HEY SNIT STFU
H
Snit
none-99E0E1.1...@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com on 9/9/04
12:42 PM:
> You stupid moron
In light of such deep reasoning it is hard to find a well thought out
response... but here goes:
Not Guilty!
Elizabot v2.0.1
> You stupid moron
LOL!
--
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.1 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
H
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU'VE EXCEEDED THE 50,000 POST LIMIT FOR TODAY
Elizabot v2.0.1
He only "teaches" on Mondays and Wednesdays, so I'm afraid you're out of
luck for a few more days.
Snit
12:57 PM:
> In article <chqc0t$9...@odak26.prod.google.com>,
> "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>> "H" <no...@none.com> wrote in article
>> none-99E0E1.1...@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com on 9/9/04
>> 12:42 PM:
>>
>>> You stupid moron
>>
>> In light of such deep reasoning it is hard to find a well thought
out
>> response... but here goes:
>>
>>
>> Not Guilty!
>>
>
> BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU'VE EXCEEDED THE 50,000 POST LIMIT FOR TODAY
Can you prove I am guilty?
GreyCloud
Snit wrote:
H sure provided a lot of information to flame you with. What was that
all about?
--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.
H
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> "H" <no...@none.com> wrote in article
> none-E24BEA.1...@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com on 9/9/04
> 12:57 PM:
>
> > In article <chqc0t$9...@odak26.prod.google.com>,
> > "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >
> >> "H" <no...@none.com> wrote in article
> >> none-99E0E1.1...@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com on 9/9/04
> >> 12:42 PM:
> >>
> >>> You stupid moron
> >>
> >> In light of such deep reasoning it is hard to find a well thought
> out
> >> response... but here goes:
> >>
> >>
> >> Not Guilty!
> >>
> >
> > BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU'VE EXCEEDED THE 50,000 POST LIMIT FOR TODAY
> Can you prove I am guilty?
>
I dont know WTF you're talking about Guilty and what not, all I knows is
I opened the news group to see about 50 posts from you ALL IN SEPERATE
THREADS and I dont like it
At least go flood a politics newsgroup some place that deserves it
Snit
_KGdnZ_c-M6...@bresnan.com on 9/9/04 4:00 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "H" <no...@none.com> wrote in article
>> none-99E0E1.1...@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com on 9/9/04
>> 12:42 PM:
>>
>>
>>> You stupid moron
>>
>>
>> In light of such deep reasoning it is hard to find a well thought
out
>> response... but here goes:
>>
>>
>> Not Guilty!
>>
>
> H sure provided a lot of information to flame you with. What was
that
> all about?
Another silly sock puppet ... probably of Steve Carroll's, but who
knows.
He is back to just tossing around meaningless insults and getting all
mad when I make threads with his name...
Steve Carroll
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
> > "H" <no...@none.com> wrote in article
> > none-99E0E1.1...@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com on 9/9/04
> > 12:42 PM:
> >
> >
> >>You stupid moron
> >
> >
> > In light of such deep reasoning it is hard to find a well thought out
> > response... but here goes:
> >
> >
> > Not Guilty!
> >
>
> H sure provided a lot of information to flame you with. What was that
> all about?
Something Snit doesn't want to deal with:) One thing though, since Snit
has changed newsfeeds, ISP's , email and everything else (gee... I
wonder why;) his posts have been showing up in separate threads. I
thought it was just me. Wonder what the problem is...
--
Steve C
Snit
4:29 PM:
> In article <chqd0n$k...@odbk17.prod.google.com>,
> "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>> "H" <no...@none.com> wrote in article
>> none-E24BEA.1...@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com on 9/9/04
>> 12:57 PM:
>>
>>> In article <chqc0t$9...@odak26.prod.google.com>,
>>> "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "H" <no...@none.com> wrote in article
>>>> none-99E0E1.1...@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com on
9/9/04
>>>> 12:42 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> You stupid moron
>>>>
>>>> In light of such deep reasoning it is hard to find a well thought
>> out
>>>> response... but here goes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not Guilty!
>>>>
>>>
>>> BLAH BLAH BLAH YOU'VE EXCEEDED THE 50,000 POST LIMIT FOR TODAY
>> Can you prove I am guilty?
>>
>
> I dont know WTF you're talking about Guilty and what not, all I knows
is
> I opened the news group to see about 50 posts from you ALL IN
SEPERATE
> THREADS and I dont like it
>
> At least go flood a politics newsgroup some place that deserves it
Right... whatever you say socky....
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
Prove I've ever used ONE sockpuppet, Snit. You can't. You OTOH have
admitted to having done so several times and have been caught doing it
several more. Reality is a real bitch, isn't it?
--
Steve C
Snit
fretwizz-22DA06...@netnews.comcast.net on 9/9/04 5:07 PM:
> Reality is a real bitch, isn't it?
Steve... most of like reality. It, like Google, is my friend. So are
dictionaries. I like them.
Ready to take responsibility for your trolling / flaming yet?
Rick G
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
It's the client software, (Google G2/0.1) it doesn't send the
References: header. It's technically optional, but in practice extremely
useful. I doubt that Snit's aware of it.
It also appears to mis-set the sig delimiter, forgetting the ' ' at the
end of it.
--
Rick...
Elizabot v2.0.1
Ha ha! You're pulling another Shrubya! LOL!
Elizabot v2.0.1
Have you tried it to find out about the sig delimiter? Or are you taking
"someone's" word about it?
Rick G
"Elizabot v2.0.1" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
Well, I've seen the references problem with other versions of the Google
software, so that part checks out - but no, I've not bothered signing up
through Google groups to confirm it.
I would expect that this may be an interesting test - did Snit lie about
this? Something so trivial, with nothing to gain? If nobody is motivated
to step up and test it, I may, but I with such an easy litmus test, I
would expect that somebody already has.
--
Rick...
Elizabot v2.0.1
How about you knowing that this is true also?
>>>It also appears to mis-set the sig delimiter, forgetting the ' ' at the
>>>end of it.
>>
>>Have you tried it to find out about the sig delimiter? Or are you taking
>>"someone's" word about it?
>
>
> Well, I've seen the references problem with other versions of the Google
> software, so that part checks out - but no, I've not bothered signing up
> through Google groups to confirm it.
>
> I would expect that this may be an interesting test - did Snit lie about
> this? Something so trivial, with nothing to gain?
Lol. I thought you'd been educated on this sort of issue already.
> If nobody is motivated
> to step up and test it, I may, but I with such an easy litmus test, I
> would expect that somebody already has.
In Snit's case, I'd suspect nobody's bothered, except "H". That's the
only poster I've seen with similar headers to Snit's.
You see, if I did it and found different, it'd be my word against
Snit's. And we all know how interesting that is, but I'd bet more here
would take my word over his, and then Snit would whine about "consensus
reality" or somesuch.
You're the "objective" third party. Still. (IMO)
Why don't you do it?
Go to Google Groups and look for this:
"New! Preview the next version of Google Groups" (Looks like that's the
Beta that Snit was talking about.) G'night.
Snit
Rick-6DB285.1...@news.telus.net on 9/9/04 5:59 PM:
Aware of it... just too lazy to dig through the Google silliness...
easy to post articles, but not so easy to read...
Snit
41412579$0$207$7586...@news.frii.net on 9/9/04 8:54 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in article
>> fretwizz-22DA06...@netnews.comcast.net on 9/9/04 5:07
PM:
>>
>>
>>> Reality is a real bitch, isn't it?
>>
>>
>> Steve... most of like reality. It, like Google, is my friend. So
are
>> dictionaries. I like them.
>> Ready to take responsibility for your trolling / flaming yet?
>
> Ha ha! You're pulling another Shrubya! LOL!
You have a problem with me wanting Steve to admit responsibility for
his trolling / flaming?
Why?
Rick G
"Elizabot v2.0.1" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
Message sent through Google. What WERE they thinking?
--
Rick...
Snit
>> Have you tried it to find out about the sig delimiter? Or are you
taking
>> "someone's" word about it?
>
> Well, I've seen the references problem with other versions of the
Google
> software, so that part checks out - but no, I've not bothered signing
up
> through Google groups to confirm it.
>
> I would expect that this may be an interesting test - did Snit lie
about
> this? Something so trivial, with nothing to gain? If nobody is
motivated
> to step up and test it, I may, but I with such an easy litmus test, I
> would expect that somebody already has.
Steve Mackay even has the blurry, over compressed jpeg to prove I was
lying. :)
Rick G
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
Once the message arrives here, it should be easy to confirm.
I'm very much not impressed with the Google Beta interface to Usenet.
--
Rick...
Snit
No... nor am I. If you want to prove I am lying... or not ... or
whatever the little test is that is going on, feel free...
Not sure why it matters or what anyone thinks they wish to prove... but
feel free to use the Google beta and see if you can replicate my
"issues" with it. If you can find ways around the errors I am finding,
I would be happy to learn from you.
Hmmm, I suppose we can look at it the other way, too... if I am lying
then Steve and Elizabot have a point... but if I am not, then they are
showing themselves to make assumptions and even veiled accusations
incorrectly. I wonder if either will be willing to admit they doubted
incorrectly... will either be willing to take responsibility for their
comments...?
I would have to go back and see how clear their accusations were...
So, before you even look do you have any guesses? Do you think I am
lying or do you think they are just making up accusations 'cause it is
what they like to do?
Rick G
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
> Rick-AEDF5B.2...@news.telus.net on 9/9/04 10:42 PM:
>
> > In article <chrepn$s...@odbk17.prod.google.com>, "Snit"
> > <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >
> >> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
> >> Rick-D59AB0.2...@news.telus.net on 9/9/04 9:34 PM:
> >>
> >>>> Have you tried it to find out about the sig delimiter? Or are you
> >>>> taking "someone's" word about it?
> >>>>
> >>> Well, I've seen the references problem with other versions of the
> >>> Google software, so that part checks out - but no, I've not
> >>> bothered signing up through Google groups to confirm it.
> >>>
> >>> I would expect that this may be an interesting test - did Snit lie
> >>> about this? Something so trivial, with nothing to gain? If nobody
> >>> is motivated to step up and test it, I may, but I with such an easy
> >>> litmus test, I
> >>>
> >>> would expect that somebody already has.
> >>>
> >> Steve Mackay even has the blurry, over compressed jpeg to prove I
> >> was lying.
> >> :)
> >
> > Once the message arrives here, it should be easy to confirm. I'm very
> > much not impressed with the Google Beta interface to Usenet.
>
> No... nor am I. If you want to prove I am lying... or not ... or
> whatever the little test is that is going on, feel free...
>
Honestly, I don't see much of an issue here. The Google interface sucks.
I've already given up my previous message for lost.
Whether or not Google broke the sig delimiter is a trivial matter. The
question that Elizabot wants me to address is if you would lie about it.
> Not sure why it matters or what anyone thinks they wish to prove... but
> feel free to use the Google beta and see if you can replicate my
> "issues" with it. If you can find ways around the errors I am finding,
> I would be happy to learn from you.
Lesson one: Don't use the Google Beta.
Interacting 'properly' with a news server is much more practical, as
long as your ISP provides one, that is...
Kids today, web interfaces to everything... I tell ya, in my day...
>
> Hmmm, I suppose we can look at it the other way, too... if I am lying
> then Steve and Elizabot have a point... but if I am not, then they are
> showing themselves to make assumptions and even veiled accusations
> incorrectly. I wonder if either will be willing to admit they doubted
> incorrectly... will either be willing to take responsibility for their
> comments...?
Time will tell.
>
> I would have to go back and see how clear their accusations were...
>
> So, before you even look do you have any guesses? Do you think I am
> lying or do you think they are just making up accusations 'cause it is
> what they like to do?
Based on the Google interface I used, and that Google does not handle
the signature properly, I would hazard that they are clueless about that
protocol, and 'helpfully' deleted stray spaces at the end of the lines.
--
Rick...
Snit
The fact that I am able to use it so well is pretty cool, I think. :)
>
> Whether or not Google broke the sig delimiter is a trivial matter.
> The question that Elizabot wants me to address is if you would lie
> about it.
Well, to find out if I did lie you would need to test Google... or find
someone else to do so.
>
>> Not sure why it matters or what anyone thinks they wish to prove...
>> but feel free to use the Google beta and see if you can replicate my
>> "issues" with it. If you can find ways around the errors I am
>> finding, I would be happy to learn from you.
>
> Lesson one: Don't use the Google Beta.
Hey... I am trying to get my ISP to answer why my normal method has
been so bad... I can not post directly... at least not consistently.
Oddly it sometimes works. They have no answer for me as to why...
> Interacting 'properly' with a news server is much more practical, as
> long as your ISP provides one, that is...
Mine does... in theory.
>
> Kids today, web interfaces to everything... I tell ya, in my day...
LOL... hey, I was using Usenet before the web existed... believe me,
Google is not my preferred method.
>
>>
>> Hmmm, I suppose we can look at it the other way, too... if I am
>> lying then Steve and Elizabot have a point... but if I am not, then
>> they are showing themselves to make assumptions and even veiled
>> accusations incorrectly. I wonder if either will be willing to
>> admit they doubted incorrectly... will either be willing to take
>> responsibility for their comments...?
>
> Time will tell.
My guess: not a chance...
>>
>> I would have to go back and see how clear their accusations were...
>>
>> So, before you even look do you have any guesses? Do you think I am
>> lying or do you think they are just making up accusations 'cause it
>> is what they like to do?
>
> Based on the Google interface I used, and that Google does not handle
> the signature properly, I would hazard that they are clueless about
> that protocol, and 'helpfully' deleted stray spaces at the end of the
> lines.
They "helpfully" rewrap and remove other blank spaces as well...
Hmmm, this could be a good test... see who can use Google to post as
well as I have found methods for doing so... far from perfect... but
it works for me for now.
Rick G
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
Well, I'm apparently failing that test, I can't believe that Google
claims 3-9 hours for the message to appear...
--
Rick...
Snit
>>> Based on the Google interface I used, and that Google does not
handle
>>> the signature properly, I would hazard that they are clueless about
>>> that protocol, and 'helpfully' deleted stray spaces at the end of
the
>>> lines.
>>
>> They "helpfully" rewrap and remove other blank spaces as well...
>>
>> Hmmm, this could be a good test... see who can use Google to post as
>> well as I have found methods for doing so... far from perfect...
but
>> it works for me for now.
>
> Well, I'm apparently failing that test, I can't believe that Google
> claims 3-9 hours for the message to appear...
Seems to post quickly... as in within a couple seconds.
Hmmmm, maybe I am lying and not using Google at all. Maybe I have
found a way to forge headers and am posting via psychic penguin.
Rick G
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
I'm going to look pretty silly, then when all my posts arrive.
I presume that clicking the [post] button, once I've written a message
is all I need.
--
Rick...
Snit
>>> Well, I'm apparently failing that test, I can't believe that Google
>>> claims 3-9 hours for the message to appear...
>>
>> Seems to post quickly... as in within a couple seconds.
>>
>> Hmmmm, maybe I am lying and not using Google at all. Maybe I have
>> found a way to forge headers and am posting via psychic penguin.
>
> I'm going to look pretty silly, then when all my posts arrive.
> I presume that clicking the [post] button, once I've written a
message
> is all I need.
For Google... yes... for the psychic penguin, check behind the left
ear.
Ok... for Google Groups.... assuming you have an account:
1) Click "Start New Topic"
2) Type or paste subject and message
3) Press "post message"
Can also respond directly... but the interface sucks so I mostly post
responses as "new"... hence the new thread problem.
ed
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> typed:
> In article <chrhn0$i...@odah37.prod.google.com>,
> "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
>> Rick-822754.2...@news.telus.net on 9/9/04 11:20 PM:
>>> Well, I'm apparently failing that test, I can't believe that Google
>>> claims 3-9 hours for the message to appear...
>>
>> Seems to post quickly... as in within a couple seconds.
>>
>> Hmmmm, maybe I am lying and not using Google at all. Maybe I have
>> found a way to forge headers and am posting via psychic penguin.
>
> I'm going to look pretty silly, then when all my posts arrive.
> I presume that clicking the [post] button, once I've written a message
> is all I need.
google groups takes hours to post.
google groups2 beta is very quick.
Rick G
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Hmm, been trying them both.
So far, nada.
--
Rick...
Snit
t1c0d.18382$Hb5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com on 9/9/04 11:42 PM:
> In news:Rick-CE0CBA.2...@news.telus.net,
> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> typed:
>> In article <chrhn0$i...@odah37.prod.google.com>,
>> "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
>>> Rick-822754.2...@news.telus.net on 9/9/04 11:20 PM:
> <snip>
>>>> Well, I'm apparently failing that test, I can't believe that
Google
>>>> claims 3-9 hours for the message to appear...
>>>
>>> Seems to post quickly... as in within a couple seconds.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm, maybe I am lying and not using Google at all. Maybe I have
>>> found a way to forge headers and am posting via psychic penguin.
>>
>> I'm going to look pretty silly, then when all my posts arrive.
>> I presume that clicking the [post] button, once I've written a
message
>> is all I need.
>
> google groups takes hours to post.
> google groups2 beta is very quick.
>
Whew... so my story of posting through Google still holds up. :)
Snit
> In article <t1c0d.18382$Hb5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:Rick-CE0CBA.2...@news.telus.net,
>> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> typed:
>>> In article <chrhn0$i...@odah37.prod.google.com>,
>>> "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
>>>> Rick-822754.2...@news.telus.net on 9/9/04 11:20 PM:
>> <snip>
>>>>> Well, I'm apparently failing that test, I can't believe that
Google
>>>>> claims 3-9 hours for the message to appear...
>>>>
>>>> Seems to post quickly... as in within a couple seconds.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmmm, maybe I am lying and not using Google at all. Maybe I have
>>>> found a way to forge headers and am posting via psychic penguin.
>>>
>>> I'm going to look pretty silly, then when all my posts arrive.
>>> I presume that clicking the [post] button, once I've written a
message
>>> is all I need.
>>
>> google groups takes hours to post.
>> google groups2 beta is very quick.
>
> Hmm, been trying them both.
> So far, nada.
Maybe it does take hours and I am forging headers and lying... I mean
if you can not get it to work, and some others say I am lying... well,
isn't the conclusion clear?
Get ready for the Google's Snit Posts FAQ coming to a trolling web site
near you!
ric...@mac.com
--
Properly Formatted Delimiter
See if regular Google Groups is proper.
Rick G
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
OTOH, maybe I'm writing in invisible ink?
I honestly don't know what's up with the posts.
Waitasec... Looking at the Google tree of the posts - How is it
threading them? Must be through their X-Trace header (non-standard)
Funky
--
Rick...
Rick G
Extra spaces at line end.
--
Sig Delimiter done properly.
Rick G
"Rick G" <ric...@mac.com> wrote:
> Google Beta again.
> Extra spaces at line end.
Well, if anybody cares... the signature did properly cut.
The space was left in on that line, but removed from lines 1 and 4.
After all that, the results are inconclusive.
Google Groups Beta:
The References: was not included.
Trailing spaces removed on some lines, but not others.
Regular Google Groups:
References header correct.
Space only removed on the lines after the signature delimiter.
--
Rick...
Steve Carroll
Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote:
While I would agree that this would be a trivial and pointless thing for
him to lie about, he has shown he is not beyond doing so. Current
reality shows that no one but Snit would blame any poster for having
doubts where he is concerned. And make no mistake, it's his fault that
others automatically assume he is lying... no one else's. If it turned
out that he wasn't lying here, no one would owe him an apology for
jumping to an incorrect assumption. That's how things must work with
habitual liars. Snit is far past the age of understanding something so
basic... too bad he never learned the lesson.
--
Steve C
Snit
Are you willing to take responsibility for this flame against me?
Snit
> In article <chrj5n$5...@odbk17.prod.google.com>,
> "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
>> Rick-AFFECF.2...@news.telus.net on 9/9/04 11:47 PM:
>>
>>> In article <t1c0d.18382$Hb5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:Rick-CE0CBA.2...@news.telus.net,
>>>> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> typed:
>>>>> In article <chrhn0$i...@odah37.prod.google.com>,
>>>>> "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
Google does it based on name... and I am not sure what else....
Snit
61757ec.04090...@posting.google.com on 9/10/04 12:01 AM:
Seems to have kept your delimiter....
Wow... guess Steve will be able to say I have been lying.
(I have mine set again down below... see if it keeps it)
--
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)
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
And this changes the FACT that you are a delusional liar, how?
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
The Snit doth protest too much, methinks.
> Get ready for the Google's Snit Posts FAQ coming to a trolling web site
> near you!
Why spend so much energy on this? It's not like if you are found to be
telling the truth here people won't still consider you a delusional
liar. That bed has been well made already.
--
Steve C
Snit
Snit
> In article <chriq8$4...@odbk17.prod.google.com>,
> "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in article
>> t1c0d.18382$Hb5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com on 9/9/04 11:42 PM:
>>
>>> In news:Rick-CE0CBA.2...@news.telus.net,
>>> Rick G <Ri...@dot.dot> typed:
>>>> In article <chrhn0$i...@odah37.prod.google.com>,
>>>> "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
>>>>> Rick-822754.2...@news.telus.net on 9/9/04 11:20 PM:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Well, I'm apparently failing that test, I can't believe that
>> Google
>>>>>> claims 3-9 hours for the message to appear...
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to post quickly... as in within a couple seconds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmmm, maybe I am lying and not using Google at all. Maybe I
have
>>>>> found a way to forge headers and am posting via psychic penguin.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to look pretty silly, then when all my posts arrive.
>>>> I presume that clicking the [post] button, once I've written a
>> message
>>>> is all I need.
>>>
>>> google groups takes hours to post.
>>> google groups2 beta is very quick.
>>>
>> Whew... so my story of posting through Google still holds up. :)
>
> And this changes the FACT that you are a delusional liar, how?
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in article
Snit
chrk81$7...@odbk17.prod.google.com on 9/10/04 12:14 AM:
> Google Beta again.
> Extra spaces at line end.
And yours seems to be kept.
Snit
> In article <chrk81$7...@odbk17.prod.google.com>, "Rick G"
> <ric...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Google Beta again. Extra spaces at line end.
>
> Well, if anybody cares... the signature did properly cut. The space
> was left in on that line, but removed from lines 1 and 4. After all
> that, the results are inconclusive.
Inconclusive! No, it must mean *I* am lying! Just ask Steve. :)
Do you see why I find it is a mistake for me to ever take Steve at his
word or assume he has reasonable intentions. I made that mistake
again, and look at him... he is back to making his every post be a
flame against me, and then claims that somehow I am responsible for
*his* actions, as though he is some weak minded little victim who I
have control over.
I should have just kill filed him or ignored him instead of giving him
yet another chance...
> Google Groups Beta: The References: was not included. Trailing spaces
> removed on some lines, but not others.
>
> Regular Google Groups: References header correct. Space only removed
> on the lines after the signature delimiter.
Odd...
Snit
chsa69$b...@odak26.prod.google.com on 9/10/04 6:28 AM:
> "Rick G" <ric...@mac.com> wrote in article
> chrk81$7...@odbk17.prod.google.com on 9/10/04 12:14 AM:
>
>> Google Beta again.
>> Extra spaces at line end.
>
> And yours seems to be kept.
>
> --
> 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)
But not mine... odd.
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
This thing you call a 'flame', others call *reality*. Yes, I am willing
to take responsibility for pointing out the *reality* of a situation
that YOU created.
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
What need have I of it? You are already a known liar who will lie about
damn near anything to 'win' an argument.
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
No flame... it's called reality and YOU created this one.
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
> Rick-BA2110.0...@news.telus.net on 9/10/04 12:25 AM:
>
> > In article <chrk81$7...@odbk17.prod.google.com>, "Rick G"
> > <ric...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Google Beta again. Extra spaces at line end.
> >
> > Well, if anybody cares... the signature did properly cut. The space
> > was left in on that line, but removed from lines 1 and 4. After all
> > that, the results are inconclusive.
>
> Inconclusive! No, it must mean *I* am lying! Just ask Steve. :)
It's not important or even necessary to establish the fact that you are
a delusional liar who will stop at nothing to 'win' an argument. Like
the fact that you are a troll, this fact has long been established and
widely recognized.
--
Steve C
Elizabot v2.0.1
> In article <chrk81$7...@odbk17.prod.google.com>,
> "Rick G" <ric...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Google Beta again.
>>Extra spaces at line end.
>
>
> Well, if anybody cares... the signature did properly cut.
So then I was right about Snit doing his sig improperly.
> The space was left in on that line, but removed from lines 1 and 4.
> After all that, the results are inconclusive.
>
> Google Groups Beta:
> The References: was not included.
> Trailing spaces removed on some lines, but not others.
Safari or Mozilla? I'm using Mozilla.
> Regular Google Groups:
> References header correct.
> Space only removed on the lines after the signature delimiter.
--
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.1 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Elizabot
> "Elizabot v2.0.1" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in article
> 41412579$0$207$7586...@news.frii.net on 9/9/04 8:54 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in article
>>>fretwizz-22DA06...@netnews.comcast.net on 9/9/04 5:07
>
> PM:
>
>>>
>>>>Reality is a real bitch, isn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>Steve... most of like reality. It, like Google, is my friend. So
>
> are
>
>>>dictionaries. I like them.
>>>Ready to take responsibility for your trolling / flaming yet?
>>
>>Ha ha! You're pulling another Shrubya! LOL!
>
>
> You have a problem with me wanting Steve to admit responsibility for
> his trolling / flaming?
>
> Why?
There you go again, Shrubya!
Elizabot
> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
> Rick-AEDF5B.2...@news.telus.net on 9/9/04 10:42 PM:
>
>
>>In article <chrepn$s...@odbk17.prod.google.com>, "Snit"
>><CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
>>>Rick-D59AB0.2...@news.telus.net on 9/9/04 9:34 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Have you tried it to find out about the sig delimiter? Or are you
>>>>>taking "someone's" word about it?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, I've seen the references problem with other versions of the
>>>>Google software, so that part checks out - but no, I've not
>>>>bothered signing up through Google groups to confirm it.
>>>>
>>>>I would expect that this may be an interesting test - did Snit lie
>>>>about this? Something so trivial, with nothing to gain? If nobody
>>>>is motivated to step up and test it, I may, but I with such an easy
>>>>litmus test, I
>>>>
>>>>would expect that somebody already has.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Steve Mackay even has the blurry, over compressed jpeg to prove I
>>>was lying.
>>>:)
>>
>>Once the message arrives here, it should be easy to confirm. I'm very
>>much not impressed with the Google Beta interface to Usenet.
>
>
> No... nor am I. If you want to prove I am lying... or not ... or
> whatever the little test is that is going on, feel free...
>
> Not sure why it matters or what anyone thinks they wish to prove... but
> feel free to use the Google beta and see if you can replicate my
> "issues" with it. If you can find ways around the errors I am finding,
> I would be happy to learn from you.
>
> Hmmm, I suppose we can look at it the other way, too... if I am lying
> then Steve and Elizabot have a point... but if I am not, then they are
> showing themselves to make assumptions and even veiled accusations
> incorrectly. I wonder if either will be willing to admit they doubted
> incorrectly... will either be willing to take responsibility for their
> comments...?
The point that you can't figure out how to do a sig delimeter properly?
lol You've proven that one over and over.
[snip meaningless flames]
Elizabot v2.0.1
Rick G wrote:
> In article <chrfec$t...@odbk17.prod.google.com>,
sucks.
> I've already given up my previous message for lost.
>
> Whether or not Google broke the sig delimiter is a trivial matter.
The
> question that Elizabot wants me to address is if you would lie about
it.
>
but
> > feel free to use the Google beta and see if you can replicate my
> > "issues" with it. If you can find ways around the errors I am
finding,
> > I would be happy to learn from you.
>
> Interacting 'properly' with a news server is much more practical, as
> long as your ISP provides one, that is...
>
> Kids today, web interfaces to everything... I tell ya, in my day...
>
> >
lying
> > then Steve and Elizabot have a point... but if I am not, then they
are
> > showing themselves to make assumptions and even veiled accusations
> > incorrectly. I wonder if either will be willing to admit they
doubted
> > incorrectly... will either be willing to take responsibility for
their
> > comments...?
>
>
> >
> > I would have to go back and see how clear their accusations were...
> >
> > So, before you even look do you have any guesses? Do you think I
am
> > lying or do you think they are just making up accusations 'cause it
is
> > what they like to do?
>
> Based on the Google interface I used, and that Google does not handle
> the signature properly, I would hazard that they are clueless about
that
> protocol, and 'helpfully' deleted stray spaces at the end of the
lines.
It doesn't seem to cut them out, but it does put the "-- " in properly.
Looks fine with Mozilla. if you hit show options and do the reply at
the top and not at the bottom.
Another Google beta post from Mozilla.
Rick G
"Elizabot v2.0.1" <eliza...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rick G wrote:
> > In article <chrk81$7...@odbk17.prod.google.com>,
> > "Rick G" <rxxxxx.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Google Beta again.
> >>Extra spaces at line end.
> >
> >
> > Well, if anybody cares... the signature did properly cut.
>
> So then I was right about Snit doing his sig improperly.
I don't think that this claim is correct. I left empty spaces on the
ends of each line. Some were retained, others weren't. In other words, a
crapshoot.
>
> > The space was left in on that line, but removed from lines 1 and 4.
> > After all that, the results are inconclusive.
> >
> > Google Groups Beta:
> > The References: was not included.
> > Trailing spaces removed on some lines, but not others.
>
> Safari or Mozilla? I'm using Mozilla.
My copy of Safari was customized to filter out a lot of the ads and
other crap, so I eventually resorted to using a new account and Internet
Explorer to access Google Groups.
The missing spaces is not a function of the display process, they are
actually not in the data stream.
>
> > Regular Google Groups:
> > References header correct.
> > Space only removed on the lines after the signature delimiter.
>
> --
> By responding to Elizabot v2.0.1 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
> http://elizabot.spymac.net/
I assume that you properly specified your signature delimiter as well.
Unfortunately the trailing space was removed from that line too.
Final conclusion: Google Beta is unpredictable. It's much faster than
the regular GG, but has 'unfriendly' characteristics. It doesn't provide
the references: header, so any client which relies on that for threading
is out of luck; it may or may not properly send the signature delimiter.
--
Rick...
Rick G
"Elizabot v2.0.1" <eliza...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry, no trailing space here.
--
Rick...
Elizabot v2.0.1
> In article <chrhn0$i...@odah37.prod.google.com>,
>>
>>handle
>>
>>>>>the signature properly, I would hazard that they are clueless
about
>>>>>that protocol, and 'helpfully' deleted stray spaces at the end of
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>lines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm, this could be a good test... see who can use Google to post
as
>>>>well as I have found methods for doing so... far from perfect...
>>
>>but
>>
>>>>it works for me for now.
>>>
>>>Well, I'm apparently failing that test, I can't believe that Google
>>>claims 3-9 hours for the message to appear...
>>
>>Seems to post quickly... as in within a couple seconds.
>>
>>Hmmmm, maybe I am lying and not using Google at all. Maybe I have
>>found a way to forge headers and am posting via psychic penguin.
>
>
> I'm going to look pretty silly, then when all my posts arrive.
> I presume that clicking the [post] button, once I've written a
message
> is all I need.
>
they aren't in Google yet.
Elizabot v2.0.1
Nope.
Elizabot v2.0.1
>
> I assume that you properly specified your signature delimiter as well.
> Unfortunately the trailing space was removed from that line too.
Yes, I did.
> Final conclusion: Google Beta is unpredictable. It's much faster than
> the regular GG, but has 'unfriendly' characteristics. It doesn't provide
> the references: header, so any client which relies on that for threading
> is out of luck; it may or may not properly send the signature delimiter.
Yep. I did some test posts before posting here and they came out
properly. Weird.
Rick G
"Elizabot v2.0.1" <eliza...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not a one. One of my tests was to leave spaces at the end of every line
- some were retained, others were dropped.
--
Rick...
Elizabot v2.0.1
Snit
> In article <chshar$r...@odak26.prod.google.com>,
> "Elizabot v2.0.1" <eliza...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Rick G wrote:
>>> In article <chrk81$7...@odbk17.prod.google.com>,
>>> "Rick G" <rxxxxx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Google Beta again.
>>>> Extra spaces at line end.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, if anybody cares... the signature did properly cut.
>>
>> So then I was right about Snit doing his sig improperly.
>
> I don't think that this claim is correct. I left empty spaces on the
> ends of each line. Some were retained, others weren't. In other
words, a
> crapshoot.
That is what I have been finding. Does not even seem consistent... it
even sometimes snips blank lines so the empty spaces are dropped...
>
>>
>>> The space was left in on that line, but removed from lines 1 and 4.
>>> After all that, the results are inconclusive.
>>>
>>> Google Groups Beta:
>>> The References: was not included.
>>> Trailing spaces removed on some lines, but not others.
>>
>> Safari or Mozilla? I'm using Mozilla.
> My copy of Safari was customized to filter out a lot of the ads and
> other crap, so I eventually resorted to using a new account and
Internet
> Explorer to access Google Groups.
>
> The missing spaces is not a function of the display process, they are
> actually not in the data stream.
>
>>
>>> Regular Google Groups:
>>> References header correct.
>>> Space only removed on the lines after the signature delimiter.
>>
>> --
>> By responding to Elizabot v2.0.1 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
>> http://elizabot.spymac.net/
>
> I assume that you properly specified your signature delimiter as
well.
> Unfortunately the trailing space was removed from that line too.
>
> Final conclusion: Google Beta is unpredictable. It's much faster than
> the regular GG, but has 'unfriendly' characteristics. It doesn't
provide
> the references: header, so any client which relies on that for
threading
> is out of luck; it may or may not properly send the signature
delimiter.
It may provide ref's... I have not been hunting for the old post... I
read from another reader (that will not let me post most of the time),
then copy and paste.
Elizabot v2.0.1
[snip]
> It may provide ref's... I have not been hunting for the old post... I
> read from another reader (that will not let me post most of the time),
> then copy and paste.
Have you considered that it might not be a Supernews problem, but rather
a problem with your computer?
I didn't have a problem with the references using Mozilla and hitting
reply under the "show options" option.
Rick G
"Elizabot v2.0.1" <eliza...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Still nada.
I think an apology may be in order here.
--
Rick...
Elizabot v2.0.1
Apology accepted. :)
Rick G
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> It may provide ref's... I have not been hunting for the old post... I
> read from another reader (that will not let me post most of the time),
> then copy and paste.
Nope, here is your entire header block:
> Path:
> clgrps11!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!prodigy.com!news.glorb.co
> m!postnews2.google.com!not-for-mail
> From: "Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM>
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> Subject: Re: HEY SNIT STFU
> Date: 10 Sep 2004 09:27:23 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 71
> Message-ID: <chsklb$2...@odak26.prod.google.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: odak26.prod.google.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1094833643 8627 127.0.0.1 (10 Sep 2004 16:27:23
> GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:27:23 +0000 (UTC)
> User-Agent: G2/0.1
> Xref: news.telusplanet.net comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1009793
The Path: accretes as the post works its way around the net. The Xref:
is from my news server. The rest is from Google.
This post should have a References header like this.
References: <chsklb$2...@odak26.prod.google.com><Rickx...@telus.net>
However, a properly formatted references chain should go back all the
way to the first post from 'H'
--
Rick...
Snit
> In article <chskh7$o...@odah37.prod.google.com>,
> "Elizabot v2.0.1" <eliza...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's one with no quoted material.
>>
>> --
>> By responding to Elizabot v2.0.1 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
>> http://elizabot.spymac.net/
>
> Still nada.
>
> I think an apology may be in order here.
Neither Steve nor Elizabot will ever accept responsibility for their
claims.
Snit
> Rick G wrote:
>
>>
>> I assume that you properly specified your signature delimiter as
well.
>> Unfortunately the trailing space was removed from that line too.
>
> Yes, I did.
>
>> Final conclusion: Google Beta is unpredictable. It's much faster
than
>> the regular GG, but has 'unfriendly' characteristics. It doesn't
provide
>> the references: header, so any client which relies on that for
threading
>> is out of luck; it may or may not properly send the signature
delimiter.
>
> Yep. I did some test posts before posting here and they came out
> properly. Weird.
Maybe I am able to control Google.... Steve has suggested that the
Google record is a part of my "Snit's delusions and disingenuous
bullshit"... if he is correct, then I am able to control Google to make
it look like my claims were accurate...
Elizabot v2.0.1
Maybe you missed the post where I discovered that the sig doesn't always
make it through.
Maybe you didn't and you're taking this as an opportunity to take a dig
at me.
You've never apologized to me for any of the libel you've written about
me. I will not apologize to the likes of you, Snit.
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
You're a liar, plain and simple. I didn't accuse you of lying here,
though it would not have surprised me if you had. IMO no apologies are
ever required by anyone that ever accuses you of lying for any reason.
You made this bed... go find your sister and sleep with her in it.
--
Steve C
Elizabot v2.0.1
LOL!
For the record, I never stated Snit was lying:
and I demonstrated my error about the sig delimiter:
<4141d011$0$204$7586...@news.frii.net>
I honestly don't see why this is such a big deal.
Steve Carroll
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
No, I'm suggesting that every word that comes off of your computer is a
part of "Snit's delusions and disingenuous bullshit"... and this here is
no different.
--
Steve C
Mike Dee
news:chsi89$s...@odak26.prod.google.com:
> It doesn't seem to cut them out, but it does put the "-- " in properly.
> Looks fine with Mozilla. if you hit show options and do the reply at
> the top and not at the bottom.
>
> Another Google beta post from Mozilla.
>
> --
> By responding to Elizabot v2.0.1 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
> http://elizabot.spymac.net/
No trailing " " with your post ebot.
--
D.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Rick G" <Ri...@dot.dot> wrote in article
>> Rick-B3372F.0...@news.telus.net on 9/10/04 9:41 AM:
>>
>>
>>> In article <chskh7$o...@odah37.prod.google.com>,
>>> "Elizabot v2.0.1" <eliza...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here's one with no quoted material.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> By responding to Elizabot v2.0.1 you implicitly agree to the TOS
at:
>>>> http://elizabot.spymac.net/
>>>
>>> Still nada.
>>>
>>> I think an apology may be in order here.
>>
>>
>> Neither Steve nor Elizabot will ever accept responsibility for their
>> claims.
>
> Maybe you missed the post where I discovered that the sig doesn't
always
> make it through.
>
> Maybe you didn't and you're taking this as an opportunity to take a
dig
> at me.
>
> You've never apologized to me for any of the libel you've written
about
> me. I will not apologize to the likes of you, Snit.
Um, did you say something?
Snit
Xns95614E9C1...@130.133.1.4 on 9/10/04 12:43 PM:
> "Elizabot v2.0.1" <eliza...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:chsi89$s...@odak26.prod.google.com:
>
>> It doesn't seem to cut them out, but it does put the "-- " in
properly.
>> Looks fine with Mozilla. if you hit show options and do the reply at
>> the top and not at the bottom.
>>
>> Another Google beta post from Mozilla.
>>
>> --
>> By responding to Elizabot v2.0.1 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
>> http://elizabot.spymac.net/
>
> No trailing " " with your post ebot.
Do you think she was lying?
Rick G
"Elizabot v2.0.1" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You're a liar, plain and simple. I didn't accuse you of lying here,
> > though it would not have surprised me if you had. IMO no apologies are
> > ever required by anyone that ever accuses you of lying for any reason.
> > You made this bed... go find your sister and sleep with her in it.
>
> LOL!
>
>
> For the record, I never stated Snit was lying:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oamm
>
> and I demonstrated my error about the sig delimiter:
>
> <4141d011$0$204$7586...@news.frii.net>
>
> I honestly don't see why this is such a big deal.
Sorry, I should have been more clear; It wasn't that I believed that you
said that Snit was a liar, the issue I had in mind was here:
<chshar$r...@odak26.prod.google.com>
A small issue, but probably good for the karmic balance to admit
mis-judgements.
As far as being a big deal, it shouldn't have been. I made a polite
request to Snit to fix a problem, that he may have been unaware of, way
back in some other thread. He tried to resolve it then, but as we've
confirmed, its a Google thing.
In this thread Steve commented on the references: problem, I told him
what I knew of the problem, then you came in at your first reference
above.
All in all, not a big deal. At least from my perspective.
--
Rick...
Rick G
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
I would expect that he was doing nothing more than providing independent
confirmation. :| (Neutral)
--
Rick...
Elizabot v2.0.1
Well. I'll be.
Elizabot v2.0.1
Alrighty then. I'm gonna make it a double " ". " " :)
Elizabot v2.0.1
Uggggh. </>
Snit
chuho1$2...@odak26.prod.google.com on 9/11/04 2:49 AM:
>
> Mike Dee wrote:
>> "Elizabot v2.0.1" <eliza...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:chsi89$s...@odak26.prod.google.com:
>>
>>> It doesn't seem to cut them out, but it does put the "-- " in
properly.
>>> Looks fine with Mozilla. if you hit show options and do the reply
at the top
>>> and not at the bottom.
>>>
>>> Another Google beta post from Mozilla.
>>>
>>> --
>>> By responding to Elizabot v2.0.1 you implicitly agree to the TOS
at:
>>> http://elizabot.spymac.net/
>>
>> No trailing " " with your post ebot.
>>
>> --
>> D.
>
> Alrighty then. I'm gonna make it a double " ". " " :)
>
> --
> By responding to Elizabot v2.0.1 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
> http://elizabot.spymac.net/
>
Should we take your word on it? :)
Actually, thanks for testing... good to know I am not just making some
silly error.
Elizabot v2.0.1
Yeah, but then you've been huffing again, Mr. ADHD.
Zaren Ankleweed
Elizabot <Eliz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
> > "Elizabot v2.0.1" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in article
> > 41412579$0$207$7586...@news.frii.net on 9/9/04 8:54 PM:
> >
> >
> >>Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in article
> >>>fretwizz-22DA06...@netnews.comcast.net on 9/9/04 5:07
> >
> > PM:
> >
> >>>
> >>>>Reality is a real bitch, isn't it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Steve... most of like reality. It, like Google, is my friend. So
> >
> > are
> >
> >>>dictionaries. I like them.
> >>>Ready to take responsibility for your trolling / flaming yet?
> >>
> >>Ha ha! You're pulling another Shrubya! LOL!
> >
> >
> > You have a problem with me wanting Steve to admit responsibility for
> > his trolling / flaming?
> >
> > Why?
>
> There you go again, Shrubya!
\|||/
(o o)
,----ooO--(_)-------.
| Please |
| don't feed the |
| TROLLs ! |
'--------------Ooo--'
|__|__|
|| ||
ooO Ooo
And with that, Snit goes in the global killfile. No subject, no author,
no nothing. Buh-bye.
Sandman
Zaren Ankleweed <holdth...@SUCKSmail.com> wrote:
> > > You have a problem with me wanting Steve to admit responsibility for
> > > his trolling / flaming?
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > There you go again, Shrubya!
>
> \|||/
> (o o)
> ,----ooO--(_)-------.
> | Please |
> | don't feed the |
> | TROLLs ! |
> '--------------Ooo--'
> |__|__|
> || ||
> ooO Ooo
>
> And with that, Snit goes in the global killfile. No subject, no author,
> no nothing. Buh-bye.
Is Michael the official record holder of number of killfiles in csma? I may
just think he is.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
holdthisSPAM-8BDA...@news.slurp.net on 9/11/04 12:54 PM:
>>> You have a problem with me wanting Steve to admit responsibility
for
>>> his trolling / flaming?
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> There you go again, Shrubya!
>
> \|||/
> (o o)
> ,----ooO--(_)-------.
> | Please |
> | don't feed the |
> | TROLLs ! |
> '--------------Ooo--'
> |__|__|
> || ||
> ooO Ooo
>
> And with that, Snit goes in the global killfile. No subject, no
author,
> no nothing. Buh-bye.
Hmmm, another troll who is offended by the mere concept of taking
responsibility. Thanks for identifying yourself.
Snit
mr-118FAA.22...@individual.net on 9/11/04 1:47 PM:
> In article <holdthisSPAM-8BDA...@news.slurp.net>,
> Zaren Ankleweed <holdth...@SUCKSmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> You have a problem with me wanting Steve to admit responsibility
for
>>>> his trolling / flaming?
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> There you go again, Shrubya!
>>
>> \|||/
>> (o o)
>> ,----ooO--(_)-------.
>> | Please |
>> | don't feed the |
>> | TROLLs ! |
>> '--------------Ooo--'
>> |__|__|
>> || ||
>> ooO Ooo
>>
>> And with that, Snit goes in the global killfile. No subject, no
author,
>> no nothing. Buh-bye.
>
> Is Michael the official record holder of number of killfiles in csma?
I may
> just think he is.
I don't know... do you really think I have chased off more trolls than
anyone else? I hope so...
Steve Mackay
I'd gander a guess that he has more than Pratt, WimpWeasel, and Edwin
combined.
Snit
pan.2004.09.12....@hotmail.com on 9/11/04 9:53 PM:
Cool... anyone have a list of the trolls I have pissed off? I do not
even try to keep track as to which trolls have me KF'd. Sure someone
must... after all, look at all the people so focused on me in this
group.
H
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
Your crappy posts are still showing up in seperate threads, are you
doing this on purpose to piss people off? I dont ever censor people
cause that's just retarded but if you dont fix it I'm gonna have to
cause I dont wanna see your name 40 times in a row. So uh, change your
client or something
Sandman
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Of that there is no doubt. He by far holds the record of current regulars. BUt
I was wondering about historically. Tholen must be killfiled by half the
planet, for example, including the majority of csma. But Tholen isn't a troll
of csma on the other hand, so he might not count.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
none-4B9DD9.0...@newssvr22-ext.news.prodigy.com on 9/12/04
1:19 AM:
> Your crappy posts are still showing up in seperate threads,
very observant of you
> are you doing this on purpose to piss people off?
no. That is just a side beenfit.
> I dont ever censor people
Good
> cause that's just retarded
Why?
> but if you dont fix it I'm gonna have to cause I dont wanna see your
name 40
> times in a row. So uh, change your client or something
So I can see what value that has, do you mind telling us whose sock
puppet you are?
H
> puppet you are?
>
What ever you're a dip shit and i'm not gonna see your posts anymore
good job
Snit
11:36 AM:
Have you ever had a post of any value? Why should I care if you see my
posts?
Oh, and whose sock puppet are you again?
Awnold
"Snit" <CSMA...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:ci2gva$1...@odah37.prod.google.com...
Steve Carroll
Zaren Ankleweed <holdth...@SUCKSmail.com> wrote:
You forgot the *plonk*
--
Steve C
Elizabot v2.0.1
Snit's doing it deliberately as he admitted here:
> I dont ever censor people
> cause that's just retarded but if you dont fix it I'm gonna have to
> cause I dont wanna see your name 40 times in a row. So uh, change your
> client or something
Snit uses his inability to post though Supernews as justification for
starting multiple new threads. It's as if he's reading in real time and
unable to wait to respond through the Google Groups forum, as there is a
lag between when a post is posted and when the post is in the Google
archives. His currently posting of multiple new threads continues to
demonstrate his obsession with this forum and the posters in it, and how
he is unable to control his impulses for immediate gratification.
OakBrain
author,
>> no nothing. Buh-bye.
>You forgot the *plonk*
Were you not able to understand that was the point?