Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How The Snit Circus Survives. An Example.
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Larry Washington
Sep 1, 2013, 9:26:15 PM9/1/13
to
Snit is very predictable and his methods of keeping his snit circus alive are many but are predictable just like he is.
The one thing you have to realize about snit is he can and will discuss everything from nuclear physics to watching the grass grow.
And this example is based on the latter, watching the grass grow.
Here is a basic example of how snit works to keep his circus alive.
Person: Doesn't that blade of grass over there look like it's red?
Snit: Define red.
Person: Red, you know, like a fire engine.
Snit: Fire engines where I live are yellow.
Person: Ok, red like blood.
Snit: Blood isn't really red.
Person: Sigh, ok, red like a red rose.
Snit: What kind of rose?
Person: I don't know, a fucking red rose.
Snit: Why are you getting vulgar with me?
Person: Because you are an idiot.
Snit: You attack me because you have nothing to say.
Person: I've been trying to say something to you for two days now. You don't listen.
Snit: Define something.
Person: Are you some kind of asshole?
Snit: Why are you attacking me.
Person: I'm tired of playing your idiotic game.
Snit: You ran away. I won.
Person: dead silence.
And this is how snit keeps his circus alive.
The one thing you have to realize about snit is he can and will discuss everything from nuclear physics to watching the grass grow.
And this example is based on the latter, watching the grass grow.
Here is a basic example of how snit works to keep his circus alive.
Person: Doesn't that blade of grass over there look like it's red?
Snit: Define red.
Person: Red, you know, like a fire engine.
Snit: Fire engines where I live are yellow.
Person: Ok, red like blood.
Snit: Blood isn't really red.
Person: Sigh, ok, red like a red rose.
Snit: What kind of rose?
Person: I don't know, a fucking red rose.
Snit: Why are you getting vulgar with me?
Person: Because you are an idiot.
Snit: You attack me because you have nothing to say.
Person: I've been trying to say something to you for two days now. You don't listen.
Snit: Define something.
Person: Are you some kind of asshole?
Snit: Why are you attacking me.
Person: I'm tired of playing your idiotic game.
Snit: You ran away. I won.
Person: dead silence.
And this is how snit keeps his circus alive.
Snit
Sep 1, 2013, 9:31:38 PM9/1/13
to
On 9/1/13 6:26 PM, in article
70cfee98-2863-42b6...@googlegroups.com, "Larry Washington"
You just let on that I was right about who you are. Can't you at least make
it a bit of a challenge?
--
A short discussion about choice and Linux: <http://bit.ly/14fRTPS>
70cfee98-2863-42b6...@googlegroups.com, "Larry Washington"
it a bit of a challenge?
--
A short discussion about choice and Linux: <http://bit.ly/14fRTPS>
Larry Washington
Sep 1, 2013, 9:36:46 PM9/1/13
to
I am your neighbor snit.
Remember me, Larry Washington.
I live on Willow Street just like you.
We share Internet connections, remember.
You seem to have amnesia snit.
Why is that?
Snit
Sep 1, 2013, 9:48:34 PM9/1/13
to
On 9/1/13 6:36 PM, in article
5f2a8389-d7fd-4faf...@googlegroups.com, "Larry Washington"
Again: you have made it clear who you are. And you are not my neighbor.
Oh, and by the way, you need to learn what the word "example" means - it
does not mean "made up crap to attack a person". If you want to show an
example of my doing as you accuse then actually quote me.
But, as with our past debates which you lost and got you all riled up and
crazed, you never will. You now are so afraid to get into any type of debate
with me you have sunk to almost never posting with your old name and just
forging other's names.
Do you have any idea how pathetic you have become?
Face it: you lost some Usenet debates and lost it. You are at Bilk and
Carroll level craziness by now.
--
loop do
puts "I hate Stallman"
end
-- Soup du Jour (though he was trying to speak for another)
5f2a8389-d7fd-4faf...@googlegroups.com, "Larry Washington"
Oh, and by the way, you need to learn what the word "example" means - it
does not mean "made up crap to attack a person". If you want to show an
example of my doing as you accuse then actually quote me.
But, as with our past debates which you lost and got you all riled up and
crazed, you never will. You now are so afraid to get into any type of debate
with me you have sunk to almost never posting with your old name and just
forging other's names.
Do you have any idea how pathetic you have become?
Face it: you lost some Usenet debates and lost it. You are at Bilk and
Carroll level craziness by now.
--
loop do
puts "I hate Stallman"
end
-- Soup du Jour (though he was trying to speak for another)
Larry Washington
Sep 1, 2013, 9:59:48 PM9/1/13
to
Typical snit.
Change the subject to something he can discuss.
I am your neighbor Larry Washington, snit.
We share a wireless connection.
Don't you remember?
You claim you know who I am, so who am I, snit?
Should be easy as I just told you.
Of course you can continue to make up lies like you usually do, snit.
Or you can offer the proof you claim you now have regarding who I am.
So where is Onion Knight?
Now that is something worth discussing.
He only seems to appear when you are losing a debate which means he should be along any moment now.
Snit
Sep 1, 2013, 10:04:28 PM9/1/13
to
On 9/1/13 6:59 PM, in article
aef8c221-f0e5-4427...@googlegroups.com, "Larry Washington"
If you want to have a discussion post with your common COLA name and stop
forging other names.
Simple rule.
But you are not able to because you are a coward. It really is that simple.
Oh, but I will humor you with Onion Knight. Did you see flatfish trying to
"prove" he was me... and he did not even mean your recent forgeries, he
meant the original person posting as Onion Knight.
Let us review flatfish's claims and the actual data:
1) He claimed he made an audio analysis to back his beliefs:
- He denied voice overlaps. Overlaps were shown and he changed his
story saying they were added in post production.
- He claimed I posted a WAV file when I did not.
- His "analysis" was mostly "it is obvious" and "anyone can hear
discrepancies", which is no analysis at all.
- He noted "beeps ... typical of messaging programs" but these
continued after Onion Knight was off Skype.
- He claimed Onion Knight repeats "my stalker" but Onion Knight says
"stalker" only once (12:24) and never "my stalker".
2) He claimed Onion Knight's ignorance showed he was a stooge:
- No question has been quoted that Onion Knight did not answer.
- On many question cc was lost. Flatfish rejected this as evidence of
cc being a stooge, thus refuting his own line of thought.
3) He claimed Onion Knight not being a regular implies he is a sock:
- There is no logic to this claim.
- Onion Knight explained why he came to COLA and remained anonymous.
- Even if Onion Knight was a sock there is no forensic link to me.
4) He claimed I modified my own voice and later had a "stooge" sound the
same in real time with cc on the chat. This feat is beyond my sound
engineering abilities. Flatfish shows extreme confidence in me but I
simply am not that skilled.
In short:
* His "audio analysis" was flawed and failed to back his belief.
* His views about Onion Knight's knowledge failed to back his belief.
* His views about Onion Knight's "newness" failed to back his belief.
* His views about how the audio was made were flattering but unlikely.
As flatfish saw his evidence fall apart, he said:
-----
How you accomplished the con is not the really the point.
You tried to pull a con and got caught.
-----
If flatfish believes I pulled a con and was caught the *how* of my doing so
is of utmost importance. All he can honesty say is has has an intuition
that I committed a con but that he cannot figure out how and thus I was
*not* caught.
But as I said: he should believe what he wishes. I do not expect the lack of
evidence to convince anyone in COLA. The tendency in COLA for people to
believe things without evidence and even contrary to evidence is one of the
things that keeps COLA interesting to me.
Oh, and as always I am open to being shown where I am wrong. If you think
any of the above is in error please show it.
--
"The UI is developed by experts, except it is shitty, but improvements are
bringing in more and more users, except that Linux is at 1% as usual."
- Brad Wiggins AKA cc AKA Bill Bateman AKA Onion Knight AKA Larry Washington
aef8c221-f0e5-4427...@googlegroups.com, "Larry Washington"
forging other names.
Simple rule.
But you are not able to because you are a coward. It really is that simple.
Oh, but I will humor you with Onion Knight. Did you see flatfish trying to
"prove" he was me... and he did not even mean your recent forgeries, he
meant the original person posting as Onion Knight.
Let us review flatfish's claims and the actual data:
1) He claimed he made an audio analysis to back his beliefs:
- He denied voice overlaps. Overlaps were shown and he changed his
story saying they were added in post production.
- He claimed I posted a WAV file when I did not.
- His "analysis" was mostly "it is obvious" and "anyone can hear
discrepancies", which is no analysis at all.
- He noted "beeps ... typical of messaging programs" but these
continued after Onion Knight was off Skype.
- He claimed Onion Knight repeats "my stalker" but Onion Knight says
"stalker" only once (12:24) and never "my stalker".
2) He claimed Onion Knight's ignorance showed he was a stooge:
- No question has been quoted that Onion Knight did not answer.
- On many question cc was lost. Flatfish rejected this as evidence of
cc being a stooge, thus refuting his own line of thought.
3) He claimed Onion Knight not being a regular implies he is a sock:
- There is no logic to this claim.
- Onion Knight explained why he came to COLA and remained anonymous.
- Even if Onion Knight was a sock there is no forensic link to me.
4) He claimed I modified my own voice and later had a "stooge" sound the
same in real time with cc on the chat. This feat is beyond my sound
engineering abilities. Flatfish shows extreme confidence in me but I
simply am not that skilled.
In short:
* His "audio analysis" was flawed and failed to back his belief.
* His views about Onion Knight's knowledge failed to back his belief.
* His views about Onion Knight's "newness" failed to back his belief.
* His views about how the audio was made were flattering but unlikely.
As flatfish saw his evidence fall apart, he said:
-----
How you accomplished the con is not the really the point.
You tried to pull a con and got caught.
-----
If flatfish believes I pulled a con and was caught the *how* of my doing so
is of utmost importance. All he can honesty say is has has an intuition
that I committed a con but that he cannot figure out how and thus I was
*not* caught.
But as I said: he should believe what he wishes. I do not expect the lack of
evidence to convince anyone in COLA. The tendency in COLA for people to
believe things without evidence and even contrary to evidence is one of the
things that keeps COLA interesting to me.
Oh, and as always I am open to being shown where I am wrong. If you think
any of the above is in error please show it.
--
"The UI is developed by experts, except it is shitty, but improvements are
bringing in more and more users, except that Linux is at 1% as usual."
- Brad Wiggins AKA cc AKA Bill Bateman AKA Onion Knight AKA Larry Washington
Larry Washington
Sep 1, 2013, 10:23:08 PM9/1/13
to
I don't give a hoot about Flatfish because he is a troll just like you are, only a magnitude more intelligent.
So, you claim to know who I am.
I say I'm your neighbor Larry Washington who lives on Willow Street next to you.
So who do you claim I am? You keep dodging the question snit.
Be direct.
Be concise.
Be accurate.
Don't let your anxiety get the best of you.
You know I gave a perfect example of how you psychobabble your way around usenet and you don't like it so you lash out.
Calm down snit. Take that xanax.
Now, do try and stick to the topic, who am I?
Snit
Sep 1, 2013, 10:29:20 PM9/1/13
to
On 9/1/13 7:23 PM, in article
000e9ae5-6b2f-4b26...@googlegroups.com, "Larry Washington"
If you want a conversation post as your common COLA name. Posting as
forgeries of others will not be responded to well.
And with that I think this conversation is done. You simply have nothing of
value to say.
--
"It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of age 15 � it is
normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex." -- Richard Stallman
000e9ae5-6b2f-4b26...@googlegroups.com, "Larry Washington"
If you want a conversation post as your common COLA name. Posting as
forgeries of others will not be responded to well.
And with that I think this conversation is done. You simply have nothing of
value to say.
--
"It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of age 15 � it is
normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex." -- Richard Stallman
Dr. John Grubor
Sep 1, 2013, 10:30:50 PM9/1/13
to
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 18:36:46 -0700, Larry Washington wrote:
> There is no challenge snit.
> I am your neighbor snit.
> Remember me, Larry Washington.
> I live on Willow Street just like you. We share Internet connections,
> remember.
> You seem to have amnesia snit.
> Why is that?
Inhalation of entirely too much gold aerosol paint.
> There is no challenge snit.
> I am your neighbor snit.
> Remember me, Larry Washington.
> I live on Willow Street just like you. We share Internet connections,
> remember.
> You seem to have amnesia snit.
> Why is that?
Dr. John Grubor
Sep 1, 2013, 10:32:15 PM9/1/13
to
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 18:59:48 -0700, Larry Washington wrote:
> I am your neighbor Larry Washington, snit.
You are a liar. I am Larry Washington, Snit's neighbour.
> I am your neighbor Larry Washington, snit.
Larry Washington
Sep 1, 2013, 10:40:32 PM9/1/13
to
On Sunday, September 1, 2013 10:29:20 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 9/1/13 7:23 PM, in article
>
> 000e9ae5-6b2f-4b26...@googlegroups.com, "Larry Washington"
>
> <larrywashi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And there you go again snit, changing the subject.
>
>
>
> If you want a conversation post as your common COLA name. Posting as
>
> forgeries of others will not be responded to well.
>
>
>
> And with that I think this conversation is done. You simply have nothing of
>
> value to say.
But you claim you know who I am so clearly you have lied.
> On 9/1/13 7:23 PM, in article
>
> 000e9ae5-6b2f-4b26...@googlegroups.com, "Larry Washington"
>
> <larrywashi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And there you go again snit, changing the subject.
>
>
>
> If you want a conversation post as your common COLA name. Posting as
>
> forgeries of others will not be responded to well.
>
>
>
> And with that I think this conversation is done. You simply have nothing of
>
> value to say.
And now you are running away in fear which means I have won.
You lost.
I won.
How about that snit?
0 new messages