Snit *The Despicable, lying, troll*

72 views
Skip to first unread message

Gremlin

unread,
Apr 26, 2021, 3:58:19 PM4/26/21
to
Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Presscott Computer Guy) *The Despicable, lying, troll*

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

***

Now, here's where that snippit you cherry picked actually came from, in
full fucking context. It does *NOT* support the false accusation you made
against me, and I was *VERY CLEAR IN WRITING THAT I DID NOT HAVE THE
FLOODBOT IN THE SAME FUCKING REPLY YOU LIFTED THAT FROM!* Infact, that
statement is made very clear to you in the first three lines of the
section of our exchange which is relevant to what you've been writing, and
cherry picking, completely out of context. You *knowingly* have been
falsely accusing me of having that bot, and you've been trying to pass of
a revised version of your story claiming you spoke of my having the bot.
No snit, you've been *lying* about my having the bot, from the start!

From: Diesel <nob...@haph.org>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: Bot droppings
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:40:47 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
References: <r0indn$rqq$1...@gioia.aioe.org> <8401e08c-30a1-45bf...@googlegroups.com> <asc05f9aav9ueu5ts...@4ax.com> <a4ddb689-8837-443a...@googlegroups.com> <_Gc4G.296005$zI7....@fx37.iad> <XnsAB6D6...@3dOIZISX3.IwU6R1OH8iz29MMTN26bF08TPFtT157gyFB5> <HfO4G.327462$Mj1....@fx39.iad> <hbilkg...@mid.individual.net> <r31ncd$1fpk$1...@gioia.aioe.org> <hbj5s2...@mid.individual.net> <r31ouv$1mv6$1...@gioia.aioe.org> <hbjcp6...@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:40:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="001a4617a3aa50aceb1e0b1977145f6c";
logging-data="5034"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9MEyWI3jTTekMOLZV+yrrU175ODs2Xso="
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qxk+rBxAo9EyGTSvvx8aIOF6t1c=
Bytes: 7958

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hbjcp6...@mid.individual.net Tue, 25 Feb 2020 01:49:26 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> The only thing we know of the code is the bit Carroll has shown,
> and he denies that is even tied to the bot. Without knowing the
> reasoning for the text it could just as easily be lorem ipsum.

Who's we exactly here? I didn't claim I had any access to the
floodbots code. You're putting words in my mouth and making
assumptions about what you think I wrote, or meant.

> I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to have the
> bot break apart sentences and respond to keywords, but that is
> more my thing that Carroll's (I do it with my chat bot). So if I
> were to make such a bot, yes, I would want it to do that... but
> does Carroll even want it to? I think the main purpose is Google
> seeding... and it does that well.

Christ, keyword hits aren't original by either of you. It's been done
and done and done to death. I had an eliza bot on my first computer,
and it was very limited compared to what anyone uses today.

Nothing I've seen shown by either of you is original, or difficult to
produce. It's all stuff I've seen before, some going back decades
that's 'new' to the two of you, very old stuff to myself and many of
the others here.

> Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
> shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
> that.

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

Do you think when you disassemble something that you're provided the
original source code that was compiled/assembled by the author? You
aren't, what you're given looks nothing like the original source
code, but it still tells you *everything* about the program.

*** end share, in full context!

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

My reply is clearly fucking telling you that I did not at any point in
time ever have the floodbot. You have knowingly, been lying your fucking
ass off claiming otherwise, this entire time. This is not a disagreement
between us, this is a case of you writing a hell of a whopper about me and
still trying to claim it's true, when we *all fucking know it isn't and
never was*.

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short paragraph.
What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close to supporting
your accusation. And, it IS an accusation. And then we have the issue of
the question you asked at the end. That question makes the assumption that
what you wrote previous to it is factual - The question is intended to
give credence to what's written previous to it, to give it credibility. To
assist in your effort to mislead. Which is incidently, a form of
manipulation, Snit.

You're a despicable, lying, troll, Snit Michael Glasser And this post,
along with thousands of others during your usenet trolling career PROVES
IT.

From: Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: Ha! Ads be gone!
Date: 18 Aug 2020 17:06:20 GMT
Message-ID: <hq2g4c...@mid.individual.net>

On Aug 18, 2020 at 8:49:01 AM MST, "Gremlin" <nob...@haph.org> wrote:
>> David has asked you to check it against phone book urls he shared
>> with you.

This is a direct lie from you. He did no such thing.

*** end copy

Remember what I wrote about six days above? Here's my proof of that, too:

From: David_B <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
Message-ID: <9KMYG.136546$hs5....@fx05.ams1>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@blocknews.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 07:19:33 UTC
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:19:32 +0100

Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you
can read about here?

https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores

Message-ID: <hphkj5...@mid.individual.net>
From: Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !!
Date: 12 Aug 2020 07:38:13 GMT
Message-ID: <hphkj5...@mid.individual.net>
References: <MPG.399afb30d...@nntp.aioe.org>
<XaMYG.135634$Ai5....@fx30.ams1>
<hphicv...@mid.individual.net>
<9KMYG.136546$hs5....@fx05.ams1>

> Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can
> read about here?
>
> https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores

Not there.

Message-ID: <XJQYG.264806$dTb....@fx41.ams1>
From: David_B <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@blocknews.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:52:23 UTC
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:52:23 +0100

On 12/08/2020 08:38, Snit wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2020 at 12:19:32 AM MST, "David_B" <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
> wrote:
>> Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can
>> read about here?
>>
>> https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores
>
> Not there.

OK. Thanks for looking.

Please try here:- https://www.yellowpages.com/kingsport-tn/computer-stores

Message-ID: <hpio33F...@mid.individual.net>
From: Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !!
Date: 12 Aug 2020 17:44:03 GMT
Message-ID: <hpio33F...@mid.individual.net>
References: <MPG.399afb30d...@nntp.aioe.org>
<hphkj5...@mid.individual.net>
<XJQYG.264806$dTb....@fx41.ams1> <F7RYG.69875$8b2....@fx07.ams1>

On Aug 12, 2020 at 5:19:49 AM MST, "David_B" <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:

>> OK. Thanks for looking.
>>
>> Please try here:- https://www.yellowpages.com/kingsport-tn/computer-stores
>
> 121 results! Sorry there are so many to check.

Not a big deal -- just five pages. Did a search for the last four
digits... no matches.

*** end share

Now, here's the totally bullshit apology you finally got around to
writing, because I continued to ride your ass about your fuckup quoted
above:

From: Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ha! Ads be gone!
Date: 27 Aug 2020 16:00:24 GMT
Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology
Message-ID: <hqq3ko...@mid.individual.net>
References: <op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass>
<XnsAC1D79...@889n4Sx8GWE.MNnkz50hZNVS.fh0SYyRp>
<hq2g4c...@mid.individual.net>
<XnsAC1EBC...@0ydV5Cg6OLqWT90unHZ34QVT6yqk8KnKb.nd>

I did incorrectly say he had not asked me to "research" or whatever -- not
considering such a quick look to really count. But from your perspective, I
suppose, where doing a quick search on a list is not completely trivial, it
counts. Sorry for my error on that.

*** end

These urls:

<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>

Are accurate concerning Snit (Michael Glasser of Prescott Arizona -
Prescott Computer Guy - Con artist - usenet lying troll) , as the
aforementioned post contents *clearly all show*

Poasted... #2847483

--
That was Zen; this is Tao.

Steve Carroll

unread,
Apr 26, 2021, 5:10:05 PM4/26/21
to
On 2021-04-26, Gremlin <nob...@haph.org> wrote:
> Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Presscott Computer Guy) *The Despicable, lying, troll*
>
> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
> Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
> but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
> merely the compiled code he had:
>
><XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
> -----
> Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
> provided the original source code that was
> compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
> given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
> still tells you *everything* about the program.
> -----
>
> So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
> guess: he will NEVER say.

I still get a kick out of that idiocy.

Compiled or not? And it was "merely" the compiled code?

How did he obtain that without the (ahem) 'uncompiled' JavaScript you've
insisted this code to be?

To get 'compiled' JS you'd have to get it fed out of something like
Chrome's V8 and it wouldn't do you any good anywhere other than for use
in environments that already *are* V8. Actually, you can't even use it
there, V8 needs to see 'uncompiled' JS, which it sees and 'compiles'
(interprets) at runtime. That I'm aware of, no engine can be fed code
that was interpreted, even if that engine did the interpreting. Is Snit
suggesting Gremlin wrote such a thing and doing so as he simultaneously
labels him "an illiterate fraud"? "Hmmm..."

(stay tuned for "other" things that happen to reality in what passes for
Snit's brain, cue the music... yeah, *that* music)




Snit

unread,
Apr 26, 2021, 10:17:33 PM4/26/21
to
On Apr 26, 2021 at 12:58:18 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsAD18A2...@f710rB1r46b.913QMzC8jL15985Z>:

> Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Presscott Computer Guy) *The
> Despicable, lying, troll*

See how you show your insecurities.

Wow.

Quite pathetic of you.

And then you just repeat your old lies. Seriously, try to find new ones! Or,
better yet, stop lying!


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.


Gremlin

unread,
Apr 27, 2021, 8:59:50 PM4/27/21
to
Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none>
news:s67a7d$dco$1...@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org Mon, 26 Apr 2021
21:10:05 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

> On 2021-04-26, Gremlin <nob...@haph.org> wrote:
>> Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Presscott Computer Guy) *The
>> Despicable, lying, troll*
>>
>> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
>> Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
>> but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
>> merely the compiled code he had:
>>
>><XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
>> -----
>> Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
>> provided the original source code that was
>> compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
>> given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
>> still tells you *everything* about the program.
>> -----
>>
>> So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
>> guess: he will NEVER say.
>
> I still get a kick out of that idiocy.
>
> Compiled or not? And it was "merely" the compiled code?

I have to admit, that accusation is pretty damn funny. Especially when in
the very post he lifted that paragraph from, I was quite clear in telling
him that I didn't have the bot, and he was twisting my words around. Even
then he was pulling that nonsense.

> How did he obtain that without the (ahem) 'uncompiled' JavaScript you've
> insisted this code to be?

Expect crickets.

> To get 'compiled' JS you'd have to get it fed out of something like
> Chrome's V8 and it wouldn't do you any good anywhere other than for use
> in environments that already *are* V8. Actually, you can't even use it
> there, V8 needs to see 'uncompiled' JS, which it sees and 'compiles'
> (interprets) at runtime. That I'm aware of, no engine can be fed code
> that was interpreted, even if that engine did the interpreting. Is Snit
> suggesting Gremlin wrote such a thing and doing so as he simultaneously
> labels him "an illiterate fraud"? "Hmmm..."

LOL!

> (stay tuned for "other" things that happen to reality in what passes for
> Snit's brain, cue the music... yeah, *that* music)

You couldn't have made a better prediction. The asshat is trying to avoid
any/all responsibility for his own posts:
MID: <%uKhI.21631$ft1....@fx10.iad>

He removed all of the examples of him lying his ass off and wrote this:
"And then you just repeat your old lies. Seriously, try to find new ones!
Or, better yet, stop lying!"

I wonder what color day it is?


--
Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1990-1951.

Gremlin

unread,
Apr 27, 2021, 8:59:51 PM4/27/21
to
Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:%uKhI.21631$ft1....@fx10.iad Tue,
27 Apr 2021 02:17:31 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

> On Apr 26, 2021 at 12:58:18 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
> <XnsAD18A2...@f710rB1r46b.913QMzC8jL15985Z>:
>
>> Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Presscott Computer Guy) *The
>> Despicable, lying, troll*
>
> See how you show your insecurities.

Clearly identifying you for the purposes of linking you to the lies you
wrote to and about me is showing my insecurities, how, exactly, Snit?

> Wow.
>
> Quite pathetic of you.

No... What's quite pathetic is your need to write total bullshit about me,
as you did in the material you snipped out - while still having the
fucking audacity about you to try and claim this is some kind of
misunderstanding between us. It's nothing of the kind, you lied your
fucking ass off to and about me.

> And then you just repeat your old lies. Seriously, try to find new ones!
> Or, better yet, stop lying!

My old lies? Snit, the material you removed from your reply are all lies
you wrote to and about me. Not the other way around. Why aren't you able
to address any of the known to be false accusations you made against me:

Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Presscott Computer Guy) *The Despicable, lying, troll*

That's all on you Snit, lying, fucking troll. Not me. Cite where I've lied
about a single thing there, Snit. Go ahead. Provide that MID!

--
Hidden DOS secret: add BUGS=OFF to your CONFIG.SYS

Snit

unread,
Apr 27, 2021, 9:13:47 PM4/27/21
to
On Apr 27, 2021 at 5:59:50 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsAD19D6...@0MLh259sY8z36.tf3QkVr7a2>:

> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:%uKhI.21631$ft1....@fx10.iad Tue,
> 27 Apr 2021 02:17:31 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>
>> On Apr 26, 2021 at 12:58:18 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
>> <XnsAD18A2...@f710rB1r46b.913QMzC8jL15985Z>:
>>
>>> Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Presscott Computer Guy) *The
>>> Despicable, lying, troll*
>>
>> See how you show your insecurities.
>
> Clearly identifying you for the purposes of linking you to the lies you
> wrote to and about me is showing my insecurities, how, exactly, Snit?

You just showed you cannot understand what you read. Again. And below you show
yourself to be a functionally illiterate fraud.

Again.

And in response to your seeding:

Gremlin Dustin Cook:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>

Functionally Illiterate Fraud:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>

Snit

unread,
Apr 27, 2021, 9:14:34 PM4/27/21
to
On Apr 27, 2021 at 5:59:49 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsAD19D6...@0MLh259sY8z36.tf3QkVr7a2>:
Once again you show yourself to be manipulated by Carroll and demonstrate your
failure to understand simple concepts.

In short: you provide another example of you being a functionally illiterate
fraud.

Gremlin

unread,
Apr 27, 2021, 11:34:21 PM4/27/21
to
Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:XF2iI.256234$2N3.2...@fx33.iad
I've done none of the things you've accused me of.

> In short: you provide another example of you being a functionally
> illiterate fraud.

That's right, dumbass, continue to show *everyone* that you really did
create that label for the specific purposes of trying to google seed fuck
me, because you're nothing more than a very dishonest, troll. You cannot
support that statement, anymore so than you could the false statements you
knowingly! wrote about me here:

Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Prescott Computer Guy) *The Despicable, lying, troll*
Anne Glasser
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

Do you think when you disassemble something that you're provided the
original source code that was compiled/assembled by the author? You
aren't, what you're given looks nothing like the original source
code, but it still tells you *everything* about the program.

--
This tagl ineh asto oman yfou rlet terw ords.

Gremlin

unread,
Apr 27, 2021, 11:34:22 PM4/27/21
to
Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:dF2iI.292818$nn2.2...@fx48.iad
Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:13:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

> On Apr 27, 2021 at 5:59:50 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
> <XnsAD19D6...@0MLh259sY8z36.tf3QkVr7a2>:
>
>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:%uKhI.21631$ft1....@fx10.iad
>> Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:17:31 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 26, 2021 at 12:58:18 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
>>> <XnsAD18A2...@f710rB1r46b.913QMzC8jL15985Z>:
>>>
>>>> Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Presscott Computer Guy)
>>>> *The Despicable, lying, troll*
>>>
>>> See how you show your insecurities.
>>
>> Clearly identifying you for the purposes of linking you to the lies you
>> wrote to and about me is showing my insecurities, how, exactly, Snit?
>
> You just showed you cannot understand what you read. Again. And below
> you show yourself to be a functionally illiterate fraud.

Oh? Okay then, please, Snit, point out what it is you think I missed.
Thanks in advance!

Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Prescott Computer Guy) *The Despicable, lying, troll*
Anne Glasser
I am completely okay with your efforts. Let me help you with it, infact. :)



--
What's a nice girl like you doing in a dirty mind like mine?

Snit

unread,
Apr 27, 2021, 11:44:00 PM4/27/21
to
On Apr 27, 2021 at 8:34:21 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsAD19F0...@0MLh259sY8z36.tf3QkVr7a2>:

> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:dF2iI.292818$nn2.2...@fx48.iad
> Wed, 28 Apr 2021 01:13:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>
>> On Apr 27, 2021 at 5:59:50 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
>> <XnsAD19D6...@0MLh259sY8z36.tf3QkVr7a2>:
>>
>>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:%uKhI.21631$ft1....@fx10.iad
>>> Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:17:31 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 26, 2021 at 12:58:18 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
>>>> <XnsAD18A2...@f710rB1r46b.913QMzC8jL15985Z>:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Presscott Computer Guy)
>>>>> *The Despicable, lying, troll*
>>>>
>>>> See how you show your insecurities.
>>>
>>> Clearly identifying you for the purposes of linking you to the lies you
>>> wrote to and about me is showing my insecurities, how, exactly, Snit?
>>
>> You just showed you cannot understand what you read. Again. And below
>> you show yourself to be a functionally illiterate fraud.
>
> Oh?

Yes. Without a doubt.

> Okay then, please, Snit, point out what it is you think I missed.

I have repeatedly. I can again. But you will not understand it. And you just
get more and more angry and dox myself and my family.




>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Prescott Computer Guy) *The
> Despicable, lying, troll*
> Anne Glasser
> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
> Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
> but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
> merely the compiled code he had:
>
> <XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
> -----
> Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
> provided the original source code that was
> compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
> given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
> still tells you *everything* about the program.
> -----
>
> So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
> guess: he will NEVER say.
>
> ***

You asked for an explanation -- but you have been give it here (and at least
14 other times):

<fdL8I.48324$yR1....@fx08.iad>

You claim to want to follow context, but you get these events:

1) Snit spoke of the flood bot code, and what can be known of it without the
code.
2) Gremlin responded by speaking of what he can know HAVING THE CODE.
3) Snit spoke of Gremlin having the flood bot code.
4) Gremlin denied having the code and insisted Snit made things up.

Your game is to ignore the context and look at just 3 and 4 and pretend you
are victim.

And you will keep doing this. You WANT to be the victim in your own story.




>
> Now, here's where that snippit you cherry picked actually came from, in
> full fucking context. It does *NOT* support the false accusation you made
> against me, and I was *VERY CLEAR IN WRITING THAT I DID NOT HAVE THE
> FLOODBOT IN THE SAME FUCKING REPLY YOU LIFTED THAT FROM!* Infact, that
> statement is made very clear to you in the first three lines of the
> section of our exchange which is relevant to what you've been writing, and
> cherry picking, completely out of context. You *knowingly* have been
> falsely accusing me of having that bot, and you've been trying to pass of
> a revised version of your story claiming you spoke of my having the bot.
> No snit, you've been *lying* about my having the bot, from the start!

See: you present yourself as a functionally illiterate fraud who cannot
understand what you read... and you seek to see yourself as a victim.

As I predicted. :)
You left out the context. I speak of it above. You just like to rehash your
false claims so you can see yourself as a victim.

> I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
> access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
> atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
> information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
> finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
> "compiled code".
>
> My reply is clearly fucking telling you that I did not at any point in
> time ever have the floodbot. You have knowingly, been lying your fucking
> ass off claiming otherwise, this entire time. This is not a disagreement
> between us, this is a case of you writing a hell of a whopper about me and
> still trying to claim it's true, when we *all fucking know it isn't and
> never was*.
>
> Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short paragraph.
> What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close to supporting
> your accusation. And, it IS an accusation. And then we have the issue of
> the question you asked at the end. That question makes the assumption that
> what you wrote previous to it is factual - The question is intended to
> give credence to what's written previous to it, to give it credibility. To
> assist in your effort to mislead. Which is incidently, a form of
> manipulation, Snit.
>
> You're a despicable, lying, troll, Snit Michael Glasser And this post,
> along with thousands of others during your usenet trolling career PROVES
> IT.

See how you lash out -- and you STILL show no understanding of the context you
left out. Again you present yourself as a functionally illiterate fraud.
The fact I made a mistake and did not even think about the few seconds of work
has been covered... but, sure, I made a mistake and owned up to it.

But you left that out. You want to see yourself as a victim even as you
present yourself as a functionally illiterate fraud.
Glad you are OK with my responses.

Snit

unread,
Apr 27, 2021, 11:44:46 PM4/27/21
to
On Apr 27, 2021 at 8:34:20 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsAD19F0...@0MLh259sY8z36.tf3QkVr7a2>:
Another example of you freaking out, lying, presenting yourself as a
functionally illiterate fraud, and Google seeding.

Gremlin

unread,
Apr 28, 2021, 2:30:22 AM4/28/21
to
Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:LS4iI.133604$ST2....@fx47.iad Wed,
28 Apr 2021 03:44:43 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

> Another example of you freaking out, lying, presenting yourself as a
> functionally illiterate fraud, and Google seeding.

None of the above, lying troll:

Snit (Michael Glasser - Anne Glasser - Prescott Arizona Prescott Computer
Guy) *The Despicable, lying, troll*

<http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100>
MID: <hhk7lh...@mid.individual.net>

Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
*** end selective quoting by Snit

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.
*** end paste

Now, here's where that snippit you cherry picked actually came from, in
full fucking context. It does *NOT* support the false accusation you made
against me, and I was *VERY CLEAR IN WRITING THAT I DID NOT HAVE THE
FLOODBOT IN THE SAME FUCKING REPLY YOU LIFTED THAT FROM!* Infact, that
statement is made very clear to you in the first three lines of the
section of our exchange which is relevant to what you've been writing, and
cherry picking, completely out of context. You *knowingly* have been
falsely accusing me of having that bot, and you've been trying to pass of
a revised version of your story claiming you spoke of my having the bot.
No snit, you've been *lying* about my having the bot, from the start!

From: Diesel <nob...@haph.org>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: Bot droppings
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:40:47 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
References: <r0indn$rqq$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
<8401e08c-30a1-45bf...@googlegroups.com>
<asc05f9aav9ueu5ts...@4ax.com>
<a4ddb689-8837-443a...@googlegroups.com>
<_Gc4G.296005$zI7....@fx37.iad>
<XnsAB6D6...@3dOIZISX3.IwU6R1OH8iz29MMTN26bF08TPFtT157gyFB5>
<HfO4G.327462$Mj1....@fx39.iad# <hbilkg...@mid.individual.net>
<r31ncd$1fpk$1...@gioia.aioe.org> <hbj5s2...@mid.individual.net>
<r31ouv$1mv6$1...@gioia.aioe.org> <hbjcp6...@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:40:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="001a4617a3aa50aceb1e0b1977145f6c";
logging-data="5034"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9MEyWI3jTTekMOLZV+yrrU175ODs2Xso="
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qxk+rBxAo9EyGTSvvx8aIOF6t1c=
Bytes: 7958

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hbjcp6...@mid.individual.net Tue, 25 Feb 2020 01:49:26 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
# The only thing we know of the code is the bit Carroll has shown,
# and he denies that is even tied to the bot. Without knowing the
# reasoning for the text it could just as easily be lorem ipsum.

Who's we exactly here? I didn't claim I had any access to the
floodbots code. You're putting words in my mouth and making
assumptions about what you think I wrote, or meant.

# I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to have the
# bot break apart sentences and respond to keywords, but that is
# more my thing that Carroll's (I do it with my chat bot). So if I
# were to make such a bot, yes, I would want it to do that... but
# does Carroll even want it to? I think the main purpose is Google
# seeding... and it does that well.

Christ, keyword hits aren't original by either of you. It's been done
and done and done to death. I had an eliza bot on my first computer,
and it was very limited compared to what anyone uses today.

Nothing I've seen shown by either of you is original, or difficult to
produce. It's all stuff I've seen before, some going back decades
that's 'new' to the two of you, very old stuff to myself and many of
the others here.

# Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
# shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
# that.
## David has asked you to check it against phone book urls he shared
## with you.

This is a direct lie from you. He did no such thing.

*** end copy

Your memory must be really bad, because David did ask you to do that, six
days prior to my commenting about it, And you did help him with his
requests. In the span of six days, you "forgot" about doing this, right,
Snit?

From: David_B <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
Message-ID: <9KMYG.136546$hs5....@fx05.ams1>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@blocknews.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 07:19:33 UTC
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:19:32 +0100

Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you
can read about here?

https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores

Message-ID: <hphkj5...@mid.individual.net>
From: Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !!
Date: 12 Aug 2020 07:38:13 GMT
Message-ID: <hphkj5...@mid.individual.net>
References: <MPG.399afb30d...@nntp.aioe.org>
<XaMYG.135634$Ai5....@fx30.ams1>
<hphicv...@mid.individual.net>
<9KMYG.136546$hs5....@fx05.ams1>

# Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can
# read about here?
#
# https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores

Not there.

Message-ID: <XJQYG.264806$dTb....@fx41.ams1>
From: David_B <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@blocknews.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:52:23 UTC
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:52:23 +0100

On 12/08/2020 08:38, Snit wrote:
# On Aug 12, 2020 at 12:19:32 AM MST, "David_B" <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
# wrote:
## Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can
## read about here?
##
## https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores
#
# Not there.

OK. Thanks for looking.

Please try here:- https://www.yellowpages.com/kingsport-tn/computer-stores

Message-ID: <hpio33F...@mid.individual.ne>
From: Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !!
Date: 12 Aug 2020 17:44:03 GMT
Message-ID: <hpio33F...@mid.individual.net>
References: <MPG.399afb30d...@nntp.aioe.org>
<hphkj5...@mid.individual.net>
<XJQYG.264806$dTb....@fx41.ams1> <F7RYG.69875$8b2....@fx07.ams1>

On Aug 12, 2020 at 5:19:49 AM MST, "David_B" <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org#
wrote:

## OK. Thanks for looking.
##
## Please try here:- https://www.yellowpages.com/kingsport-tn/computer-stores
#
# 121 results! Sorry there are so many to check.
Still haven't figured out what's up eh? :)


--
The Conversation Sieve Defense: It doesn't matter what dumb thing you say
in a conversation, as long as the person you're talking to is dumber.

Snit

unread,
Apr 28, 2021, 2:35:39 AM4/28/21
to
On Apr 27, 2021 at 11:30:21 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsAD1A19...@E3scZKfGV41.Q7s4Br077CEa3j9u0Xr2Jlh2tx89.v>:
Does this boring, repetitive, and illiterate come naturally to you or did you
have to work on it?

Steve Carroll

unread,
Apr 28, 2021, 10:03:04 AM4/28/21
to
On 2021-04-28, Gremlin <nob...@haph.org> wrote:
> Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none>
> news:s67a7d$dco$1...@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org Mon, 26 Apr 2021
> 21:10:05 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>
>> On 2021-04-26, Gremlin <nob...@haph.org> wrote:
>>> Snit (Michael Glasser - Prescott Arizona Presscott Computer Guy) *The
>>> Despicable, lying, troll*
>>>
>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
>>> Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
>>> but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
>>> merely the compiled code he had:
>>>
>>><XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
>>> -----
>>> Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
>>> provided the original source code that was
>>> compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
>>> given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
>>> still tells you *everything* about the program.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
>>> guess: he will NEVER say.
>>
>> I still get a kick out of that idiocy.
>>
>> Compiled or not? And it was "merely" the compiled code?
>
> I have to admit, that accusation is pretty damn funny.

He won't even educate himself in pursuit of his trolling. "Other" trolls
seem to have aspirations, learn new things now and then to help them
with their 'work'. Why is a "teacher" so anti-education?
That *is* the question, isn't it ;)

Steve Carroll

unread,
Apr 28, 2021, 10:05:12 AM4/28/21
to
On 2021-04-28, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

>> Still haven't figured out what's up eh? :)
>
> Does this boring, repetitive, and illiterate come naturally to you or did you
> have to work on it?

Imagine what this ng would look like if we tried to keep up with *every*
lie filled post of yours (I actually do try, I never come close)?

Gremlin

unread,
May 15, 2021, 7:15:30 PM5/15/21
to
Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none>
news:s6bpun$jvi$3...@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org Wed, 28 Apr 2021
When you read some of his replies, and combine that with the background
knowledge concerning his health issues, that he's happily written about
(losing an eyeball? Wtf?) it's indeed, the question. :)


--
I'd love to, but the Prime Directive forbids it.

Gremlin

unread,
May 15, 2021, 7:15:31 PM5/15/21
to
Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:2S4iI.71834$9L1....@fx05.iad Wed,
28 Apr 2021 03:43:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

>> Okay then, please, Snit, point out what it is you think I missed.
>
> I have repeatedly. I can again. But you will not understand it. And you
> just get more and more angry and dox myself and my family.

So, basically crickets to my question then. Let's be very clear though,
concerning the doxxing of you and your loved ones, lolz... You did that to
yourself when you decided to play doxxing games with me.

You disclosed a cell you were specifically told not to share, not only
during the conversation, but later online when the subject came up. You
wanted to me a dick and try to inconvenience me - so yea, your damn right,
I'm going to go well out of my way to make sure you learn from that, by
taking what you consider to be important from you, any concept of privacy
for you and those you live with. It's called a trade, Snit. Just don't
forget,thanks to your wifes and yours failed efforts to properly scrub her,
my imaginary friends and myself were able to pull a considerable amount
from her side of the family, and as was presented before, it will be shared
too. If that wasn't a trade you wanted to make, you shouldn't have doxxed
that cell.

Maybe next time you decide to get big and bad with private information
behind your keyboard, you'll think how it worked out for you and those you
love the last time and you won't do it, again. Maybe not, some people
learn, some don't. You're probably one of the latter, but I won't know that
for sure until the fun actually starts for you.

I already told you, I'll share urls for you when the time is right. In the
meantime, you have something very rotten to look forward to experiencing.
And my imaginary friends (we're actually hanging out in person today) told
me to tell you, "Hello"

Does anne and her extended family know what shit you put them in yet? How
long do you think you can keep them in the dark concerning your online
activities, Snit? Summer is coming, and I predict, it's going to be a hot
one. A very hot one, especially for you.
>> ***
>
> You asked for an explanation -- but you have been give it here (and at
> least 14 other times):

Yep, but it doesn't address the issue. The issue being you lied on me,and
completely ignored the first three lines of my reply that you lifted the
third paragraph from.

> <fdL8I.48324$yR1....@fx08.iad>
>
> You claim to want to follow context, but you get these events:
>
> 1) Snit spoke of the flood bot code, and what can be known of it without
> the code.

You wrote from your ass and made incorrect assumptions about what can be
known of it without the code.

> 2) Gremlin responded by speaking of what he can know HAVING THE CODE.

No, I responded by first correcting your shit excuse for programming
knowledge and then I took your comments to task in greater detail. I
expanded on what you wrote, and corrected your mistakes.

> 3) Snit spoke of Gremlin having the flood bot code.

Umm, actually, you not only flat out accused me, straight up accused me of
having it, you also claimed that I was called out and as a result of being
called out, I clarified I had the bot. That's what you wrote, Snit. it's
right here:

Snit (Michael Glasser - Anne Glasser - Prescott Arizona Prescott Computer
Guy) *The Despicable, lying, troll*

<http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100>
MID: <hhk7lh...@mid.individual.net>

Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
*** end selective quoting by Snit

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.
*** end paste

The first three lines in my post, that you lifted the third paragraph of a
reply from made it clear that you lied about me:

From: Diesel <nob...@haph.org>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: Bot droppings
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:40:47 -0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hbjcp6...@mid.individual.net Tue, 25 Feb 2020 01:49:26 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
# The only thing we know of the code is the bit Carroll has shown,
# and he denies that is even tied to the bot. Without knowing the
# reasoning for the text it could just as easily be lorem ipsum.

Who's we exactly here? I didn't claim I had any access to the
floodbots code. You're putting words in my mouth and making
assumptions about what you think I wrote, or meant.

*** end

I was clear, from the jump, I did NOT have the bot code.

> 4) Gremlin denied having the code and insisted Snit made things up.

True, and you did.

> Your game is to ignore the context and look at just 3 and 4 and pretend
> you are victim.

I didn't ignore any aspect of the context. You lied about me, plain and
simple. You concocted a totally bullshit story about me, and tried to sell
it. I've been on your ass about it, since you did it.

> And you will keep doing this. You WANT to be the victim in your own
> story.

Nope. I'm not a victim, and the only person who went well out of his way to
write a story, was you. When you lied about my having the bot, you lied
about my being called out, and you lied about my clarifying I had it. And
amusingly enough, the very post you cherry picked a piece of my reply from
was plainly telling you the same thing, in the first three sentences of my
reply. How did you miss that, Snit?

I don't think you missed it. I think you ignored it, because it completely,
did NOT SUPPORT your bot accusations you wrote. You *are a confirmed liar*
as well as a troll.

>> Now, here's where that snippit you cherry picked actually came from, in
>> full fucking context. It does *NOT* support the false accusation you
>> made against me, and I was *VERY CLEAR IN WRITING THAT I DID NOT HAVE
>> THE FLOODBOT IN THE SAME FUCKING REPLY YOU LIFTED THAT FROM!* Infact,
>> that statement is made very clear to you in the first three lines of
>> the section of our exchange which is relevant to what you've been
>> writing, and cherry picking, completely out of context. You *knowingly*
>> have been falsely accusing me of having that bot, and you've been
>> trying to pass of a revised version of your story claiming you spoke of
>> my having the bot. No snit, you've been *lying* about my having the
>> bot, from the start!
>
> See: you present yourself as a functionally illiterate fraud who cannot
> understand what you read... and you seek to see yourself as a victim.
>
> As I predicted. :)

You're full of shit, Snit, and you know it. Everybody knows it. You cannot
explain or weasel your way around what you wrote, no matter how hard you
try doing so. I'm going to hold you accountable for this, and your other
bullshit, and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it. How do you
like those apples, son?


>> You're a despicable, lying, troll, Snit Michael Glasser And this post,
>> along with thousands of others during your usenet trolling career
>> PROVES IT.
>
> See how you lash out -- and you STILL show no understanding of the
> context you left out. Again you present yourself as a functionally
> illiterate fraud.

Accurately describing you, with posts and complete MIDs to backup
everything i've written concerning you is by no means lashing out, Snit.

For someone claiming to want peace, to stop fighting, you have an
interesting method in which to go about it. Tell me something, has this
attack, retreat, claim peace while you still hold a knife with one hand
behind your back ever worked out in a positive way for you? Even once?
> The fact I made a mistake and did not even think about the few seconds
> of work has been covered... but, sure, I made a mistake and owned up to
> it.

Uhh, no, you didn't, Snit. You specifically called me a liar, when I was
not lying. You did not apologize to me for what you wrote, specifically
about me. So this has not been resolved.

The apology you finally wrote came about after I continued to ride you
about the post, and it doesn't mention what you did, or does it offer an
apology to me for the lies you wrote about me.

> But you left that out. You want to see yourself as a victim even as you
> present yourself as a functionally illiterate fraud.

I didn't leave out your delayed apology, simple Snit, it's still present in
your reply to me. It's right below:
:) I strongly suspect you won't be too happy about the interest I charge
when I come to collect the debt you're racking up with me, in full.
You do understand, I'm sure, that if we lived within driving or walking
distance of each other, you wouldn't be posting to usenet right now right?
You'd still need time to heal up. Talk shit like you do in real life, you
get your ass kicked. Online is no different, Snit, and I'm going to make it
my personal project to make sure that you learn this lesson, that you are
taken to task for the shit you've been doing to people for years now. Ayep,
you fucked up by picking me for a trolling target. In a big way.


--
If it looks easy, it's difficult. If it looks difficult, it's damn near
impossible.

Snit

unread,
May 15, 2021, 7:45:01 PM5/15/21
to
On May 15, 2021 at 4:15:30 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsAD2BC4...@933VkZG.MON0.dYW>:

> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:2S4iI.71834$9L1....@fx05.iad Wed,
> 28 Apr 2021 03:43:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>
>>> Okay then, please, Snit, point out what it is you think I missed.
>>
>> I have repeatedly. I can again. But you will not understand it. And you
>> just get more and more angry and dox myself and my family.
>
> So, basically crickets to my question then.

This is a fine example of your failure to understand what you read.

> Let's be very clear though,
> concerning the doxxing of you and your loved ones, lolz... You did that to
> yourself when you decided to play doxxing games with me.

This is an example of you making a claim that has already been fully refuted
and you just making the claim again, failing to be able to move the
conversation further. It is another example of you failing to understand what
you read.

> You disclosed a cell you were specifically told not to share,

This is a direct lie on your part -- you specifically said I *could* share the
information from my inbound caller ID records.

Remember when you denied you presented yourself a functionally illiterate
fraud? Well, here you are doing so again. Why do you make it so easy to show
examples?


> not only
> during the conversation, but later online when the subject came up.

Can you provide the Message ID and quote? It would have to be one AFTER you
gave me specific written permission TO share the information from my
provider's inbound "Caller ID" records:

Gremlin <XnsAC15C9...@ruqg2R96.REs>:
-----
You have my permission to post your caller ID logs, snit.
-----

Keep in mind, though, that even as you gave me this permission you lied about
those records:

-----
I already know you'll have to forge it, and i'll disclose why
AFTER you commit to this. :)
-----

Again, examples of you presenting yourself as dishonest and as a fraud are
trivial to show.

>>> ***
>>
>> You asked for an explanation -- but you have been give it here (and at
>> least 14 other times):
>
> Yep, but it doesn't address the issue.

Here is a key concept: it might not THAT YOU UNDERSTAND, but it most certainly
does!

This is another example of you presenting yourself as a functionally
illiterate fraud.

>> <fdL8I.48324$yR1....@fx08.iad>
>>
>> You claim to want to follow context, but you get these events:
>>
>> 1) Snit spoke of the flood bot code, and what can be known of it without
>> the code.
>
> You wrote from your ass and made incorrect assumptions about what can be
> known of it without the code.

Message ID? Quote? Oh. You have none. You just make things up.

>> 2) Gremlin responded by speaking of what he can know HAVING THE CODE.
>
> No,

Of course you did. And easy to show. I said:

<hbjcp6...@mid.individual.net>
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----

I was clearly speaking about the flood bot and ONLY the flood bot. And you
respond with (in part):

<XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

This is another example of you making a claim, having it be debunked, and then
you failing to address the response in any way. You again present yourself as
a functionally illiterate fraud.

You do that a lor.

> I responded by first correcting your shit excuse for programming
> knowledge and then I took your comments to task in greater detail. I
> expanded on what you wrote, and corrected your mistakes.

Thank you for admitting you changed the topic away from the flood bot code and
to code in general. I commend you for you step in a more reasoned direction.

>
...
>>
>> Glad you are OK with my responses.
>
> :) I strongly suspect you won't be too happy about the interest I charge
> when I come to collect the debt you're racking up with me, in full.

See: this is you again playing victim. You post derogatory links about me and
IN RESPONSE I do the same to you. Then you play victim.

You play victim a lot.

>
>> Gremlin Dustin Cook:
>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>
>> <https://www.bing.com/search?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>
>> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>
>>
>> Functionally Illiterate Fraud:
>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>
>> <https://www.bing.com/search?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>
>> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>
>
> You do understand, I'm sure, that if we lived within driving or walking
> distance of each other, you wouldn't be posting to usenet right now right?

This seems like a direct threat from you. Curious. It is amazing how little
control you have and how much anger you show.

> You'd still need time to heal up. Talk shit like you do in real life, you
> get your ass kicked.

Let me guess: you AND your imaginary friend HHI would be there, right?

> Online is no different, Snit, and I'm going to make it
> my personal project to make sure that you learn this lesson, that you are
> taken to task for the shit you've been doing to people for years now. Ayep,
> you fucked up by picking me for a trolling target. In a big way.

See how you play victim and how weak you are. Damn... I have rarely met anyone
who plays victim as much as you do.

Gremlin

unread,
May 18, 2021, 12:24:15 AM5/18/21
to
Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:_1ZnI.25707$XW6....@fx11.iad Sat,
15 May 2021 23:44:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

> On May 15, 2021 at 4:15:30 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
> <XnsAD2BC4...@933VkZG.MON0.dYW>:
>
>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:2S4iI.71834$9L1....@fx05.iad
>> Wed, 28 Apr 2021 03:43:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>
>>>> Okay then, please, Snit, point out what it is you think I missed.
>>>
>>> I have repeatedly. I can again. But you will not understand it. And
>>> you just get more and more angry and dox myself and my family.
>>
>> So, basically crickets to my question then.
>
> This is a fine example of your failure to understand what you read.

If only I had that issue. Life would actually be easier for me.

>> Let's be very clear though,
>> concerning the doxxing of you and your loved ones, lolz... You did that
>> to yourself when you decided to play doxxing games with me.
>
> This is an example of you making a claim that has already been fully
> refuted and you just making the claim again, failing to be able to move
> the conversation further. It is another example of you failing to
> understand what you read.

It has not been refuted. You did not have permission, at any point in time
to disclose the cell number you did. I was very clear about that, during
our conversation as well as various points online when you began
threatening to disclose it.

>> You disclosed a cell you were specifically told not to share,
>
> This is a direct lie on your part -- you specifically said I *could*
> share the information from my inbound caller ID records.

It's no more a direct lie than your previous one where you claimed I was
directly lying about David asking for your help with that cell number. I
was clear enough in telling you that you didn't have permission to post the
cell number that you wrote about rescinding permission and clearly told me
you didn't honor them. So, enough with your direct lie bullshit
accusations.

>> not only
>> during the conversation, but later online when the subject came up.
>
> Can you provide the Message ID and quote?

I can provide multiple message IDs and quotes, no problem. The thing is,
I've already done this with two of your other stories, and you've either
completely ignored it, or tried to claim it was 'rehashing' and already
resolved, when it wasn't, still hasn't been. You are, for various reasons,
Some of which I suspect I know, incapable of admitting you fucked up,
unless it's something 'really small' thats completely meaningless; and I
think you only admit those fuckups just so you can state that you do admit
you make mistakes.

I'll just remind you again, I use a real usenet client which keeps copies
of posts I've made. It can even be told to archive entire threads, and if I
like, dump the entire thing into a txt file, with the posts in the order
they were pulled from my nntp server. So, it's quite trivial for me to find
and share previous posts (it has a bug with searching, but there's ways to
deal with that) where we've had discussions before. I don't need to rely on
google for that, or hope, as you do, that the information cannot easily be
found via google so one would give up searching for it.

Again, I've posted two complete examples with MIDs of you lying your
fucking ass off about me, directly lying your ass off. Neither of them has
been resolved - You haven't accepted responsibility for the lies you wrote
in either case, and you sure as fuck haven't issued so much as a single
apology to me! for having written them. I just don't see how this would
come out any differently. I can show that you didn't have permission, I can
show the discussion we had about this and your rescinds nonsense, too.

But, I see no reason to bother doing so, because you're just going to pull
the same shit you already did in the beginning of this thread - Which
contains those lies you wrote about me, with MIDs, etc. You play games
about those, and I've got you, dead to rights on both, lying your ass off.
With the phonebook one, I even provided the interaction between yourself
and David; clearly showing you and David doing exactly what I wrote you
did. Before you issued the 'apology' which wasn't directed to me in any
possible way, you danced around it and suggested I should learn how to pull
MIDs - That was funny considering the source. Much more so when I learned
(as did everyone else reading) that you didn't even know how an nntp server
actually communicates with your client. You didn't even understand the
first time you asked it for message information that it provided exactly
what you asked for. SC of all people had to hand hold you for that. Now,
that was funny considering your previous claims about me and what I should
learn to be doing.

And then, of course, we have the apology you finally issed for the direct
lie accusation you made specifically, to me! Nothing in your apology covers
a single thing you wrote, nor was it in any way an apology to me, for the
two lies you wrote in the two lined reply from you. You claimed I was
directly lying, AND, that David had asked you no such thing. It's all in
this thread, Snit.

> Keep in mind, though, that even as you gave me this permission you lied
> about those records:

Nope, I didn't. My story concerning how I made contact with you has been
consistent each time I've written it. I never used a phone to call you, I
used voIP and I provided you a number to a disposable cell (that you didn't
know was a disposable when you initially started trying to stalk me per
Davids request) you don't mention any of this when you share some of my
comments about it, though rofl and I know why, because it doesn't support
your story, infact, it supports mine!

We had a considerable amount of back and forth when you were threatening to
disclose it, and after you did so, when you initially couldn't find it
coming back to me in any way. You don't share any of those conversations
though. It doesn't fit with your narrative, so you censor it out. The thing
is though, Snit, when someone pulls an MID, they can see the subject and
find the thread it came from. And, if they want, they can read all about
this, and catch the conversations you've been leaving out. That's very
dishonest of you, but it's expected.

> Again, examples of you presenting yourself as dishonest and as a fraud
> are trivial to show.

If only that was actually true, right? Snit, I've been around for a long
time, some of the regulars here have known me since I was a teenager. Can
you explain how I was able to snow so many people for so long then? Why is
it, you're the only one making these claims about me? Dude, David Brooks of
all people has called you out and told you that I have been trained,
apprentice style (the best way to learn the trade, imo!); as an
electrician, after you tried to claim I was bsing about it.

Are you stating that David was fooled into trying to hire a bullshit
artist, and not the hacker he had read a considerable amount about? Are you
claiming that I was able to bullshit various people in AV/AM and other
aspects of the scene into thinking I was something I was not? You must be,
since you're still claiming that I'm a functionally illiterate fraud.

Maybe you think a bullshit artist ruined two of his friends lives in real
life then? Have you asked him about Jenn and Eagle yet? Do you really think
Jenn would have been in a hospital, with near dead stress levels, from a
bullshit artist? Maybe you think a bullshit artist was able to convince
Eagles bank to part with some of his money?

And how do you explain what's on my youtube channel, Snit? If I was a
functionally illiterate fraud, I wouldn't have a 12volt DC power source
high voltage jacobs ladder on my videos, using a circuit I designed and put
together. Yet I do, it's visible in several of my videos, and it's an
adjustable driver, too. Freq, duty cycle, etc. It's not even a fixed one
like a ZVS driver would be. That one can actually drive an ignition coil, a
stepup/stepdown ac mains transformer, as well as a flyback coil from a
television tube set. There's quite a bit of math involved in these things,
and a considerable amount of electrical understanding required to pull it
off, without blowing parts, literally, off the circuit board.

Or, knocking the shit out of yourself, or worse, actually dying from an
electrical shock provided by one or more of the aforementioned
transformers. You do understand that once you hit 1kv in voltage, the rules
of what is and isn't an insulator and 'safe distance' all change right? And
the higher the voltage past that 1kv mark, the more things change and
quickly. Again, if I was as you've described and desperately tried to paint
me out as, I couldn't build those circuits in my videos, work electrical
jobs (commercial/industrial/even residential), nor could I be (yet I very
much am) a multiple certification holding computer technician with over
twenty five years experience doing it professionally for a living.

Go ahead snit, I've laid out my reasons why what you've claimed I am can't
be, I'm interested in reading your rebuttles as you try to support your
claim about my being a functionally illiterate fraud?

And conceerning literacy, dude, seriously, you were borderline (and that's
my being kind) illiterate, and technically incompetent when you tried to
reproduce the AZ algorithm; and that was after you were provided source
code, complete documentation and a complete description of the encoding and
decoding process. Why, snit, you're so fucking illiterate son, you actually
thought AZ was a cypher - that it could be used to encrypt information you
don't want others to see. There is a huge difference between encoding and
encrypting, they aren't interchangeable words, Snit. AZ isn't a cypher, but
it is an encoder/decoder. That being said, it does *NOT* encrypt or decrypt
anything - which is a requirement to be a cypher, it's not optional. It's
required.

AZ is no more a cypher than HEX is, Snit. AZ and HEX are basically the same
thing, except that AZ is base26 and HEX is base16. Otherwise, they are the
same and either can be used to encode/decode a message, but neither of them
on their own can encrypt or decrypt anything. You evidently, do not know
the difference between the two, but I do. I've been into crypto as a hobby
since I was a kiddo, and like my electrical/electronics interests, I never
'grew out of it'.

So, can you explain how I'm a functionally illiterate fraud when I do that
sort of stuff for fun? maybe you can explain the commercial jobsite video I
shot, then? It's showing a shitload of my own wiring from the project. Do
you really think someone who is a functionally illiterate fraud can score
him/herself a job on a commercial electrical job and not get busted pretty
damn quick fucking up?

This channel, specifically:

https://tinyurl.com/gremlinslab

Or, did you not think things thru well there snit? Which is it?


>>> You asked for an explanation -- but you have been give it here (and
>>> at least 14 other times):
>>
>> Yep, but it doesn't address the issue.
>
> Here is a key concept: it might not THAT YOU UNDERSTAND, but it most
> certainly does!

Nope. I understand your weaseling efforts to get around what you wrote
about me, but it doesn't work. The fact of the matter is that you lied,
several times about me, one of which was a whopper of a story about the
floodbot roaming here. You went so far as to quote a piece of a reply I
wrote, which wasn't about the bot itself to try and support the bullshit
story you concocted, because you thought I was trying to troll you -
because you didn't like my response to Davids request that you of all
people would be able to help him with some old code of mine. I'd already
seen how well you did with AZ, and you had everything you needed provided
by me to do it, so I already knew you wouldn't be able to help David with
the wallscreen code I shared with him, a long time ago.

If we can agree that javascript is being used for the bot, then your bot
accusation story falls that much more; javascript isn't compiled. It's
interpreted at runtime.

> This is another example of you presenting yourself as a functionally
> illiterate fraud.

This thread is nothing of the kind, but it does show how much of a
dishonest individual you actually are. Which was the reason I created it in
the first place, not that anyone seriously doubted that accusation
concerning you at any point in time.

>>> <fdL8I.48324$yR1....@fx08.iad>
>>>
>>> You claim to want to follow context, but you get these events:
>>>
>>> 1) Snit spoke of the flood bot code, and what can be known of it
>>> without the code.
>>
>> You wrote from your ass and made incorrect assumptions about what can
>> be known of it without the code.
>
> Message ID? Quote? Oh. You have none. You just make things up.

They were provided with the post that created this thread, but i'll be
happy to copy/paste it again for you:

From: Diesel <nob...@haph.org>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: Bot droppings
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:40:47 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hbjcp6...@mid.individual.net Tue, 25 Feb 2020 01:49:26 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> The only thing we know of the code is the bit Carroll has shown,
> and he denies that is even tied to the bot. Without knowing the
> reasoning for the text it could just as easily be lorem ipsum.

Who's we exactly here? I didn't claim I had any access to the
floodbots code. You're putting words in my mouth and making
assumptions about what you think I wrote, or meant.

> I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to have the
> bot break apart sentences and respond to keywords, but that is
> more my thing that Carroll's (I do it with my chat bot). So if I
> were to make such a bot, yes, I would want it to do that... but
> does Carroll even want it to? I think the main purpose is Google
> seeding... and it does that well.

Christ, keyword hits aren't original by either of you. It's been done
and done and done to death. I had an eliza bot on my first computer,
and it was very limited compared to what anyone uses today.

Nothing I've seen shown by either of you is original, or difficult to
produce. It's all stuff I've seen before, some going back decades
that's 'new' to the two of you, very old stuff to myself and many of
the others here.

> Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
> shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
> that.

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

Do you think when you disassemble something that you're provided the
original source code that was compiled/assembled by the author? You
aren't, what you're given looks nothing like the original source
code, but it still tells you *everything* about the program.

***

As I wrote, I was calling out your bullshit coding 'knowledge' and I
addressed it with those three paragraphs. You selected the third one to
write this:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

And you completely ignored the first three lines of my reply as you did so,
the first three lines clearly stating that I not only did not have the bot,
but didn't appreciate your efforts to try and put words in my mouth,
either.

>>> 2) Gremlin responded by speaking of what he can know HAVING THE CODE.
>>
>> No,
>
> Of course you did. And easy to show. I said:

My entire post about it is above, Snit.

> I was clearly speaking about the flood bot and ONLY the flood bot. And
> you respond with (in part):
>
> <XnsAB6E44...@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
> -----
> Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
> provided the original source code that was
> compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
> given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
> still tells you *everything* about the program.
> -----
>
> This is another example of you making a claim, having it be debunked,
> and then you failing to address the response in any way. You again
> present yourself as a functionally illiterate fraud.

You didn't debunk anything, Snit. You lifted the third paragraph from my
reply which was clearly questioning your so called 'programming' knowledge
and that's all those paragraphs did. You tried, and failed, to spin the
third one into something else entirely. That I had the bot itself, and that
was actual proof of it.

>> I responded by first correcting your shit excuse for programming
>> knowledge and then I took your comments to task in greater detail. I
>> expanded on what you wrote, and corrected your mistakes.
>
> Thank you for admitting you changed the topic away from the flood bot
> code and to code in general. I commend you for you step in a more
> reasoned direction.

I didn't change the topic away from anything. Apd told you this, as did
FTR. You've clearly elected to ignore both of them, as well as myself,
concerning this, because what all three of us told you doesn't match the
story you're trying to peddle, and it never will.

>> :) I strongly suspect you won't be too happy about the interest I
>> :charge
>> when I come to collect the debt you're racking up with me, in full.
>
> See: this is you again playing victim. You post derogatory links about
> me and IN RESPONSE I do the same to you. Then you play victim.

No, snit, you posted a completely bullshit story about me, it's in this
thread, the first post infact, and I have taken issue with it. That's not
my playing victim or anything else, that's simply me, calling you out for
the lies you wrote about me, that you still refuse to admit to.

>>
>>> Gremlin Dustin Cook:
>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>
>>> <https://www.bing.com/search?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>
>>> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>
>>>
>>> Functionally Illiterate Fraud:
>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>
>>> <https://www.bing.com/search?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>
>>> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>
>>
>> You do understand, I'm sure, that if we lived within driving or walking
>> distance of each other, you wouldn't be posting to usenet right now
>> right?
>
> This seems like a direct threat from you. Curious. It is amazing how
> little control you have and how much anger you show.

It's not a threat, Snit. That's typically how things actually work in real
life, though. When you write shit about people, repeatedly as you do, one
shouldn't expect a free pass if said individual has an opportunity to
discuss the matter, in person, with you.

>> You'd still need time to heal up. Talk shit like you do in real life,
>> you get your ass kicked.
>
> Let me guess: you AND your imaginary friend HHI would be there, right?

Heh, I don't need anyone to assist me in placing your ears around your head
for you snit. You don't strike me as the type of person who knows how to
properly defend themselves in a physical altercation. You strike me as the
pussified type who runs his mouth off enough so that a physical altercation
isn't avoidable, and then, cries his little ass off to the cops trying to
explain why he's so bloody and bruised.


>> Online is no different, Snit, and I'm going to make it
>> my personal project to make sure that you learn this lesson, that you
>> are taken to task for the shit you've been doing to people for years
>> now. Ayep, you fucked up by picking me for a trolling target. In a big
>> way.
>
> See how you play victim and how weak you are. Damn... I have rarely met
> anyone who plays victim as much as you do.

Let's see what you have to say a little later in the year when the show
officially starts for you, ok?




--
When all else fails, let a = 7. If that doesn't work, read the manual.

Snit

unread,
May 18, 2021, 12:55:54 AM5/18/21
to
On May 17, 2021 at 9:24:14 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsAD2E4A...@Mk18i494m14ltN7WZW2b.C6.w4pi8rQw1pt>:

> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:_1ZnI.25707$XW6....@fx11.iad Sat,
> 15 May 2021 23:44:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>
>> On May 15, 2021 at 4:15:30 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
>> <XnsAD2BC4...@933VkZG.MON0.dYW>:
>>
>>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> news:2S4iI.71834$9L1....@fx05.iad
>>> Wed, 28 Apr 2021 03:43:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Okay then, please, Snit, point out what it is you think I missed.
>>>>
>>>> I have repeatedly. I can again. But you will not understand it. And
>>>> you just get more and more angry and dox myself and my family.
>>>
>>> So, basically crickets to my question then.
>>
>> This is a fine example of your failure to understand what you read.

Notice you just ignore this... pretend it did not happen, even though it was
trivial to show.

> If only I had that issue. Life would actually be easier for me.
>
>>> Let's be very clear though,
>>> concerning the doxxing of you and your loved ones, lolz... You did that
>>> to yourself when you decided to play doxxing games with me.
>>
>> This is an example of you making a claim that has already been fully
>> refuted and you just making the claim again, failing to be able to move
>> the conversation further. It is another example of you failing to
>> understand what you read.

And here you just go back to your nonsense denial of the refutation as you
refuse to even speak of it.

You are lying. It really is that simple.


>>
>
> It has not been refuted. You did not have permission, at any point in time
> to disclose the cell number you did. I was very clear about that, during
> our conversation as well as various points online when you began
> threatening to disclose it.
>
>>> You disclosed a cell you were specifically told not to share,
>>
>> This is a direct lie on your part -- you specifically said I *could*
>> share the information from my inbound caller ID records.


And you just ignore this and lie some more. Remember, I quoted your specific
permission where you said I could share the info from my provider's inbound
"Caller ID" records.


>>
>
> It's no more a direct lie than your previous one where you claimed I was
> directly lying about David asking for your help with that cell number. I
> was clear enough in telling you that you didn't have permission to post the
> cell number that you wrote about rescinding permission and clearly told me
> you didn't honor them. So, enough with your direct lie bullshit
> accusations.
>
>>> not only
>>> during the conversation, but later online when the subject came up.
>>
>> Can you provide the Message ID and quote?

You failed to. As predicted. It is not hard to predict your trolling.
Again you ignore this and go on and on and on and on and on hoping to bury it.


You are not having a conversation in good faith. This is why you and Carroll
would NEVER have a real time conversation... your trolling tactics works a lot
better in text than they do in that format.



>>
>
> Nope, I didn't. My story concerning how I made contact with you has been
> consistent each time I've written it. I never used a phone to call you, I
> used voIP and I provided you a number to a disposable cell (that you didn't
> know was a disposable when you initially started trying to stalk me per
> Davids request) you don't mention any of this when you share some of my
> comments about it, though rofl and I know why, because it doesn't support
> your story, infact, it supports mine!
>
> We had a considerable amount of back and forth when you were threatening to
> disclose it, and after you did so, when you initially couldn't find it
> coming back to me in any way. You don't share any of those conversations
> though. It doesn't fit with your narrative, so you censor it out. The thing
> is though, Snit, when someone pulls an MID, they can see the subject and
> find the thread it came from. And, if they want, they can read all about
> this, and catch the conversations you've been leaving out. That's very
> dishonest of you, but it's expected.
>
>> Again, examples of you presenting yourself as dishonest and as a fraud
>> are trivial to show.

You ignore how you are being directly called out on quotable lies and just
babble endlessly. Now you will whine I am not biting.

Your trolling really is predictable.
And you just run from this... it is not like you have a counter to the
refutation, you just pretend it does not exist.

Your trolling is very predictable.

>>
>
> Nope. I understand your weaseling efforts to get around what you wrote
> about me, but it doesn't work. The fact of the matter is that you lied,
> several times about me, one of which was a whopper of a story about the
> floodbot roaming here. You went so far as to quote a piece of a reply I
> wrote, which wasn't about the bot itself to try and support the bullshit
> story you concocted, because you thought I was trying to troll you -
> because you didn't like my response to Davids request that you of all
> people would be able to help him with some old code of mine. I'd already
> seen how well you did with AZ, and you had everything you needed provided
> by me to do it, so I already knew you wouldn't be able to help David with
> the wallscreen code I shared with him, a long time ago.
>
> If we can agree that javascript is being used for the bot, then your bot
> accusation story falls that much more; javascript isn't compiled. It's
> interpreted at runtime.
>
>> This is another example of you presenting yourself as a functionally
>> illiterate fraud.

And you just avoid the fact I have pointed out something you deny I do. You
again just avoid having any real conversation. You do that a lot... and it is
why you would crumble even worse in a real-time conversation

If you get to the point where you can do more than just cowardly run please
let me know.

Stephen - frelwizzen 0249

unread,
May 18, 2021, 1:24:33 AM5/18/21
to
So... in Snit's Bitch David Brooks's 'story', that a URL has been published
is "proof" that Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote it now? Get a consumer report
on Snit's Bitch David Brooks and you will learn that he was in the slammer
earlier this year. I do not know what for. The online reports don't go into
that extent of detail and legal lists are private unless subpoenaed.

Hope Snit's Bitch David Brooks likes the tranquility in the packed sewer
of my trash can.

NNTP protocol is only free if your time has no value. Snit's Bitch David
Brooks suffers from neurotic lies so, to him, everything, even giving him
back what he dishes out, are "vilification". Who doesn't know this? By the
way, taking effort possibly building wisdom isn't a waste. Believing you
know more than everyone else and taking it on yourself to 'prove' people
that it's true, as Snit's Bitch David Brooks tries to do? That is a waste.

--
Live on Kickstarter
https://redd.it/6sfkup
https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22FUNCTIONAL%20ILLITERATE%20FRAUD%22
Dustin Cook the functional illiterate fraud

Steve Carroll

unread,
May 18, 2021, 2:29:18 AM5/18/21
to
But when the stats were run, it turns out beyond any doubt, Snit's Bitch
David Brooks was far more "narcissistic" than even I imagined. Snit's Bitch
David Brooks's amazing "diagnostic prowess" blinded him to a module he insists
does not exists that does exist on this software. Usenet is a sovereign protocol
based on shared ethics that Snit's Bitch David Brooks lacks. In fact Snit's
Bitch David Brooks's lies became more vile. So as might be expected I regret
backing the trolls with their support for Snit's Bitch David Brooks. While
I am sure his wife approved of it, I've not helped the situation at all.
Frankly I do not really think you understand. Generally, Carroll would not
call a claim like Snit's Bitch David Brooks's comments an outright lie right
up until you negate it (as you are here) and he responds with the distraction
knowing he can't prove it.


--
Puppy Videos
https://gibiru.com/results.html?q=%22functional%20illiterate%20fraud%22
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages