Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: How many fucking socks does Steve "Carroll" Petruzzellis have?
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Shadow
Jun 1, 2020, 11:26:39 AM6/1/20
to
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 11:48:42 +0000 (UTC), Roy
<vwofc...@dirtytech.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 May 2020 16:26:27 -0400, Steve Quintero wrote:
>
>> Does this poser have some kind of an automated sock generator or
>> something similar?
>> Snit has really gotten under this fool's skin that's fer sure.
>> Get a life already because there is more to life than snit. Although in
>> Steve "Carroll" Petruzzellis's case I'm not so sure.
>
>steve carroll isn't behind the sock invasion. It's snit running his
>antagonist vs protagonist sideshow. Snit creates socks that use the same
>posting style as steve carroll in order to keep his circus running.
>He's been using this trick for a long time and as long as he keeps
>snaring unsuspecting posters he will continue. We kicked him out of
>alt.os.linux in short order as soon as we figured out his tricks.
>
>Snit is also behind the scripted bot and while snit is an abysmal
>programmer he is very good at pilfering the work of others and modifying
>it to fit his needs. So IOW snit is a very good thief.
>
>Ignore the snit troll and anything associated with Michael Glasser and
>your life will become more productive, unlike snit's.
Everyone knows. But why doesn't Carrol simply killfile snit?
snit's credibility is null.
Ignoring is the best policy. If any noob falls for snit's
*LIES* the KF won't filter the post, and you can always "educate" the
noob before he gets in too deep.
IMHO
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
<vwofc...@dirtytech.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 May 2020 16:26:27 -0400, Steve Quintero wrote:
>
>> Does this poser have some kind of an automated sock generator or
>> something similar?
>> Snit has really gotten under this fool's skin that's fer sure.
>> Get a life already because there is more to life than snit. Although in
>> Steve "Carroll" Petruzzellis's case I'm not so sure.
>
>steve carroll isn't behind the sock invasion. It's snit running his
>antagonist vs protagonist sideshow. Snit creates socks that use the same
>posting style as steve carroll in order to keep his circus running.
>He's been using this trick for a long time and as long as he keeps
>snaring unsuspecting posters he will continue. We kicked him out of
>alt.os.linux in short order as soon as we figured out his tricks.
>
>Snit is also behind the scripted bot and while snit is an abysmal
>programmer he is very good at pilfering the work of others and modifying
>it to fit his needs. So IOW snit is a very good thief.
>
>Ignore the snit troll and anything associated with Michael Glasser and
>your life will become more productive, unlike snit's.
Everyone knows. But why doesn't Carrol simply killfile snit?
snit's credibility is null.
Ignoring is the best policy. If any noob falls for snit's
*LIES* the KF won't filter the post, and you can always "educate" the
noob before he gets in too deep.
IMHO
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Shadow
Jun 4, 2020, 4:45:35 PM6/4/20
to
On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:47:51 +0100, David_B <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:
>I can arrange for a police visit to your home if you wish. Would you
>like me to organise this - Yes or no?
Yes - but it's a *LIE*.
The police won't bother "visiting" snit over illegal drug use.
If he's peddling though, that would be much more serious.
Does he complement his welfare check with drug trafficking?
You must know, you stated you only trust someone when you know
EVERYTHING about them.
>
>I don't joke about such serious matters.
Tell them how it worked out for you last time, when you
threatened shooting a STALKING_TARGET's little children.
Pity you couldn't find the 9mm in time to be arrested, or you
could enjoyed some free "love" in a Devon jail. I take it you "forgot"
where you hid it.
Next time leave it near the bottle, where the police can find
it.
HTH
-------------------------------------
BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to
hide".
I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request,
rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!":
<https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php>
65 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes!
Google "David Brooks Devon"
wrote:
>I can arrange for a police visit to your home if you wish. Would you
>like me to organise this - Yes or no?
Yes - but it's a *LIE*.
The police won't bother "visiting" snit over illegal drug use.
If he's peddling though, that would be much more serious.
Does he complement his welfare check with drug trafficking?
You must know, you stated you only trust someone when you know
EVERYTHING about them.
>
>I don't joke about such serious matters.
Tell them how it worked out for you last time, when you
threatened shooting a STALKING_TARGET's little children.
Pity you couldn't find the 9mm in time to be arrested, or you
could enjoyed some free "love" in a Devon jail. I take it you "forgot"
where you hid it.
Next time leave it near the bottle, where the police can find
it.
HTH
-------------------------------------
BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to
hide".
I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request,
rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!":
<https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php>
65 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes!
Google "David Brooks Devon"
Shadow
Jun 4, 2020, 4:59:35 PM6/4/20
to
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:37:07 -0400, Captain Lompo
<cptnl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You seem to be obsessed with snit Steve.
I agree. He should KF him, and only respond if someone is fooled by
snit's *LIES*. That would happen once in a blue moon.
And respond ONLY to the psycho that believes anything snit posts.
> Why so and what's the fascination that causes you to stalk snit?
It's not stalking if snit *LIES* about him. OTOH responding feeds
snit's delusions. He's actually making snit "happy".
>
>Why does it matter to you what snit thinks, says or does?
>That's his business
Not if snit and his bot troll and flood the newsgroups with thousands
of useless posts a month. Then it's everybody's business.
Everyone should KF snit(and his bot) IMHO.
<cptnl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You seem to be obsessed with snit Steve.
I agree. He should KF him, and only respond if someone is fooled by
snit's *LIES*. That would happen once in a blue moon.
And respond ONLY to the psycho that believes anything snit posts.
> Why so and what's the fascination that causes you to stalk snit?
It's not stalking if snit *LIES* about him. OTOH responding feeds
snit's delusions. He's actually making snit "happy".
>
>Why does it matter to you what snit thinks, says or does?
>That's his business
Not if snit and his bot troll and flood the newsgroups with thousands
of useless posts a month. Then it's everybody's business.
Everyone should KF snit(and his bot) IMHO.
Shadow
Jun 5, 2020, 6:53:44 AM6/5/20
to
On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 15:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll - fretwizzer
<fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Go ahead, tell me DB is a lying troll, too.
"DB" is a lying troll too.
Feel better?
<fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Go ahead, tell me DB is a lying troll, too.
"DB" is a lying troll too.
Feel better?
HTH
-------------------------------------
BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to
hide".
I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request,
rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!":
<https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php>
65 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes!
Google "David Brooks Devon"
-------------------------------------
BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to
hide".
I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request,
rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!":
<https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php>
65 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes!
Google "David Brooks Devon"
Shadow
Jun 6, 2020, 9:24:38 AM6/6/20
to
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 12:26:23 +0100, David_B <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:
>On 06/06/2020 11:12, Apd wrote:
>> "Shadow" wrote:
>>> Snit's system clock (just over 20 minutes off) coincided with
>>> one of the bots.
>>
>> I remember you mentioning it before but don't know how you can
>> ascertain that. There's normally only one date in the header (GG
>> posts have more).
>>
>>> The code page error with another poster's (he
>>> noticed, and quickly set it right, but the bot post PRECEDED his
>>> posts). Can't be a coincidence.
>>
>> Whatever that error is I don't recall seeing one.
>
>It is possible that Shadow is lying. He has not provided any supporting
>evidence.
Anything is possible, though my posting history says
otherwise.
You posting history OTOH is a disgrace(you admitted you *LIE*
most often than not in Usenet):
Tell us again about the "action" you saw during all the wars
you participated in.....
>
>>> I'll give you a clue.
>>> Jekyll and Hyde.
>>
>> I know you think one would be Snit. That doesn't show me another.
>
>May I suggest that you don't take seriously what Shadow claims in Usenet
>posts?
Is anything here incorrect? If so, please post a correction.
wrote:
>On 06/06/2020 11:12, Apd wrote:
>> "Shadow" wrote:
>>> Snit's system clock (just over 20 minutes off) coincided with
>>> one of the bots.
>>
>> I remember you mentioning it before but don't know how you can
>> ascertain that. There's normally only one date in the header (GG
>> posts have more).
>>
>>> The code page error with another poster's (he
>>> noticed, and quickly set it right, but the bot post PRECEDED his
>>> posts). Can't be a coincidence.
>>
>> Whatever that error is I don't recall seeing one.
>
>It is possible that Shadow is lying. He has not provided any supporting
>evidence.
Anything is possible, though my posting history says
otherwise.
You posting history OTOH is a disgrace(you admitted you *LIE*
most often than not in Usenet):
Tell us again about the "action" you saw during all the wars
you participated in.....
>
>>> I'll give you a clue.
>>> Jekyll and Hyde.
>>
>> I know you think one would be Snit. That doesn't show me another.
>
>May I suggest that you don't take seriously what Shadow claims in Usenet
>posts?
Is anything here incorrect? If so, please post a correction.
0 new messages