Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: What's in a name?
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Carroll
Aug 8, 2012, 10:23:54 AM8/8/12
to
No, that's not what this post should really be titled... it should
read:
What's in a "frame of refernce"?
Tim (the guy who firmly believes that his word is gold as compared to
mine for anyone on the planet about any topic) recently wrote the
following statement to Snit about the "situation" between Snit and I:
"As I said before, with your situation I had no frame of refernce in
which to judge who was more likely to be right between you to."
The facts show that Tim has a "frame of refernce" but he chooses to
ignore it... the pertinent Google archives that I have repeatedly
produced in this newsgroup (and sometimes specifically for Tim),
archives that have shown:
Snit admitting to ID forgery
Snit lying that he was 'dared' to engage in forgery during his
admission of it
Snit admitting to creating web pages devoted to antagonizing and
defaming someone
Snit admitting to sexual harassment
Snit making unsubstantiated allegations of marital infidelity
Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that someone has "porn habits"
Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are racists
Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are bigots
Snit getting busted and admitting to sock puppetry (even in his
anxiety newsgroup)
Snit using over a dozen nyms in a span of less than a year to avoid
killfilters as documented by Elizabot
Snit creating a large number of trolling threads as documented by
Sandman in CSMA
Snit posting up emails between he and another poster (ed) without that
poster's permission (and doing so while having hypocritically stating
the had no desire for those emails to be publicm undoubtedly due to
the fact that they contained admissions to lies that ed mentioned they
contained
A lies of quotes made by posters of every persuasion that have all
labeled Snit a liar, troll or worse based on activity like the above
that they all have experience with.
The above list is far from complete but it contains things I have
covered when Snit asks for proof of his "wrongs" (only to later whine
that I am "stalking" by providing them)... I covered them enough to
the point where it's ludicrous for Tim to claim not to have seen some
of them. I'm waiting for Tim to show a "frame of refernce" for the
things that I have done that would convince a sane, honest and
honorable person that Snit is in the "right" in the "situation he and
I have between us.
--
cue up Snit showing me doing one or more of the following:
Handing *him* (not a TON of other posters, like he has on his list)
back a very,very tiny bit of what he regularly handed out.
Me, pointing to events or situations that sought to explain Snit's
bizarre usenet behavior (not justify it... explain it).
Me, making the reasonable claim that Snit can't possibly be a "real"
teacher and act on usenet the way he has
Some other red herring BS Snit will drag it to make it appear I have
done what he has done above (a thing he will do in an attempt to shine
the light away from his "wrongs"), a thing he can never accomplish
--
As was pointed out by another poster, Tim likes to play 'divide and
conquer', let's see how persuasive Tim is as he tries to 'divide' Snit
from his many dishonest and dishonorable usenet deeds. Will he even
bother to try?
My prediction: NO WAY!
read:
What's in a "frame of refernce"?
Tim (the guy who firmly believes that his word is gold as compared to
mine for anyone on the planet about any topic) recently wrote the
following statement to Snit about the "situation" between Snit and I:
"As I said before, with your situation I had no frame of refernce in
which to judge who was more likely to be right between you to."
The facts show that Tim has a "frame of refernce" but he chooses to
ignore it... the pertinent Google archives that I have repeatedly
produced in this newsgroup (and sometimes specifically for Tim),
archives that have shown:
Snit admitting to ID forgery
Snit lying that he was 'dared' to engage in forgery during his
admission of it
Snit admitting to creating web pages devoted to antagonizing and
defaming someone
Snit admitting to sexual harassment
Snit making unsubstantiated allegations of marital infidelity
Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that someone has "porn habits"
Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are racists
Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are bigots
Snit getting busted and admitting to sock puppetry (even in his
anxiety newsgroup)
Snit using over a dozen nyms in a span of less than a year to avoid
killfilters as documented by Elizabot
Snit creating a large number of trolling threads as documented by
Sandman in CSMA
Snit posting up emails between he and another poster (ed) without that
poster's permission (and doing so while having hypocritically stating
the had no desire for those emails to be publicm undoubtedly due to
the fact that they contained admissions to lies that ed mentioned they
contained
A lies of quotes made by posters of every persuasion that have all
labeled Snit a liar, troll or worse based on activity like the above
that they all have experience with.
The above list is far from complete but it contains things I have
covered when Snit asks for proof of his "wrongs" (only to later whine
that I am "stalking" by providing them)... I covered them enough to
the point where it's ludicrous for Tim to claim not to have seen some
of them. I'm waiting for Tim to show a "frame of refernce" for the
things that I have done that would convince a sane, honest and
honorable person that Snit is in the "right" in the "situation he and
I have between us.
--
cue up Snit showing me doing one or more of the following:
Handing *him* (not a TON of other posters, like he has on his list)
back a very,very tiny bit of what he regularly handed out.
Me, pointing to events or situations that sought to explain Snit's
bizarre usenet behavior (not justify it... explain it).
Me, making the reasonable claim that Snit can't possibly be a "real"
teacher and act on usenet the way he has
Some other red herring BS Snit will drag it to make it appear I have
done what he has done above (a thing he will do in an attempt to shine
the light away from his "wrongs"), a thing he can never accomplish
--
As was pointed out by another poster, Tim likes to play 'divide and
conquer', let's see how persuasive Tim is as he tries to 'divide' Snit
from his many dishonest and dishonorable usenet deeds. Will he even
bother to try?
My prediction: NO WAY!
Onion Knight
Aug 8, 2012, 8:32:17 PM8/8/12
to
Meanwhile the rest of us will laugh at you as you live a life so fucked up you feel the need to screw your little slut as your wife bangs some pilot.
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 8, 2012, 10:50:26 PM8/8/12
to
Onion Knight wrote:
> Meanwhile the rest of us will laugh at you as you live a life so fucked up
> you feel the need to screw your little slut as your wife bangs some
> pilot.
Snit, why do you worry so much about other people fucking?
> Meanwhile the rest of us will laugh at you as you live a life so fucked up
> you feel the need to screw your little slut as your wife bangs some
> pilot.
--
Perhaps this situation requires a more Klingon response.
[tv]
Homer
Aug 10, 2012, 8:42:05 PM8/10/12
to
Verily I say unto thee that Steve Carroll spake thusly:
>
> Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit
Etc.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 62 days | ~ V for Vendetta.
>
> Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit
Etc.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 62 days | ~ V for Vendetta.
Snit
Aug 10, 2012, 9:22:18 PM8/10/12
to
On 8/10/12 5:42 PM, in article tbmgf9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
not follow him from forum to forum and speak of him in pretty much my every
post and lie about him and babble able accusations of what he did in 2004
(except in response to his comments about 2004). I do not accuse him of
things he has not done. I do not harass or cyberstalk him. I do not track
down his work or his family and threaten contact them - with anything, no
less the lies he threatens me with. I do not threaten to try to have him
fired.
I am nothing like my stalker. Not a thing.
--
* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.
<use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that Steve Carroll spake thusly:
>>
>> Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit
>
> Etc.
Hey, do not group me as being like my stalker. I am nothing like him. I do
> Verily I say unto thee that Steve Carroll spake thusly:
>>
>> Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit ... Snit
>
> Etc.
not follow him from forum to forum and speak of him in pretty much my every
post and lie about him and babble able accusations of what he did in 2004
(except in response to his comments about 2004). I do not accuse him of
things he has not done. I do not harass or cyberstalk him. I do not track
down his work or his family and threaten contact them - with anything, no
less the lies he threatens me with. I do not threaten to try to have him
fired.
I am nothing like my stalker. Not a thing.
--
* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.
Onion Knight
Aug 10, 2012, 10:21:00 PM8/10/12
to
On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:23:54 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
Why do you accuse Snit of doing wrong when the proof is she was harassing him? Why won't you talk about the fact that once the police got involved she stopped posting and Snit did not? Why do you blame him when the police clearly could tell the truth and it is not what you say? You have accused me of having access to information you sent Snit outside of COLA. Why not say what that information was and show where I had any access to it? Why not back your claim that Snit can't be a real teacher when you have linked to his colleges website where it is easy to find his name listed as an instructor so you know for a fact he is a teacher? Why do you pretend he might be impersonating someone when your little slut bragged about tracking him down to be this person who works for the college you point to?
You claim Steve that you will answer questions in usenet and not run but all you do is run. You will run from those questions because you are a coward. If you will not have a Skype chat with Snit how about with me where I will ask you each of those questions and share your running with all of COLA and CSMA.
Your word is crap Steve and you know it. Everyone who calls you on it is deemed by you a sock or shill. Why not list the names you have used on usenet? Yet another question you will run from. You claim to not run but you do. On a Skype session you could not do that so you will never agree to talk to me on Skype. How about this: you claim I am a Snit sock. Speak to me on Skype and you will have proof my voice is not his. You do not know my voice so there should be no risk to me. You will not get what your accusations are really mean to dig up which is who I am. Come on Steve I have told you. I am one of the people you have harassed in CSMA to the point I left for my own safety. The problem for you is there are so many people you have harassed like that you have no idea who I am. Talk to me on Skype and see if you can figure it out.
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 10, 2012, 11:04:12 PM8/10/12
to
Snit wrote:
> Hey, do not group me as being like my stalker. I am nothing like him. I do
> not follow him from forum to forum and speak of him in pretty much my every
> post and lie about him
Of *course* you don't, Onion Knight. :-D
> Hey, do not group me as being like my stalker. I am nothing like him. I do
> not follow him from forum to forum and speak of him in pretty much my every
> post and lie about him
Snit
Aug 10, 2012, 11:54:19 PM8/10/12
to
On 8/10/12 7:21 PM, in article
da23b6d4-019f-41fb...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>> Snit lying that he was 'dared' to engage in forgery during his
>> admission of it
Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
>> Snit admitting to creating web pages devoted to antagonizing and
>> defaming someone
A complete and utter lie from Carroll... I have no idea what he is even
basing this on. Likely something from 2004 which I do not even recall.
>> Snit admitting to sexual harassment
A complete and utter lie from Carroll based on my having given someone who
was harassing me the benefit of the doubt... but it was proved later I was
wrong to do so: <http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations of marital infidelity
A complete and utter lie from Carroll. He was very open in 2004 about his
"road trips" to a woman other than his wife and later posted a map from his
house to hers - claiming she had moved from hours away from him to right
around the corner. He also noted, if I recall correctly, that his wife
found out about his actions and became quite upset.
>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that someone has "porn habits"
A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are racists
A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are bigots
A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
>> Snit getting busted and admitting to sock puppetry (even in his
>> anxiety newsgroup)
A complete and utter lie from Carroll. This was based on my using a
different name on accident (Brock McNuggets) but using the same .sig and,
when I realized the mistake *my* noting it was me. That is not being
"busted" for using a "sock". Carroll is out and out lying.
>> Snit using over a dozen nyms in a span of less than a year to avoid
>> killfilters as documented by Elizabot
A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
>> Snit creating a large number of trolling threads as documented by
>> Sandman in CSMA
A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
>> Snit posting up emails between he and another poster (ed) without that
>> poster's permission (and doing so while having hypocritically stating
>> the had no desire for those emails to be publicm undoubtedly due to
>> the fact that they contained admissions to lies that ed mentioned they
>> contained
Gross twisting of truth... from 2008 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
>> A lies of quotes made by posters of every persuasion that have all
>> labeled Snit a liar, troll or worse based on activity like the above
>> that they all have experience with.
Many of these quotes are forged by Steve and his "buddies" in COLA... and
what others say is not relevant. Notice the complete lack of quotes *from*
me... Carroll bases his attacks on what his socks (and some others) have
written about me. To make things even more insane for Carroll, some of
those quotes are from people Carroll accused of being my socks... so his
accusations are contradictory.
>> The above list is far from complete but it contains things I have
>> covered when Snit asks for proof of his "wrongs" (only to later whine
>> that I am "stalking" by providing them)... I covered them enough to
>> the point where it's ludicrous for Tim to claim not to have seen some
>> of them.
The fact you repeatedly lie about me proves my point about you.
>> I'm waiting for Tim to show a "frame of refernce" for the
>> things that I have done that would convince a sane, honest and
>> honorable person that Snit is in the "right" in the "situation he and
>> I have between us.
>>
their victims. I do not blame you for anything I do.
>> Me, pointing to events or situations that sought to explain Snit's
>> bizarre usenet behavior (not justify it... explain it).
You cannot point to any such behavior accept my tendency to respond to those
who troll me and the fact I post a lot. Other than that all you have is
quotes taken from context from 2004 which you insist must be re-hashed again
and again because you have not been able to move forward.
>> Me, making the reasonable claim that Snit can't possibly be a "real"
>> teacher and act on usenet the way he has
Yes: you have told that lie many times while also pointing to one of the
schools I teach at and describing how to track down which classes I teach.
Your girlfriend of 2004 even spoke of specific classes and how she tracked
down who I am. You lie when you claim I somehow "forged" this evidence...
as if I tricked you and her when and planted info for you to find.
In other words: and out and out lie by you.
>> Some other red herring BS Snit will drag it to make it appear I have
>> done what he has done above (a thing he will do in an attempt to shine
>> the light away from his "wrongs"), a thing he can never accomplish
I do not claim you have done what I have done - I note you do what you do:
harass and cyberstalk me, including tracking me to one of the places where I
work and threatening to contact my employer and lie with the intent on
having me get fired even if you have to "twist arms". You deny this but the
proof is in your own post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5ce16bd71bad1e12>
Those are your words, Carroll. You did exactly as I said. Notice how you
never back your accusations against me.
believing a liar such as yourself.
>> My prediction: NO WAY!
>
> I asked you to back your claims and you never did. Where are the quotes? I
> bet if you have any they are taken out of context and are from 2004, the year
> you never left.
Exactly correct.
...
relationship - or at least presented himself as being in one. He became
insanely jealous and angry when she became obsessed with me. Again, it has
been proved she was obsessed and harassed me:
<http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
> Why won't you talk about the fact that once the police got involved she
> stopped posting and Snit did not?
This goes against Carroll's false narrative where his then-girlfriend was
the victim so he snips and runs from this.
> Why do you blame him when the police clearly could tell the truth and it is
> not what you say?
Same reason: it goes against his false narrative of her being the victim.
> You have accused me of having access to information you sent Snit outside of
> COLA. Why not say what that information was and show where I had any access
> to it?
Because Carroll lied. If he sent such data I never saw it and had nothing
to share with you or anyone else. Carroll simply lied.
> Why not back your claim that Snit can't be a real teacher when you have linked
> to his colleges website where it is easy to find his name listed as an
> instructor so you know for a fact he is a teacher?
He does not back this claim because Carroll is an out and out liar. This is
yet another accusation he repeatedly makes and then runs from. On a Skype
recording he could not so easily do so.
> Why do you pretend he might be impersonating someone when your little slut
> bragged about tracking him down to be this person who works for the college
> you point to?
Carroll says you and I agree on all things - I do not agree with your
wording... but the question is a valid one. Carroll will not speak of why
he lies and pretended I was impersonating the person his then-girlfriend
bragged about tracking me down to and Carroll posted directions on how to
find what classes I teach.
> You claim Steve that you will answer questions in usenet and not run but all
> you do is run.
Absolutely true. Carroll runs from these questions *always*. On a
radio-format show he could not so easily do so.
> You will run from those questions because you are a coward.
> If you will not have a Skype chat with Snit how about with me where I will ask
> you each of those questions and share your running with all of COLA and CSMA.
I would love to hear it... but be careful to keep your identity secret from
him if you do this.
> Your word is crap Steve and you know it. Everyone who calls you on it is
> deemed by you a sock or shill.
Yes: Carroll makes those accusations repeatedly when he is called out on his
lies. He keeps tracks of every time he or his socks or others say bad
things about me but ignores how many times people call him out on his lies
saying it does not count because the person is my "sock or shill" - though
he never gives any evidence of the person being my sock (say *you*) or my
doing anything to encourage anyone to do anything outside of Usenet.
Carroll uses socks and shills and thinks others are like him... examples of
his "shills" are a couple of people from CSMA who it was clear they
literally had either severe learning disabilities or were borderline
retarded and Steve was able to draw them into his games. It was
unbelievably repulsive how he manipulated people with such problems.
> Why not list the names you have used on usenet? Yet another question you will
> run from.
Yes: Carroll claims to not run but he runs from this every time. And he
always will.
> You claim to not run but you do. On a Skype session you could not do that so
> you will never agree to talk to me on Skype. How about this: you claim I am a
> Snit sock. Speak to me on Skype and you will have proof my voice is not his.
Just be careful he cannot track you. He *will* contact your employer and
family and friends if he can track who you are... or at the very least
threaten.
> You do not know my voice so there should be no risk to me. You will not get
> what your accusations are really mean to dig up which is who I am. Come on
> Steve I have told you. I am one of the people you have harassed in CSMA to
> the point I left for my own safety. The problem for you is there are so many
> people you have harassed like that you have no idea who I am. Talk to me on
> Skype and see if you can figure it out.
I would love to listen to this recording. Carroll will never agree to it.
da23b6d4-019f-41fb...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
<onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:23:54 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> No, that's not what this post should really be titled... it should
>>
>> read:
>>
>> What's in a "frame of refernce"?
>>
>> Tim (the guy who firmly believes that his word is gold as compared to
>> mine for anyone on the planet about any topic) recently wrote the
>> following statement to Snit about the "situation" between Snit and I:
>>
>> "As I said before, with your situation I had no frame of refernce in
>> which to judge who was more likely to be right between you to."
>>
>> The facts show that Tim has a "frame of refernce" but he chooses to
>> ignore it... the pertinent Google archives that I have repeatedly
>> produced in this newsgroup (and sometimes specifically for Tim),
>> archives that have shown:
>>
>> Snit admitting to ID forgery
Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:23:54 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> No, that's not what this post should really be titled... it should
>>
>> read:
>>
>> What's in a "frame of refernce"?
>>
>> Tim (the guy who firmly believes that his word is gold as compared to
>> mine for anyone on the planet about any topic) recently wrote the
>> following statement to Snit about the "situation" between Snit and I:
>>
>> "As I said before, with your situation I had no frame of refernce in
>> which to judge who was more likely to be right between you to."
>>
>> The facts show that Tim has a "frame of refernce" but he chooses to
>> ignore it... the pertinent Google archives that I have repeatedly
>> produced in this newsgroup (and sometimes specifically for Tim),
>> archives that have shown:
>>
>> Snit admitting to ID forgery
>> Snit lying that he was 'dared' to engage in forgery during his
>> admission of it
>> Snit admitting to creating web pages devoted to antagonizing and
>> defaming someone
basing this on. Likely something from 2004 which I do not even recall.
>> Snit admitting to sexual harassment
was harassing me the benefit of the doubt... but it was proved later I was
wrong to do so: <http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations of marital infidelity
"road trips" to a woman other than his wife and later posted a map from his
house to hers - claiming she had moved from hours away from him to right
around the corner. He also noted, if I recall correctly, that his wife
found out about his actions and became quite upset.
>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that someone has "porn habits"
>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are racists
>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are bigots
>> Snit getting busted and admitting to sock puppetry (even in his
>> anxiety newsgroup)
different name on accident (Brock McNuggets) but using the same .sig and,
when I realized the mistake *my* noting it was me. That is not being
"busted" for using a "sock". Carroll is out and out lying.
>> Snit using over a dozen nyms in a span of less than a year to avoid
>> killfilters as documented by Elizabot
>> Snit creating a large number of trolling threads as documented by
>> Sandman in CSMA
>> Snit posting up emails between he and another poster (ed) without that
>> poster's permission (and doing so while having hypocritically stating
>> the had no desire for those emails to be publicm undoubtedly due to
>> the fact that they contained admissions to lies that ed mentioned they
>> contained
>> A lies of quotes made by posters of every persuasion that have all
>> labeled Snit a liar, troll or worse based on activity like the above
>> that they all have experience with.
what others say is not relevant. Notice the complete lack of quotes *from*
me... Carroll bases his attacks on what his socks (and some others) have
written about me. To make things even more insane for Carroll, some of
those quotes are from people Carroll accused of being my socks... so his
accusations are contradictory.
>> The above list is far from complete but it contains things I have
>> covered when Snit asks for proof of his "wrongs" (only to later whine
>> that I am "stalking" by providing them)... I covered them enough to
>> the point where it's ludicrous for Tim to claim not to have seen some
>> of them.
>> I'm waiting for Tim to show a "frame of refernce" for the
>> things that I have done that would convince a sane, honest and
>> honorable person that Snit is in the "right" in the "situation he and
>> I have between us.
>>
>> cue up Snit showing me doing one or more of the following:
>>
>> Handing *him* (not a TON of other posters, like he has on his list)
>> back a very,very tiny bit of what he regularly handed out.
You accuse me for your actions. This is what stalkers do... they blame
>>
>> Handing *him* (not a TON of other posters, like he has on his list)
>> back a very,very tiny bit of what he regularly handed out.
their victims. I do not blame you for anything I do.
>> Me, pointing to events or situations that sought to explain Snit's
>> bizarre usenet behavior (not justify it... explain it).
who troll me and the fact I post a lot. Other than that all you have is
quotes taken from context from 2004 which you insist must be re-hashed again
and again because you have not been able to move forward.
>> Me, making the reasonable claim that Snit can't possibly be a "real"
>> teacher and act on usenet the way he has
schools I teach at and describing how to track down which classes I teach.
Your girlfriend of 2004 even spoke of specific classes and how she tracked
down who I am. You lie when you claim I somehow "forged" this evidence...
as if I tricked you and her when and planted info for you to find.
In other words: and out and out lie by you.
>> Some other red herring BS Snit will drag it to make it appear I have
>> done what he has done above (a thing he will do in an attempt to shine
>> the light away from his "wrongs"), a thing he can never accomplish
harass and cyberstalk me, including tracking me to one of the places where I
work and threatening to contact my employer and lie with the intent on
having me get fired even if you have to "twist arms". You deny this but the
proof is in your own post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5ce16bd71bad1e12>
Those are your words, Carroll. You did exactly as I said. Notice how you
never back your accusations against me.
>>
>> As was pointed out by another poster, Tim likes to play 'divide and
>> conquer', let's see how persuasive Tim is as he tries to 'divide' Snit
>> from his many dishonest and dishonorable usenet deeds. Will he even
>> bother to try?
You make many accusations and cry when people do not fall over backwards
>> As was pointed out by another poster, Tim likes to play 'divide and
>> conquer', let's see how persuasive Tim is as he tries to 'divide' Snit
>> from his many dishonest and dishonorable usenet deeds. Will he even
>> bother to try?
believing a liar such as yourself.
>> My prediction: NO WAY!
>
> I asked you to back your claims and you never did. Where are the quotes? I
> bet if you have any they are taken out of context and are from 2004, the year
> you never left.
...
> Why do you accuse Snit of doing wrong when the proof is she was harassing him?
Because he was clearly and unambiguously involved with her in a romantic
relationship - or at least presented himself as being in one. He became
insanely jealous and angry when she became obsessed with me. Again, it has
been proved she was obsessed and harassed me:
<http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
> Why won't you talk about the fact that once the police got involved she
> stopped posting and Snit did not?
the victim so he snips and runs from this.
> Why do you blame him when the police clearly could tell the truth and it is
> not what you say?
> You have accused me of having access to information you sent Snit outside of
> COLA. Why not say what that information was and show where I had any access
> to it?
to share with you or anyone else. Carroll simply lied.
> Why not back your claim that Snit can't be a real teacher when you have linked
> to his colleges website where it is easy to find his name listed as an
> instructor so you know for a fact he is a teacher?
yet another accusation he repeatedly makes and then runs from. On a Skype
recording he could not so easily do so.
> Why do you pretend he might be impersonating someone when your little slut
> bragged about tracking him down to be this person who works for the college
> you point to?
wording... but the question is a valid one. Carroll will not speak of why
he lies and pretended I was impersonating the person his then-girlfriend
bragged about tracking me down to and Carroll posted directions on how to
find what classes I teach.
> You claim Steve that you will answer questions in usenet and not run but all
> you do is run.
radio-format show he could not so easily do so.
> You will run from those questions because you are a coward.
> If you will not have a Skype chat with Snit how about with me where I will ask
> you each of those questions and share your running with all of COLA and CSMA.
him if you do this.
> Your word is crap Steve and you know it. Everyone who calls you on it is
> deemed by you a sock or shill.
lies. He keeps tracks of every time he or his socks or others say bad
things about me but ignores how many times people call him out on his lies
saying it does not count because the person is my "sock or shill" - though
he never gives any evidence of the person being my sock (say *you*) or my
doing anything to encourage anyone to do anything outside of Usenet.
Carroll uses socks and shills and thinks others are like him... examples of
his "shills" are a couple of people from CSMA who it was clear they
literally had either severe learning disabilities or were borderline
retarded and Steve was able to draw them into his games. It was
unbelievably repulsive how he manipulated people with such problems.
> Why not list the names you have used on usenet? Yet another question you will
> run from.
always will.
> You claim to not run but you do. On a Skype session you could not do that so
> you will never agree to talk to me on Skype. How about this: you claim I am a
> Snit sock. Speak to me on Skype and you will have proof my voice is not his.
family and friends if he can track who you are... or at the very least
threaten.
> You do not know my voice so there should be no risk to me. You will not get
> what your accusations are really mean to dig up which is who I am. Come on
> Steve I have told you. I am one of the people you have harassed in CSMA to
> the point I left for my own safety. The problem for you is there are so many
> people you have harassed like that you have no idea who I am. Talk to me on
> Skype and see if you can figure it out.
Steve Carroll
Aug 11, 2012, 1:12:04 AM8/11/12
to
Onion Knight
Aug 11, 2012, 1:24:20 AM8/11/12
to
Snit
Aug 11, 2012, 1:46:11 AM8/11/12
to
On 8/10/12 8:54 PM, in article CC4B257B.7883%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
proof, his response (a complete lack of response):
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/LRYkcLXQyKs/HhOj9kRR
_JcJ> OR <http://goo.gl/JURFB>.
>>> Snit lying that he was 'dared' to engage in forgery during his
>>> admission of it
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit admitting to creating web pages devoted to antagonizing and
>>> defaming someone
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll... I have no idea what he is even
> basing this on. Likely something from 2004 which I do not even recall.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit admitting to sexual harassment
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll based on my having given someone who
> was harassing me the benefit of the doubt... but it was proved later I was
> wrong to do so: <http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations of marital infidelity
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll. He was very open in 2004 about his
> "road trips" to a woman other than his wife and later posted a map from his
> house to hers - claiming she had moved from hours away from him to right
> around the corner. He also noted, if I recall correctly, that his wife
> found out about his actions and became quite upset.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that someone has "porn habits"
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are racists
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are bigots
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit getting busted and admitting to sock puppetry (even in his
>>> anxiety newsgroup)
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll. This was based on my using a
> different name on accident (Brock McNuggets) but using the same .sig and,
> when I realized the mistake *my* noting it was me. That is not being
> "busted" for using a "sock". Carroll is out and out lying.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit using over a dozen nyms in a span of less than a year to avoid
>>> killfilters as documented by Elizabot
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit creating a large number of trolling threads as documented by
>>> Sandman in CSMA
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Snit posting up emails between he and another poster (ed) without that
>>> poster's permission (and doing so while having hypocritically stating
>>> the had no desire for those emails to be publicm undoubtedly due to
>>> the fact that they contained admissions to lies that ed mentioned they
>>> contained
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2008 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> A lies of quotes made by posters of every persuasion that have all
>>> labeled Snit a liar, troll or worse based on activity like the above
>>> that they all have experience with.
>
> Many of these quotes are forged by Steve and his "buddies" in COLA... and
> what others say is not relevant. Notice the complete lack of quotes *from*
> me... Carroll bases his attacks on what his socks (and some others) have
> written about me. To make things even more insane for Carroll, some of
> those quotes are from people Carroll accused of being my socks... so his
> accusations are contradictory.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> The above list is far from complete but it contains things I have
>>> covered when Snit asks for proof of his "wrongs" (only to later whine
>>> that I am "stalking" by providing them)... I covered them enough to
>>> the point where it's ludicrous for Tim to claim not to have seen some
>>> of them.
>
> The fact you repeatedly lie about me proves my point about you.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> I'm waiting for Tim to show a "frame of refernce" for the
>>> things that I have done that would convince a sane, honest and
>>> honorable person that Snit is in the "right" in the "situation he and
>>> I have between us.
>>>
>>> cue up Snit showing me doing one or more of the following:
>>>
>>> Handing *him* (not a TON of other posters, like he has on his list)
>>> back a very,very tiny bit of what he regularly handed out.
>
> You accuse me for your actions. This is what stalkers do... they blame
> their victims. I do not blame you for anything I do.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Me, pointing to events or situations that sought to explain Snit's
>>> bizarre usenet behavior (not justify it... explain it).
>
> You cannot point to any such behavior accept my tendency to respond to those
> who troll me and the fact I post a lot. Other than that all you have is
> quotes taken from context from 2004 which you insist must be re-hashed again
> and again because you have not been able to move forward.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Me, making the reasonable claim that Snit can't possibly be a "real"
>>> teacher and act on usenet the way he has
>
> Yes: you have told that lie many times while also pointing to one of the
> schools I teach at and describing how to track down which classes I teach.
> Your girlfriend of 2004 even spoke of specific classes and how she tracked
> down who I am. You lie when you claim I somehow "forged" this evidence...
> as if I tricked you and her when and planted info for you to find.
>
> In other words: and out and out lie by you.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> Some other red herring BS Snit will drag it to make it appear I have
>>> done what he has done above (a thing he will do in an attempt to shine
>>> the light away from his "wrongs"), a thing he can never accomplish
>
> I do not claim you have done what I have done - I note you do what you do:
> harass and cyberstalk me, including tracking me to one of the places where I
> work and threatening to contact my employer and lie with the intent on
> having me get fired even if you have to "twist arms". You deny this but the
> proof is in your own post:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5ce16bd71bad1e12>
>
> Those are your words, Carroll. You did exactly as I said. Notice how you
> never back your accusations against me.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. He has *no* defense for his proved
wrong doings.
>>> As was pointed out by another poster, Tim likes to play 'divide and
>>> conquer', let's see how persuasive Tim is as he tries to 'divide' Snit
>>> from his many dishonest and dishonorable usenet deeds. Will he even
>>> bother to try?
>
> You make many accusations and cry when people do not fall over backwards
> believing a liar such as yourself.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS.
>>> My prediction: NO WAY!
>>
>> I asked you to back your claims and you never did. Where are the quotes? I
>> bet if you have any they are taken out of context and are from 2004, the year
>> you never left.
>
> Exactly correct.
>
> ...
>
>> Why do you accuse Snit of doing wrong when the proof is she was harassing
>> him?
>
> Because he was clearly and unambiguously involved with her in a romantic
> relationship - or at least presented himself as being in one. He became
> insanely jealous and angry when she became obsessed with me. Again, it has
> been proved she was obsessed and harassed me:
> <http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS nor
can he defend his obvious wrong doings.
>> Why won't you talk about the fact that once the police got involved she
>> stopped posting and Snit did not?
>
> This goes against Carroll's false narrative where his then-girlfriend was
> the victim so he snips and runs from this.
Of course no comment from Carroll. He claims on Usenet he does not run...
but that is all he does when faced with his false accusations, his
disreputable behavior, and his other wrong doing and lies. He is a coward
who cannot answer for any of this.
>> Why do you blame him when the police clearly could tell the truth and it is
>> not what you say?
>
> Same reason: it goes against his false narrative of her being the victim.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> You have accused me of having access to information you sent Snit outside of
>> COLA. Why not say what that information was and show where I had any access
>> to it?
>
> Because Carroll lied. If he sent such data I never saw it and had nothing
> to share with you or anyone else. Carroll simply lied.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> Why not back your claim that Snit can't be a real teacher when you have
>> linked
>> to his colleges website where it is easy to find his name listed as an
>> instructor so you know for a fact he is a teacher?
>
> He does not back this claim because Carroll is an out and out liar. This is
> yet another accusation he repeatedly makes and then runs from. On a Skype
> recording he could not so easily do so.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. No wonder he puts down radio-type
shows where he could no so easily run.
>> Why do you pretend he might be impersonating someone when your little slut
>> bragged about tracking him down to be this person who works for the college
>> you point to?
>
> Carroll says you and I agree on all things - I do not agree with your
> wording... but the question is a valid one. Carroll will not speak of why
> he lies and pretended I was impersonating the person his then-girlfriend
> bragged about tracking me down to and Carroll posted directions on how to
> find what classes I teach.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> You claim Steve that you will answer questions in usenet and not run but all
>> you do is run.
>
> Absolutely true. Carroll runs from these questions *always*. On a
> radio-format show he could not so easily do so.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. As predicted.
>> You will run from those questions because you are a coward. If you will not
>> have a Skype chat with Snit how about with me where I will ask you each of
>> those questions and share your running with all of COLA and CSMA.
>>
> I would love to hear it... but be careful to keep your identity secret from
> him if you do this.
Carroll will *never* do this... on a radio-format show he could not as
easily run as he does on Usenet (and is proving he does even today... poor
guy... he is just such a sad little coward).
>> Your word is crap Steve and you know it. Everyone who calls you on it is
>> deemed by you a sock or shill.
>
> Yes: Carroll makes those accusations repeatedly when he is called out on his
> lies. He keeps tracks of every time he or his socks or others say bad
> things about me but ignores how many times people call him out on his lies
> saying it does not count because the person is my "sock or shill" - though
> he never gives any evidence of the person being my sock (say *you*) or my
> doing anything to encourage anyone to do anything outside of Usenet.
> Carroll uses socks and shills and thinks others are like him... examples of
> his "shills" are a couple of people from CSMA who it was clear they
> literally had either severe learning disabilities or were borderline
> retarded and Steve was able to draw them into his games. It was
> unbelievably repulsive how he manipulated people with such problems.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran.
>> Why not list the names you have used on usenet? Yet another question you
>> will run from.
>
> Yes: Carroll claims to not run but he runs from this every time. And he
> always will.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. He will *never* share any such
list... another reason he would not be on a radio-format show.
>> You claim to not run but you do. On a Skype session you could not do that so
>> you will never agree to talk to me on Skype. How about this: you claim I am
>> a Snit sock. Speak to me on Skype and you will have proof my voice is not
>> his.
>>
> Just be careful he cannot track you. He *will* contact your employer and
> family and friends if he can track who you are... or at the very least
> threaten.
>
>> You do not know my voice so there should be no risk to me. You will not get
>> what your accusations are really mean to dig up which is who I am. Come on
>> Steve I have told you. I am one of the people you have harassed in CSMA to
>> the point I left for my own safety. The problem for you is there are so many
>> people you have harassed like that you have no idea who I am. Talk to me on
>> Skype and see if you can figure it out.
>
> I would love to listen to this recording. Carroll will never agree to it.
And, as predicted, Carroll is not able to offer a single shred of evidence
for his mass of accusations... nor explain his own behavior or answer a
single question. Not one.
Almost feel sorry for my stalker - the best he can do is snip and run when
faced with his own accusations and actions. He is so clearly scared and
unable to defend his BS.
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/10/12 7:21 PM, in article
> da23b6d4-019f-41fb...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
> <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:23:54 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> No, that's not what this post should really be titled... it should
>>>
>>> read:
>>>
>>> What's in a "frame of refernce"?
>>>
>>> Tim (the guy who firmly believes that his word is gold as compared to mine
>>> for anyone on the planet about any topic) recently wrote the following
>>> statement to Snit about the "situation" between Snit and I:
>>>
>>> "As I said before, with your situation I had no frame of refernce in which
>>> to judge who was more likely to be right between you to."
>>>
>>> The facts show that Tim has a "frame of refernce" but he chooses to ignore
>>> it... the pertinent Google archives that I have repeatedly produced in this
>>> newsgroup (and sometimes specifically for Tim), archives that have shown:
>>>
>>> Snit admitting to ID forgery
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS. The
> On 8/10/12 7:21 PM, in article
> da23b6d4-019f-41fb...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
> <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:23:54 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> No, that's not what this post should really be titled... it should
>>>
>>> read:
>>>
>>> What's in a "frame of refernce"?
>>>
>>> Tim (the guy who firmly believes that his word is gold as compared to mine
>>> for anyone on the planet about any topic) recently wrote the following
>>> statement to Snit about the "situation" between Snit and I:
>>>
>>> "As I said before, with your situation I had no frame of refernce in which
>>> to judge who was more likely to be right between you to."
>>>
>>> The facts show that Tim has a "frame of refernce" but he chooses to ignore
>>> it... the pertinent Google archives that I have repeatedly produced in this
>>> newsgroup (and sometimes specifically for Tim), archives that have shown:
>>>
>>> Snit admitting to ID forgery
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
proof, his response (a complete lack of response):
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/LRYkcLXQyKs/HhOj9kRR
_JcJ> OR <http://goo.gl/JURFB>.
>>> Snit lying that he was 'dared' to engage in forgery during his
>>> admission of it
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
>>> Snit admitting to creating web pages devoted to antagonizing and
>>> defaming someone
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll... I have no idea what he is even
> basing this on. Likely something from 2004 which I do not even recall.
>>> Snit admitting to sexual harassment
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll based on my having given someone who
> was harassing me the benefit of the doubt... but it was proved later I was
> wrong to do so: <http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations of marital infidelity
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll. He was very open in 2004 about his
> "road trips" to a woman other than his wife and later posted a map from his
> house to hers - claiming she had moved from hours away from him to right
> around the corner. He also noted, if I recall correctly, that his wife
> found out about his actions and became quite upset.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that someone has "porn habits"
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are racists
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
>>> Snit making unsubstantiated allegations that people are bigots
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
>>> Snit getting busted and admitting to sock puppetry (even in his
>>> anxiety newsgroup)
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll. This was based on my using a
> different name on accident (Brock McNuggets) but using the same .sig and,
> when I realized the mistake *my* noting it was me. That is not being
> "busted" for using a "sock". Carroll is out and out lying.
>>> Snit using over a dozen nyms in a span of less than a year to avoid
>>> killfilters as documented by Elizabot
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
>>> Snit creating a large number of trolling threads as documented by
>>> Sandman in CSMA
>
> A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
>>> Snit posting up emails between he and another poster (ed) without that
>>> poster's permission (and doing so while having hypocritically stating
>>> the had no desire for those emails to be publicm undoubtedly due to
>>> the fact that they contained admissions to lies that ed mentioned they
>>> contained
>
> Gross twisting of truth... from 2008 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
>>> A lies of quotes made by posters of every persuasion that have all
>>> labeled Snit a liar, troll or worse based on activity like the above
>>> that they all have experience with.
>
> Many of these quotes are forged by Steve and his "buddies" in COLA... and
> what others say is not relevant. Notice the complete lack of quotes *from*
> me... Carroll bases his attacks on what his socks (and some others) have
> written about me. To make things even more insane for Carroll, some of
> those quotes are from people Carroll accused of being my socks... so his
> accusations are contradictory.
>>> The above list is far from complete but it contains things I have
>>> covered when Snit asks for proof of his "wrongs" (only to later whine
>>> that I am "stalking" by providing them)... I covered them enough to
>>> the point where it's ludicrous for Tim to claim not to have seen some
>>> of them.
>
> The fact you repeatedly lie about me proves my point about you.
>>> I'm waiting for Tim to show a "frame of refernce" for the
>>> things that I have done that would convince a sane, honest and
>>> honorable person that Snit is in the "right" in the "situation he and
>>> I have between us.
>>>
>>> cue up Snit showing me doing one or more of the following:
>>>
>>> Handing *him* (not a TON of other posters, like he has on his list)
>>> back a very,very tiny bit of what he regularly handed out.
>
> You accuse me for your actions. This is what stalkers do... they blame
> their victims. I do not blame you for anything I do.
>>> Me, pointing to events or situations that sought to explain Snit's
>>> bizarre usenet behavior (not justify it... explain it).
>
> You cannot point to any such behavior accept my tendency to respond to those
> who troll me and the fact I post a lot. Other than that all you have is
> quotes taken from context from 2004 which you insist must be re-hashed again
> and again because you have not been able to move forward.
>>> Me, making the reasonable claim that Snit can't possibly be a "real"
>>> teacher and act on usenet the way he has
>
> Yes: you have told that lie many times while also pointing to one of the
> schools I teach at and describing how to track down which classes I teach.
> Your girlfriend of 2004 even spoke of specific classes and how she tracked
> down who I am. You lie when you claim I somehow "forged" this evidence...
> as if I tricked you and her when and planted info for you to find.
>
> In other words: and out and out lie by you.
>>> Some other red herring BS Snit will drag it to make it appear I have
>>> done what he has done above (a thing he will do in an attempt to shine
>>> the light away from his "wrongs"), a thing he can never accomplish
>
> I do not claim you have done what I have done - I note you do what you do:
> harass and cyberstalk me, including tracking me to one of the places where I
> work and threatening to contact my employer and lie with the intent on
> having me get fired even if you have to "twist arms". You deny this but the
> proof is in your own post:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5ce16bd71bad1e12>
>
> Those are your words, Carroll. You did exactly as I said. Notice how you
> never back your accusations against me.
wrong doings.
>>> As was pointed out by another poster, Tim likes to play 'divide and
>>> conquer', let's see how persuasive Tim is as he tries to 'divide' Snit
>>> from his many dishonest and dishonorable usenet deeds. Will he even
>>> bother to try?
>
> You make many accusations and cry when people do not fall over backwards
> believing a liar such as yourself.
>>> My prediction: NO WAY!
>>
>> I asked you to back your claims and you never did. Where are the quotes? I
>> bet if you have any they are taken out of context and are from 2004, the year
>> you never left.
>
> Exactly correct.
>
> ...
>
>> Why do you accuse Snit of doing wrong when the proof is she was harassing
>> him?
>
> Because he was clearly and unambiguously involved with her in a romantic
> relationship - or at least presented himself as being in one. He became
> insanely jealous and angry when she became obsessed with me. Again, it has
> been proved she was obsessed and harassed me:
> <http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>.
can he defend his obvious wrong doings.
>> Why won't you talk about the fact that once the police got involved she
>> stopped posting and Snit did not?
>
> This goes against Carroll's false narrative where his then-girlfriend was
> the victim so he snips and runs from this.
but that is all he does when faced with his false accusations, his
disreputable behavior, and his other wrong doing and lies. He is a coward
who cannot answer for any of this.
>> Why do you blame him when the police clearly could tell the truth and it is
>> not what you say?
>
> Same reason: it goes against his false narrative of her being the victim.
>> You have accused me of having access to information you sent Snit outside of
>> COLA. Why not say what that information was and show where I had any access
>> to it?
>
> Because Carroll lied. If he sent such data I never saw it and had nothing
> to share with you or anyone else. Carroll simply lied.
>> Why not back your claim that Snit can't be a real teacher when you have
>> linked
>> to his colleges website where it is easy to find his name listed as an
>> instructor so you know for a fact he is a teacher?
>
> He does not back this claim because Carroll is an out and out liar. This is
> yet another accusation he repeatedly makes and then runs from. On a Skype
> recording he could not so easily do so.
shows where he could no so easily run.
>> Why do you pretend he might be impersonating someone when your little slut
>> bragged about tracking him down to be this person who works for the college
>> you point to?
>
> Carroll says you and I agree on all things - I do not agree with your
> wording... but the question is a valid one. Carroll will not speak of why
> he lies and pretended I was impersonating the person his then-girlfriend
> bragged about tracking me down to and Carroll posted directions on how to
> find what classes I teach.
>> You claim Steve that you will answer questions in usenet and not run but all
>> you do is run.
>
> Absolutely true. Carroll runs from these questions *always*. On a
> radio-format show he could not so easily do so.
>> You will run from those questions because you are a coward. If you will not
>> have a Skype chat with Snit how about with me where I will ask you each of
>> those questions and share your running with all of COLA and CSMA.
>>
> I would love to hear it... but be careful to keep your identity secret from
> him if you do this.
easily run as he does on Usenet (and is proving he does even today... poor
guy... he is just such a sad little coward).
>> Your word is crap Steve and you know it. Everyone who calls you on it is
>> deemed by you a sock or shill.
>
> Yes: Carroll makes those accusations repeatedly when he is called out on his
> lies. He keeps tracks of every time he or his socks or others say bad
> things about me but ignores how many times people call him out on his lies
> saying it does not count because the person is my "sock or shill" - though
> he never gives any evidence of the person being my sock (say *you*) or my
> doing anything to encourage anyone to do anything outside of Usenet.
> Carroll uses socks and shills and thinks others are like him... examples of
> his "shills" are a couple of people from CSMA who it was clear they
> literally had either severe learning disabilities or were borderline
> retarded and Steve was able to draw them into his games. It was
> unbelievably repulsive how he manipulated people with such problems.
>> Why not list the names you have used on usenet? Yet another question you
>> will run from.
>
> Yes: Carroll claims to not run but he runs from this every time. And he
> always will.
list... another reason he would not be on a radio-format show.
>> You claim to not run but you do. On a Skype session you could not do that so
>> you will never agree to talk to me on Skype. How about this: you claim I am
>> a Snit sock. Speak to me on Skype and you will have proof my voice is not
>> his.
>>
> Just be careful he cannot track you. He *will* contact your employer and
> family and friends if he can track who you are... or at the very least
> threaten.
>
>> You do not know my voice so there should be no risk to me. You will not get
>> what your accusations are really mean to dig up which is who I am. Come on
>> Steve I have told you. I am one of the people you have harassed in CSMA to
>> the point I left for my own safety. The problem for you is there are so many
>> people you have harassed like that you have no idea who I am. Talk to me on
>> Skype and see if you can figure it out.
>
> I would love to listen to this recording. Carroll will never agree to it.
for his mass of accusations... nor explain his own behavior or answer a
single question. Not one.
Almost feel sorry for my stalker - the best he can do is snip and run when
faced with his own accusations and actions. He is so clearly scared and
unable to defend his BS.
Snit
Aug 11, 2012, 1:49:48 AM8/11/12
to
On 8/10/12 10:46 PM, in article CC4B3FB3.78B0%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/10/12 8:54 PM, in article CC4B257B.7883%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/10/12 7:21 PM, in article
>> da23b6d4-019f-41fb...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>> <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:23:54 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> No, that's not what this post should really be titled... it should
>>>>
>>>> read:
>>>>
>>>> What's in a "frame of refernce"?
>>>>
>>>> Tim (the guy who firmly believes that his word is gold as compared to mine
>>>> for anyone on the planet about any topic) recently wrote the following
>>>> statement to Snit about the "situation" between Snit and I:
>>>>
>>>> "As I said before, with your situation I had no frame of refernce in which
>>>> to judge who was more likely to be right between you to."
>>>>
>>>> The facts show that Tim has a "frame of refernce" but he chooses to ignore
>>>> it... the pertinent Google archives that I have repeatedly produced in this
>>>> newsgroup (and sometimes specifically for Tim), archives that have shown:
>>>>
>>>> Snit admitting to ID forgery
>>
>> Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
>
> No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS. The
> proof, his response (a complete lack of response):
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/LRYkcLXQyKs/HhOj9kRR
> _JcJ> OR <http://goo.gl/JURFB>.
Seems short URL does not work... this one should: <http://goo.gl/rGZMe>
> On 8/10/12 8:54 PM, in article CC4B257B.7883%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/10/12 7:21 PM, in article
>> da23b6d4-019f-41fb...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>> <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:23:54 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> No, that's not what this post should really be titled... it should
>>>>
>>>> read:
>>>>
>>>> What's in a "frame of refernce"?
>>>>
>>>> Tim (the guy who firmly believes that his word is gold as compared to mine
>>>> for anyone on the planet about any topic) recently wrote the following
>>>> statement to Snit about the "situation" between Snit and I:
>>>>
>>>> "As I said before, with your situation I had no frame of refernce in which
>>>> to judge who was more likely to be right between you to."
>>>>
>>>> The facts show that Tim has a "frame of refernce" but he chooses to ignore
>>>> it... the pertinent Google archives that I have repeatedly produced in this
>>>> newsgroup (and sometimes specifically for Tim), archives that have shown:
>>>>
>>>> Snit admitting to ID forgery
>>
>> Gross twisting of truth... from 2004 or so. Not worth re-hashing *again*.
>
> No comment from Carroll. He simply ran. Not even he believes his BS. The
> proof, his response (a complete lack of response):
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/LRYkcLXQyKs/HhOj9kRR
> _JcJ> OR <http://goo.gl/JURFB>.
Onion Knight
Aug 11, 2012, 2:05:54 AM8/11/12
to
William Poaster
Aug 11, 2012, 6:30:45 AM8/11/12
to
Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 11/8/2012 04:04, wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Hey, do not group me as being like my stalker. I am nothing like him. I do
>> not follow him from forum to forum and speak of him in pretty much my every
>> post and lie about him
>
> Of *course* you don't, Onion Knight. :-D
<nudge, nudge> <wink, wink>
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Hey, do not group me as being like my stalker. I am nothing like him. I do
>> not follow him from forum to forum and speak of him in pretty much my every
>> post and lie about him
>
> Of *course* you don't, Onion Knight. :-D
--
Linux - for IQs greater than 2000
Micro$oft, the company that makes spreading malware easy.
Microsoft exec Ron Markezich was quoted saying that for every $1
companies spend on Microsoft software, they need to spend $6 getting
it to work right. -- April 2011 SanFrancisco Chronical --
"We have no intention of shipping another bloated OS and shoving
it down the throats of our users."
-- Paul Maritz, Microsoft group vice president --
What's bad about Micro$oft:
http://www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.html
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 11, 2012, 9:43:44 AM8/11/12
to
Snit wrote:
> No
Snit starts yet another thread concerning something discussed in other
threads.
Snit is a troll.
> No
Snit starts yet another thread concerning something discussed in other
threads.
Snit is a troll.
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 11, 2012, 9:44:51 AM8/11/12
to
Onion Knight wrote:
> why not be on a radio-style show with me
Your whiny, nasal voice will give you away, Snit, I mean "Onion Knight". :-P
> why not be on a radio-style show with me
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 11, 2012, 9:46:06 AM8/11/12
to
Onion Knight wrote:
> Snit
Why don't you and Snit get a room since you're so affectionate towards each
other?
Oh.... you are Snit... my bad.
> Snit
Why don't you and Snit get a room since you're so affectionate towards each
other?
Oh.... you are Snit... my bad.
William Poaster
Aug 11, 2012, 10:23:24 AM8/11/12
to
Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 11/8/2012 14:44, wrote:
> Onion Knight wrote:
>
>> why not be on a radio-style show with me
>
> Your whiny, nasal voice will give you away, Snit, I mean "Onion Knight". :-P
Snit & "Onion Knight" on a radio-style show. Oh, man!
> Onion Knight wrote:
>
>> why not be on a radio-style show with me
>
> Your whiny, nasal voice will give you away, Snit, I mean "Onion Knight". :-P
*GUFFAW*
--
"Please excuse Faltfish for being. It was his father's fault."
Foster
Aug 11, 2012, 10:33:53 AM8/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:23:24 +0100, William Poaster wrote:
> Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 11/8/2012 14:44, wrote:
>
>> Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>>> why not be on a radio-style show with me
>>
>> Your whiny, nasal voice will give you away, Snit, I mean "Onion Knight". :-P
>
> Snit & "Onion Knight" on a radio-style show. Oh, man!
> *GUFFAW*
It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
> Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 11/8/2012 14:44, wrote:
>
>> Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>>> why not be on a radio-style show with me
>>
>> Your whiny, nasal voice will give you away, Snit, I mean "Onion Knight". :-P
>
> Snit & "Onion Knight" on a radio-style show. Oh, man!
> *GUFFAW*
http://easyandelegantlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/push_me_pull_you.jpg
Steve Carroll
Aug 11, 2012, 10:36:21 AM8/11/12
to
On Aug 11, 4:30 am, William Poaster <w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 11/8/2012 04:04, wrote:
>
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> Hey, do not group me as being like my stalker. I am nothing like him. I do
> >> not follow him from forum to forum and speak of him in pretty much my every
> >> post and lie about him
>
> > Of *course* you don't, Onion Knight. :-D
>
> <nudge, nudge> <wink, wink>
Hehe ;) My kids just started watching... they love em' (as do I).
> Here is a facsimile from Tattoo Vampire who, on 11/8/2012 04:04, wrote:
>
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> Hey, do not group me as being like my stalker. I am nothing like him. I do
> >> not follow him from forum to forum and speak of him in pretty much my every
> >> post and lie about him
>
> > Of *course* you don't, Onion Knight. :-D
>
> <nudge, nudge> <wink, wink>
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 11, 2012, 12:55:40 PM8/11/12
to
William Poaster wrote:
> Snit & "Onion Knight" on a radio-style show. Oh, man!
> *GUFFAW*
Onion Knight will be the sock puppet on Snit's right hand.
> Snit & "Onion Knight" on a radio-style show. Oh, man!
> *GUFFAW*
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 11, 2012, 12:58:10 PM8/11/12
to
Foster wrote:
> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
Hadron
Aug 11, 2012, 1:05:36 PM8/11/12
to
Tattoo Vampire <sit...@this.computer> writes:
> Foster wrote:
>
>> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>
> LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>
> http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
Ahlstrom could sit on the other fist if sMarti has taken up the offer.
> Foster wrote:
>
>> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>
> LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>
> http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
--
A certain COLA "advocate" faking his user-agent in order to pretend to be a Linux
user: User-Agent: Outlook 5.5 (WinNT 5.0), User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0
(Linux), Message-ID: <wPGdnd3NnOM...@comcast.com>
Steve Carroll
Aug 11, 2012, 1:14:05 PM8/11/12
to
On Aug 11, 11:05 am, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Which one is which?
> Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> writes:
> > Foster wrote:
>
> >> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>
> > LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>
> >http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
>
> Ahlstrom could sit on the other fist if sMarti has taken up the offer.
http://www.starscolor.com/images/edgar-bergen-02.jpg
> > Foster wrote:
>
> >> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>
> > LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>
> >http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
>
> Ahlstrom could sit on the other fist if sMarti has taken up the offer.
Which one is which?
Snit
Aug 11, 2012, 1:59:40 PM8/11/12
to
On 8/11/12 9:55 AM, in article 4ix83lmo...@sitting.at.this.computer,
COLA react to hearing multiple voices.
Then again, they would just say I used a stand in or something... sometimes
people are so stuck on the dishonest attacks they cannot let go of them.
So let me ask you: if I Skype with Onion Knight and he and I do not have the
same voice you admit your accusations are wrong? If so I will ask Onion
Knight to do this... if not then what is the point, at least in terms of
proving the idiotic accusations against us to be false?
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> Snit & "Onion Knight" on a radio-style show. Oh, man!
>> *GUFFAW*
>
> Onion Knight will be the sock puppet on Snit's right hand.
I would be willing to do it... would be interesting to see how the idiots of
> William Poaster wrote:
>
>> Snit & "Onion Knight" on a radio-style show. Oh, man!
>> *GUFFAW*
>
> Onion Knight will be the sock puppet on Snit's right hand.
COLA react to hearing multiple voices.
Then again, they would just say I used a stand in or something... sometimes
people are so stuck on the dishonest attacks they cannot let go of them.
So let me ask you: if I Skype with Onion Knight and he and I do not have the
same voice you admit your accusations are wrong? If so I will ask Onion
Knight to do this... if not then what is the point, at least in terms of
proving the idiotic accusations against us to be false?
Chris Ahlstrom
Aug 11, 2012, 2:07:04 PM8/11/12
to
After swilling some grog, Tattoo Vampire belched this bit o' wisdom:
> Foster wrote:
>
>> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>
> LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>
> http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
Looks like cc and Foster to me.
Just glad it wasn't "The Beast with Two Backs".
--
Thats because you are a boss eyed idiot. You can not see 2 feet in
front of your repugnant, bitter little face.
--- Pro-Micro$oft Internet thug "Hadron" Quark
> Foster wrote:
>
>> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>
> LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>
> http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
Just glad it wasn't "The Beast with Two Backs".
--
Thats because you are a boss eyed idiot. You can not see 2 feet in
front of your repugnant, bitter little face.
--- Pro-Micro$oft Internet thug "Hadron" Quark
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 11, 2012, 2:19:32 PM8/11/12
to
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Just glad it wasn't "The Beast with Two Backs".
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-D
> Just glad it wasn't "The Beast with Two Backs".
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 11, 2012, 2:20:35 PM8/11/12
to
Snit wrote:
> So let me ask you: if I Skype with Onion Knight and he and I do not have the
> same voice you admit your accusations are wrong? If so I will ask Onion
> Knight to do this... if not then what is the point, at least in terms of
> proving the idiotic accusations against us to be false?
(Snit looks in mirror to ask himself a question)
> So let me ask you: if I Skype with Onion Knight and he and I do not have the
> same voice you admit your accusations are wrong? If so I will ask Onion
> Knight to do this... if not then what is the point, at least in terms of
> proving the idiotic accusations against us to be false?
Snit
Aug 11, 2012, 2:50:41 PM8/11/12
to
On 8/11/12 11:20 AM, in article 110ebd4y...@sitting.at.this.computer,
this were to happen - or if it was just Onion Knight and I since my stalker
is too cowardly to account for his own actions or back his accusations -
would you accept the fact that Onion Knight and I are not the same person.
If you say yes then I will ask Onion Knight when we can do this - hopefully
over the next few days. If not then what is the point? I am just curious
if you will accept proof of your accusations being false as something which
would lead you to admitting you are wrong.
I doubt it... you make accusations to get attention, not to actually show a
belief in something. But maybe you will surprise me... or maybe someone
else will jump in and say they will drop their false accusations if I were
to do this.
Not that it really matters - it is not as if anyone believes these
accusations... people are not *that* stupid. At least I hope not. :) The
game now is just to see how far people will go to push their accusations
they have no evidence for and, almost surely, no belief in.
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> So let me ask you: if I Skype with Onion Knight and he and I do not have the
>> same voice you admit your accusations are wrong? If so I will ask Onion
>> Knight to do this... if not then what is the point, at least in terms of
>> proving the idiotic accusations against us to be false?
>
> (Snit looks in mirror to ask himself a question)
I am asking you. Onion Knight has offered to Skype with Carroll and I. If
> Snit wrote:
>
>> So let me ask you: if I Skype with Onion Knight and he and I do not have the
>> same voice you admit your accusations are wrong? If so I will ask Onion
>> Knight to do this... if not then what is the point, at least in terms of
>> proving the idiotic accusations against us to be false?
>
> (Snit looks in mirror to ask himself a question)
this were to happen - or if it was just Onion Knight and I since my stalker
is too cowardly to account for his own actions or back his accusations -
would you accept the fact that Onion Knight and I are not the same person.
If you say yes then I will ask Onion Knight when we can do this - hopefully
over the next few days. If not then what is the point? I am just curious
if you will accept proof of your accusations being false as something which
would lead you to admitting you are wrong.
I doubt it... you make accusations to get attention, not to actually show a
belief in something. But maybe you will surprise me... or maybe someone
else will jump in and say they will drop their false accusations if I were
to do this.
Not that it really matters - it is not as if anyone believes these
accusations... people are not *that* stupid. At least I hope not. :) The
game now is just to see how far people will go to push their accusations
they have no evidence for and, almost surely, no belief in.
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 11, 2012, 2:58:46 PM8/11/12
to
Snit wrote:
> I am asking you. Onion Knight has offered to Skype with Carroll and I. If
> this were to happen - or if it was just Onion Knight and I since my stalker
> is too cowardly to account for his own actions or back his accusations -
> would you accept the fact that Onion Knight and I are not the same person.
Of course I would. Problem - I don't Skype so you'll have to record the
> I am asking you. Onion Knight has offered to Skype with Carroll and I. If
> this were to happen - or if it was just Onion Knight and I since my stalker
> is too cowardly to account for his own actions or back his accusations -
> would you accept the fact that Onion Knight and I are not the same person.
session.
Snit
Aug 11, 2012, 3:02:05 PM8/11/12
to
On 8/11/12 11:58 AM, in article 1w3trwd2...@sitting.at.this.computer,
your accusation was wrong. Excellent.
Onion Knight? Are you game? I am open to this. Would love to do it.
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I am asking you. Onion Knight has offered to Skype with Carroll and I. If
>> this were to happen - or if it was just Onion Knight and I since my stalker
>> is too cowardly to account for his own actions or back his accusations -
>> would you accept the fact that Onion Knight and I are not the same person.
>
> Of course I would. Problem - I don't Skype so you'll have to record the
> session.
Ok, so if Onion Knight and I record a Skype session you will acknowledge
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I am asking you. Onion Knight has offered to Skype with Carroll and I. If
>> this were to happen - or if it was just Onion Knight and I since my stalker
>> is too cowardly to account for his own actions or back his accusations -
>> would you accept the fact that Onion Knight and I are not the same person.
>
> Of course I would. Problem - I don't Skype so you'll have to record the
> session.
your accusation was wrong. Excellent.
Onion Knight? Are you game? I am open to this. Would love to do it.
Steve Carroll
Aug 11, 2012, 2:49:58 PM8/11/12
to
On Aug 11, 11:59 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/11/12 9:55 AM, in article 4ix83lmoh0rw....@sitting.at.this.computer,
that will fool people? It certainly won't fool people who watched you
engage some of your "students" into attacking the regulars in CSMA.
The people in COLA saw what Onion Knight has done. It's truly amazing
that you believe people are *this* stupid.
> Then again, they would just say I used a stand in or something
Ya think? A person comes onto usenet who has never posted before and
makes his way to a certain post in a certain newsgroup where I agree
with the guy (cc) who is handing you your ass. This person, who claims
to not know anything about "stats", starts posting the same ridiculous
arguments you are in the same way. Later, when it's pointed out how
f*cking obvious it is that the person is shilling for you, we hear the
bogus allegation about the person being a CSMA poster (that's all
there was... an allegation) in a feeble attempt to lend credibility to
himself (as if posting in CSMA would somehow do that). Then the person
drops some info only you could know because I fed it to only you. Then
you two stupidly whine and claim I'm a "serial liar" over having fed
you info to detect your sock puppetry... this is the level of your
'intelligence' (and your 'honesty') LOL!
>... sometimes
> people are so stuck on the dishonest attacks they cannot let go of them.
>
> So let me ask you: if I Skype with Onion Knight and he and I do not have the
> same voice you admit your accusations are wrong?
Sorry, Snit... people aren't as stupid as you need them to be... they
just aren't.
> If so I will ask Onion
> Knight to do this... if not then what is the point, at least in terms of
> proving the idiotic accusations against us to be false?
It wouldn't 'prove' any such thing and only an idiot would suggest
otherwise... which is why you are seen suggesting it.
> On 8/11/12 9:55 AM, in article 4ix83lmoh0rw....@sitting.at.this.computer,
>
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > William Poaster wrote:
>
> >> Snit & "Onion Knight" on a radio-style show. Oh, man!
> >> *GUFFAW*
>
> > Onion Knight will be the sock puppet on Snit's right hand.
>
> I would be willing to do it... would be interesting to see how the idiots of
> COLA react to hearing multiple voices.
So your brother or some friend of yours comes on. You really think
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > William Poaster wrote:
>
> >> Snit & "Onion Knight" on a radio-style show. Oh, man!
> >> *GUFFAW*
>
> > Onion Knight will be the sock puppet on Snit's right hand.
>
> I would be willing to do it... would be interesting to see how the idiots of
> COLA react to hearing multiple voices.
that will fool people? It certainly won't fool people who watched you
engage some of your "students" into attacking the regulars in CSMA.
The people in COLA saw what Onion Knight has done. It's truly amazing
that you believe people are *this* stupid.
> Then again, they would just say I used a stand in or something
makes his way to a certain post in a certain newsgroup where I agree
with the guy (cc) who is handing you your ass. This person, who claims
to not know anything about "stats", starts posting the same ridiculous
arguments you are in the same way. Later, when it's pointed out how
f*cking obvious it is that the person is shilling for you, we hear the
bogus allegation about the person being a CSMA poster (that's all
there was... an allegation) in a feeble attempt to lend credibility to
himself (as if posting in CSMA would somehow do that). Then the person
drops some info only you could know because I fed it to only you. Then
you two stupidly whine and claim I'm a "serial liar" over having fed
you info to detect your sock puppetry... this is the level of your
'intelligence' (and your 'honesty') LOL!
>... sometimes
> people are so stuck on the dishonest attacks they cannot let go of them.
>
> So let me ask you: if I Skype with Onion Knight and he and I do not have the
> same voice you admit your accusations are wrong?
just aren't.
> If so I will ask Onion
> Knight to do this... if not then what is the point, at least in terms of
> proving the idiotic accusations against us to be false?
otherwise... which is why you are seen suggesting it.
Nobody
Aug 11, 2012, 3:30:07 PM8/11/12
to
responsibility for the personal attacks he made on you? Who would sit
there repeating the filthy accusations and insults Onion Knight posted?
Is he going to hire some convict or drug addict to play the part?
Snit
Aug 11, 2012, 4:00:16 PM8/11/12
to
On 8/11/12 12:30 PM, in article k06b7p$kr0$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
...
your accusations are wrong. Tattoo Vampire has acknowledged he will.
Carroll, of course, never will... he just makes things up to attack me. The
whole thing about Onion Knight never posting before, the BS about Carroll
sending me lies in private which Onion Knight referenced (notice Carroll
never says what they are... and changed his story to say the claims were
made long ago in Usenet... *not* in private as he first said), his claims
that Onion Knight used "ridiculous arguments" that Carroll cannot quote or
link to for some reason... on and on and on. As noted, Carroll is just
trolling me for attention.
So with you: will you join Tattoo Vampire in admitting Onion Knight is not
me if I post a recorded Skype session of the two of us? Onion Knight has
stated he would like to do one with Carroll... but Carroll is too much of a
coward so I suggest Onion Knight and myself. Two voices. Obviously not the
same person.
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
...
> Who could he get to play Onion Knight who would be willing to take
> responsibility for the personal attacks he made on you? Who would sit
> there repeating the filthy accusations and insults Onion Knight posted?
> Is he going to hire some convict or drug addict to play the part?
If Onion Knight agrees to a recorded Skype session with me will you admit
> responsibility for the personal attacks he made on you? Who would sit
> there repeating the filthy accusations and insults Onion Knight posted?
> Is he going to hire some convict or drug addict to play the part?
your accusations are wrong. Tattoo Vampire has acknowledged he will.
Carroll, of course, never will... he just makes things up to attack me. The
whole thing about Onion Knight never posting before, the BS about Carroll
sending me lies in private which Onion Knight referenced (notice Carroll
never says what they are... and changed his story to say the claims were
made long ago in Usenet... *not* in private as he first said), his claims
that Onion Knight used "ridiculous arguments" that Carroll cannot quote or
link to for some reason... on and on and on. As noted, Carroll is just
trolling me for attention.
So with you: will you join Tattoo Vampire in admitting Onion Knight is not
me if I post a recorded Skype session of the two of us? Onion Knight has
stated he would like to do one with Carroll... but Carroll is too much of a
coward so I suggest Onion Knight and myself. Two voices. Obviously not the
same person.
Steve Carroll
Aug 11, 2012, 3:35:01 PM8/11/12
to
Peter Köhlmann
Aug 11, 2012, 4:15:37 PM8/11/12
to
Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I am asking you. Onion Knight has offered to Skype with Carroll and I.
>> If this were to happen - or if it was just Onion Knight and I since my
>> stalker is too cowardly to account for his own actions or back his
>> accusations - would you accept the fact that Onion Knight and I are not
>> the same person.
>
> Of course I would. Problem - I don't Skype so you'll have to record the
> session.
Snit will just pay another glue addict some money or give him his own batch
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I am asking you. Onion Knight has offered to Skype with Carroll and I.
>> If this were to happen - or if it was just Onion Knight and I since my
>> stalker is too cowardly to account for his own actions or back his
>> accusations - would you accept the fact that Onion Knight and I are not
>> the same person.
>
> Of course I would. Problem - I don't Skype so you'll have to record the
> session.
of glue to stand in for "Onion Kight"
No matter what that imbecile tries to pull off will convince me tha Onion
Knight is not a sock of Snit Michel Glasser.
It is the easiest thing in the world to have 2 different voices (that is
even possible with just technical means) or 2 different faces (takes just
another glue sniffer) on skype.
Snit
Aug 11, 2012, 4:49:10 PM8/11/12
to
On 8/11/12 1:15 PM, in article k06ejq$l8b$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
In other words, as with most of the morons on COLA, facts are irrelevant to
you - you have made up your mind and the evidence is irrelevant. Got it.
you - you have made up your mind and the evidence is irrelevant. Got it.
Steve Carroll
Aug 11, 2012, 5:31:10 PM8/11/12
to
On Aug 11, 2:49 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/11/12 1:15 PM, in article k06ejq$l8...@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
he's aware It's a "fact" that having two different voices wouldn't
prove Onion Knight is not shilling for you... the same thing TV would
have undoubtedly pointed out after you went through your ridiculous
Skype charade. Unfortunately, PK came along and killed his opportunity
to show the extent you're willing to go to prove what an airhead you
are ;)
> On 8/11/12 1:15 PM, in article k06ejq$l8...@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
> >> Snit wrote:
>
> >>> I am asking you. Onion Knight has offered to Skype with Carroll and I.
> >>> If this were to happen - or if it was just Onion Knight and I since my
> >>> stalker is too cowardly to account for his own actions or back his
> >>> accusations - would you accept the fact that Onion Knight and I are not
> >>> the same person.
>
> >> Of course I would. Problem - I don't Skype so you'll have to record the
> >> session.
>
> > Snit will just pay another glue addict some money or give him his own batch
> > of glue to stand in for "Onion Kight"
>
> > No matter what that imbecile tries to pull off will convince me tha Onion
> > Knight is not a sock of Snit Michel Glasser.
>
> > It is the easiest thing in the world to have 2 different voices (that is
> > even possible with just technical means) or 2 different faces (takes just
> > another glue sniffer) on skype.
>
> In other words, as with most of the morons on COLA, facts are irrelevant to
> you - you have made up your mind and the evidence is irrelevant. Got it.
You've "got" nothing, you incredible ignoramus... he's stating that
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
> >> Snit wrote:
>
> >>> I am asking you. Onion Knight has offered to Skype with Carroll and I.
> >>> If this were to happen - or if it was just Onion Knight and I since my
> >>> stalker is too cowardly to account for his own actions or back his
> >>> accusations - would you accept the fact that Onion Knight and I are not
> >>> the same person.
>
> >> Of course I would. Problem - I don't Skype so you'll have to record the
> >> session.
>
> > Snit will just pay another glue addict some money or give him his own batch
> > of glue to stand in for "Onion Kight"
>
> > No matter what that imbecile tries to pull off will convince me tha Onion
> > Knight is not a sock of Snit Michel Glasser.
>
> > It is the easiest thing in the world to have 2 different voices (that is
> > even possible with just technical means) or 2 different faces (takes just
> > another glue sniffer) on skype.
>
> In other words, as with most of the morons on COLA, facts are irrelevant to
> you - you have made up your mind and the evidence is irrelevant. Got it.
he's aware It's a "fact" that having two different voices wouldn't
prove Onion Knight is not shilling for you... the same thing TV would
have undoubtedly pointed out after you went through your ridiculous
Skype charade. Unfortunately, PK came along and killed his opportunity
to show the extent you're willing to go to prove what an airhead you
are ;)
Foster
Aug 11, 2012, 5:57:39 PM8/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:05:36 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> Tattoo Vampire <sit...@this.computer> writes:
>
>> Foster wrote:
>>
>>> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>>
>> LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>>
>> http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
>
> Ahlstrom could sit on the other fist if sMarti has taken up the offer.
There is something Ahlstrom should be able to handle.
> Tattoo Vampire <sit...@this.computer> writes:
>
>> Foster wrote:
>>
>>> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>>
>> LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>>
>> http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
>
> Ahlstrom could sit on the other fist if sMarti has taken up the offer.
Foster
Aug 11, 2012, 5:57:53 PM8/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:58:10 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Foster wrote:
>
>> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>
> LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>
> http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
LOL!
> Foster wrote:
>
>> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>
> LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>
> http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
That's funny.
Foster
Aug 11, 2012, 5:58:38 PM8/11/12
to
Or use a real time processor to change his voice.
Foster
Aug 11, 2012, 6:01:02 PM8/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:07:04 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Tattoo Vampire belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Foster wrote:
>>
>>> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>>
>> LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>>
>> http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
>
> Looks like cc and Foster to me.
>
> Just glad it wasn't "The Beast with Two Backs".
You still don't get it Chris Ahlstrom do you?
> After swilling some grog, Tattoo Vampire belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Foster wrote:
>>
>>> It would be like a Push Me Pull You!!
>>
>> LOL... or Rosie Greer and Ray Milland in "The Thing With Two Heads".
>>
>> http://bit.ly/e3O5Hv
>
> Looks like cc and Foster to me.
>
> Just glad it wasn't "The Beast with Two Backs".
We are laughing at you and your masters.
Snit
Aug 11, 2012, 6:18:51 PM8/11/12
to
On 8/11/12 2:58 PM, in article 19jjg7ki4gmyf.xcksec8s9yy2$.d...@40tude.net,
"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In other words, with no evidence or reason, you are claiming to have made up
your mind and are saying that even proof that shows your conclusion is wrong
will not lead you to changing your mind.
Thank you for your admission.
"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
your mind and are saying that even proof that shows your conclusion is wrong
will not lead you to changing your mind.
Thank you for your admission.
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 11, 2012, 10:52:34 PM8/11/12
to
Steve Carroll wrote:
> the same thing TV would have undoubtedly pointed out after you went
> through your ridiculous Skype charade.
Darn it, you gave me away. :-D
> the same thing TV would have undoubtedly pointed out after you went
> through your ridiculous Skype charade.
Nobody
Aug 12, 2012, 5:27:05 AM8/12/12
to
Snit wrote:
> On 8/11/12 12:30 PM, in article k06b7p$kr0$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>> Who could he get to play Onion Knight who would be willing to take
>> responsibility for the personal attacks he made on you? Who would sit
>> there repeating the filthy accusations and insults Onion Knight posted?
>> Is he going to hire some convict or drug addict to play the part?
>
> If Onion Knight agrees to a recorded Skype session with me will you admit
> your accusations are wrong. Tattoo Vampire has acknowledged he will.
> Carroll, of course, never will... he just makes things up to attack me. The
> whole thing about Onion Knight never posting before, the BS about Carroll
> sending me lies in private which Onion Knight referenced (notice Carroll
> never says what they are... and changed his story to say the claims were
> made long ago in Usenet... *not* in private as he first said), his claims
> that Onion Knight used "ridiculous arguments" that Carroll cannot quote or
> link to for some reason... on and on and on. As noted, Carroll is just
> trolling me for attention.
>
> So with you: will you join Tattoo Vampire in admitting Onion Knight is not
> me if I post a recorded Skype session of the two of us? Onion Knight has
> stated he would like to do one with Carroll... but Carroll is too much of a
> coward so I suggest Onion Knight and myself. Two voices. Obviously not the
> same person.
Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
> On 8/11/12 12:30 PM, in article k06b7p$kr0$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>> Who could he get to play Onion Knight who would be willing to take
>> responsibility for the personal attacks he made on you? Who would sit
>> there repeating the filthy accusations and insults Onion Knight posted?
>> Is he going to hire some convict or drug addict to play the part?
>
> If Onion Knight agrees to a recorded Skype session with me will you admit
> your accusations are wrong. Tattoo Vampire has acknowledged he will.
> Carroll, of course, never will... he just makes things up to attack me. The
> whole thing about Onion Knight never posting before, the BS about Carroll
> sending me lies in private which Onion Knight referenced (notice Carroll
> never says what they are... and changed his story to say the claims were
> made long ago in Usenet... *not* in private as he first said), his claims
> that Onion Knight used "ridiculous arguments" that Carroll cannot quote or
> link to for some reason... on and on and on. As noted, Carroll is just
> trolling me for attention.
>
> So with you: will you join Tattoo Vampire in admitting Onion Knight is not
> me if I post a recorded Skype session of the two of us? Onion Knight has
> stated he would like to do one with Carroll... but Carroll is too much of a
> coward so I suggest Onion Knight and myself. Two voices. Obviously not the
> same person.
you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
to participate?
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 12, 2012, 9:09:31 AM8/12/12
to
Nobody wrote:
> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
> to participate?
Are they ever in the newsgroup at the same time?
> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
> to participate?
Hadron
Aug 12, 2012, 9:11:35 AM8/12/12
to
Tattoo Vampire <sit...@this.computer> writes:
> Nobody wrote:
>
>> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
>> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
>> to participate?
>
> Are they ever in the newsgroup at the same time?
Oh yes...
> Nobody wrote:
>
>> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
>> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
>> to participate?
>
> Are they ever in the newsgroup at the same time?
Snit
Aug 12, 2012, 9:37:42 AM8/12/12
to
On 8/12/12 2:27 AM, in article k07s90$e1a$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
I do not follow. Are you suggesting I should only say such things when he
is actively posting... as in the minute he posts? He posted as of
yesterday... so your idea that he has "gone away" is absurd.
is actively posting... as in the minute he posts? He posted as of
yesterday... so your idea that he has "gone away" is absurd.
Snit
Aug 12, 2012, 9:44:31 AM8/12/12
to
On 8/12/12 6:09 AM, in article h4rhmkpb...@sitting.at.this.computer,
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Nobody wrote:
>
>> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
>> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
>> to participate?
>
> Are they ever in the newsgroup at the same time?
There are no pictures of the two of us together!
> Nobody wrote:
>
>> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
>> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
>> to participate?
>
> Are they ever in the newsgroup at the same time?
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 12, 2012, 2:11:50 PM8/12/12
to
Snit wrote:
> There are no pictures of the two of us together!
Hahahahahaha :-D
> There are no pictures of the two of us together!
"Who are you???"
"I'm Batman."
Snit
Aug 12, 2012, 2:40:12 PM8/12/12
to
On 8/12/12 11:11 AM, in article blrgw0eu...@sitting.at.this.computer,
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> There are no pictures of the two of us together!
>
> Hahahahahaha :-D
>
> "Who are you???"
>
> "I'm Batman."
Is Onion Knight's real name Robin? :)
> Snit wrote:
>
>> There are no pictures of the two of us together!
>
> Hahahahahaha :-D
>
> "Who are you???"
>
> "I'm Batman."
Nobody
Aug 12, 2012, 3:39:05 PM8/12/12
to
following your arguments with Steve Carroll for years and supporting you
here through so many posts. Funny how the only topics that interest him
are supporting you and insulting Steve Carroll.
How about we just see the two of you exchange messages, a short time
apart, that aren't just cut and paste boiler plate text?
Snit
Aug 12, 2012, 3:52:15 PM8/12/12
to
On 8/12/12 12:39 PM, in article k090p0$o1l$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> Funny how the only topics that interest him
> are supporting you and insulting Steve Carroll.
Can you show backing for that?
> How about we just see the two of you exchange messages, a short time
> apart, that aren't just cut and paste boiler plate text?
Exchange messages where? On COLA? We have written back and forth in pretty
quick succession at times. Not sure what you are getting at.
Have you done that with, say, cc? Carroll? DFS? Foster? TomB? If not
does that mean you are one of their socks?
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
>>> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
>>> to participate?
>>
>> I do not follow. Are you suggesting I should only say such things when he
>> is actively posting... as in the minute he posts? He posted as of
>> yesterday... so your idea that he has "gone away" is absurd.
>
> Funny how he still needs to be asked by you to participate, after
> following your arguments with Steve Carroll for years and supporting you
> here through so many posts.
I do not see the humor.
>>> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
>>> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
>>> to participate?
>>
>> I do not follow. Are you suggesting I should only say such things when he
>> is actively posting... as in the minute he posts? He posted as of
>> yesterday... so your idea that he has "gone away" is absurd.
>
> Funny how he still needs to be asked by you to participate, after
> following your arguments with Steve Carroll for years and supporting you
> here through so many posts.
> Funny how the only topics that interest him
> are supporting you and insulting Steve Carroll.
> How about we just see the two of you exchange messages, a short time
> apart, that aren't just cut and paste boiler plate text?
quick succession at times. Not sure what you are getting at.
Have you done that with, say, cc? Carroll? DFS? Foster? TomB? If not
does that mean you are one of their socks?
Nobody
Aug 12, 2012, 3:59:25 PM8/12/12
to
On 8/11/2012 4:58 PM, Foster wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:15:37 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>
>> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
[...]
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:15:37 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>
>> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
> Yep.
> Or use a real time processor to change his voice.
Can it be modified to change his brain?
> Or use a real time processor to change his voice.
Nobody
Aug 12, 2012, 4:04:22 PM8/12/12
to
On 8/12/2012 2:52 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/12/12 12:39 PM, in article k090p0$o1l$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
>>>> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
>>>> to participate?
>>>
>>> I do not follow. Are you suggesting I should only say such things when he
>>> is actively posting... as in the minute he posts? He posted as of
>>> yesterday... so your idea that he has "gone away" is absurd.
>>
>> Funny how he still needs to be asked by you to participate, after
>> following your arguments with Steve Carroll for years and supporting you
>> here through so many posts.
>
> I do not see the humor.
Everybody else does, Onion Knight.
> On 8/12/12 12:39 PM, in article k090p0$o1l$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
>>>> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
>>>> to participate?
>>>
>>> I do not follow. Are you suggesting I should only say such things when he
>>> is actively posting... as in the minute he posts? He posted as of
>>> yesterday... so your idea that he has "gone away" is absurd.
>>
>> Funny how he still needs to be asked by you to participate, after
>> following your arguments with Steve Carroll for years and supporting you
>> here through so many posts.
>
> I do not see the humor.
>> Funny how the only topics that interest him
>> are supporting you and insulting Steve Carroll.
>
> Can you show backing for that?
>> How about we just see the two of you exchange messages, a short time
>> apart, that aren't just cut and paste boiler plate text?
>
> Exchange messages where? On COLA?
> We have written back and forth in pretty
> quick succession at times.
> Not sure what you are getting at.
> Have you done that with, say, cc? Carroll? DFS? Foster? TomB? If not
> does that mean you are one of their socks?
Snit
Aug 12, 2012, 4:38:50 PM8/12/12
to
On 8/12/12 1:04 PM, in article k0928c$r8v$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
You get yourself confused easily. In any case, Onion Knight and I are
scheduled to do a Skype session soon... so, yes, now you know we have
exchanged some emails. I will post it shortly after we do it.
I have not heard his voice... what if it sounds exactly like mine? :)
scheduled to do a Skype session soon... so, yes, now you know we have
exchanged some emails. I will post it shortly after we do it.
I have not heard his voice... what if it sounds exactly like mine? :)
Nobody
Aug 12, 2012, 4:46:19 PM8/12/12
to
> I have not heard his voice... what if it sounds exactly like mine? :)
life that interest him is defending you and insulting Steve Carroll.
Snit
Aug 12, 2012, 5:00:41 PM8/12/12
to
On 8/12/12 1:46 PM, in article k094n1$mp$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
be in just a few minutes. I will post a link to it as soon as we do and I
upload it. Then you will have something else to lie about. :)
>> I have not heard his voice... what if it sounds exactly like mine? :)
>
> Ask him why he never posts here when you do, and why the only things in
> life that interest him is defending you and insulting Steve Carroll.
You can ask him any inane question you want. Have a great day!
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Have you done that with, say, cc? Carroll? DFS? Foster? TomB? If not
>>>> does that mean you are one of their socks?
>>>
>>> Yet you weren't sure what I was getting at. LOL
>>>
>> You get yourself confused easily. In any case, Onion Knight and I are
>> scheduled to do a Skype session soon... so, yes, now you know we have
>> exchanged some emails. I will post it shortly after we do it.
>
> Yet you tried to imply you exchanged messages in COLA.
I have. We *also* are going to be doing a Skype session soon. Might even
>>>> Have you done that with, say, cc? Carroll? DFS? Foster? TomB? If not
>>>> does that mean you are one of their socks?
>>>
>>> Yet you weren't sure what I was getting at. LOL
>>>
>> You get yourself confused easily. In any case, Onion Knight and I are
>> scheduled to do a Skype session soon... so, yes, now you know we have
>> exchanged some emails. I will post it shortly after we do it.
>
> Yet you tried to imply you exchanged messages in COLA.
be in just a few minutes. I will post a link to it as soon as we do and I
upload it. Then you will have something else to lie about. :)
>> I have not heard his voice... what if it sounds exactly like mine? :)
>
> Ask him why he never posts here when you do, and why the only things in
> life that interest him is defending you and insulting Steve Carroll.
TomB
Aug 13, 2012, 3:31:02 AM8/13/12
to
On 2012-08-11, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo Vampire:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> No
>
> Snit starts yet another thread concerning something discussed in
> other threads.
>
> Snit is a troll.
A good example of trolling indeed. This of course is denied by our
good fellow Snit ;-)
Ah, but if that were the only trolling he did... How good life would
be ;-)
--
He who spends a storm beneath a tree, takes life with a grain of TNT.
> Snit wrote:
>
>> No
>
> Snit starts yet another thread concerning something discussed in
> other threads.
>
> Snit is a troll.
A good example of trolling indeed. This of course is denied by our
good fellow Snit ;-)
Ah, but if that were the only trolling he did... How good life would
be ;-)
--
He who spends a storm beneath a tree, takes life with a grain of TNT.
Snit
Aug 13, 2012, 12:57:07 PM8/13/12
to
On 8/13/12 12:31 AM, in article 201208130...@usenet.drumscum.be,
"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-08-11, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo Vampire:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> No
>>
>> Snit starts yet another thread concerning something discussed in
>> other threads.
>>
>> Snit is a troll.
>
> A good example of trolling indeed. This of course is denied by our
> good fellow Snit ;-)
>
> Ah, but if that were the only trolling he did... How good life would
> be ;-)
Your above name calling is a form of trolling.
> On 2012-08-11, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo Vampire:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> No
>>
>> Snit starts yet another thread concerning something discussed in
>> other threads.
>>
>> Snit is a troll.
>
> A good example of trolling indeed. This of course is denied by our
> good fellow Snit ;-)
>
> Ah, but if that were the only trolling he did... How good life would
> be ;-)
TomB
Aug 14, 2012, 12:43:02 AM8/14/12
to
On 2012-08-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
--
The holy passion of Friendship is of so sweet and steady and loyal and
enduring a nature that it will last through a whole lifetime, if not asked to
lend money.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
> On 8/13/12 12:31 AM, in article
> 201208130...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-08-11, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo
>> Vampire:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> Snit starts yet another thread concerning something discussed in
>>> other threads.
>>>
>>> Snit is a troll.
>>
>> A good example of trolling indeed. This of course is denied by our
>> good fellow Snit ;-)
>>
>> Ah, but if that were the only trolling he did... How good life
>> would be ;-)
>
> Your above name calling is a form of trolling.
It's not name calling - it's an observation!
> 201208130...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-08-11, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo
>> Vampire:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> Snit starts yet another thread concerning something discussed in
>>> other threads.
>>>
>>> Snit is a troll.
>>
>> A good example of trolling indeed. This of course is denied by our
>> good fellow Snit ;-)
>>
>> Ah, but if that were the only trolling he did... How good life
>> would be ;-)
>
> Your above name calling is a form of trolling.
--
The holy passion of Friendship is of so sweet and steady and loyal and
enduring a nature that it will last through a whole lifetime, if not asked to
lend money.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
Snit
Aug 14, 2012, 12:50:19 AM8/14/12
to
On 8/13/12 9:43 PM, in article 201208140...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
<tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-08-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 8/13/12 12:31 AM, in article
>> 201208130...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-08-11, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo
>>> Vampire:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No
>>>>
>>>> Snit starts yet another thread concerning something discussed in
>>>> other threads.
>>>>
>>>> Snit is a troll.
>>>
>>> A good example of trolling indeed. This of course is denied by our
>>> good fellow Snit ;-)
>>>
>>> Ah, but if that were the only trolling he did... How good life
>>> would be ;-)
>>
>> Your above name calling is a form of trolling.
>
> It's not name calling - it's an observation!
Your excuses do not impress.
> On 2012-08-13, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 8/13/12 12:31 AM, in article
>> 201208130...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-08-11, the following emerged from the brain of Tattoo
>>> Vampire:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No
>>>>
>>>> Snit starts yet another thread concerning something discussed in
>>>> other threads.
>>>>
>>>> Snit is a troll.
>>>
>>> A good example of trolling indeed. This of course is denied by our
>>> good fellow Snit ;-)
>>>
>>> Ah, but if that were the only trolling he did... How good life
>>> would be ;-)
>>
>> Your above name calling is a form of trolling.
>
> It's not name calling - it's an observation!
Nobody
Aug 14, 2012, 2:58:29 AM8/14/12
to
Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Nobody wrote:
>
>> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
>> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
>> to participate?
>
> Are they ever in the newsgroup at the same time?
Not that I'm aware of.
> Nobody wrote:
>
>> Do you think no one has noticed that Onion Knight has gone away while
>> you make this proposal, and that he has to be invited back by yourself
>> to participate?
>
> Are they ever in the newsgroup at the same time?
Steve Carroll
Aug 14, 2012, 2:31:28 PM8/14/12
to
them ;)
0 new messages