done. *Actually*, you don't have a reason
> either... you're only doing it to remain at the center of some turmoil
> or other.
If I were going to act as squirelly as Snit, then I would take his comment:
"Heck, I would not even mind if you took a permanent vacation from csma."
as a death threat. Maybe it was. Who knows? That's about the level of
absurdity to which he takes his postings.
Steve Carroll
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
You have a good point here.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 416d4e5e$0$215$7586...@news.frii.net on 10/13/04 8:48 AM:
>
There's something I wanted to cover a little better in this post. Namely
your false claim that I have suggested that people send in lies to your
employer.
> For the record, the only truly harassing things I can think of from csma are
> the things you have done: threatening to present false accusations to the
> police,
I covered this lie of yours countless times.
> suggesting people send your lies to my employer,
Another Snit lie.
You must mean the post where I wrote:
"I would not be upset if someone anonymously sent the following truths
to your place(s) of work:"
I was making a statement of fact. I wouldn't be upset if someone sent
those posts to your place(s) of work.
I did not suggest that anyone do so.
> and other things
> that take silly csma battles out to the "real world".
Something I haven't done but you have. You've claimed to have been to
the police, filed a complaint, and now you are carrying your flame war
into your work life. Most unprofessional.
> You, and your buddy
> Steve, like to say my responses to your harassment is somehow a form of
> harassment itself. Utter and complete BS.
You are a fool. It is your lies and libel that constitute harassment.
It is a good thing, however, that you have stopped fantasizing about you
being my teacher and me being a pre-teen girl.