Apple Ad debate
Snit
Quote in question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote>
"no no do not be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known
viruses for PCs." [emphasis mine, poor grammar Apple's]
1) Wally dishonestly "quoted" the Apple commercial (while blaming others
for doing so). He dishonestly denied it state "last year" and
"quoted" it as:
"no no do not be a hero, actually there are 114,000 known
viruses for PC's.........".
In his doing so, he used poor grammar (note the "PC's"). This is
relevant based on #2:
2) Wally belittled me for honestly quoting the ad's poor grammar.
"Really Snit that is stupid even for you! But never let it be
said that I would not lend you a helping hand try this..
'Last year there were................'"
Wally further called me ignorant and stupid based on my being honest
and quoting the ad correctly.
3) When #2 was pointed out, Wally lied and said my honestly quoting the
ad was a form of "support" and "agreement" for its poor grammar.
Wally is confusing the concepts of supporting telling the truth (as
I did and he failed to do) with supporting the ads use of improper
grammar (which I do not).
4) Wally played these games, no doubt, to obfuscate the fact that he
dishonestly "quoted" Apple by claiming the ad did not use the phrase
"last year". This whole grammar side issue is irrelevant to Wally's
initial lie, but he is trying mighty hard to obfuscate it.
Honestly quoting someone is not synonymous with agreeing with their message
nor with supporting the use of improper grammar.
How much trolling will Wally do over the above facts?
--
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> <snip Snit Circus>
Michael Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2: Antagonizing threads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Antagonizing threads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, a troll needs attention to his trolling, so whenever he is
in a lengthy thread arguing only with this one poster, the troll is
likely to break out of that thread and start another thread that will
be one way to evade the first thread and also draw more attention from
more people. An example of this is this thread [1] where Michael
creates a completely new thread which is totally off topic and an
off-spring of a length discussion he's had with Steve and Elizabot.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ba8f510705b
642d3>
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
LOL!
--
"Would eating a banana or sniffing a flower make it all go away?" -Snit
Snit
C0CDC3A0.C1D2%wa...@wally.world.net on 7/2/06 3:40 AM:
> On 2/7/06 4:57 PM, in article C0CCD88A.539C4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> LOL!
Funny how you run from the facts:
How much trolling will Wally do over these facts?
Snit
mr-AD200E.11...@individual.net on 7/2/06 2:17 AM:
> In article <C0CCD88A.539C4%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> <snip Snit Circus>
Gee, why did you snip so much of my post? Oh wait! You already answered:
"I think it's the right move to snip out all the facts you can't face."
- Sandman
You did this also to these "facts you can't face":
<http://snurl.com/Web_Design_Facts>
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Why do you feel the need to have multiple threads with the same content
Snit?
imout...@mac.com
Requiem, Op. 45
Snit wrote:
> The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus>
> Quote in question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote>
> "no no do not be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known
> viruses for PCs." [emphasis mine, poor grammar Apple's]
>
> 1) Wally
1 -
dishonestly
"quoted" the Apple commercial (while blaming others
> for doing so). He
2 -
dishonestly
denied it state "last year" and
> "quoted" it as:
> "no no do not be a hero, actually there are 114,000 known
> viruses for PC's.........".
> In his doing so, he used poor grammar (note the "PC's"). This is
> relevant based on #2:
>
> 2) Wally belittled me for
3 -
honestly
quoting the ad's poor grammar.
> "Really Snit that is stupid even for you! But never let it be
> said that I would not lend you a helping hand try this..
> 'Last year there were................'"
> Wally further called me ignorant and stupid based on my being
4 -
honest
> and quoting the ad correctly.
>
> 3) When #2 was pointed out, Wally lied and said my
5 -
honestly quoting the
> ad was a form of "support" and "agreement" for its poor grammar.
> Wally is confusing the concepts of supporting
6 -
telling the truth (as
> I did and he
7 - failed to do so = lie
failed to do) with supporting the ads use of improper
> grammar (which I do not).
>
> 4) Wally played these games, no doubt, to obfuscate the fact that he
>
8 -
dishonestly "quoted" Apple by claiming the ad did not use the phrase
> "last year". This whole grammar side issue is irrelevant to Wally's
> initial lie, but he is trying mighty hard to obfuscate it.
>
>
9 -
Honestly quoting someone is not synonymous with agreeing with their message
> nor with supporting the use of improper grammar.
>
> How much trolling will Wally do over the above facts?
>
I'll bet you send food back in restaurants, huh? A lot? Be honest, now.
Snit
> On 2/7/06 11:30 PM, in article C0CD34A0.539F7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Why do you feel the need to have multiple threads with the same content
> Snit?
I am working against your desperate attempts to obfuscate. Let's make a
deal to discuss your lies about the ad only in this thread, OK? Here, I
will list the facts and you can lie about them again:
Snit
45on7.u...@news.alt.net on 7/2/06 11:27 AM:
I do not do so often, though I have rarely. Why do you ask?
NRen2k5
> The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus>
> Quote in question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote>
> "no no do not be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known
> viruses for PCs." [emphasis mine, poor grammar Apple's]
>
> 1) Wally dishonestly "quoted" the Apple commercial (while blaming others
> for doing so). He dishonestly denied it state "last year" and
> "quoted" it as:
> "no no do not be a hero, actually there are 114,000 known
> viruses for PC's.........".
> In his doing so, he used poor grammar (note the "PC's"). This is
> relevant based on #2:
"PC's" (as opposed to "PCs") *is* the proper way to write it.
> 2) Wally belittled me for honestly quoting the ad's poor grammar.
> "Really Snit that is stupid even for you! But never let it be
> said that I would not lend you a helping hand try this..
> 'Last year there were................'"
> Wally further called me ignorant and stupid based on my being honest
> and quoting the ad correctly.
Please cite the posts.
> 3) When #2 was pointed out, Wally lied and said my honestly quoting the
> ad was a form of "support" and "agreement" for its poor grammar.
> Wally is confusing the concepts of supporting telling the truth (as
> I did and he failed to do) with supporting the ads use of improper
> grammar (which I do not).
>
> 4) Wally played these games, no doubt, to obfuscate the fact that he
> dishonestly "quoted" Apple by claiming the ad did not use the phrase
> "last year". This whole grammar side issue is irrelevant to Wally's
> initial lie, but he is trying mighty hard to obfuscate it.
Much like you are trying to obfuscate the facts by creating more
discussion threads on the topic.
> Honestly quoting someone is not synonymous with agreeing with their message
> nor with supporting the use of improper grammar.
>
> How much trolling will Wally do over the above facts?
How much more trolling can *you* do?
NRen2k5
> The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus> Quote in
> question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote> "no no do not
> be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known viruses for PCs."
> [emphasis mine, poor grammar Apple's]
>
> 1) Wally dishonestly "quoted" the Apple commercial (while blaming
> others for doing so). He dishonestly denied it state "last year" and
> "quoted" it as: "no no do not be a hero, actually there are 114,000
> known viruses for PC's.........". In his doing so, he used poor
> grammar (note the "PC's"). This is relevant based on #2:
"PC's" (as opposed to "PCs") *is* the proper way to write it, actually.
Snit
SaVpg.25249$x.12...@weber.videotron.net on 7/2/06 12:32 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus>
>> Quote in question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote>
>> "no no do not be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known
>> viruses for PCs." [emphasis mine, poor grammar Apple's]
>>
>> 1) Wally dishonestly "quoted" the Apple commercial (while blaming others
>> for doing so). He dishonestly denied it state "last year" and
>> "quoted" it as:
>> "no no do not be a hero, actually there are 114,000 known
>> viruses for PC's.........".
>> In his doing so, he used poor grammar (note the "PC's"). This is
>> relevant based on #2:
>
> "PC's" (as opposed to "PCs") *is* the proper way to write it.
Do you have any support for your view? Here is support for mine:
<http://tranchant.plus.com/notes/apostrophe>
-----
Never use an apostrophe to form a plural. As the Quick Guide suggests, it is
common opinion that words ending in vowels take an apostrophe when plural.
This is wrong.
...
Neither is it correct to use an apostrophe with plural abbreviations, which
do not even use full-stops (periods) between letters these days.
CDs, ICBMs, PCs, VCRs etc.
-----
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
-----
Apostrophes are NEVER ever used to denote plurals! Common examples of such
abuse (all seen in real life!) are:
Banana's for sale which of course should read Bananas for sale
Menu's printed to order which should read Menus printed to order
etc.
-----
http://www.articlealley.com/article_7703_50.html
-----
That's the rule. If it's a noun, s makes it plural and
apostrophe-s makes it possessive. It's just that simple.
-----
Either way, though, the whole grammar issue is a side issue Wally spewed in
an effort to obfuscate the fact he dishonestly claimed the Apple ad did
*not* use the phrase "last year". Even after I provided the slowed down
version Wally still sticks to his lie.
>> 2) Wally belittled me for honestly quoting the ad's poor grammar.
>> "Really Snit that is stupid even for you! But never let it be
>> said that I would not lend you a helping hand try this..
>> 'Last year there were................'"
>> Wally further called me ignorant and stupid based on my being honest
>> and quoting the ad correctly.
>
> Please cite the posts.
Gladly (easy to look up the quotes):
<http://snipurl.com/smng>
<http://snipurl.com/smnk>
<http://snipurl.com/smnl>
Etc. Wally repeatedly wants to pretend that the poor grammar in the ad is
something I have no problem with. I discuss this more in #3.
>> 3) When #2 was pointed out, Wally lied and said my honestly quoting the
>> ad was a form of "support" and "agreement" for its poor grammar.
>> Wally is confusing the concepts of supporting telling the truth (as
>> I did and he failed to do) with supporting the ads use of improper
>> grammar (which I do not).
>>
>> 4) Wally played these games, no doubt, to obfuscate the fact that he
>> dishonestly "quoted" Apple by claiming the ad did not use the phrase
>> "last year". This whole grammar side issue is irrelevant to Wally's
>> initial lie, but he is trying mighty hard to obfuscate it.
>
> Much like you are trying to obfuscate the facts by creating more
> discussion threads on the topic.
While I can understand you not wanting to see the same facts posted in
multiple threads, to call such a thing "obfuscation" is absurd; it is the
exact opposite. I am repeatedly presenting the truth - and watching as
Wally runs and obfuscates.
>> Honestly quoting someone is not synonymous with agreeing with their message
>> nor with supporting the use of improper grammar.
>>
>> How much trolling will Wally do over the above facts?
>
> How much more trolling can *you* do?
Do you consider my repeating of clear facts that Wally is running from to be
a form of trolling? I have asked Wally to keep his lies on this issue to
this thread, so I am trying to have it not spread all over CSMA.
Snit
Did you see my reply elsewhere? From it:
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> Honestly quoting someone is not synonymous with agreeing with their message
> >> nor with supporting the use of improper grammar.
> >>
> >> How much trolling will Wally do over the above facts?
> >
> > How much more trolling can *you* do?
>
> Do you consider my repeating of clear facts that Wally is running from to be
> a form of trolling?
We wouldn't, if that ever happened. As it is, all you do is troll,
lie, obfuscate and snip and run.
> I have asked Wally to keep his lies on this issue to
> this thread, so I am trying to have it not spread all over CSMA.
Ironically, you're the one trying desperately to spread it all over
csma with your antagonizing threads, like the troll you are. You need
the attention, so you create the threads.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
No matter how you spin it, Sandman, Wally is being no more honest nor
honorable than you... you are both lying trolls.
What follows is what Wally is running from:
The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus>
Quote in question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote>
"no no do not be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known
viruses for PCs." [emphasis mine, poor grammar Apple's]
1) Wally dishonestly "quoted" the Apple commercial (while blaming others
for doing so). He dishonestly denied it state "last year" and
"quoted" it as:
"no no do not be a hero, actually there are 114,000 known
viruses for PC's.........".
In his doing so, he used poor grammar (note the "PC's"). This is
relevant based on #2:
2) Wally belittled me for honestly quoting the ad's poor grammar.
"Really Snit that is stupid even for you! But never let it be
said that I would not lend you a helping hand try this..
'Last year there were................'"
Wally further called me ignorant and stupid based on my being honest
and quoting the ad correctly.
3) When #2 was pointed out, Wally lied and said my honestly quoting the
ad was a form of "support" and "agreement" for its poor grammar.
Wally is confusing the concepts of supporting telling the truth (as
I did and he failed to do) with supporting the ads use of improper
grammar (which I do not).
4) Wally played these games, no doubt, to obfuscate the fact that he
dishonestly "quoted" Apple by claiming the ad did not use the phrase
"last year". This whole grammar side issue is irrelevant to Wally's
initial lie, but he is trying mighty hard to obfuscate it.
Honestly quoting someone is not synonymous with agreeing with their message
nor with supporting the use of improper grammar.
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Requiem, Op. 45
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> I have asked Wally to keep his lies on this issue to
> >> this thread, so I am trying to have it not spread all over CSMA.
> >
> > Ironically, you're the one trying desperately to spread it all over
> > csma with your antagonizing threads, like the troll you are. You need
> > the attention, so you create the threads.
>
> No matter how you spin it, Sandman, Wally is being no more honest nor
> honorable than you... you are both lying trolls.
Yet we're not the most hated persons in csma, nor are we the most
killfiled people in csma... That would be... you.
Go figure.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Fair enough.
GreyCloud
> "NRen2k5" <nom...@email.com> stated in post
> OdVpg.25346$x.12...@weber.videotron.net on 7/2/06 12:35 PM:
>
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>>The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus> Quote in
>>>question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote> "no no do not
>>>be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known viruses for PCs."
>>>[emphasis mine, poor grammar Apple's]
>>>
>>>1) Wally dishonestly "quoted" the Apple commercial (while blaming
>>>others for doing so). He dishonestly denied it state "last year" and
>>> "quoted" it as: "no no do not be a hero, actually there are 114,000
>>>known viruses for PC's.........". In his doing so, he used poor
>>>grammar (note the "PC's"). This is relevant based on #2:
>>
>>"PC's" (as opposed to "PCs") *is* the proper way to write it, actually.
>
>
> -----
> Apostrophes are NEVER ever used to denote plurals! Common examples of such
> abuse (all seen in real life!) are:
> Banana's for sale which of course should read Bananas for sale
> Menu's printed to order which should read Menus printed to order
> etc.
Correct. I don't know what he is doing, but PCs is correct.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Snit
Why is it, Sandman, that you resort to personal attacks such as that when
your lies and ignorance are pointed out. Keep in mind that it is your
actions that have you so bent out of shape:
Sandman
1) Sandman often goes off into lying, trolling whacked out modes where he
insists that his lies are not lies, even though they clearly are. He
attributes his own words to others, creates contrived videos and clearly
erroneous "FAQs" and tries to pass them off as truth. He will insist
they are accurate no matter how many times others (and even he) prove
otherwise.
2) Favorite quotes from Sandman:
"I continued to be the biggest troll in the group during tyhe time
period in question. Lying, failing to support my accusations,
obfuscating. You name it, I did it."
"I think it's the right move to snip out all the facts you can't face."
3) Sandman flamed me about my web skills and claimed he knew I was not
teaching a web class, but when asked he was not able to even point to
a single web site I had designed, no less a relevant one I had done
for a customer! He also back pedaled and ran when offered to be
shown conclusive proof of the classes I teach. I looked at his site:
<http://www.sandman.net>, posted info on clear flaws and suggestions
for improvement, and Sandman then changed his site to accommodate my
suggestions, including altering the contrast, the white space, making
both the HTML and CSS validate (both had some pretty severe errors), etc.
Instead of thanking me for my assistance, Sandman lied about having
changed his site *even after* I pointed out that the Google cache proved
he had done so. He went so far as to lie and say I only had suggested
getting his HTML to validate. Sandman offered no explanation for the
"magic" change; in other word he did not admit he lied. In the end,
Sandman trolled me and I, being the honest and honorable person I am,
*still* helped Sandman to better his web skills. For more info on this,
see: <http://snipurl.com/Sandman_Lie2> and
<http://snurl.com/Web_Design_Facts>.
4) Sandman claimed that Dreamweaver, the number one professional web design
tool, with a command of 80% or so of the market, is used only by
beginners. He did this to try to belittle my use of the tool I use and
teach but ended up just showing off his ignorance.
5) When someone else pointed out a problem they were having with technology,
Sandman claimed to "debunk" *their* experience based on a contrived
video he posted. He stated:
Your "experience" is totally debunked with my video clips. I
have proven you utterly wrong, face it and move on.
When Sandman had a problem, though, and someone else did not, Sandman
did not stay consistent. He did not accept his claims had been
"debunked". For more info on this, see: <http://snipurl.com/s6f7>.
Snit
wcOdnXHVNslD3jXZ...@bresnan.com on 7/2/06 3:08 PM:
While I am right about the grammar issue, the whole discussion of grammar is
a side issue Wally is pushing to hide the fact he is lying about Apple's ad.
This is about as clear cut as you can get:
1) Everyone else agrees the Apple ad uses the phrase "last year".
2) The ad, linked above, clearly uses the phrase "last year".
3) I created a slowed down copy of the relevant section - no doubt
it says "last year".
4) Wally has repeatedly denied the as says "last year". Even as of earlier
today, after no less than 20 posts back and forth on the topic where
Wally has been shown to be wrong, he still lied and claimed:
I still don't believe it says "last year" because unlike you I do
not think Apple would use something so grammatically incorrect!
Wally is lying. Period.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C0CE18C6.C222%wa...@wally.world.net on 7/2/06 9:43 AM:
>
>> On 2/7/06 11:30 PM, in article C0CD34A0.539F7%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to have multiple threads with the same content
>> Snit?
>
> I am working against your desperate attempts to obfuscate. Let's make a
> deal to discuss your lies about the ad only in this thread, OK?
No! the original is fine, Why do you need to get away from the posts in the
original thread Snit? Oh of course...I see!
--
"I have become very cautious in my wording - to the point of including
enough disclaimers as to make the actual point harder to see."-Snit
NRen2k5
I looked it up just now. Strictly speaking, you only use an apostrophe
when the initialism has internal punctuation, for example Ph.D.'s.
Colour me surprised - this means that my college English teacher was wrong!
Buuut, in modern times, it's *acceptable* to use an apostrophe when
pluralizing any initialism.
NRen2k5
GreyCloud
Well, like my old English teacher taught... if you can form a sentence
from it's to it is and works, then it is correct. About the easiest way
I know of.
Snit
>>> http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
>>> -----
>>> Apostrophes are NEVER ever used to denote plurals! Common examples of
>>> such
>>> abuse (all seen in real life!) are:
>>> Banana's for sale which of course should read Bananas for sale
>>> Menu's printed to order which should read Menus printed to order
>>> etc.
>>
>> Correct. I don't know what he is doing, but PCs is correct.
>
> I looked it up just now. Strictly speaking, you only use an apostrophe
> when the initialism has internal punctuation, for example Ph.D.'s.
I commend you for admitting to your error. Many in CSMA are not willing to
do so.
>
> Colour me surprised - this means that my college English teacher was wrong!
Some say a trained monkey could teach college classes. :)
> Buuut, in modern times, it's *acceptable* to use an apostrophe when
> pluralizing any initialism.
Common, yes. Acceptable... well, but many people, but it is not accepted as
being grammatically correct by linguists. None that I have read, anyway.
Snit
Of course not... other than the fact is it clearly not honorable for Sandman
to obfuscate with such a claim and, frankly, his claim has never been shown
to be accurate. There simply is no way to know who is the most kill filed
person... nor would such info matter.
NRen2k5
You're right. I was incorrectly "taught" in college that the correct way
to pluralize initialisms is with "'s" rather than just "s". It turns out
that I was taught wrong.
I did find out just now, though, that apparently "'s" *is* appropriate
for initialisms with internal punctuation, for example "Ph.D.'s".
NRen2k5
I cancelled the post right after making it but apparently CSMA doesn't
support it.
NRen2k5
> "NRen2k5" <nom...@email.com> stated in post
> %80qg.40046$x.26...@weber.videotron.net on 7/2/06 8:28 PM:
>> pluralizing any initialism.
>
> Common, yes. Acceptable... well, but many people, but it is not accepted as
> being grammatically correct by linguists. None that I have read, anyway.
I prefer to take the linguists' side whenever possible, since taking the
people's side means accepting nonsensical words like "irregardless". I
cringe whenever I hear that.
Snit
Fair enough. Do you have a reference for the example you give?
Snit
Yeah, people need to up their standards. :)
Sandman
NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
> >> No matter how you spin it, Sandman, Wally is being no more honest nor
> >> honorable than you... you are both lying trolls.
> >
> > Yet we're not the most hated persons in csma, nor are we the most
> > killfiled people in csma... That would be... you.
> >
> > Go figure.
>
> Which has exactly nothing to do with being honest or honourable.
Of course not. Why?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>> I have asked Wally to keep his lies on this issue to
> >>>> this thread, so I am trying to have it not spread all over CSMA.
> >>>
> >>> Ironically, you're the one trying desperately to spread it all over
> >>> csma with your antagonizing threads, like the troll you are. You need
> >>> the attention, so you create the threads.
> >>
> >> No matter how you spin it, Sandman, Wally is being no more honest nor
> >> honorable than you... you are both lying trolls.
> >
> > Yet we're not the most hated persons in csma, nor are we the most
> > killfiled people in csma... That would be... you.
> >
> > Go figure.
>
> Why is it, Sandman, that you resort to personal attacks such as that when
> your lies and ignorance are pointed out.
Why is it, Michael, that you resort to lying more when facts are
presented?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0CD9A3E.53B14%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I have asked Wally to keep his lies on this issue to
>>>>>> this thread, so I am trying to have it not spread all over CSMA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ironically, you're the one trying desperately to spread it all over
>>>>> csma with your antagonizing threads, like the troll you are. You need
>>>>> the attention, so you create the threads.
>>>>
>>>> No matter how you spin it, Sandman, Wally is being no more honest nor
>>>> honorable than you... you are both lying trolls.
>>>
>>> Yet we're not the most hated persons in csma, nor are we the most
>>> killfiled people in csma... That would be... you.
>>>
>>> Go figure.
>>
>> Why is it, Sandman, that you resort to personal attacks such as that when
>> your lies and ignorance are pointed out.
Note: no relevant comment from Sandman. He simply cannot explain why he is
unable to stop himself from spewing personal attacks when his lies and
ignorant claims are pointed out. He can, however, spew more lies and
personal attacks, as shown below:
> Why is it, Michael, that you resort to lying more when facts are
> presented?
--
Snit
Better question: why is it that when your lies and ignorant claims are
pointed out you sink to more lies and more personal attacks, Sandman? Have
you no shame?
ZnU
NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
The problem with paying too much attention to what "experts" say is that
they can often be pretty pig-headed. We heard for years that you weren't
supposed to split infinitives in English, but this is nonsense. You're
not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition, but in some cases
avoiding it requires very unnatural word order.
The latest annoyance is that one isn't supposed to use "they" and
"their" for singular subjects of unknown gender... despite the fact that
examples of this in the English language date back over 700 years, the
construction has been used by some of the most respected writers in the
language, and avoiding it often results in extremely awkward sentences.
Actual linguists -- not grammar Nazis -- understand that language is
defined by usage, and spend their time looking at how it's used, rather
than telling people how they should use it.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
Snit
znu-CE86DE.0...@individual.net on 7/3/06 12:11 AM:
Do you not see a place for setting standards for grammar? Do you think that
Apple is using the language correctly as they state:
"no no do not be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known
viruses for PCs." [emphasis mine, poor grammar Apple's]
The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus>
Quote in question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote>
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>>> I have asked Wally to keep his lies on this issue to
> >>>>>> this thread, so I am trying to have it not spread all over CSMA.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ironically, you're the one trying desperately to spread it all over
> >>>>> csma with your antagonizing threads, like the troll you are. You need
> >>>>> the attention, so you create the threads.
> >>>>
> >>>> No matter how you spin it, Sandman, Wally is being no more honest nor
> >>>> honorable than you... you are both lying trolls.
> >>>
> >>> Yet we're not the most hated persons in csma, nor are we the most
> >>> killfiled people in csma... That would be... you.
> >>>
> >>> Go figure.
> >>
> >> Why is it, Sandman, that you resort to personal attacks such as that when
> >> your lies and ignorance are pointed out.
> >
> > Why is it, Michael, that you resort to lying more when facts are
> > presented?
Note: no relevant comment from Michael. He simply cannot explain why
he is unable to stop himself from spewing personal attacks when his
lies and ignorant claims are pointed out. He can, however, spew more
lies and personal attacks, lies and keep trolling.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>> No matter how you spin it, Sandman, Wally is being no more honest nor
> >>>> honorable than you... you are both lying trolls.
> >>>
> >>> Yet we're not the most hated persons in csma, nor are we the most
> >>> killfiled people in csma... That would be... you.
> >>>
> >>> Go figure.
> >>
> >> Which has exactly nothing to do with being honest or honourable.
> >
> > Of course not. Why?
> >
> Better question: why is it that when your lies and ignorant claims are
> pointed out you sink to more lies and more personal attacks, Sandman?
I wouldn't know, since that have yet to occur.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0CD9A3E.53B14%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I have asked Wally to keep his lies on this issue to
>>>>>> this thread, so I am trying to have it not spread all over CSMA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ironically, you're the one trying desperately to spread it all over
>>>>> csma with your antagonizing threads, like the troll you are. You need
>>>>> the attention, so you create the threads.
>>>>
>>>> No matter how you spin it, Sandman, Wally is being no more honest nor
>>>> honorable than you... you are both lying trolls.
>>>
>>> Yet we're not the most hated persons in csma, nor are we the most
>>> killfiled people in csma... That would be... you.
>>>
>>> Go figure.
>>
>> Why is it, Sandman, that you resort to personal attacks such as that when
>> your lies and ignorance are pointed out.
Note: no relevant comment from Sandman. He simply cannot explain why he is
unable to stop himself from spewing personal attacks when his lies and
ignorant claims are pointed out. He can, however, spew more lies and
personal attacks, as shown below:
> Why is it, Michael, that you resort to lying more when facts are
> presented?
--
Wally
"NRen2k5" <nom...@email.com> wrote:
That depends if the killfiling is a result of lets say continually
contradicting yourself such as for example claiming two different versions
of a portion of a commercial are correct in the same post, and then when
realizing your mistake, you decide to question someone else's honesty for no
good reason other that to detract from your mistake, then killfiling may
become a direct result of Honor or lack of it!
(Version one)
"The ad says "no no do not be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000
known viruses for PCs." [emphasis mine]"-Snit
In the same post.....
"last year there were 114000 viruses for PC"-NRen2k5 (me quoting you)
(Version Two)
"Um, Wally, that is the wording of the Apple ad. Please stop lying."-Snit
Then in a subsequent post from Snit he comes up with this doozie.....
"Oops... my mistake here... I was looking at just the "last year" part of
that quote... not the whole thing. Seems neither you nor NRen2k5 were being
honest. Not surprising."-Snit
Now of course I cannot speak for you but in my case I know of no reason to
say that I had been dishonest, perhaps you know of a reason why Snit would
label you so, I don't! What I do know is that in my case Snit is content to
claim that he knows what I believe and what I think and is happy to call it
dishonesty when my actual stated beliefs differ from what he predicts they
should be........
As an aside I do hope that the above is not an example of the "personal
integrity" that you think that I should develop!
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "NRen2k5" <nom...@email.com> stated in post
> %80qg.40046$x.26...@weber.videotron.net on 7/2/06 8:28 PM:
>
>>>> http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
>>>> -----
>>>> Apostrophes are NEVER ever used to denote plurals! Common examples of
>>>> such
>>>> abuse (all seen in real life!) are:
>>>> Banana's for sale which of course should read Bananas for sale
>>>> Menu's printed to order which should read Menus printed to order
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Correct. I don't know what he is doing, but PCs is correct.
>>
>> I looked it up just now. Strictly speaking, you only use an apostrophe
>> when the initialism has internal punctuation, for example Ph.D.'s.
>
> I commend you for admitting to your error. Many in CSMA are not willing to
> do so.
And notice how he was able to accept his error without attacking anyone else
in the process!
The very least you should do is retract your previous unwarranted attack on
his honesty! But will you?
--
"With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Alleged poor grammar!
> The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus>
> Quote in question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote>
>
--
Tim Adams
Do you think a person would become 'the most hated persons in csma' and 'the
most killfiled' person in csma IF he was 'honest or honorable?'
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus>
Quote in question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote>
"no no do not be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known
viruses for PCs." [emphasis mine, poor grammar Apple's]
1) Wally dishonestly "quoted" the Apple commercial (while blaming others
for doing so). He dishonestly denied it state "last year" and
"quoted" it as:
"no no do not be a hero, actually there are 114,000 known
viruses for PC's.........".
In his doing so, he used poor grammar (note the "PC's"). This is
relevant based on #2:
2) Wally belittled me for honestly quoting the ad's poor grammar.
"Really Snit that is stupid even for you! But never let it be
said that I would not lend you a helping hand try this..
'Last year there were................'"
Wally further called me ignorant and stupid based on my being honest
and quoting the ad correctly.
3) When #2 was pointed out, Wally lied and said my honestly quoting the
ad was a form of "support" and "agreement" for its poor grammar.
Wally is confusing the concepts of supporting telling the truth (as
I did and he failed to do) with supporting the ads use of improper
grammar (which I do not).
4) Wally played these games, no doubt, to obfuscate the fact that he
dishonestly "quoted" Apple by claiming the ad did not use the phrase
"last year". This whole grammar side issue is irrelevant to Wally's
initial lie, but he is trying mighty hard to obfuscate it.
Honestly quoting someone is not synonymous with agreeing with their message
nor with supporting the use of improper grammar.
How much trolling will Wally do over these facts?
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-DABB8E.06...@news.west.earthlink.net on 7/3/06 3:37
AM:
> In article <ka0qg.40092$x.27...@weber.videotron.net>,
> NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Sandman wrote:
>>> In article <C0CD87B3.53ACE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I have asked Wally to keep his lies on this issue to
>>>>>> this thread, so I am trying to have it not spread all over CSMA.
>>>>> Ironically, you're the one trying desperately to spread it all over
>>>>> csma with your antagonizing threads, like the troll you are. You need
>>>>> the attention, so you create the threads.
>>>> No matter how you spin it, Sandman, Wally is being no more honest nor
>>>> honorable than you... you are both lying trolls.
>>>
>>> Yet we're not the most hated persons in csma, nor are we the most
>>> killfiled people in csma... That would be... you.
>>>
>>> Go figure.
>>
>> Which has exactly nothing to do with being honest or honourable.
>
> Do you think a person would become 'the most hated persons in csma' and 'the
> most killfiled' person in csma IF he was 'honest or honorable?'
What does that have to do with anything? Keep in mind you are parroting
Sandman's accusations... accusations I have challenged him to support and he
has ran.
But, if you and other trolls do hate me, no, Tim, that does not make me any
less honest nor honorable. Not even a little.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Note how Snit chooses not to argue against any of the points made above!
--
"Would eating a banana or sniffing a flower make it all go away?" -Snit
Snit
You lie, above. I state the truth, which you run from. But since you beg
me to, I shall focus specifically on your one lie, above, and ignore the
others for a moment:
1) you claim I contradicted myself and that this lead me to question
someone else's (your) honesty.
Your claim is a complete and utter lie. One, the only "contradiction" I had
in any post was a comment I made in error and corrected moments later in a
follow up post (as you quote, above), and, of course, that error has
*nothing* to do with my pointing out what a liar you are. Not only are you
acting as though my honest admission of error was a *bad* thing, you are
trying to use my being honest as an obfuscation of your clear and
unambiguous lie. In doing so, Wally, you are piling your lies higher.
So there you have it, Wally, I have fully responded in an honest and
honorable way to your dishonest "point", above. Will you now show any
honest and honorable response to the following? Up until now you have
failed to do so, but you have whined that I am repeatedly posting it. Poor
Wally... the truth just does not fade away as you wish it would.
Ok, give it your best shot:
=============================================
The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus>
Quote in question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote>
"no no do not be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known
=============================================
I keep asking you how much trolling you will do over these facts... and the
answer seems to be an unlimited amount. Eventually I will tire of your
running from the facts, I will stop posting this, and you and your fellow
trolls will claim *I* am the one - in your sick minds - who is running. Do
you think we have not played this game before?
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-DABB8E.06...@news.west.earthlink.net on 7/3/06 3:37
> AM:
>
> > In article <ka0qg.40092$x.27...@weber.videotron.net>,
> > NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sandman wrote:
> >>> In article <C0CD87B3.53ACE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> I have asked Wally to keep his lies on this issue to
> >>>>>> this thread, so I am trying to have it not spread all over CSMA.
> >>>>> Ironically, you're the one trying desperately to spread it all over
> >>>>> csma with your antagonizing threads, like the troll you are. You need
> >>>>> the attention, so you create the threads.
> >>>> No matter how you spin it, Sandman, Wally is being no more honest nor
> >>>> honorable than you... you are both lying trolls.
> >>>
> >>> Yet we're not the most hated persons in csma, nor are we the most
> >>> killfiled people in csma... That would be... you.
> >>>
> >>> Go figure.
> >>
> >> Which has exactly nothing to do with being honest or honourable.
> >
> > Do you think a person would become 'the most hated persons in csma' and 'the
> > most killfiled' person in csma IF he was 'honest or honorable?'
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
It has just as much to do with the discussion as the comment by NRen2k5 did. Too
bad you couldn't understand that FACT.
> Keep in mind you are parroting
> Sandman's accusations...
an accusation that's already been addressed but you're to stupid to understand
that and so you continue your trolling.
~more babbling by the idiot, trolling snit snipped
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Note how Snit chooses not to argue against any of the points made above!
> >
> You lie, above. I state the truth, which you run from. But since you beg
> me to, I shall focus specifically on your one lie, above, and ignore the
> others for a moment:
>
> 1) you claim I contradicted myself and that this lead me to question
> someone else's (your) honesty.
>
> Your claim is a complete and utter lie. One, the only "contradiction" I had
> in any post was a comment I made in error and corrected moments later in a
> follow up post (as you quote, above), and, of course, that error has
> *nothing* to do with my pointing out what a liar you are. Not only are you
> acting as though my honest admission of error was a *bad* thing, you are
> trying to use my being honest as an obfuscation of your clear and
> unambiguous lie. In doing so, Wally, you are piling your lies higher.
Reading the above, I smile a bit and try to imagine how it is to be a
troll like you Snit. Where everything has to be an argument.
Isn't it funny that Wally, Steve Carroll, Elizabot and a whole slew of
other people that you call troll only are called trolls and liar by
you, on a regular basis?
I mean, sure, we're called liars/trolls now and then even by others
(and has been shown, often by other people that have an almost
Snit-like network of people around them that identify them as trolls
as well: Josh McKee, Mayor, Edwin, and so on). But even considering
this, neither of us are in a situation where we are being called
trolls and/or liars ALL THE TIME by several people in several threads.
Isn't that funny? I mean, it's doubly funny when you work so hard to
try to deny that you are a troll because - I'm assuming - being a
troll would detract from some kind of imaginary credibility you think
you have. If you admit you're a troll, this imagianry credibility
(which, by the way, only you think you have) will be lost.
The fact that so many has you killfiled, and so many calls you a troll
is of no concern to you. You just claim they all are trolls back and
think you have logic on your side. Hehe :)
--
Sandman[.net]
NRen2k5
NRen2k5
> In article <C0CE52F2.53C31%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> Note how Snit chooses not to argue against any of the points made above!
>>>
>> You lie, above. I state the truth, which you run from. But since you beg
>> me to, I shall focus specifically on your one lie, above, and ignore the
>> others for a moment:
>>
>> 1) you claim I contradicted myself and that this lead me to question
>> someone else's (your) honesty.
>>
>> Your claim is a complete and utter lie. One, the only "contradiction" I had
>> in any post was a comment I made in error and corrected moments later in a
>> follow up post (as you quote, above), and, of course, that error has
>> *nothing* to do with my pointing out what a liar you are. Not only are you
>> acting as though my honest admission of error was a *bad* thing, you are
>> trying to use my being honest as an obfuscation of your clear and
>> unambiguous lie. In doing so, Wally, you are piling your lies higher.
>
> Reading the above, I smile a bit and try to imagine how it is to be a
> troll like you Snit. Where everything has to be an argument.
>
> Isn't it funny that Wally, Steve Carroll, Elizabot and a whole slew of
> other people that you call troll only are called trolls and liar by
> you, on a regular basis?
Hmm....... maybe because............ THIS IS A MAC NEWSGROUP! Could we
really expect a bunch of soulless, spineless hippy cocksuckers like
yourselves to forget about your pride for a minute and ever admit the truth?
> I mean, sure, we're called liars/trolls now and then even by others
> (and has been shown, often by other people that have an almost
> Snit-like network of people around them that identify them as trolls
> as well: Josh McKee, Mayor, Edwin, and so on). But even considering
> this, neither of us are in a situation where we are being called
> trolls and/or liars ALL THE TIME by several people in several threads.
>
> Isn't that funny? I mean, it's doubly funny when you work so hard to
> try to deny that you are a troll because - I'm assuming - being a
> troll would detract from some kind of imaginary credibility you think
> you have. If you admit you're a troll, this imagianry credibility
> (which, by the way, only you think you have) will be lost.
So the sheer volume of an argument makes it true? You're even more
severely retarded than I first thought.
> The fact that so many has you killfiled, and so many calls you a troll
> is of no concern to you. You just claim they all are trolls back and
> think you have logic on your side. Hehe :)
Pathetic, aren't they?
NRen2k5
> In article <ka0qg.40092$x.27...@weber.videotron.net>,
> NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Sandman wrote:
>>> In article <C0CD87B3.53ACE%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I have asked Wally to keep his lies on this issue to
>>>>>> this thread, so I am trying to have it not spread all over CSMA.
>>>>> Ironically, you're the one trying desperately to spread it all over
>>>>> csma with your antagonizing threads, like the troll you are. You need
>>>>> the attention, so you create the threads.
>>>> No matter how you spin it, Sandman, Wally is being no more honest nor
>>>> honorable than you... you are both lying trolls.
>>> Yet we're not the most hated persons in csma, nor are we the most
>>> killfiled people in csma... That would be... you.
>>>
>>> Go figure.
>> Which has exactly nothing to do with being honest or honourable.
>
> Do you think a person would become 'the most hated persons in csma' and 'the
> most killfiled' person in csma IF he was 'honest or honorable?'
Damn straight!
NRen2k5
What are you, in junior high? You don't help your credibility by just
calling something a fact, especially after that "fact" has been
completely vaporized by even the slightest scrutiny.
>> Keep in mind you are parroting
>> Sandman's accusations...
>
> an accusation that's already been addressed but you're to stupid to understand
> that and so you continue your trolling.
You mean you.
> ~more babbling by the idiot, trolling snit snipped
Cowardly snip noted.
NRen2k5
Beg pardon?
You are resorting to empty personal attacks when facts are presented.
NRen2k5
NRen2k5
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus> Quote in
>>>>> question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote> "no no do not
>>>>> be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known viruses for PCs."
>>>>> [emphasis mine, poor grammar Apple's]
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Wally dishonestly "quoted" the Apple commercial (while blaming
>>>>> others for doing so). He dishonestly denied it state "last year" and
>>>>> "quoted" it as: "no no do not be a hero, actually there are 114,000
>>>>> known viruses for PC's.........". In his doing so, he used poor
>>>>> grammar (note the "PC's"). This is relevant based on #2:
>>> Did you see my reply elsewhere? From it:
>>>
>>> Do you have any support for your view? Here is support for mine:
>>>
>>> <http://tranchant.plus.com/notes/apostrophe>
>>> -----
>>> Never use an apostrophe to form a plural. As the Quick Guide suggests, it is
>>> common opinion that words ending in vowels take an apostrophe when plural.
>>> This is wrong.
>>> ...
>>> Neither is it correct to use an apostrophe with plural abbreviations, which
>>> do not even use full-stops (periods) between letters these days.
>>> CDs, ICBMs, PCs, VCRs etc.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
>>> -----
>>> Apostrophes are NEVER ever used to denote plurals! Common examples of such
>>> abuse (all seen in real life!) are:
>>> Banana's for sale which of course should read Bananas for sale
>>> Menu's printed to order which should read Menus printed to order
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> http://www.articlealley.com/article_7703_50.html
>>> -----
>>> That's the rule. If it's a noun, s makes it plural and
>>> apostrophe-s makes it possessive. It's just that simple.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Either way, though, the whole grammar issue is a side issue Wally spewed in
>>> an effort to obfuscate the fact he dishonestly claimed the Apple ad did
>>> *not* use the phrase "last year". Even after I provided the slowed down
>>> version Wally still sticks to his lie.
>> You're right. I was incorrectly "taught" in college that the correct way
>> to pluralize initialisms is with "'s" rather than just "s". It turns out
>> that I was taught wrong.
>>
>> I did find out just now, though, that apparently "'s" *is* appropriate
>> for initialisms with internal punctuation, for example "Ph.D.'s".
>
> Fair enough. Do you have a reference for the example you give?
I can't find the one I read last night, but here's another:
http://tinyurl.com/qq5t
The more I search the web, the more it seems that there's just no single
consensus on pluralizing initialisms. :|
For example, you said that the "CDs", for example, is proper and that
"CD's" is a modern trend, but Wikipedia tells me it's exactly the opposite.
Sandman
NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
> > Isn't it funny that Wally, Steve Carroll, Elizabot and a whole slew of
> > other people that you call troll only are called trolls and liar by
> > you, on a regular basis?
>
> Hmm....... maybe because............ THIS IS A MAC NEWSGROUP! Could we
> really expect a bunch of soulless, spineless hippy cocksuckers like
> yourselves to forget about your pride for a minute and ever admit the truth?
Any relation to Muahman?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
All that babbling from you, Wally, and you fail to comment on the topic in
question - your lies. Why is that?
How much trolling will Wally do over these facts?
--
Snit
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-3C3CF5.15...@individual.net on 7/3/06 6:47 AM:
> In article <C0CE52F2.53C31%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
All that babbling from you, Wally, and you fail to comment on the topic in
question - your lies. Why is that?
The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus>
How much trolling will Wally do over these facts?
Steve Carroll
NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
Should be good enough for Snit as he has used this source repeatedly to
make claims of his own (and we all know Snit is no hypocrite;) You
should expect an apology from him at any time. LOL!
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Put the glue down, pal;)
Snit
> Sandman wrote:
>> In article <C0CE52F2.53C31%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>> Note how Snit chooses not to argue against any of the points made above!
>>>>
>>> You lie, above. I state the truth, which you run from. But since you beg
>>> me to, I shall focus specifically on your one lie, above, and ignore the
>>> others for a moment:
>>>
>>> 1) you claim I contradicted myself and that this lead me to question
>>> someone else's (your) honesty.
>>>
>>> Your claim is a complete and utter lie. One, the only "contradiction" I had
>>> in any post was a comment I made in error and corrected moments later in a
>>> follow up post (as you quote, above), and, of course, that error has
>>> *nothing* to do with my pointing out what a liar you are. Not only are you
>>> acting as though my honest admission of error was a *bad* thing, you are
>>> trying to use my being honest as an obfuscation of your clear and
>>> unambiguous lie. In doing so, Wally, you are piling your lies higher.
>>
>> Reading the above, I smile a bit and try to imagine how it is to be a
>> troll like you Snit. Where everything has to be an argument.
>>
>> Isn't it funny that Wally, Steve Carroll, Elizabot and a whole slew of
>> other people that you call troll only are called trolls and liar by
>> you, on a regular basis?
>
> Hmm....... maybe because............ THIS IS A MAC NEWSGROUP! Could we
> really expect a bunch of soulless, spineless hippy cocksuckers like
> yourselves to forget about your pride for a minute and ever admit the truth?
LOL! Keep in mind I am a Mac user and a Mac supporter... I just do not feel
the need to lie about the Mac as others do. Take Sandman for example... he
never has explained why he felt his contrived videos "debunked" other
people's experiences. Yet, it is he who claimed:
Your "experience" is totally debunked with my video clips. I
have proven you utterly wrong, face it and move on.
When the tables were turned, of course, and he *claimed* to be having
problems with his network but others were not he did not agree that their
experience "debunked" his claim.
Sandman also claims to be a web design pro, but then takes the advice of
those he claims are completely without talent and shows he knows very, very
little about the industry.
>
>> I mean, sure, we're called liars/trolls now and then even by others
>> (and has been shown, often by other people that have an almost
>> Snit-like network of people around them that identify them as trolls
>> as well: Josh McKee, Mayor, Edwin, and so on). But even considering
>> this, neither of us are in a situation where we are being called
>> trolls and/or liars ALL THE TIME by several people in several threads.
>>
>> Isn't that funny? I mean, it's doubly funny when you work so hard to
>> try to deny that you are a troll because - I'm assuming - being a
>> troll would detract from some kind of imaginary credibility you think
>> you have. If you admit you're a troll, this imagianry credibility
>> (which, by the way, only you think you have) will be lost.
>
> So the sheer volume of an argument makes it true? You're even more
> severely retarded than I first thought.
The group-think defense is the best defense he, Carroll, and several of the
others have been able to come up with. "CSMA Moderator" (who is almost
undoubtedly a sock puppet of Carroll) even quotes trolling comments about me
to try to support their "group think". I have pointed out how I can find
just as many disparaging quotes about Steve, but that is ignored by he and
the rest.
If I really was as they say, they would not need to falsely attribute quotes
to me, lie about me, snip my comments, etc. Their is no reasonable excuse
for their actions.
>> The fact that so many has you killfiled, and so many calls you a troll
>> is of no concern to you. You just claim they all are trolls back and
>> think you have logic on your side. Hehe :)
>
> Pathetic, aren't they?
Please note how he provides no evidence that *anyone* has me kill filed -
and keep in mind that both he and Carroll and Edwin have all *claimed* to
have kill filed me but continued to respond. Oops. Heck, at one time
Carroll even told me he would not talk to me any more until I responded to
some BS of his. I think his will power lasted less than a day. :)
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Snit
Exactly... which shows how much of a liar Sandman is when he denied making
personal attacks.
--
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
Steve Carroll
Interesting. Snit likes to label groups of people at a crack, too:
"Most of the folks in CSMA struggle with simple logic"
Hint: That this is a "MAC NEWSGROUP" has little to do with *all* the
people that have commented on Snit the way they have.
Don't hurt yourself thinking about any of this;)
Snit
Fair enough... though it is a style guide intended for one company (and
those that work with them). There are times that a group may decide it is
OK to break the "rules".
>
> The more I search the web, the more it seems that there's just no single
> consensus on pluralizing initialisms. :|
>
> For example, you said that the "CDs", for example, is proper and that
> "CD's" is a modern trend, but Wikipedia tells me it's exactly the opposite.
Again, fair enough. It is a nit-picky enough point that I certainly would
never have brought it up except as a counter point to Wally's focus on
grammar. In the end my point stands:
Wally belittled me for honestly quoting the ad's poor grammar.
"Really Snit that is stupid even for you! But never let it be
said that I would not lend you a helping hand try this..
'Last year there were................'"
Wally further called me ignorant and stupid based on my being honest
and quoting the ad correctly.
When #2 was pointed out, Wally lied and said my honestly quoting the
ad was a form of "support" and "agreement" for its poor grammar.
Wally is confusing the concepts of supporting telling the truth (as
I did and he failed to do) with supporting the ads use of improper
grammar (which I do not).
Wally played these games, no doubt, to obfuscate the fact that he
dishonestly "quoted" Apple by claiming the ad did not use the phrase
"last year". This whole grammar side issue is irrelevant to Wally's
initial lie, but he is trying mighty hard to obfuscate it.
Honestly quoting someone is not synonymous with agreeing with their message
nor with supporting the use of improper grammar.
Wally just cannot accept these facts.
Snit
noone-F37E26....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/3/06 10:04 AM:
>>> Fair enough. Do you have a reference for the example you give?
>>
>> I can't find the one I read last night, but here's another:
>> http://tinyurl.com/qq5t
>>
>> The more I search the web, the more it seems that there's just no single
>> consensus on pluralizing initialisms. :|
>>
>> For example, you said that the "CDs", for example, is proper and that
>> "CD's" is a modern trend, but Wikipedia tells me it's exactly the opposite.
>
> Should be good enough for Snit as he has used this source repeatedly to
> make claims of his own (and we all know Snit is no hypocrite;) You
> should expect an apology from him at any time. LOL!
What do you think I owe him an apology for?
Snit
>> Hmm....... maybe because............ THIS IS A MAC NEWSGROUP! Could we
>> really expect a bunch of soulless, spineless hippy cocksuckers like
>> yourselves to forget about your pride for a minute and ever admit the truth?
>>
>
>
> Interesting. Snit likes to label groups of people at a crack, too:
>
> "Most of the folks in CSMA struggle with simple logic"
>
>
> Hint: That this is a "MAC NEWSGROUP" has little to do with *all* the
> people that have commented on Snit the way they have.
>
> Don't hurt yourself thinking about any of this;)
What makes you think people in other groups troll and flame and lie about me
the way you, Tim, Wally, Sandman do in CSMA? Hint: you have dug up *many*
quotes from me from other groups... and I do not believe there was a single
disparaging word about me in that group for the whole time I posted there -
and if there was, there certainly was not the level of trolling that you and
others show in CSMA.
Oh, and before you get all high and mighty about comments about folks in
CSMA, remember it is you who stated:
"everyone that regularly posts here is a moron and an asshole in
some respect, myself included. That's why we come here, to seek our
own kind." - Steve Carroll
Hate to disappoint you, Steve, but I am not one of your "kind"... I am not
an asshole and a moron, as you have admitted to being.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-707832....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/3/06 10:12 AM:
>
> >> Hmm....... maybe because............ THIS IS A MAC NEWSGROUP! Could we
> >> really expect a bunch of soulless, spineless hippy cocksuckers like
> >> yourselves to forget about your pride for a minute and ever admit the
> >> truth?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Interesting. Snit likes to label groups of people at a crack, too:
> >
> > "Most of the folks in CSMA struggle with simple logic"
> >
> >
> > Hint: That this is a "MAC NEWSGROUP" has little to do with *all* the
> > people that have commented on Snit the way they have.
> >
> > Don't hurt yourself thinking about any of this;)
>
> What makes you think people in other groups troll and flame and lie about me
Yes, Snit... I knew you would hurt yourself over it.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
No! if you actually read what I wrote you may amaze yourself in finding that
I accurately quoted you saying.....
"Seems neither you nor NRen2k5 were being honest."-Snit
>
> Your claim is a complete and utter lie. One, the only "contradiction" I had
> in any post was a comment I made in error and corrected moments later in a
> follow up post (as you quote, above),
So let me get this straight......Me stating that you contradicted yourself
in a post and then in a subsequent post accused not only myself but NRen2k5
of being dishonest.....was a complete and utter lie!
And your proof of this is to admit that you contradicted yourself in the
post in question and and that the follow up post that I mention is accurate!
LOL!
Are you *unwell* again Snit?
Is where this "complete and utter lie" can be seen. ;-)
--
"With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
Snit
>> What makes you think people in other groups troll and flame and lie about me
> Yes, Snit... I knew you would hurt yourself over it.
Showing how much of a liar and hypocrite you are does not hurt.
>> the way you, Tim, Wally, Sandman do in CSMA? Hint: you have dug up *many*
>> quotes from me from other groups... and I do not believe there was a single
>> disparaging word about me in that group for the whole time I posted there -
>> and if there was, there certainly was not the level of trolling that you and
>> others show in CSMA.
Note: no comment from Steve. He is not able to explain why he cannot find
trolls spazzing about me in other groups, even though he has spent untold
hours digging through such groups to find "dirt" to support his bigoted
attacks against me.
>> Oh, and before you get all high and mighty about comments about folks in
>> CSMA, remember it is you who stated:
>> "everyone that regularly posts here is a moron and an asshole in
>> some respect, myself included. That's why we come here, to seek our
>> own kind." - Steve Carroll
>> Hate to disappoint you, Steve, but I am not one of your "kind"... I am not an
>> asshole and a moron, as you have admitted to being.
Note: no comment from Steve.
The fact you feel the need to snip and run so much, Steve, is quite telling.
"Reality can simply be snipped away" - Steve Carroll
No, Steve... it cannot be. No matter how hard you try.
Snit
What you are trying to obfuscate:
The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus>
Quote in question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote>
"no no do not be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known
How much trolling will Wally do over these facts?
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Reading the above, I smile a bit and try to imagine how it is to be a
> > troll like you Snit. Where everything has to be an argument.
> >
> > Isn't it funny that Wally, Steve Carroll, Elizabot and a whole slew of
> > other people that you call troll only are called trolls and liar by
> > you, on a regular basis?
> >
> > I mean, sure, we're called liars/trolls now and then even by others
> > (and has been shown, often by other people that have an almost
> > Snit-like network of people around them that identify them as trolls
> > as well: Josh McKee, Mayor, Edwin, and so on). But even considering
> > this, neither of us are in a situation where we are being called
> > trolls and/or liars ALL THE TIME by several people in several threads.
> >
> > Isn't that funny? I mean, it's doubly funny when you work so hard to
> > try to deny that you are a troll because - I'm assuming - being a
> > troll would detract from some kind of imaginary credibility you think
> > you have. If you admit you're a troll, this imagianry credibility
> > (which, by the way, only you think you have) will be lost.
> >
> > The fact that so many has you killfiled, and so many calls you a troll
> > is of no concern to you. You just claim they all are trolls back and
> > think you have logic on your side. Hehe :)
> >
> All that babbling from you, Wally
Hahaha! You're so tightly locked into cut'n'paste block mode that you
can't even keep up with who's who.
You made a good choice in running from the above though, there is no
way you can face it honestly.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > Hint: That this is a "MAC NEWSGROUP" has little to do with *all* the
> > people that have commented on Snit the way they have.
> >
> > Don't hurt yourself thinking about any of this;)
>
> What makes you think people in other groups troll and flame and lie about me
> the way you, Tim, Wally, Sandman do in CSMA?
Maybe you've not fallen in to your troll persona there? If so, then I
think you should spend more time there, it would do you good. Get rid
of all these nasty "trolls" here. Right?
--
Sandman[.net]
NRen2k5
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-F37E26....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/3/06 10:04 AM:
>
>>>> Fair enough. Do you have a reference for the example you give?
>>> I can't find the one I read last night, but here's another:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/qq5t
>>>
>>> The more I search the web, the more it seems that there's just no single
>>> consensus on pluralizing initialisms. :|
>>>
>>> For example, you said that the "CDs", for example, is proper and that
>>> "CD's" is a modern trend, but Wikipedia tells me it's exactly the opposite.
>> Should be good enough for Snit as he has used this source repeatedly to
>> make claims of his own (and we all know Snit is no hypocrite;) You
>> should expect an apology from him at any time. LOL!
>
> What do you think I owe him an apology for?
I'm wondering too. You'd think they could at least learn from us how to
engage in proper intellectual discourse.
NRen2k5
Snit
What makes you think my "persona" is any different in other groups? I am
honest and honorable wherever I am, not just in CSMA. I do find it sad how
you refer to being honest and honorable as being a "troll persona"; says a
lot about your values.
Fact is nobody lies about me the way you and the other trolls of CSMA do.
Why do you think that is you and other trolls in CSMA see me one way and
people who are not CSMA trolls do *not* see me that way? What magic vision
do you have that they lack?
Snit
No. I have come to realize they cannot learn any such thing. :)
In any case, it is clear Steve assumes any discussion where people do not
immediately agree and actually show support for their positions is a
discussion where there is animosity.
It explains why Steve never openly disagrees with Wally, Tim Adams, Sandman
and the like - he is simply too afraid of conflict with his fellow trolls.
Then Steve wonders why I comment about their "group think". He just is not
able to figure it out.
Sandman
NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
Haha!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Wally will do all he can to obfuscate those facts... though he, Sandman,
Carroll, and Adams will work as hard as they can to find any tiny nit to
pick with my comments. The overall point that is very, very well supported
is that Wally clearly and unambiguously lied about the Apple ad. I have
shown this with:
* a link to the ad where the phrase "last year" is very clear
* by slowing the relevant quote down to make it easier to understand
* and by quoting Wally repeatedly claiming the ad does not use the phrase
"last year".
Wally is dishonestly denying Apple uses the phrase "last year" in their ad.
His "defense" is one he borrowed from Carroll - maybe, just maybe, he hopes
people will believe, he is not competent enough to understand how his
dishonest quote is different from the real one. Pathetic. Can he really do
no better than offer an "insanity" defense? It is very much the same
"defense" Steve uses for excusing why he has falsely attributed the same
quote to me more than 10 times a day on average for more than 4 months.
These are incontrovertible facts, of course, that the "group think" crew
will never admit to. They have no idea how predictable they are.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>> Hint: That this is a "MAC NEWSGROUP" has little to do with *all*
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>> people that have commented on Snit the way they have.
>>>>
>>>> Don't hurt yourself thinking about any of this;)
>>>
>>> What makes you think people in other groups troll and flame and
>>> lie about me the way you, Tim, Wally, Sandman do in CSMA?
>>
>> Maybe you've not fallen in to your troll persona there? If so, then
>> I think you should spend more time there, it would do you good. Get
>> rid of all these nasty "trolls" here. Right?
>
> What makes you think my "persona" is any different in other groups?
I don't. I offered it as an explanation. Another reason could be that
they are more tolerant towards trolls in your other groups. I really
don't know why they tolerate you, if you behave the same way there as
you do here - where you're the most hated and most killfiled person in
the history of csma.
> I am honest and honorable wherever I am, not just in CSMA.
You meant "just not in CSMA". Ooops.
> I do find it sad how you refer to being honest and honorable as
> being a "troll persona"; says a lot about your values.
Obfuscation.
> Fact is nobody lies about me the way you and the other trolls of
> CSMA do.
Given that the amount of "lies" I tell about you is "zero", you just
said that nobody tells zero lies about you. Why do so many people tell
all these lies, Michael? Is it a conspiracy?
> Why do you think that is you and other trolls in CSMA see me one way
> and people who are not CSMA trolls do *not* see me that way?
Yeah - why is that? Why are you the most hated person in the history
of csma? Why is it that every single person you keep arguing with
pretty much only argue with you, and isn't having lengthy discussions
with lots of OTHER people. The common factor is you, and only you. Why
is that? How come all these evil "trolls" like Steve, George, Tim, Ed,
Wally, Sandman, Elizabot, Jim, Rick, Steve, Alan all focus on only
you? What makes you so special for these "trolls"? Why can't they find
someone else to troll?
The important thing here is how you relate to them. You claim they
troll YOU. Which - if the above scenario were true - would be correct,
since they only make fun of you, only "harass" you. But the difference
is when you ask each of them about you - they probably won't say
"Yeah, Snit trolls ME". They would probably all say "Yeah, Snit trolls
THE GROUP". You're a troll of csma, not a troll of just a single
person.
Because that's a fact. Neither of the above posters match the
objective troll criteria other in posts they make to you (things like
role reversal for example). It's not a common thing for them to any
other poster. They don't create antagonizing threads on a regular
basis, they don't create sock puppets and things like that.
You're the only one, in the ENTIRE group that matches the objective
troll criteria in so many ways in so many thread sto so many posters.
Sure, there are "lesser" trolls such as Josh and the Mayor that also
match the criteria on a wide basis - but they couldn't hold a candle
to you if their life depended on it.
The above were one of those rare moments where I actually talk with
you (as opposed to just make fun of you and prove that you're a
troll). We'll see how much you snip and/or run :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Lars Träger
> Sandman wrote:
> > Yet we're not the most hated persons in csma, nor are we the most
> > killfiled people in csma... That would be... you.
> >
> > Go figure.
>
> Which has exactly nothing to do with being honest or honourable.
Exactly. So far you are quite far from the truth, yet few people
killfiled you.
--
Lars T.
Lars Träger
> I cancelled the post right after making it but apparently CSMA doesn't
> support it.
Are YOU clueless.
--
Lars T.
Lars Träger
> Colour me surprised - this means that my college English teacher was wrong!
Wintroll excuse #137: "I was mislead".
--
Lars T.
Steve Carroll
> Snit wrote:
> > "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> > noone-F37E26....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/3/06 10:04 AM:
> >
> >>>> Fair enough. Do you have a reference for the example you give?
> >>> I can't find the one I read last night, but here's another:
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/qq5t
> >>>
> >>> The more I search the web, the more it seems that there's just no single
> >>> consensus on pluralizing initialisms. :|
> >>>
> >>> For example, you said that the "CDs", for example, is proper and that
> >>> "CD's" is a modern trend, but Wikipedia tells me it's exactly the
> >>> opposite.
> >> Should be good enough for Snit as he has used this source repeatedly to
> >> make claims of his own (and we all know Snit is no hypocrite;) You
> >> should expect an apology from him at any time. LOL!
> >
> > What do you think I owe him an apology for?
>
> I'm wondering too.
Realistically, not a thing... (no one really owes a troll anything) I
was just holding Snit to the same standard he tries to hold everyone
else.
> You'd think they could at least learn from us how to
> engage in proper intellectual discourse.
LOL!
Steve Carroll
NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
(snip)
> >
> > How much trolling will Wally do over these facts?
>
> It's all just too much for him to wrap his noodle around.
Snit may not believe you about this, in fact, if you aren't being
honest, Snit may not even be surprised:
"Seems neither you nor NRen2k5 were being honest. Not surprising."
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
You say this, yet, you bothered to whine about his 'error'.
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <C0CEBCF9.53D01%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >>>> Hint: That this is a "MAC NEWSGROUP" has little to do with *all*
> >>>> the
> >>>>
> >>>> people that have commented on Snit the way they have.
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't hurt yourself thinking about any of this;)
> >>>
> >>> What makes you think people in other groups troll and flame and
> >>> lie about me the way you, Tim, Wally, Sandman do in CSMA?
> >>
> >> Maybe you've not fallen in to your troll persona there? If so, then
> >> I think you should spend more time there, it would do you good. Get
> >> rid of all these nasty "trolls" here. Right?
> >
> > What makes you think my "persona" is any different in other groups?
>
> I don't. I offered it as an explanation. Another reason could be that
> they are more tolerant towards trolls in your other groups.
And another reason could be that Snit is lying. They all but ran him out
of cola on a rail.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "NRen2k5" <nom...@email.com> stated in post
> n2aqg.69343$x.35...@weber.videotron.net on 7/3/06 7:43 AM:
>
> > Sandman wrote:
> >> In article <C0CE52F2.53C31%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> >> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Note how Snit chooses not to argue against any of the points made above!
> >>>>
> >>> You lie, above. I state the truth, which you run from. But since you
> >>> beg
> >>> me to, I shall focus specifically on your one lie, above, and ignore the
> >>> others for a moment:
> >>>
> >>> 1) you claim I contradicted myself and that this lead me to question
> >>> someone else's (your) honesty.
> >>>
> >>> Your claim is a complete and utter lie. One, the only "contradiction" I
> >>> had
> >>> in any post was a comment I made in error and corrected moments later in
> >>> a
> >>> follow up post (as you quote, above), and, of course, that error has
> >>> *nothing* to do with my pointing out what a liar you are. Not only are
> >>> you
> >>> acting as though my honest admission of error was a *bad* thing, you are
> >>> trying to use my being honest as an obfuscation of your clear and
> >>> unambiguous lie. In doing so, Wally, you are piling your lies higher.
> >>
> >> Reading the above, I smile a bit and try to imagine how it is to be a
> >> troll like you Snit. Where everything has to be an argument.
> >>
> >> Isn't it funny that Wally, Steve Carroll, Elizabot and a whole slew of
> >> other people that you call troll only are called trolls and liar by
> >> you, on a regular basis?
> >
> > Hmm....... maybe because............ THIS IS A MAC NEWSGROUP! Could we
> > really expect a bunch of soulless, spineless hippy cocksuckers like
> > yourselves to forget about your pride for a minute and ever admit the
> > truth?
>
> LOL! Keep in mind I am a Mac user
Keep in mind that you're a glue user.
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
LOL!
>
> You made a good choice in running from the above though, there is no
> way you can face it honestly.
True... but he could have face it the way he faces everything else;)
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > What makes you think my "persona" is any different in other groups?
> >
> > I don't. I offered it as an explanation. Another reason could be that
> > they are more tolerant towards trolls in your other groups.
>
> And another reason could be that Snit is lying.
Yeah, well, that goes without saying. I meant to give reasons that are
less likely than lying, but still possible. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C0CEBCF9.53D01%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>>> Hint: That this is a "MAC NEWSGROUP" has little to do with *all*
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>> people that have commented on Snit the way they have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't hurt yourself thinking about any of this;)
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think people in other groups troll and flame and
>>>> lie about me the way you, Tim, Wally, Sandman do in CSMA?
>>>
>>> Maybe you've not fallen in to your troll persona there? If so, then
>>> I think you should spend more time there, it would do you good. Get
>>> rid of all these nasty "trolls" here. Right?
>>
>> What makes you think my "persona" is any different in other groups?
>
> I don't.
Then why do you think I am not followed around by trolls such as yourself
elsewhere?
> I offered it as an explanation. Another reason could be that they are more
> tolerant towards trolls in your other groups. I really don't know why they
> tolerate you, if you behave the same way there as you do here - where you're
> the most hated and most killfiled person in the history of csma.
Gee, care to support your personal attacks against me? You repeat it often
but never support it.
Funny how people in other groups do not feel the need to spew personal
attacks as you do.
>> I am honest and honorable wherever I am, not just in CSMA.
>
> You meant "just not in CSMA". Ooops.
Gee, Sandman, do I get to speak for you, too?
No, Sandman, I meant exactly what I wrote.
>> I do find it sad how you refer to being honest and honorable as
>> being a "troll persona"; says a lot about your values.
>
> Obfuscation.
How do you figure? Do you even know what the word means? And can you
comment on why you label someone being honest and honorable as "trolling"?
I doubt you will, but, as I said, it says a lot about your values.
>> Fact is nobody lies about me the way you and the other trolls of
>> CSMA do.
>
> Given that the amount of "lies" I tell about you is "zero", you just
> said that nobody tells zero lies about you.
Denying your lies does not make them go away.
> Why do so many people tell all these lies, Michael? Is it a conspiracy?
Keep in mind a lot of people speak poorly of you, Carroll, and others in
CSMA. These are things I have conclusively shown to be true.
Do you think that is a conspiracy?
>
>> Why do you think that is you and other trolls in CSMA see me one way
>> and people who are not CSMA trolls do *not* see me that way?
Note: no relevant response from Sandman... he merely tries to obfuscate the
question.
Posting accusations and noting how your group think buddies agree does not
support your claims. Please note that I happily support my claims in
relation to you with actual data and quotes from you. You simply cannot do
so. That, too, is very telling.
Snit
> In article <15eqg.78203$x.39...@weber.videotron.net>,
> NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>>> noone-F37E26....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/3/06 10:04 AM:
>>>
>>>>>> Fair enough. Do you have a reference for the example you give?
>>>>> I can't find the one I read last night, but here's another:
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/qq5t
>>>>>
>>>>> The more I search the web, the more it seems that there's just no single
>>>>> consensus on pluralizing initialisms. :|
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, you said that the "CDs", for example, is proper and that
>>>>> "CD's" is a modern trend, but Wikipedia tells me it's exactly the
>>>>> opposite.
>>>> Should be good enough for Snit as he has used this source repeatedly to
>>>> make claims of his own (and we all know Snit is no hypocrite;) You
>>>> should expect an apology from him at any time. LOL!
>>>
>>> What do you think I owe him an apology for?
>>
>> I'm wondering too.
>
> Realistically, not a thing... (no one really owes a troll anything) I
> was just holding Snit to the same standard he tries to hold everyone
> else.
Do you think your sidestep shuffle worked, Steve? You still have not
explained why I would owe NRen2k5 an apology on this matter or why *anyone*
would think I did.
You simply did not understand what you were reading. It is your norm. Feel
free to keep trying to obfuscate that fact - I doubt anyone is stupid enough
to fall for your BS.
>
>> You'd think they could at least learn from us how to
>> engage in proper intellectual discourse.
>
> LOL!
--
Snit
>>> The more I search the web, the more it seems that there's just no single
>>> consensus on pluralizing initialisms. :|
>>>
>>> For example, you said that the "CDs", for example, is proper and that
>>> "CD's" is a modern trend, but Wikipedia tells me it's exactly the opposite.
>>
>> Again, fair enough. It is a nit-picky enough point that I certainly would
>> never have brought it up
>
> You say this, yet, you bothered to whine about his 'error'.
Wow! Steve, when you snip all context you can pretend you have a point.
Please work on your ability to understand what you read. By the way, here
are the relevant facts you, too, will run from:
The ad in question: <http://snipurl.com/viruswhatvirus>
Quote in question (slowed down): <http://snipurl.com/Slow_Quote>
"no no do not be a hero, ***LAST YEAR*** there are 114,000 known
viruses for PCs." [emphasis mine, poor grammar Apple's]
1) Wally dishonestly "quoted" the Apple commercial (while blaming others
for doing so). He dishonestly denied it state "last year" and
"quoted" it as:
"no no do not be a hero, actually there are 114,000 known
viruses for PC's.........".
In his doing so, he used poor grammar (note the "PC's"). This is
relevant based on #2:
2) Wally belittled me for honestly quoting the ad's poor grammar.
"Really Snit that is stupid even for you! But never let it be
said that I would not lend you a helping hand try this..
'Last year there were................'"
Wally further called me ignorant and stupid based on my being honest
and quoting the ad correctly.
3) When #2 was pointed out, Wally lied and said my honestly quoting the
ad was a form of "support" and "agreement" for its poor grammar.
Wally is confusing the concepts of supporting telling the truth (as
I did and he failed to do) with supporting the ads use of improper
grammar (which I do not).
4) Wally played these games, no doubt, to obfuscate the fact that he
dishonestly "quoted" Apple by claiming the ad did not use the phrase
"last year". This whole grammar side issue is irrelevant to Wally's
initial lie, but he is trying mighty hard to obfuscate it.
Honestly quoting someone is not synonymous with agreeing with their message
nor with supporting the use of improper grammar.
--
Snit
>>> What makes you think my "persona" is any different in other groups?
>>
>> I don't. I offered it as an explanation. Another reason could be that
>> they are more tolerant towards trolls in your other groups.
>
>
> And another reason could be that Snit is lying. They all but ran him out
> of cola on a rail.
Hey, Steve, great way for you to run from context.
You repeatedly pull up quotes from me I posted to another group - a health
group. You have not been able to show that anyone in that group lies and
trolls about me the way you do.
In other words, trolls in advocacy groups tend to not like me. How horrid!
Do you recall what *you* have said about CSMA and advocacy groups in
general? LOL! No, clearly you do not.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> What makes you think my "persona" is any different in other groups?
> >
> > I don't.
>
> Then why do you think I am not followed around by trolls such as yourself
> elsewhere?
I've given two possible explanations. A third would be that you're
lying.
> > I offered it as an explanation. Another reason could be that they are more
> > tolerant towards trolls in your other groups. I really don't know why they
> > tolerate you, if you behave the same way there as you do here - where you're
> > the most hated and most killfiled person in the history of csma.
>
> Gee, care to support your personal attacks against me?
Again?
> Funny how people in other groups do not feel the need to spew personal
> attacks as you do.
You mean as "we" do, don't you? After all, you're being persecuted by
several "trolls" here, right? For some unspeakable reason, a whole
slew of "trolls" have decided unanimously to harass you and only you
in csma. Strange indeed.
> >> I am honest and honorable wherever I am, not just in CSMA.
> >
> > You meant "just not in CSMA". Ooops.
>
> Gee, Sandman, do I get to speak for you, too?
>
> No, Sandman, I meant exactly what I wrote.
So then you lied? You have never engaged in honesty in csma.
> >> I do find it sad how you refer to being honest and honorable as
> >> being a "troll persona"; says a lot about your values.
> >
> > Obfuscation.
>
> How do you figure?
I have never refered to being honest and honorable as being a troll
persona.
> >> Fact is nobody lies about me the way you and the other trolls of
> >> CSMA do.
> >
> > Given that the amount of "lies" I tell about you is "zero", you just
> > said that nobody tells zero lies about you.
>
> Denying your lies does not make them go away.
Claiming they exist doesn't create any.
> > Why do so many people tell all these lies, Michael? Is it a conspiracy?
>
> Keep in mind a lot of people speak poorly of you, Carroll, and others in
> CSMA. These are things I have conclusively shown to be true.
Sure they do. Problem is, I don't have a whole pack of people with
whom I constantly argue that constantly keep calling me a troll. You
do.
In fact, the people that HAVE called me troll are people who have huge
almost Snit-like arrays of people calling them trolls, such as Mayor,
or Josh or Edwin.
> >> Why do you think that is you and other trolls in CSMA see me one way
> >> and people who are not CSMA trolls do *not* see me that way?
> >
And Michael runs, just like I said he would. See, this is exactly why
I so rarely actually talk with you, and just fall back on pointing out
your lies and trolling.
Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [X] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [X] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [ ] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
15 [ ] Diversion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Obfuscation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a trolls main weapon. Most trolls are not very good debaters
or have very good or compelling arguments, so it's of outmost
importance that they are well versed in obfuscation instead. This is
mainly noticeable when their "opponents" say something that has even
the slightest chance to be misinterpreted. So even if this
misinterpretation is the most far fetched on can think of, it's
naturally the only valid way it could possibly be interpreted
according to the troll. A fine example of this is in one of Steve
Carrolls posts which was a reply to CSMA_Moderator (a periodic poster
that posts quotes that point out the number of people that has said
unfavorable things about Michael Glasser. Steve Carroll posted this
reply [1] to the original post and quite clearly only quoted one
quote and stated that he was the author of that quote. It is
noteworthy that he directs his comment to Snit, which is due to the
fact that somehow Snit wants to claim that Steve is the one who is
posting as CSMA_Moderator and Steve just plays the same card back.
Snit, being a troll, responds [2] by interpreting Steves reply as an
admittance that he is not the author of the quote he quoted, he is
the author of the entire post that was posted under the name
CSMA_Moderator. You can't get much far fetched than that.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9f843713b31
751a1>
2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fbee674dfde
048da>
3. Ignoring evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A troll is likely to end up in situations where he has made some
really wild claims about something. When facts and proof is posted,
the troll needs to ignore or evade that in order to keep his "act"
up.
An example would be when Edwin posted about there being 830 *million*
workstations [1] sold in the first half of 2004. This number turned
out to be a misprint, but the fact that the number was totally
ludicrous didn't stop Edwin from ignoring common sense and kept on
supporting the number.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4efb772585f
7b922>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Objective Troll Criteria
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Sandman[.net]