Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"?
DFS
amnesty. The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping,
back-tracking, goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that
effete candy-ass beggars belief."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/cc4827fd7e8ad574
That's so fscking ironic I don't know what. The incessant giggler who
lives under his wife's thumb for 30 years calls someone else an 'effete
candy-ass'?
flatfish+++
Slam Dunk!!!!!
Hahaha!
Can I borrow the Fiesta tonight Jayne?
It's raining out and I'm tired of having to walk 3 miles to the Quick
Stop for my pizza and Jolt.
Please?
Bwaaaaaaaaaaa!
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Linux's dismal desktop market share:
http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/05/12/the-top-20-strongholds-for-desktop-linux/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Snit
Notice that those who call me names and troll me *never* show quotes that
support their claims. They cannot.
Quite telling.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
DFS
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:39:37 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> "Snit may be the first retraction of my general killfile
>> amnesty. The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping,
>> back-tracking, goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that
>> effete candy-ass beggars belief."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/cc4827fd7e8ad574
>>
>>
>>
>> That's so fscking ironic I don't know what. The incessant giggler who
>> lives under his wife's thumb for 30 years calls someone else an 'effete
>> candy-ass'?
>
> Slam Dunk!!!!!
>
> Hahaha!
>
> Can I borrow the Fiesta tonight Jayne?
> It's raining out and I'm tired of having to walk 3 miles to the Quick
> Stop for my pizza and Jolt.
> Please?
>
> Bwaaaaaaaaaaa!
"Pleasssseeeeee honeeeeeyyyyy!!!!!!"
LMAO!
DFS
I went through lots of those "151 examples" provided by HPT. Many of
them call you a liar, a forger and a user of sockpuppets.
Not one of them provided any proof.
Nor has HPT of course. Tonto pops up, posts some idiocy, then heads
back to his bottle of firewater.
flatfish+++
We know who wears the panties in that family.
Talk about a family tree swishing and swaying in the wind.
Jeeezzzzzee...
flatfish+++
Tonto.
Always playing second fiddle to the Lone Ranger (Roy)....
Clogwog
[q]
High Plains Thumper <> writes:
>
> One time I told one rider, the reason why he needed a bigger
> motorcycle was to make up for a small dick, when he criticised mine.
It must have hurt when he criticised your dick. What were you doing
showing it to him?
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t699598-p2-mac-bashers.html
[q/]
flatfish+++
Hysterical!!
Linux advocates sure are some strange ducks,......
Clog_-_wog (®)
news:hc67jl3gg7sa$.l89huqlclgn1$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:12:43 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 6/3/2011 1:46 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> DFS stated in post isb2ot$m7d$4...@speranza.aioe.org on 6/3/11 9:39 AM:
>>>
>>>> "Snit may be the first retraction of my general killfile amnesty.
>>>> The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping, back-tracking,
>>>> goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that effete
>>>> candy-ass beggars belief."
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/cc4827fd7e8ad574
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's so fscking ironic I don't know what. The incessant
>>>> giggler who
>>>> lives under his wife's thumb for 30 years calls someone else an
>>>> 'effete candy-ass'?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Notice that those who call me names and troll me *never* show quotes
>>> that support their claims. They cannot.
>>>
>>> Quite telling.
>>
>>
>> I went through lots of those "151 examples" provided by HPT. Many of
>> them call you a liar, a forger and a user of sockpuppets.
>>
>> Not one of them provided any proof.
>>
>> Nor has HPT of course. Tonto pops up, posts some idiocy, then heads
>> back to his bottle of firewater.
>
> Tonto.
> Always playing second fiddle to the Lone Ranger (Roy)....
>
Catchwords: troll, Microsoft jihad, stalker, M$ Evangelism.
Disgusting!
http://twitter.com/#!/RealHPT
Hadron
Also notice the nasty little hypocrite doing what he claims to despise.
Snit
6:59 AM:
This is not uncommon in COLA or CSMA. Sadly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
>
> >> "Snit may be the first retraction of my general killfile amnesty.
> >> The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping, back-tracking,
> >> goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that effete
> >> candy-ass beggars belief."
>
>
> >> That's so fscking ironic I don't know what. The incessant
> >> giggler who
> >> lives under his wife's thumb for 30 years calls someone else an
> >> 'effete candy-ass'?
>
> > Notice that those who call me names and troll me *never* show quotes
> > that support their claims. They cannot.
>
> > Quite telling.
>
> I went through lots of those "151 examples" provided by HPT. Many of
> them call you a liar, a forger and a user of sockpuppets.
>
> Not one of them provided any proof.
Not there, no, as that's not the purpose of the list. FWIW I just
provided an example of Snit lying (it was related to a statement he
recently made). He was caught testing out a new sock puppet and
subsequently lying about his use of it while also claiming (lying)
that people "asked" him to do it (same sort of lie he told when he
admitted to forging my posting ID to another csma poster). Lots of
people on that list have provided all kinds of examples of Snit's
antics, the only people that deny them are other trolls, his sock
puppets/shills. In fact, the very reason for the existence of the list
is because Snit repeatedly denied all his BS. Now, with the list, he
is forced to call everyone on the list a liar, troll, sock puppet,
etc. Funny stuff;) It's not Snit... just ask him... it's virtually
everyone he has come into contact with. LOL!
By the way, have you forged posting IDs? No? Well, ask Snit if he has
and watch his answer if he bothers to give one (probably not). Then we
canl compare it to the other answers he has given on this topic...
some of which aren't true because they say completely different
things. He has a real problem keeping his lies straight. I attribute
it to his using off brand glues... he really should know better than
to skimp.
Hadron
> On Jun 3, 1:12 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 6/3/2011 1:46 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > DFS stated in post isb2ot$m7...@speranza.aioe.org on 6/3/11 9:39 AM:
>>
>> >> "Snit may be the first retraction of my general killfile amnesty.
>> >> The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping, back-tracking,
>> >> goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that effete
>> >> candy-ass beggars belief."
>>
>> >>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/cc4827fd7e8a...
>>
>> >> That's so fscking ironic I don't know what. The incessant
>> >> giggler who
>> >> lives under his wife's thumb for 30 years calls someone else an
>> >> 'effete candy-ass'?
>>
>> > Notice that those who call me names and troll me *never* show quotes
>> > that support their claims. They cannot.
>>
>> > Quite telling.
>>
>> I went through lots of those "151 examples" provided by HPT. Many of
>> them call you a liar, a forger and a user of sockpuppets.
>>
>> Not one of them provided any proof.
>
> Not there, no, as that's not the purpose of the list. FWIW I just
> provided an example of Snit lying (it was related to a statement he
> recently made). He was caught testing out a new sock puppet and
> subsequently lying about his use of it while also claiming (lying)
> that people "asked" him to do it (same sort of lie he told when he
Then you wont mind posting a link to this proof you bullshitting
lunatic. Snit might bore the hole off a bronze statue at times but I
have never seen him openly lying. I see you repeating the same claims
all the time and yet, like that cluless dickhead HPT, never actually
proving anything.
Snit
8:28 AM:
>>> I went through lots of those "151 examples" provided by HPT. Many of
>>> them call you a liar, a forger and a user of sockpuppets.
>>>
>>> Not one of them provided any proof.
>>
>> Not there, no, as that's not the purpose of the list. FWIW I just
>> provided an example of Snit lying (it was related to a statement he
>> recently made). He was caught testing out a new sock puppet and
>> subsequently lying about his use of it while also claiming (lying)
>> that people "asked" him to do it (same sort of lie he told when he
>
> Then you wont mind posting a link to this proof you bullshitting
> lunatic. Snit might bore the hole off a bronze statue at times but I
> have never seen him openly lying. I see you repeating the same claims
> all the time and yet, like that cluless dickhead HPT, never actually
> proving anything.
Exactly. Steve Carroll lies more in one day of posting than I have since he
started forging and collecting quotes in 2006. When Steve does "try" to
quote an alleged lie of mine, he goes back *years* to some ancient debate
and insists if I do not rehash it with him *again* I must be saying there is
an expiration on lies. Insane.
This has been going on since 2006. Half a decade. All because some woman
he had the hots for obsessed over me to the point the police told her to
back off. Really... long past time for him to let it go. Heck, he claims
to be married now... does he really need to live in obsession of his ex?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
I just did it again in this forum, Hadron (as I have in the past when
you've denied it). I suggest you ask Snit to explain why he falsely
claimed (in 2008) that he used his Brock McNuggets handle only
"once" (by "mistake") when Google shows he used it several times prior
to his 2008 claim (even several times prior to 2004). Hint: The answer
is he's a sock puppet using liar who cannot keep track of his lies or
his sock puppets. Or better... ask Snit if he has forged posting IDs.
You won't... cuz you don't want to hear the answer and watch me hand
him his ass again and make you out a fool for pretending Snit is Snow
White. The only thing white on Snit is the dried glue crust under his
nose.
Like I said, "the only people that deny them are other trolls, his
sock puppets/shills", so which one are you?
See how this reality thing works?
Steve Carroll
Being that you seem so interested in protecting Snit here's a bit
more fun (for others to watch your denials)...
It's a fact that Snit's crap has gone on for a LONG time on
usenet...here is an episode showing his admission (to the csma
Sandman) of the forging of my posting ID (to write numerous trolling
posts so he could later claim I wrote them) Snit accompanied the
admission with a lie that I 'dared' him to do it:
"Well, he did dare me... but yeah…" - Snit
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/cd4bef585f94b998?hl=en&
Of course, later... the forging, trolling, liar named Snit, unable to
ever keep his lies straight, changed his story about 'who' had 'dared'
him to engage in forgery:
"So I did what one of your gang asked me to do and you now chastise me
for it" - Snit
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8e88f56eec82e1c3?hl=en&
I predict you will do one or more of the following:
Run away like Snit does when confronted with evidence that Snit is a
trolling, lying, forger (as you have several times in the past)
Pretend that this doesn't show what it shows based on some delusional
drivel (as you have in the past)
Explain how it's OK to forge posting IDs
Talk about how lying about forgery and lying about previous lies is a
somehow a good thing
Claim Snit's BS has an 'expiration date'... one that means Snit didn't
actually do what Google shows him admitting to having done (you
probably need to accompany this one with enough glue so the reader
gets the full effect)
Kill the messenger
DFS
You've always been straight with everyone in cola, that I've seen.
Did you use a Brock McNuggets sockpuppet? If so, how many times? When
was the last time?
Did you forge an NNTP posting host ID because someone on csma challenged
you? Or did you do it as a forger?
Snit
...
>> Exactly. Steve Carroll lies more in one day of posting than I have since he
>> started forging and collecting quotes in 2006. When Steve does "try" to
>> quote an alleged lie of mine, he goes back *years* to some ancient debate
>> and insists if I do not rehash it with him *again* I must be saying there is
>> an expiration on lies. Insane.
>>
>> This has been going on since 2006. Half a decade. All because some woman
>> he had the hots for obsessed over me to the point the police told her to
>> back off. Really... long past time for him to let it go. Heck, he claims
>> to be married now... does he really need to live in obsession of his ex?
>
> You've always been straight with everyone in cola, that I've seen.
Yup. Carroll is just full of it. And obsessed.
> Did you use a Brock McNuggets sockpuppet? If so, how many times? When
> was the last time?
It was years ago, so details might be off, but (and from a recent post):
2003:
* I used a Usenet client where the email shown was tied to a joke email I
used (mostly, I think, used as a "junk" email for services I signed up for).
As I switched computers I had things set incorrectly and used the joke email
name in a Usenet post to a health forum... and used my normal .sig and did
*nothing* to hide the mistake. When asked about it I openly admitted to it.
2008:
* I used the same joke name in CSMA. When called on it, I admitted it and
noted it as a joke. I was busted based on my post from 2003 and made
reference to that one time of posting under that name. [Of note, it was
Steve's ex / non-ex who found the post from 2003... she was more obsessive
than he is, and his relationship with her is the reason he became obsessed
with me - a whole different story]
2011:
* Steve Carroll, again and for no reason other than his obvious problems,
starts trolling me over irrelevant health issues. He tries to tie this to
his accusations of dishonesty, but his *best* effort to show me as being
"dishonest" is to reference the above things from 2003 and 2008. In other
words, he tacitly admits his claims of my being dishonest are completely
unfounded.
That is what this is all about: Steve is trolling and lying and showing he
has no support for his BS claims. Given he has no support, he shows he is
complete and utter scum and mocks people based on irrelevant health issues
they posted about many years ago in an appropriate forum.
> Did you forge an NNTP posting host ID because someone on csma challenged
> you? Or did you do it as a forger?
Again, this is from *years* ago, so details might be off, but Carroll was
using a sock that he and his crew were accusing me of using. They told me
if I admitted to using that sock they would stop trolling me. So I posted
with that name making it *very* clear it was me and, of course, admitted to
it. In other words, I did *exactly* as they asked me to do (admitted to
posting with the name) and now Steve uses *that* against me. Yes, it was
foolish to trust Steve... and I have made the same foolish mistake many
times. I am overly trusting. Steve takes advantage of that.
Steve is almost surely going to dredge up a kazillion debates going back to
2006 now... and insist that if I do not respond to each one this means I am
putting a time limit on "lies". In other words, he is about to prove his
obsession and insanity. This has been his pattern for over half a decade...
culminating in his claims of my "impersonating" the person he claims I am -
and threatening to have that person fired, even if he has to twist arms
(yes, he claimed his goal was to have the person he claimed I was
"impersonating" fired... he is, literally, insane).
I am sure I can dredge up 10x the number of lies from him as he can pull up
from me. But why? Who cares. I already showed one lie of his that he
repeated *thousands* of times (that is not an exxageration - though it was
"only" in the two thousand to three thousand range)... and his response was
to simply poo poo it away.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> DFS stated in post isdvs7$lm...@dont-email.me on 6/4/11 12:08 PM:
Unfortunately, for you, Google shows that you didn't post "one time"
back then so this statement is unquestionalby false. This is called a
"fact"... one that you have *repeatedly* pretended doesn't exist.
> [Of note, it was
> Steve's ex / non-ex who found the post from 2003... she was more obsessive
> than he is, and his relationship with her is the reason he became obsessed
> with me - a whole different story]
ex / non-ex? Care to provide your "support" for your claim (lie) of
this ex /non-ex? I didn't think so... and maybe DFS won't appreciate
you making things up (lying) when he just finished stating that you've
been completely straight with him ( at least, as far as he has seen).
Some people are funny like that..(remember how Nicky used to blindly
support you... until he found out the truth).
> 2011:
> * Steve Carroll, again and for no reason other than
... you keep claiming that you never lie and haven't engaged in all
the other disingenuous BS you've engaged; so I decided to confront
your crap.
> his obvious problems,
> starts trolling me over irrelevant health issues. He tries to tie this to
> his accusations of dishonesty, but his *best* effort to show me as being
> "dishonest" is to reference the above things from 2003 and 2008.
Incorrect, I pointed to this one solely because it was relevant to my
countering of a statement you made (and to display how long your
history of dishonesty is). You're lying here today, in this very post
to DFS, in fact.
> In other
> words, he tacitly admits his claims of my being dishonest are completely
> unfounded.
Said the guy who has made several claims in this thread with no
support. Think anyone will notice?
>That is what this is all about: Steve is trolling and lying and showing he
> has no support for his BS claims. Given he has no support,
Other than Google, you mean.
> he shows he is
> complete and utter scum and mocks people based on irrelevant health issues
> they posted about many years ago in an appropriate forum.
Nah, I posted it here to address your claim that you don't suffer from
a social anxiety. I believe that you do, as does the cola poster that
brought it up, obviously.
> > Did you forge an NNTP posting host ID because someone on csma challenged
> > you? Or did you do it as a forger?
>
> Again, this is from *years* ago, so details might be off, but Carroll was
> using a sock
Another lie. Maybe DFS will be like many of the others (who grew bored
of your antics) and won't ask you to provide any support for this lie,
either. How many lies is that in this post now?
> that he and his crew were accusing me of using.
I have no "crew", Snit... never had one. All anyone needs to counter
your lies is the Google record.
> They told me if I admitted to using that sock they would stop trolling me.
So who are "they"? Why don't you point to 'them'? I'll do ya one
better... I'll point to *you* (once again making two different claims
on the same topic - meaning: one of them can't be true, or maybe both
aren't).
During your admission to a forgery to Sandman you disingenuously
claimed that I "dared" you to do it:
"Well, he did dare me... but yeah…" - Snit
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/cd4bef585f94b998?hl=en&
Unable to ever keep your lies straight, you then changed this story
to:
"So I did what one of your gang asked me to do and you now chastise me
for it" - Snit
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8e88f56eec82e1c3?hl=en&
So... here, you not only lied about my having a "gang" but you claim
one of them "asked" you to forge so "they" would stop trolling you.
Where is your proof for this claim? Think DFS will care enough to ask
you about it? Or do you think he'll start to see a pattern of you
making claims and not supporting them by now?
> So I posted
> with that name making it *very* clear it was me and, of course, admitted to
> it.
Oh, you did do that, but that wasn't your reasoning. You *thought* you
were throwing people off the trail of how disingenuous your sock
puppetry and forging was by tossing up a Brock McNuggets post with the
idea being:
'See, everyone? I tell you when I'm using sock puppets or forging IDs,
etc.'
But no one fell for your red herring.
> In other words, I did *exactly* as they asked me to do
Yes... because you are just SO "trusting". Who do you really think
you're fooling with this bunk?
> (admitted to posting with the name) and now Steve uses *that* against me.
I use your varying stories "against" you, Snit... "against" your
contention that you don't lie. Any idiot knows that when a person
regularly posts varying stories on the same topic that only one of
them stands any chance of being true (or, in your case, none of them
are likely true). People just aren't this stupid.
> Yes, it was foolish to trust Steve...
So was it me (like you told Sandman)?
Or was it, like you told me, one of my "gang" ("So I did what one of
your gang asked me to do...")?
Or was it "they", like you just said above to DFS ("I did *exactly* as
they asked me to do ")?
How come you can't make up your mind on who asked you to forge
something, Snit? Is this a thing that happens SO often in your life
that you just can't remember all the many people that have asked you
to do it who offer to "stop trolling" if you agree?
> and I have made the same foolish mistake many
> times. I am overly trusting. Steve takes advantage of that.
Poor Saint Snit.. think anyone is buying your discrepant crap?
> Steve is almost surely going to dredge up a kazillion debates going back to
> 2006 now... and insist that if I do not respond to each one this means I am
> putting a time limit on "lies". In other words, he is about to prove his
> obsession and insanity. This has been his pattern for over half a decade...
> culminating in his claims of my "impersonating" the person he claims I am -
> and threatening to have that person fired, even if he has to twist arms
> (yes, he claimed his goal was to have the person he claimed I was
> "impersonating" fired... he is, literally, insane).
Point to the post where I said I was going to attempt to get "fired"
the person you were impersonating. Did you already forget you just
tried this in *this* forum a couple day ago and failed?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1a5cf766882a4937?hl=en&
Nowhere in that post does it say I was attempting to get you "fired".
Do you even know how to tell the truth anymore?
> I am sure I can dredge up 10x the number of lies from him as he can pull up
> from me. But why? Who cares. I already showed one lie of his that he
> repeated *thousands* of times (that is not an exxageration - though it was
> "only" in the two thousand to three thousand range)... and his response was
> to simply poo poo it away.
Translation: Snit is well aware that some people do bother to read his
mountains of drivel so he is staving off (in his mind) having to
address what he knows Google contains plenty of. The only problem
is... one by one, people eventually see Snit for what he really is...
a person who constantly asks others for "proof" but makes claim after
claim of unsupported BS.
DFS
<snip inane Usenet arguing>
Steve, I found the thread where you threatened to contact Snit's employer:
======================================================================
"Irrelevant. It's not a mere accusation to say:
1 - that you have falsely alleged I have or had a "girlfriend".
2 - that you have engaged in forging posting IDs.
3 - that you have created disparaging webpages designed to humiliate
people.
4 - that you made private emails available to the public without the
permission of the other party.
5 - that you purposefully misinterpret people's words to make it
appear like they've said something they haven't.
6 - that you forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else.
7 - that you have managed to align scores of people against you based
on behavior like the above and much more."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8f8d84905bba67d1
======================================================================
Reading through some of that thread, I see you're a deluded, petty piece
of crap. Claiming Snit was an identity thief and imposter - with no
evidence whatsoever?
You're far more dishonest and slimy than you claim Snit is.
Piss off.
Snit
> On 6/5/2011 12:17 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>
> <snip inane Usenet arguing>
>
>
>
> Steve, I found the thread where you threatened to contact Snit's employer:
>
>
> ======================================================================
> "Irrelevant. It's not a mere accusation to say:
>
> 1 - that you have falsely alleged I have or had a "girlfriend".
Um, OK: Steve has never had a girlfriend, or even any woman even remotely
interested in him. His claims to the contrary were lies he told to try to
feel better about himself. Better? :)
> 2 - that you have engaged in forging posting IDs.
>
> 3 - that you have created disparaging webpages designed to humiliate
> people.
>
> 4 - that you made private emails available to the public without the
> permission of the other party.
>
> 5 - that you purposefully misinterpret people's words to make it
> appear like they've said something they haven't.
>
> 6 - that you forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else.
>
> 7 - that you have managed to align scores of people against you based
> on behavior like the above and much more."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8f8d84905bba67d1
> ======================================================================
>
>
>
> Reading through some of that thread, I see you're a deluded, petty piece
> of crap. Claiming Snit was an identity thief and imposter - with no
> evidence whatsoever?
>
> You're far more dishonest and slimy than you claim Snit is.
>
> Piss off.
>
>
Well stated.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> On 6/5/2011 12:17 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> <snip inane Usenet arguing>
>
> Steve, I found the thread where you threatened to contact Snit's employer:
Great... now please point to the part where it says anything about
getting the person I believe Snit could possibly be impersonating
"fired" - you know, what Snit just claimed.
> ======================================================================
> "Irrelevant. It's not a mere accusation to say:
>
> 1 - that you have falsely alleged I have or had a "girlfriend".
Snit still alleges this lie with no support at all (you bothered to
post this, why aren't you asking *him* to support any of his
claims?).
> 2 - that you have engaged in forging posting IDs.
I posted Snit admitting to doing this. I'm pretty sure you've seen it
by now. Are you trying to convince me that you're as dishonest as
Snit? Or that you're a troll in this ng?
> 3 - that you have created disparaging webpages designed to humiliate
> people.
Ask Snit if he did this... then listen to the BS he'll spew on it,
too. Hint: It will sound a lot like the unsupported crap he's posted
several places in this thread.
> 4 - that you made private emails available to the public without the
> permission of the other party.
Seems you have much to talk about with your new pal... I suggest you
ask him about making his and ed's (a csma poster) private email
exhange public without first asking ed. See... I *did* ask ed... AND
I can produce his answer from Google. Care to take a guess what it
will be? And there is also Snit... admitting to have posted the email
but using his weasel tactics once again. Do you think Snit was
"straight" with ed?
> 5 - that you purposefully misinterpret people's words to make it
> appear like they've said something they haven't.
Tell you me you haven't seen Snit do this in COLA. I'm pretty sure
you've been here long enough to see him do this (he does it pretty
much all the time).
> 6 - that you forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else.
Snit is a forger, the people in csma have proven it beyond any
reasonable doubt... and he did forge a PDF file while trying to pin it
on another poster.
> 7 - that you have managed to align scores of people against you based
> on behavior like the above and much more."
I suppose you figure all those people on that quotes list have called
Snit a liar, troll or worse because he's always been "straight" with
them?
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8f8d84905bba...
> ======================================================================
>
> Reading through some of that thread, I see you're a deluded, petty piece
> of crap. Claiming Snit was an identity thief and imposter - with no
> evidence whatsoever?
Evidence that you didn't see by reading one or two threads, you
mean? Many people have produced plenty of evidence that could lead
any sane, honest and honorable person to believe Snit could possibly
be an imposter. Ask yourself this... do you know many college
instructors that have engaged in the following:
Forge posting IDs (and documents) on usenet
Online sexual harassment (including visiting a female poster's
neighborhood communal website to find ammo to use on usenet).
Posting private email to a public forum without permission of the
other party
Creating disparaging websites based on lies and half truths for the
sole purpose of antagonizing people
Mining data on people from other newsgroups for the purpose of
trolling in csma
Purposefully mangling context and purposefully misquoting what others
have written
Making negative references about a poster's children for the purpose
of antagonizing
Repeatedly denying proof of all of the above and much more
By the way... where is Snit's evidence of all the BS claims he's made
in this thread? Interesting how you're giving him a pass on this. Oh
well... bottom line... believe what you want... but one thing you can
count on here... Google proving that Snit has already made you look
like a fool for believing he's been "straight" with you ...and I
suspect there is more of that is your future. You don't appear to be a
linux advocate so I guess you're just a troll in this ng. Some trolls
care about a semblance of honesty... others don't care a whit for it.
I guess we now get to see where you fit in.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Jun 5, 1:23?pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
> Some trolls
> care about a semblance of honesty... others don't care a whit for it.
> I guess we now get to see where you fit in.
You got it. DFS is as dishonest as they come, and tries to cover it by
extremely out-of-context quotes. The extent to which he does this to the
accompaniment of sneers and insults is quite wacky.
--
"People should have access to the data which you have about them. There should
be a process for them to challenge any inaccuracies."
-- Arthur Miller
Anonymous
> On 6/5/2011 12:17 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> <snip inane Usenet arguing>
>
> Steve, I found the thread where you threatened to contact Snit's employer:
Great... now please point to the part where it says anything about
getting the person I believe Snit could possibly be impersonating
"fired" - you know, what Snit just claimed.
DID REPEATEDLY SAID YOU WOULD CONTACT HIS EMPLOYER AND YOU WERE DOING SO TO GET HIM FIRED.
> ======================================================================
> "Irrelevant. It's not a mere accusation to say:
>
> 1 - that you have falsely alleged I have or had a "girlfriend".
Snit still alleges this lie with no support at all (you bothered to
post this, why aren't you asking *him* to support any of his
claims?).
SO YOU DENY YOU HAVE EVER HAD A GIRLFRIEND.
> 2 - that you have engaged in forging posting IDs.
I posted Snit admitting to doing this. I'm pretty sure you've seen it
by now. Are you trying to convince me that you're as dishonest as
Snit? Or that you're a troll in this ng?
SO YOU ARE MADE HE DID AS YOU DID WHEN YOU FORGED SNIT HIMSELF. WELL FUCK YOU.
> 3 - that you have created disparaging webpages designed to humiliate
> people.
Ask Snit if he did this... then listen to the BS he'll spew on it,
too. Hint: It will sound a lot like the unsupported crap he's posted
several places in this thread.
WHAT PAGES? LINK TO THEM.
> 4 - that you made private emails available to the public without the
> permission of the other party.
Seems you have much to talk about with your new pal... I suggest you
ask him about making his and ed's (a csma poster) private email
exhange public without first asking ed. See... I *did* ask ed... AND
I can produce his answer from Google. Care to take a guess what it
will be? And there is also Snit... admitting to have posted the email
but using his weasel tactics once again. Do you think Snit was
"straight" with ed?
SO HE POSTES YOU EMAILS. FUCK YOU AND STOP EMAILING HIM.
> 5 - that you purposefully misinterpret people's words to make it
> appear like they've said something they haven't.
Tell you me you haven't seen Snit do this in COLA. I'm pretty sure
you've been here long enough to see him do this (he does it pretty
much all the time).
YOU HAVE NO EXAMPLE AND YOU ARE A LYING FUCKTARD. WHICH IS WORSE?
> 6 - that you forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else.
Snit is a forger, the people in csma have proven it beyond any
reasonable doubt... and he did forge a PDF file while trying to pin it
on another poster.
WHAT PDF YOU FUCKTARD? HPT ACCUSES HIM OF THIS BUT CAN NEVER SHOW IT. NOR CAN YOU YOU FUCKING FUCKTARD.
> 7 - that you have managed to align scores of people against you based
> on behavior like the above and much more."
I suppose you figure all those people on that quotes list have called
Snit a liar, troll or worse because he's always been "straight" with
them?
YOU HAVE BEEN COLLECTING QUOTES SINCE WHEN? AND HOW MANY ARE YOUR OWN SOCKS OR ONES YOU MADE UP. WHY NOT QUOTE HIM. BECAUSE YOU CANNOT YOU FUCKING FUCKTARD.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8f8d84905bba...
> ======================================================================
>
> Reading through some of that thread, I see you're a deluded, petty piece
> of crap. Claiming Snit was an identity thief and imposter - with no
> evidence whatsoever?
Evidence that you didn't see by reading one or two threads, you
mean? Many people have produced plenty of evidence that could lead
any sane, honest and honorable person to believe Snit could possibly
be an imposter. Ask yourself this... do you know many college
instructors that have engaged in the following:
YOU HAVE NOTHING YOU FUCKING FUCKTARD EXCEPT YOUR INSANITY AND OBSESSION.
Forge posting IDs (and documents) on usenet
Online sexual harassment (including visiting a female poster's
neighborhood communal website to find ammo to use on usenet).
WHAT THE FUCK. YOU ARE A FUCKTARD.
Posting private email to a public forum without permission of the
other party
Creating disparaging websites based on lies and half truths for the
sole purpose of antagonizing people
Mining data on people from other newsgroups for the purpose of
trolling in csma
Purposefully mangling context and purposefully misquoting what others
have written
Making negative references about a poster's children for the purpose
of antagonizing
Repeatedly denying proof of all of the above and much more
YOU HAVE NO PROOF YOU FUCKING FUCKTARD AND YOU DO WORSE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN CONTACTING HIS FUCKING EMPLOYER?
By the way... where is Snit's evidence of all the BS claims he's made
in this thread? Interesting how you're giving him a pass on this. Oh
well... bottom line... believe what you want... but one thing you can
count on here... Google proving that Snit has already made you look
like a fool for believing he's been "straight" with you ...and I
suspect there is more of that is your future. You don't appear to be a
linux advocate so I guess you're just a troll in this ng. Some trolls
care about a semblance of honesty... others don't care a whit for it.
I guess we now get to see where you fit in.
SNIT QUOTES YOUR THREATS AGAINST HIM WHERE YOU CONTACTED HIS EMPLOYER. WHAT A COMPLETE FUCKTARD YOU ARE.
Snit
78a697413b86a031...@remailer.paranoici.org on 6/5/11 7:38 PM:
> On Jun 5, 1:23 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 6/5/2011 12:17 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>> <snip inane Usenet arguing>
>>
>> Steve, I found the thread where you threatened to contact Snit's employer:
>
> Great... now please point to the part where it says anything about
> getting the person I believe Snit could possibly be impersonating
> "fired" - you know, what Snit just claimed.
>
> DID REPEATEDLY SAID YOU WOULD CONTACT HIS EMPLOYER AND YOU WERE DOING SO TO
> GET HIM FIRED.
Steve repeatedly made this claim... even saying he had a list of reasons he
hated me (or whatever) he was going to send to my employer. And if he
cannot get me fired:
-----
If he works there and I happen to run into an official who is
trying to cover for his own... I'll point out to this person
the method in which he will also be mowed down by the
indefensible... which will probably prompt them to cut their
losses. So... while Snit claims, at least, in this newsgroup,
to not be 'cowed by bullies', a thing we all know has nothing
to do with reality... we'll see if he's cowed by what he
really faces... being confronted with his own disingenuous
activities by the people who, he *claims*, employ him.
-----
Such gibberish from Carroll: if I work where he claims I work and where he
has shown he knows how to find my info at the relevant website... what does
that even mean. He claims I work there in one breath then pretends to not
know in the next... anyway... my employer, he says, will "cut their
losses"... which is, they will fire me. Obviously this is what he means.
Beyond any doubt... and Steve makes it clear he wants to bully me and see me
be "cowed" by his threats.
Steve also use to write about his list of reasons he hated me (which he
would send to my employer), and claim:
09/11/2009 "I'm about 11-12% done..."
09/02/2009 "I've already finished about 10% of what I'm going to send"
Steve Carroll: repeatedly threatening to send his list of reasons he hates
me to my employer. What is sick is Steve cannot think of a reason on his
own to *not* take things out of Usenet and work to have people who bested
him in online debates fired... he wrote, of his list and attempts to have me
fired:
Unless he, or someone, gives me a sound reason not to... I
intend to do what I said I'll do. That's not a threat...
that's a promise.
So he *promised* he would send his list of lies and other BS to my boss.
Promised. But now he claims there is no evidence he ever did - because even
Steve knows his word means *nothing*.
...
> By the way... where is Snit's evidence of all the BS claims he's made
> in this thread? Interesting how you're giving him a pass on this. Oh
> well... bottom line... believe what you want... but one thing you can
> count on here... Google proving that Snit has already made you look
> like a fool for believing he's been "straight" with you ...and I
> suspect there is more of that is your future. You don't appear to be a
> linux advocate so I guess you're just a troll in this ng. Some trolls
> care about a semblance of honesty... others don't care a whit for it.
> I guess we now get to see where you fit in.
>
> SNIT QUOTES YOUR THREATS AGAINST HIM WHERE YOU CONTACTED HIS EMPLOYER. WHAT A
> COMPLETE FUCKTARD YOU ARE.
Exactly... Steve claims my comments are BS... he cannot accept his own
irrational and hate-filled actions. Even Steve knows he has gone to far in
the midst of his breakdowns.
Oh, and Steve, you failed in your efforts. You are a failure. As is your
norm.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> Steve Carroll wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Jun 5, 1:23?pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some trolls
>> care about a semblance of honesty... others don't care a whit for it.
>> I guess we now get to see where you fit in.
>
> You got it. DFS is as dishonest as they come, and tries to cover it by
> extremely out-of-context quotes. The extent to which he does this to the
> accompaniment of sneers and insults is quite wacky.
Chris Ahlstrom:
-----
Once again, Snit misinterprets. The features of GIMP *are*
important. ... Snit is merely carrying on that fine tradition by
claiming that, unless your product has *all* the features of
Photoshop, it is shit.
-----
This was a complete fabrication on your part. And when I called you on it,
instead of even trying to support your lie, you responded with:
Chris Ahlstrom
-----
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. If Snit really believes those are
lies, he has a psychological vulnerability that leaves him unfit
for conversing on Usenet.
-----
Can you find *any* example of DFS acting as dishonestly as you did there.
I bet not.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> On Jun 5, 1:23 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/5/2011 12:17 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> > <snip inane Usenet arguing>
>
> > Steve, I found the thread where you threatened to contact Snit's employer:
>
> Great... now please point to the part where it says anything about
> getting the person I believe Snit could possibly be impersonating
> "fired" - you know, what Snit just claimed.
>
> DID REPEATEDLY SAID YOU WOULD CONTACT HIS EMPLOYER AND YOU WERE DOING SO TO GET HIM FIRED.
I've seen Snit and his puppets and shills making this claim but no one
has produced a post showing me doing what Snit claimed... that being,
getting the person I believe Snit could possibly be impersonating
"fired". Here's a paragraph from the last post in that thread... a
post that Snit still hasn't responded to... take a look to see why:
"As it is you who has made the connection to Yavapai by pointing to a
web site you *claim* to have created... and where the names Michael
Glasser and Yavapai College are mentioned... why shouldn't the folks
at Yavapai have the opportunity to see if the allegations are real?
Why shouldn't Yavapai be afforded the opportunity to judge if they are
negatively affected by your postings?
Providing Snit is telling the truth about working there, can *anyone*
tell me why Yavapai college shouldn't be given the opportunity to see
who is representing them on the internet by using their name on his
website? Anyone? I think the taxpayers of AZ might also be very
interested in this sort of a potential problem. Below, I quote Snit
talking about the "real world".
Fact: All sane, honest and honorable people know that, in the "real
world", a school or business does not like to be associated with
people that others find dishonest or lacking in integrity.
Fact: Snit stated, several times in that thread, this basic theme...
"Some day, Steve, I hope you enter the real world. Accusations - even
false ones such as yours - can ruin carriers." - Snit
"Have you figured out that people can have their careers ruined by
false allegations?" - Snit
I can't even begin to imagine Snit's version of the "real world".
Obviously this must be a "world" where he is *SO* mistrusted by his
employer that he fears some anonymous person writing to them from the
internet with what he claims are "false accusations" because they
might believe the anonymous person over their own employee! Think
about that for a second... this necessarily means he has either earned
the mistrust of the college (IF he even works there, then this'd be my
guess) and he's cowering in fear, knowing the axe will someday fall...
or he's working for a bunch of total assholes who are unreasonable
enough to "ruin" his career over "false accusations" that they don't
bother checking into. Wow.
WOW! Either way... it must SUCK to be Snit!
Bottom line: If the accusations are, as Snit claims, "false", and he
is a trusted employee, then he has nothing to worry about. The reason?
Who doesn't know the answer?
Honest and honorable people with good reputations don't fear "false
accusations" from strangers made to their employers over the internet.
(sorry, Snit... your attempt at using your "psych degree" on this to
shut me up failed miserably... as it always does - I keep telling
you... people just aren't as stupid as you need them to be).
(snip more crap from a Snit puppet/shill)
Steve Carroll
> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post ishbei$5g...@dont-email.me on 6/5/11 6:42 PM:
Sure. In this very thread, in fact. Here you are, pointing to Chris
using an *obvious* figure of speech with his statement and you're
calling him dishonest over it. OTOH we have me, pointing out that you
claimed (and did so multiple times, despite my pointing out Google
showing otherwise) to have used a sock puppet you were trying out
"once" - "one time" during a certian period. I showed all this to
DFS... and, like you, he ignored the solid evidence of Google. DFS's
actions were as dishonest as yours. What you posted above was merely a
figure of speech by Chris and you dishonestly labeled it as a
"complete fabrication". Hint: A great example of an actual "complete
fabrication" is the other lie you just told in cola about me having an
"ex / non-ex" whom you and I communicated with on usenet.
See how easy it is to beat you over the head with reality, Snit?
> I bet not.
You lost.
DFS
> On Jun 5, 1:23 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 6/5/2011 12:17 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>> <snip inane Usenet arguing>
>>
>> Steve, I found the thread where you threatened to contact Snit's employer:
>
> Great...
No, not great. Extremely ungreat. The actions of a real loser - it's
not like Snit had tried to get you fired or anything. All he had done
was - I guess - previously beat the hell out of you in Usenet arguments.
> now please point to the part where it says anything about
> getting the person I believe Snit could possibly be impersonating
> "fired" - you know, what Snit just claimed.
What are you blabbing about? The fact is you repeatedly threatened to
contact his employer, and you were hoping he would be fired. Over nothing.
You're a petty piece of shit. Got it?
>> ======================================================================
>> "Irrelevant. It's not a mere accusation to say:
>>
>> 1 - that you have falsely alleged I have or had a "girlfriend".
>
> Snit still alleges this lie with no support at all (you bothered to
> post this, why aren't you asking *him* to support any of his
> claims?).
I ask everyone to support their claims, if I don't believe them.
Again, who cares what Snit alleges about a "girlfriend"? By your own
admission you had a girlfriend that became your wife via common-law
marriage in CO... except you said CO doesn't recognize it. Thus she is
only your girlfriend, unless you want to call her a domestic partner.
Am I a "liar" now?
>> 2 - that you have engaged in forging posting IDs.
>
> I posted Snit admitting to doing this. I'm pretty sure you've seen it
> by now. Are you trying to convince me that you're as dishonest as
> Snit? Or that you're a troll in this ng?
So he posted as Brock McNuggets or whoever - so what? He admitted it.
How is it a forgery - unless there's a real Brock McNuggets - and
clearly that's as wacky a name as Dirk Diggler?
Did he forge real posters? Where's your proof?
>> 3 - that you have created disparaging webpages designed to humiliate
>> people.
>
> Ask Snit if he did this... then listen to the BS he'll spew on it,
> too. Hint: It will sound a lot like the unsupported crap he's posted
> several places in this thread.
Show us these 'disparaging' webpages. They can't be 1/100th as bad as
the bullshit and insults you posted against Snit - just in this one thread.
And you've been hounding him for years. It's partly his fault for
continuing to respond, of course.
>> 4 - that you made private emails available to the public without the
>> permission of the other party.
>
> Seems you have much to talk about with your new pal...
If I was an idiot like you I would claim you just lied about me. Snit
is not my "new pal", or even my "old pal". I'm backing him because of
my personal experiences with him vs all the lunatic claims about him.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong - but I doubt it very much.
> I suggest you
> ask him about making his and ed's (a csma poster) private email
> exhange public without first asking ed. See... I *did* ask ed... AND
> I can produce his answer from Google. Care to take a guess what it
> will be? And there is also Snit... admitting to have posted the email
> but using his weasel tactics once again. Do you think Snit was
> "straight" with ed?
I don't know if he was straight with ed. He has always been straight
with me.
Did he betray ed's confidence by doing so? Was the private email
discussion something confidential? Was ed mad?
Yes, I want to see ed's answer. And a link to the private email
exchange Snit made public.
>> 5 - that you purposefully misinterpret people's words to make it
>> appear like they've said something they haven't.
>
> Tell you me you haven't seen Snit do this in COLA. I'm pretty sure
> you've been here long enough to see him do this (he does it pretty
> much all the time).
I saw Snit tear cola "advocate" TomB a new one regarding the meaning of
"an operating system". Some of it was damn funny, too. Doubtless Snit
spun some things his way - that's what happens when you're not
consistent and specific with your words and language. And this is what
Snit does if you let him - he's very tenacious and can be nitpicky to
the point of delirium. That's his business. That's why I had him
killfiled for years here on cola. And even today I read just some of
his posts - I'm not into long debate-fests.
Regardless, this is another thing that I don't see worth putting in a
list of "Snit's sins".
>> 6 - that you forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else.
>
> Snit is a forger, the people in csma have proven it beyond any
> reasonable doubt... and he did forge a PDF file while trying to pin it
> on another poster.
I doubt it. I saw a little of Snit's .mov file where he easily refuted
your claims about that .pdf.
Why would he "forge a .pdf" anyway?
>> 7 - that you have managed to align scores of people against you based
>> on behavior like the above and much more."
>
> I suppose you figure all those people on that quotes list have called
> Snit a liar, troll or worse because he's always been "straight" with
> them?
I've seen that list before, and there's no doubt he has a long list of
detractors. 128 or so, as I recall.
Funny, though, that a lot of you guys call him a liar, but nobody
provides any proof.
In nearly all my interactions with him he's been nice and honest. My
guess is most of you are mad because he argues so long that he wears you
down and you have no recourse except to lash out. Over here in cola
they call them 'Snit circuses'. I've never participated in one, and
probably never will.
Unless I'm in the middle of one now...
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8f8d84905bba...
>> ======================================================================
>>
>> Reading through some of that thread, I see you're a deluded, petty piece
>> of crap. Claiming Snit was an identity thief and imposter - with no
>> evidence whatsoever?
>
> Evidence that you didn't see by reading one or two threads, you
> mean? Many people have produced plenty of evidence that could lead
> any sane, honest and honorable person to believe Snit could possibly
> be an imposter.
An imposter of who? For what reason?
Show me all this evidence. Identity thief and imposter is a very
different action from nymshifting as 'Brock McNuggets'.
> Ask yourself this... do you know many college
> instructors that have engaged in the following:
>
> Forge posting IDs (and documents) on usenet
Whose ID did he forge? Whose documents did he forge?
> Online sexual harassment (including visiting a female poster's
> neighborhood communal website to find ammo to use on usenet).
That's a serious charge. Where's your proof?
In fact, why am I always having to ask for proof? Why isn't it right
here in your response? Names, dates, links, etc.
> Posting private email to a public forum without permission of the
> other party
Even if he did so, it's not in the slightest bit illegal.
> Creating disparaging websites based on lies and half truths for the
> sole purpose of antagonizing people
Which websites? Surely you have them archived.
> Mining data on people from other newsgroups for the purpose of
> trolling in csma
So? Why do people think their statements in other newsgroups are exempt
from usage?
And you did this exact same thing to Snit (the "social anxiety" thing),
so why are you whining?
> Purposefully mangling context and purposefully misquoting what others
> have written
Like you haven't done that repeatedly to Snit?
For instance, when he uses a colloquialism "one of your gang asked me"
(in reference to multiple csma attackers), you turn it into "Snit lied
about me having a gang."
See how ridiculous you sound? See how easily your own twisted
accusations and words against Snit can be turned against you?
(I can't believe I'm involved in this shit, to be honest. But I'll play
for a little while.)
> Making negative references about a poster's children for the purpose
> of antagonizing
I'll believe it when you provide the proof that he did something like
that unprovoked. That's not at all his style on cola - in fact I'm sure
he would chastise for that.
> Repeatedly denying proof of all of the above and much more
Except for YOUR serious charges of ID thief, imposter and sexual
harrasser, that is all child's play stuff. I truly can't believe you
care about ANY of it.
My guess is you didn't actually contact his employer and make such
claims because you're a chickenshit who isn't willing to suffer the
consequences when he sues your ass into oblivion for making false
charges against him.
If you want to see shitty Usenet behavior, read this cola craphole for a
day and see the garbage the Linux "advocates" spew. 7 and Homer and Rex
Ballard and Chris Ahlstrom will make you laugh in amazement that anyone
could be so utterly strange and/or dishonest.
In the past some cola "advocates" actually contacted an anti-Linux
poster's job to try and get him fired - just as you threatened to do to
Snit. They have for years cursed us and wished death and disease on us
(not that I'm innocent - I wouldn't mind one of them slitting his wrists
open on video).
After reading some of the loons that post here, you'll appreciate just
how honest and straightforward Snit is.
> By the way... where is Snit's evidence of all the BS claims he's made
> in this thread? Interesting how you're giving him a pass on this. Oh
> well... bottom line... believe what you want... but one thing you can
> count on here... Google proving that Snit has already made you look
> like a fool for believing he's been "straight" with you
He pretty much has to have been straight with me: I had him killfiled
for years. Even today I read a minority of his posts, and I don't go
back and forth with him very much.
He sometimes posts mountains of tedious drivel - endless you-said-I-said
and hair-splitting crapola. That's not the kind of Usenet communication
I care to engage in.
> ...and I
> suspect there is more of that is your future. You don't appear to be a
> linux advocate so I guess you're just a troll in this ng. Some trolls
> care about a semblance of honesty... others don't care a whit for it.
> I guess we now get to see where you fit in.
Well, I sure don't fit in with you and your wacked-out fantasies about
an evil Snit.
Hadron
Is this Carroll really HPT? He's as dense and as unlikely to provide ANY
proof for ANY of his claims.
Hadron
> Steve Carroll wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Jun 5, 1:23?pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>> Some trolls
>> care about a semblance of honesty... others don't care a whit for it.
>> I guess we now get to see where you fit in.
>
> You got it. DFS is as dishonest as they come
So Ahlstrom, sucking up again? Please link to DFS being dishonest. You
really are a sad litle man at times.
Snit
12:49 AM:
HPT panders to Carroll; it is where HPT got his list of BS quotes (many of
which are Carroll socks). Sandman and Carroll have been colleting (and
forging) these quotes since 2006.
I know I am blamed of not letting go - but the two of them take the cake.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
12:50 AM:
These are the types of "debates" which even bore me... empty accusations
which are *never* supported.
Carroll is great at collecting those who are morally bankrupt enough to
engage in such... they jump in to back him. He sees that as his strength -
he can get people to back him. In Usenet "advocacy" groups and *nowhere*
else. He tried in some other groups as he followed me around and they made
it clear what an ass he is.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
Bottom line: Steve is obsessing over 2006 and his accusations from them...
as well as accusations that did not even involve him (what does an email
from ed have to do with him?) If I do not *again* respond to his crap he
insists there is an expiration on these "lies".
There should be an expiration on his obsession.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>> Some trolls
>> care about a semblance of honesty... others don't care a whit for it.
>> I guess we now get to see where you fit in.
Obviously "DFS" is a lying Wintroll. A real POS. No shit like that
exists among the Linux advocates.
>You got it. DFS is as dishonest as they come, and tries to cover it by
>extremely out-of-context quotes. The extent to which he does this to the
>accompaniment of sneers and insults is quite wacky.
One lying POS (DFS) supporting another (Shit). Nothing new, there.
Magnus
lieing piece of shit "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:q2npu6hmbcko3g9uq...@4ax.com...
>
> One lying POS (DFS) supporting another (Shit). Nothing new, there.
>
another useless post from the stupid turd. nothing new here.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit.
Snit
6:59 AM:
What lies?
Oh.
You cannot find any.
This is the type of "debate" which is useless - you make accusations even
you know you cannot support. Why... other than to suck up to the herd?
Oh.
No reason.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
This is what gets you killfiled. He knows. Its why he's nailing
Carroll to the floor. Why repeat it again?
Snit
7:07 AM:
>> Bottom line: Steve is obsessing over 2006 and his accusations from
>> them...
>
> This is what gets you killfiled. He knows. Its why he's nailing
> Carroll to the floor. Why repeat it again?
Fair enough.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
> Is this Carroll really HPT? He's as dense and as unlikely to provide ANY
> proof for ANY of his claims.
I wondered that myself.
If sure has his stench all over it.
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Linux's dismal desktop market share:
http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/05/12/the-top-20-strongholds-for-desktop-linux/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
flatfish+++
Ahlstrom isn't a man.
He's a girly boy.
cc
> Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Jun 3, 1:12 pm, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/3/2011 1:46 PM, Snit wrote:
>
> >> > DFS stated in post isb2ot$m7...@speranza.aioe.org on 6/3/11 9:39 AM:
>
> >> >> "Snit may be the first retraction of my general killfile amnesty.
> >> >> The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping, back-tracking,
> >> >> goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that effete
> >> >> candy-ass beggars belief."
>
> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/cc4827fd7e8a...
>
> >> >> That's so fscking ironic I don't know what. The incessant
> >> >> giggler who
> >> >> lives under his wife's thumb for 30 years calls someone else an
> >> >> 'effete candy-ass'?
>
> >> > Notice that those who call me names and troll me *never* show quotes
> >> > that support their claims. They cannot.
>
> >> > Quite telling.
>
> >> I went through lots of those "151 examples" provided by HPT. Many of
> >> them call you a liar, a forger and a user of sockpuppets.
>
> >> Not one of them provided any proof.
>
> > Not there, no, as that's not the purpose of the list. FWIW I just
> > provided an example of Snit lying (it was related to a statement he
> > recently made). He was caught testing out a new sock puppet and
> > subsequently lying about his use of it while also claiming (lying)
> > that people "asked" him to do it (same sort of lie he told when he
>
> Then you wont mind posting a link to this proof you bullshitting
> lunatic. Snit might bore the hole off a bronze statue at times but I
> have never seen him openly lying.
Hah, too busy with the taint region, I suppose.
He's lied about his education. He knew none of the relevant and basic
terms until I used them first. He could google for papers to
misunderstand though. Do I have hard proof that he's lying? No,
because he won't even name where he took his classes. But anyone with
any brain in their head who has ever taken an HCI class, can see that
the names of classes he listed are not classes at any school and some
are not even related to HCI.
He's lied about sources he referenced. He claimed to read them. When I
pointed out they didn't say what anything, he posted a new batch,
which also contained none of the information he claimed they did.
Months later he finally admitted to not reading them at all. So while
he finally admitted he didn't do what he originally claimed he did, he
was still lying for quite some time. He finally admitted that in a
thread recently, which I can look up if, if really necessary.
Maybe there are more, maybe that's the extent of it, in the end it's
no big deal. Snit's biggest problem is not that he's a liar. It's that
he's a whiney little netnannying douchebag that can never own up to
being incorrect.
Snit
5a4fe75e-22d3-4510...@g28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com on 6/6/11
7:51 AM:
For crying out loud, you had your arse handed to you in a debate over HCI
and you are still whining. Let it go: the very principles you denied
existed are covered at the school you claimed you went to, you repeatedly
insisted sources which talked about the principles were supportive of your
idiotic denials, etc.
You lost a Usenet debate: stop whining about it and just let it go. If not
you risk making yourself become the next Carroll.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
Which was a surpise as you normally post good stuff and certainly know
how to handle the likes of Creepy.
cc
Well you certainly snipped the bigger of the two lies out that I
posted (also the one with the evidence) and didn't respond. Funny.
But my claims were only silly to people who have never actually
studied what *should* go on during UI design. Claiming UI design and
implementation (really, I don't think I said jack shit about
implementation) aren't science is not ludicrous at all. I never said
there weren't scientific aspects, just like there are scientific
aspects to painting a picture and composing a symphony. That doesn't
make any of them science. No need to get into again, even though I see
Snit is shreaking again. Feel free to email the numerous authors Snit
has misquoted. They will explain it better than me, for sure.
Snit
8:03 AM:
>>> Then you wont mind posting a link to this proof you bullshitting
>>> lunatic. Snit might bore the hole off a bronze statue at times but I
>>> have never seen him openly lying.
>>
>> Hah, too busy with the taint region, I suppose.
>>
>> He's lied about his education. He knew none of the relevant and basic
>> terms until I used them first. He could google for papers to
>> misunderstand though. Do I have hard proof that he's lying? No,
>> because he won't even name where he took his classes. But anyone with
>> any brain in their head who has ever taken an HCI class, can see that
>> the names of classes he listed are not classes at any school and some
>> are not even related to HCI.
>>
>
>
> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
> and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
> implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
Worse than that, he denied the existence of the most basic of principles -
the ones covered in any intro class on GUI design.
But these are the "lies" that I tell - I make points and support them. And
those who cannot support their claims get bent out of shape and make
accusations.
> Which was a surpise as you normally post good stuff and certainly know
> how to handle the likes of Creepy.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> Hadron stated in post 80k4cz57e1....@news.eternal-september.org on 6/6/11
> 8:03 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Then you wont mind posting a link to this proof you bullshitting
> >>> lunatic. Snit might bore the hole off a bronze statue at times but I
> >>> have never seen him openly lying.
>
> >> Hah, too busy with the taint region, I suppose.
>
> >> He's lied about his education. He knew none of the relevant and basic
> >> terms until I used them first. He could google for papers to
> >> misunderstand though. Do I have hard proof that he's lying? No,
> >> because he won't even name where he took his classes. But anyone with
> >> any brain in their head who has ever taken an HCI class, can see that
> >> the names of classes he listed are not classes at any school and some
> >> are not even related to HCI.
>
> > I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
> > and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
> > implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>
> Worse than that, he denied the existence of the most basic of principles -
> the ones covered in any intro class on GUI design.
>
> But these are the "lies" that I tell - I make points and support them. And
> those who cannot support their claims get bent out of shape and make
> accusations.
No, no, no. I never said that any of your "general principles" were
lies. They're just stupid and incorrect. Your idiocy and and your
idiotic support are not lies. Claiming you took classes you never took
is a lie.
Snit
33baabd2-ab39-4a8f...@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com on 6/6/11
8:09 AM:
>>> Hah, too busy with the taint region, I suppose.
>>
>>> He's lied about his education. He knew none of the relevant and basic
>>> terms until I used them first. He could google for papers to
>>> misunderstand though. Do I have hard proof that he's lying? No,
>>> because he won't even name where he took his classes. But anyone with
>>> any brain in their head who has ever taken an HCI class, can see that
>>> the names of classes he listed are not classes at any school and some
>>> are not even related to HCI.
>>
>> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
>> and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
>> implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>
> Well you certainly snipped the bigger of the two lies out that I
> posted (also the one with the evidence) and didn't respond. Funny.
You quoted no lies - because I did not lie. You whined about my not knowing
details about a source... but then I showed where you were completely
clueless about sources you provided. You even went so far as to insist
Carroll (not Steve!) emailed you denouncing his public statements. It was
absurd.
> But my claims were only silly to people who have never actually
> studied what *should* go on during UI design.
No. Your claims were outright absurd: you repeatedly denied the importance
of understanding the principles of design. In design. It made no sense -
your BS was self-refuting.
> Claiming UI design and implementation (really, I don't think I said jack shit
> about implementation) aren't science is not ludicrous at all. I never said
> there weren't scientific aspects, just like there are scientific aspects to
> painting a picture and composing a symphony. That doesn't make any of them
> science. No need to get into again, even though I see Snit is shreaking again.
> Feel free to email the numerous authors Snit has misquoted. They will explain
> it better than me, for sure.
Poor you: you lied about me and I refuted you. Again. I proved beyond any
doubt how wrong you were.
Move on already.
>> Which was a surpise as you normally post good stuff and certainly know
>> how to handle the likes of Creepy.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2692b747-0598-47a4...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com on 6/6/11
8:17 AM:
You cannot quote these "lies"... you merely made accusations because I
proved you wrong. My favorite was the BS that finally made you run away
screaming - your insistence that a book all about the importance of the
principles of consistency and how to best design with them in mind somehow
supported your absurd denial.
You ran. And you keep running from that. Then you bring up the topic in
vague terms and insist I "lied". BS. You lost a Usenet debate. Move on
with your life.
>>> Which was a surpise as you normally post good stuff and certainly know
>>> how to handle the likes of Creepy.
>>
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> cc stated in post
> 2692b747-0598-47a4-b4c4-8b7bae9d3...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com on 6/6/11
Once again, I'm am not claiming you are lying about the things you
mention above or in your previous post. You were just wrong. Being
wrong is not lying. You're wrong now about what I'm saying again, but
that doesn't mean you're lying about it. You're just stupid. I was
very specific about the two instances. Please learn to read. Anyway, I
only lost a Usenet debate in your mind. That's fine with me.
Steve Carroll
> On 6/5/2011 8:23 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 1:23 pm, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/5/2011 12:17 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> >> <snip inane Usenet arguing>
>
> >> Steve, I found the thread where you threatened to contact Snit's employer:
>
> > Great...
>
> No, not great. Extremely ungreat.
That it didn't show me saying what Snit claimed? It's "ungreat"
because it proves Snit lied... again?
> The actions of a real loser - it's
> not like Snit had tried to get you fired or anything.
And you know this exactly how? You have no idea of the kinds of things
Snit has done, obviously.
> All he had done
> was - I guess - previously beat the hell out of you in Usenet arguments.
>
> > now please point to the part where it says anything about
> > getting the person I believe Snit could possibly be impersonating
> > "fired" - you know, what Snit just claimed.
>
> What are you blabbing about? The fact is you repeatedly threatened to
> contact his employer, and you were hoping he would be fired. Over nothing.
Let's see... the discussion has swung from Snit's claim that I tried
to get a person I believed he might be impersonating fired to....
telling people what Steve Carroll was "hoping" about a newsgroup troll
(who *may* not be who he says he is). And the discussion includes two
people, (you and Snit) claiming that Google shows this, yet, you have
both pointed to posts that don't back it up. Maybe you're just one of
Snit's sock puppet army... this is exactly the sort of thing he does
all the time.
> You're a petty piece of shit. Got it?
Correction, I'm not the one making unsupported accusations (that'd be
Snit... and now you) while overlooking supported ones. In any event,
in the "petty" dept. Snit beats everyone. That's the main reason why
so many people have "hounded" him on usenet. Snit has asked for what
he gets... in fact. he has asked for far more than he gets.
> >> ======================================================================
> >> "Irrelevant. It's not a mere accusation to say:
>
> >> 1 - that you have falsely alleged I have or had a "girlfriend".
>
> > Snit still alleges this lie with no support at all (you bothered to
> > post this, why aren't you asking *him* to support any of his
> > claims?).
>
> I ask everyone to support their claims, if I don't believe them.
So you believe Snit, then... despite the fact that he can't produce a
single quote from me saying that I attempted to get "fired" the person
I believed he might be impersonating. Of course you do, that's why you
leapt to telling people what I was "hoping" for when you realized that
Google didn't actually support his claim you initially supported... so
you changed the claim. I suppose you figured that no one would
notice. Well, I noticed... others might, too.
> Again, who cares what Snit alleges about a "girlfriend"?
Someone that is challenging Snit's contention that no one ever points
to his lies and wrongdoings, obviously.
Fact: Snit contacted my ISP (numerous times) and inadvertently (or
perhaps purposefully) got my wife involved. She saw a few of his many
posts alleging an online girlfriend. Of course, it wasn't much of a
problem because she trusts me and Snit had no evidence of his lie at
all, just his usual bogus accusations. Snit's theme of 'what goes on
on usenet should remain on usenet' was made from his usual
hypocritical stance.
(cue up you claiming that I must have 'deserved' having my ISP
contacted... to which I will then point out that Snit has done this
with other posters, thus, providing a condition for you to support
Snit having done it to them, too)
Getting the idea here yet, DFS?
And to the story of Snit contacting my ISP? Snit wrote that he had
gotten my ISP to dump me (I'm still using Comcast, in fact, they
offered to help me after i showed them Snit's BS). Snit also claimed
that Comcast told him that people like me were the reason Comcast was
getting out of supporting usenet newsgroups (I, and others, posted the
real reason). In fact, one of his puppets/shills created a thread
entitled "Steve Carroll screws it for all Comcast users". In the
thread, Snit's puppet/shill wrote this about me:
"His account was cancelled. He did then get another account just to
try to bypass the block. That account was cancelled as well."
And Snit (using the Snit handle) wrote:
"That part I did not know. Not a surprise, though, given how he at one
time was paying *my* ISP to have an account so he could try to forge
me. My ISP cancelled that account once they were in on the game."
Fact: I never paid Snit's ISP a cent, nor did I ever have an account
with them so there was no "game" to get in on.
Why am I pointing this out? To challenge Snit's contention that no one
ever points to his lies and wrongdoings.
Rather obvious that Snit created yet another sock puppet or engaged
the use of a shill, this time for the express purpose of claiming
(with 'support') that he and another 'poster' had received a letter
about how I and a few others were responsible for Comcast dumping
usenet (and that I tried to forge him by using his ISP). Here is how
he concurred with the puppet/shill:
"Comcast made it clear that the reason they made their business
decision is that Steve and a small number of others made it not worth
it for them to offer the service."
Notably, unlike the private emails he posted of ed's, Snit was
unwilling to post the email between him and the Comcast rep he
*claims* to have gotten this info from. Gee, the guy who claims to
always support his statements wouldn't support this one... what a
shock. If this was Comcast's position why would the rep have a problem
with it being public? Notably, puppet/shill rantings were the only
"backup" Snit's BS Comcast story ever got.
Why am I pointing this out? To challenge Snit's contention that no one
ever points to his lies and wrongdoings.
Fact: Snit also alluded to the idea that GoDaddy had given him a
special contract whereby they were allowing him to provide false
domain name registration info (in violation of ICANN requirements.
That's right, Snit was trying to sell the story that GoDaddy was
thumbing their nose at ICANN... just for him). Snit wrote this to a
poster named Lewis when he showed that Snit had provided false
registration info when he reg'd his domain name with GoDaddy"
"How do you know what agreements I have or have not made with anyone
but you?
Not everyone is "stuck" with the standard agreements." - Snit
I even pointed Snit to a portion of the blog of GoDaddy founder (Bob
Parson )and cited the following text:
"It is now illegal to provide false information when registering a
domain name. Last year, there was a brief attempt to make registrars
responsible for the accuracy of the Whois database. Fortunately, that
legislation failed. What did become law was a new, stiff penalty (7
years) for providing false WHOIS information"."
The profile on this issue got raised (either before or after my blog
quoting) and Snit was seen quickly fixing the data (which is another
funny story). Of course, he pretended that it was all a "mistake" or
some such nonsense. Did Snit tell lies in this episode? NO question...
and if you wish to delve into it I'd be glad to... in another thread
created specifically for that purpose.
Why am I pointing this out? To challenge Snit's contention that no one
ever points to his lies and wrongdoings.
In my opinion all these types of behaviors are based on a delusional
variant of narcissism (like Snit's little 'theater events').
> By your own
> admission you had a girlfriend that became your wife via common-law
> marriage in CO... except you said CO doesn't recognize it. Thus she is
> only your girlfriend, unless you want to call her a domestic partner.
Unfortunately, for you, Snit is not referring to her when he talks
about the woman that he claims obsesses over him; he's referring to
the poster Elizabot, the woman he contacted the police over.
> Am I a "liar" now?
I can only state that you are not being particularly honest here.
> >> 2 - that you have engaged in forging posting IDs.
>
> > I posted Snit admitting to doing this. I'm pretty sure you've seen it
> > by now. Are you trying to convince me that you're as dishonest as
> > Snit? Or that you're a troll in this ng?
>
> So he posted as Brock McNuggets or whoever - so what?
So why did he lie about it later? Why do I say lie? Because on
numerous occasions I pointed to the fact that Google showed him using
the handle more than the "once" that he claimed during a certain time
period (a claim he is *still* making today).
Why am I pointing this out? To challenge Snit's contention that no one
ever points to his lies and wrongdoings.
Let me ask you, did you buy his "I should never have trusted Steve'
line? Or the fact that he said 3 *different* things about who "asked"
him to use the Brock McNuggets sock in some agreement that they would
stop "trolling" him if he did so?
> He admitted it.
I'm not talking about his sock puppets, I'm talking about NNTP posting
IDs. Here is an observation made by another poster and Snit's reply:
(which you have already been given - hint: I'm not doing this for you,
I'm doing it so any readers can see what you must overlook in order to
support Snit).
Sandman, in his list of observations, cited:
"Attempting to forge a NNTP-posting-host in an attempt to antagonize
another poster"
To which Snit replied:
"Well, he did dare me... but yeah... "
Why have I repeatedly pointed this out? To challenge Snit's contention
that no one ever points to his lies and wrongdoings.
Of course, your answer will probably be that I must have 'dared' him
to do this... you know, so he could "antagonize" me... and you'll
cling to this 'belief' without ever seeing a shred of proof that I
'dared' him.
> How is it a forgery - unless there's a real Brock McNuggets - and
> clearly that's as wacky a name as Dirk Diggler?
>
> Did he forge real posters? Where's your proof?
As I just pointed to AGAIN... he admitted to forging me (of course,
he accompanied that with a lie, as is his way).
> >> 3 - that you have created disparaging webpages designed to humiliate
> >> people.
>
> > Ask Snit if he did this... then listen to the BS he'll spew on it,
> > too. Hint: It will sound a lot like the unsupported crap he's posted
> > several places in this thread.
>
> Show us these 'disparaging' webpages.
He took it down, I can only show you his admission to having done it.
In another of his shitfests Snit writes:
"In any case I am happy to know that my web pages about Steve annoy
him" _ Snit
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6f518025f39d38b1?hl=en&
> They can't be 1/100th as bad as
> the bullshit and insults you posted against Snit - just in this one thread.
What was so bad? I spoke only the truth. Why shouldn't Yavapai college
and the taxpayers of AZ be alerted to what might possibly be an
impersonator? I'd really like an answer to this question.
> And you've been hounding him for years.
He's been lying and engaging in all sorts of other BS for years... all
the while claiming that no one ever shows "evidence" of his lies or
wrongdoings. Well... that's what Im doing here... and you two are
whining about it. I can understand from Snit... but you're backing
makes little sense... as you will see.
> It's partly his fault for continuing to respond, of course.
Sure... and he's innocent of everything else. Have you fallen this
far down that rabbit hole, Alice?
> >> 4 - that you made private emails available to the public without the
> >> permission of the other party.
>
> > Seems you have much to talk about with your new pal...
>
> If I was an idiot like you I would claim you just lied about me.
Who else other than a pal would you so staunchly ignore evidence of
his wrongdoing while telling people what a complete stranger was
"hoping" for after reading a few posts without any knowledge of Snit's
doings on usenet) in his behalf? I'll retract the "pal" statement and
apologize for having made it... but you are unquestionably supporting
him.
> Snit is not my "new pal", or even my "old pal". I'm backing him because of
> my personal experiences with him vs all the lunatic claims about him.
Backing Snit is a fool's errand. It seems you'll be learning this the
hard way...
> Maybe I'll be proven wrong - but I doubt it very much.
You've already been proven wrong, you just refuse to admit it.
> > I suggest you
> > ask him about making his and ed's (a csma poster) private email
> > exhange public without first asking ed. See... I *did* ask ed... AND
> > I can produce his answer from Google. Care to take a guess what it
> > will be? And there is also Snit... admitting to have posted the email
> > but using his weasel tactics once again. Do you think Snit was
> > "straight" with ed?
>
> I don't know if he was straight with ed. He has always been straight
> with me.
Perhaps ed is a bit smarter than you are and not so easily fooled by
Snit's BS? Just a thought...
> Did he betray ed's confidence by doing so?
Did Snit betray ed's confidence by posting up a private email to a
public forum? Is this a serious question?
> Was the private email discussion something confidential?
Is English a second language for you (I'm *seriously* asking, not
trying to offend you)?
con·fi·den·tial
[kon-fi-den-shuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.spoken, written, acted on, etc., in strict privacy or secrecy;
secret: a confidential remark.
2.indicating confidence or intimacy; imparting private matters: a
confidential tone of voice.
3.having another's trust or confidence; entrusted with secrets or
private affairs: a confidential secretary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confidential
> Was ed mad?
Suppose he wasn't, how does that matter... being that Snit broke a
trust in this manner?
In any event, in a post where Snit was ironically accusing ed of being
a liar, Snit proved he himself lied (again)... and ed points it out...
Snit writes:
"In any case, enough claims of my life have been spewed into CSMS -
some with grains of truth, most complete fabrications - I have no
desire to have you make anything private between us become public. -
Snit
ed's reply:
"that's bullshit since you've posted at least 2 or 3 emails of mine."
ed finished the post with:
"please; i'm not the one who's posted up private emails previously,
nor
am i the one who has many documented lies against them."
Does ed sound "mad" here? I don't know him well enough to say... but
he clearly doesn't sound happy about it. On the topic of whether or
not Snit had permission, I'd say that's already been answered but
let's finish the job, (not for you, for the people that can see what
you need to do in order to continue "backing Snit" ).
I saw the above exchange and asked ed:
"Did Snit obtain your permission to post these emails?"
ed's reply:
"absolutely not."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/55590334ec6ced7e?hl=en&
Why am I pointing this out? To challenge Snit's contention that no one
ever points to his lies and wrongdoings.
> Yes, I want to see ed's answer.
You now have it.
> And a link to the private email exchange Snit made public.
If you're willing to show, in public, that the posting of private
emails (without permission of the other party) to a public forum is OK
to do based on it's content I'm afraid you'll have to do your own
research on that. Of course, now that you have made clear this just
might be your stance, your stock goes down pretty quickly.
> >> 5 - that you purposefully misinterpret people's words to make it
> >> appear like they've said something they haven't.
>
> > Tell you me you haven't seen Snit do this in COLA. I'm pretty sure
> > you've been here long enough to see him do this (he does it pretty
> > much all the time).
>
> I saw Snit tear cola "advocate" TomB a new one regarding the meaning of
> "an operating system". Some of it was damn funny, too. Doubtless Snit
> spun some things his way - that's what happens when you're not
> consistent and specific with your words and language. And this is what
> Snit does if you let him - he's very tenacious and can be nitpicky to
> the point of delirium. That's his business. That's why I had him
> killfiled for years here on cola. And even today I read just some of
> his posts - I'm not into long debate-fests.
>
> Regardless, this is another thing that I don't see worth putting in a
> list of "Snit's sins".
I'm pointing to several other "sins" of Snit's that are worse and
you're ignoring those, too... so I fail to see why you pointed to
something you've listed. I suspect it's mildly interesting to anyone
reading to see the sort of hoops you're forced to jump through in
order to support Snit... so at least there is some comedic value
here;)
> >> 6 - that you forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else.
>
> > Snit is a forger, the people in csma have proven it beyond any
> > reasonable doubt... and he did forge a PDF file while trying to pin it
> > on another poster.
>
> I doubt it. I saw a little of Snit's .mov file where he easily refuted
> your claims about that .pdf.
I'm sure you've convinced yourself of that... just as I'm sure you
haven't looked closely at the proof that he did it.
> Why would he "forge a .pdf" anyway?
Unless you are trying to claim that he needed to do it in an attempt
to ensure the life, liberty and happiness of he and his family I fail
to see the point of this question.
> >> 7 - that you have managed to align scores of people against you based
> >> on behavior like the above and much more."
>
> > I suppose you figure all those people on that quotes list have called
> > Snit a liar, troll or worse because he's always been "straight" with
> > them?
>
> I've seen that list before, and there's no doubt he has a long list of
> detractors. 128 or so, as I recall.
>
> Funny, though, that a lot of you guys call him a liar, but nobody
> provides any proof.
Tons of people have provided proof, that is obviously not what that
list was intended for. I'm showing you some other proof here (and
you are ignoring it... for whatever reasons).
> In nearly all my interactions with him he's been nice and honest. My
> guess is most of you are mad because he argues so long that he wears you
> down and you have no recourse except to lash out. Over here in cola
> they call them 'Snit circuses'. I've never participated in one, and
> probably never will.
The name started in csma and it was based on things that Snit was
*always* at the center of. I suppose you believe that's coincidental.
Yes, that would be a convenient belief for the supportive stance you
have taken of Snit... too bad it doesn't reflect reality.
> Unless I'm in the middle of one now...
The only thing you're between is Snit's version of reality and the one
Google shows.
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8f8d84905bba...
> >> ======================================================================
>
> >> Reading through some of that thread, I see you're a deluded, petty piece
> >> of crap. Claiming Snit was an identity thief and imposter - with no
> >> evidence whatsoever?
>
> > Evidence that you didn't see by reading one or two threads, you
> > mean? Many people have produced plenty of evidence that could lead
> > any sane, honest and honorable person to believe Snit could possibly
> > be an imposter.
>
> An imposter of who? For what reason?
>
> Show me all this evidence. Identity thief and imposter is a very
> different action from nymshifting as 'Brock McNuggets'.
Forgery has been covered. As to the imposter part, I don't believe
that a college level instructor would do all the kinds of things this
Snit character has done. If it turns out that he is one and he works
at a college paid for by taxpayer dollars, why shouldn't the college
and the taxpayers of AZ be made aware of who is representing them on
usenet? Do you think they would want him to post Yavapai college
references on his website? Ask yourself:
Do you think it would be wrong of someone to contact you with
disingenuous and inappropriate behavior if the person engaging in that
behavior was pointing to your school or business on his website (that
he repeatedly linked to on usenet)? Would you (if unable to get him to
curb behavior that *many* people have commented on), at the least, ask
him to remove the reference? Do you think you should be given the
opportunity to decide this? Or do you agree with Snit that the school
or business should be denied such an opportunity?
> > Ask yourself this... do you know many college
> > instructors that have engaged in the following:
>
> > Forge posting IDs (and documents) on usenet
>
> Whose ID did he forge? Whose documents did he forge?
That he forged at all is the point.
The fact is that no one knows exactly how many IDs or documents Snit
forged (or what kind of damage he has caused by doing so). But,
then... that's the problem with going down that path, isn't it? The
bottom line here is that if Snit weren't so dishonest he wouldn't have
trashed his online reputation the way he has in the eyes of so many
people. That he has trashed it and points to places like Yavapai
college might just be a problem from their viewpoint. In Snit's
version of the "real world" a person would stay silent about this
happening (unless his name is Snit, then he will be a hypocrite). Do
you live in Snit's "real world"?
> > Online sexual harassment (including visiting a female poster's
> > neighborhood communal website to find ammo to use on usenet).
>
> That's a serious charge. Where's your proof?
It's a fact. This post is getting far too long as it is (as do all
posts about Snit's BS - he does this on purpose and you are proof that
it yields him some benefit). I can take this to a separate post and
cover it.
> In fact, why am I always having to ask for proof? Why isn't it right
> here in your response? Names, dates, links, etc.
I have been posting proof and I'll post more. Why does Snit's "proof"
not actually back his statements? Why are you not asking him about
that? Why have you taken to doing the sort of thing he does (by
telling people what a stranger was "hoping" for when that stranger
rightfully challenged the ludicrous idea that this Snit person just
might possibly be impersonating someone)?
> > Posting private email to a public forum without permission of the
> > other party
>
> Even if he did so, it's not in the slightest bit illegal.
Why are you switching the discussion to this red herring? Do you think
no one will notice? I'm talking about Snit being a disingenuous,
dishonest troll. No, that's not illegal... but it's what I'm
discussing with you here. Seems Chris might be right about you being a
troll... you sure keep using the exact same tactics Snit uses. Funny,
that...
> > Creating disparaging websites based on lies and half truths for the
> > sole purpose of antagonizing people
>
> Which websites? Surely you have them archived.
If you honestly think every piece of text on the web pages that Snit
has created were all truthful then you are seriously mistaken. Other
people in csma commented on his website lies. If I feel so inclined
I'll dig them up ( I did post the stuff from his pages, but I don't
have an official archive). But... as this isn't the kind of thing that
will make the reader see what you're doing to support Snit, I probably
won't bother unless I get more time. The fact that Snit admitted to
having authored websites that he is "happy" to know a poster was
'annoyed' by is (for all sane, honest and honorable people) enough to
see what kind of a troll he is.
> > Mining data on people from other newsgroups for the purpose of
> > trolling in csma
>
> So? Why do people think their statements in other newsgroups are exempt
> from usage?
I don't think it's exempt. Why he did it to several people was the
point here. In fact, that 'why' is the reason I started doing it back
to him.
> And you did this exact same thing to Snit (the "social anxiety" thing),
> so why are you whining?
I'm not whining... I'm challenging Snit's false statements... ones
like his claims that people never show any of his lies or
wrongdoings. Fact: Snit recently said (in cola) that he doesn't have
a social anxiety, I merely challenged that statement. Would you like
to see my proof for doing so? Or do you prefer not to see it? If you
ask for it and I produce it, be aware that Snit will say I am
targeting him (for addressing *his* statement). Note: I''m not saying
Snit is lying about having a social anxiety... I'm merely challenging
a statement I feel Snit has shown ample evidence against.
> > Purposefully mangling context and purposefully misquoting what others
> > have written
>
> Like you haven't done that repeatedly to Snit?
There have been a relative few times I have done it to Snit and a few
other trolls to hand them back what they do all week long year after
year. Now ask Snit why he has done it to so many people so many
times. Obviously, he'll say he hasn't... but people sure seem to
believe that he has, to the point where the vast majority of them have
labeled him a liar, troll or worse. Why do you suppose that is? Is it
possible that they are all wrong about Snit? I guess in Snit's version
of the "real world" it just might be.
> For instance, when he uses a colloquialism "one of your gang asked me"
> (in reference to multiple csma attackers), you turn it into "Snit lied
> about me having a gang."
Snit also called this alleged "gang" the "cretin crew", many times:
Is this a "colloquialism", too?
> See how ridiculous you sound? See how easily your own twisted
> accusations and words against Snit can be turned against you?
No, I don't see... but feel free to explain it again... maybe you'll
convince someone else who might be reading (that's all I'm posting
here for at this point).
> (I can't believe I'm involved in this shit, to be honest. But I'll play
> for a little while.)
You've already lost, you just either don't see it or don't want to.
> > Making negative references about a poster's children for the purpose
> > of antagonizing
>
> I'll believe it when you provide the proof that he did something like
> that unprovoked.
If you can claim someone was "provoked", or not, *any* actions they
engage in are OK in your opinion?
If you actually believe this then it seems strange that here you're
whining about the stuff I'm doing to Snit (which is basically just
challenging his BS... like this whopper that nobody ever shows any
evidence of his lies or wrongdoings).
> That's not at all his style on cola - in fact I'm sure
> he would chastise for that.
>
> > Repeatedly denying proof of all of the above and much more
>
> Except for YOUR serious charges of ID thief, imposter and sexual
> harrasser, that is all child's play stuff. I truly can't believe you
> care about ANY of it.
So posting up private emails is also OK in your book. Got it. Hmmm....
forum readers are learning a lot about your value system here, aren't
they?. That Snit also contacted my ISP (and the ISPs of other posters)
after stating that what goes on on usenet should be kept on usenet
(thus, proving him to be a hypocrite) is probably also OK with you. Is
this so? Feel free to comment on this one... I'd really like a person
with your value system to weigh in on these things.
AGAIN... I am addressing Snit's claim that no one ever provides
evidence of his lies or wrongdoing... and what do I get from you?
"I truly can't believe you care about ANY of it."
What does whether or not I "care about ANY of it" have to do with me
addressing Snit's bogus claims that no one ever provides evidence of
his lies or wrongdoing? I'm not trying to show I "care" about any of
"it", I'm merely countering a particular lie of Snit's, one of many.
What's the big deal with it and why is this so difficult for you to
retain?
And for the record... I said that *I* believe he is an imposter. Can I
prove that? No, and I have admitted to as much on several occasions...
but I also have never seen a college instructor act the way this Snit
person has, which is where my doubts come from. The ID theft I pointed
to him admitting to. The sexual harassment I will be glad to
discuss... in another thread created specifically for the purpose.
> My guess is you didn't actually contact his employer and make such
> claims because you're a chickenshit who isn't willing to suffer the
> consequences when he sues your ass into oblivion for making false
> charges against him.
Reality check: I made the charges in a public forum, years ago... if
they are false "Snit" could have sued right away. He kept threatening
to do so, for years. Why do you suppose he didn't?
> If you want to see shitty Usenet behavior, read this cola craphole for a
> day and see the garbage the Linux "advocates" spew. 7 and Homer and Rex
> Ballard and Chris Ahlstrom will make you laugh in amazement that anyone
> could be so utterly strange and/or dishonest.
I've already seen one thing... Chris appears to be right about you.
> In the past some cola "advocates" actually contacted an anti-Linux
> poster's job to try and get him fired - just as you threatened to do to
> Snit. They have for years cursed us and wished death and disease on us
> (not that I'm innocent - I wouldn't mind one of them slitting his wrists
> open on video).
The oh-so-politically correct Snit should be on you for that
statement... but... as you are here solely for his defense ( a thing
that doesn't occur too often nowadays) he will undoubtedly let this
slide.
> After reading some of the loons that post here, you'll appreciate just
> how honest and straightforward Snit is.
LOL! Like I said, you're not the first person Snit has taken in.
> > By the way... where is Snit's evidence of all the BS claims he's made
> > in this thread? Interesting how you're giving him a pass on this. Oh
> > well... bottom line... believe what you want... but one thing you can
> > count on here... Google proving that Snit has already made you look
> > like a fool for believing he's been "straight" with you
>
> He pretty much has to have been straight with me
Which doesn't explain why you are overlooking asking him for proof of
false allegations. That you don't *want* to see such proof is obvious.
Again... I'm not posting these things for you.
>: I had him killfiled for years.
Perhaps you should have left it that way... I suspect you'll soon wish
you had.
Bottom line: The recently unkillfiled usenet poster you are "backing"
clearly isn't being "straight" with you. And when he once again tells
you that no one ever provides any proof of his lies or wrongdoings?
Well, you may just want to stop parroting that line until you look a
little closer at what Google has to offer. I fully expect to see you
run away now... most people who have tried to 'back' Snit do so at
this point, when they realize there is much they *don't* know about
Snit. No one will blame you, least of all me.
> read more »
DFS
> [To Snit]: Claiming you took classes you never took is a lie.
Where did Snit claim he took classes? And how do you know he never took
them?
Snit, did you actually complete the classes you claimed, at the time you
claimed them?
DFS
> Snit's biggest problem is not that he's a liar. It's that
> he's a whiney little netnannying douchebag that can never own up to
> being incorrect.
Netnannies are annoying, no doubt about it, but Snit's no worse than any
others. In fact, Hadron has netnannied me much more than Snit.
If Snit won't own up to being incorrect, and you have proof he is
incorrect, sometimes you just have to drop it and move on.
That's what we've all been doing with 7 and Rex Ballard for years and years.
Snit
c1ccddce-a683-4a88...@f2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com on 6/6/11
10:34 AM:
Oh no! Consistency and other principles are important to UI design... and,
oh my, you lost a debate when you denies these things. Better bad mouth me
for the next 10 years!
By the way, you "forgot" to quote these "lies" of mine. Gee, I wonder why?
LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
If someone thinks I am incorrect I welcome them to quote the comment where I
was incorrect and to have them explain why. Now there are times this gets
absurd, such as with Carroll obsessing over things from 2006 that have been
responded to perhaps *hundreds* of times, but if cc thinks I have been wrong
I am happy to see his evidence.
The fact is, though, the main debate we had was about if the general UI
principles which are taught to UI designers and can easily be found online
*exist*. Of course they do. For some odd reason cc thought they did not -
and he was wrong. This is not a topic where there is really room for
differing opinions (though there can be much of that on how to best design
the UIs and how to apply these principles, etc.!). As to their existence -
come on - his denial was just flat out wrong. No gray area there.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
I have no idea what classes he is even talking about. I noted I have
covered UI principles in classes I had taken... which I have. Heck, as is
now public knowledge, I recently earned my Master in Information Technology.
Of course some of the classes covered such things.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> DFS stated in post isja4i$en...@dont-email.me on 6/6/11 12:34 PM:
>
> > On 6/6/2011 11:17 AM, cc wrote:
>
> >> [To Snit]: Claiming you took classes you never took is a lie.
>
> > Where did Snit claim he took classes? And how do you know he never took
> > them?
I don't know where he claimed to take them. He never answered me. I
know he never took them because this is the list of class names he
gave me:
"data visualization, HCI general concepts, graphics and multimedia,
design technologies, experiments in UIs, cross cultural UI design and
others"
That is a direct quote from Snit about what specific *HCI* classes he
has taken, which has been quoted to him many times, which he has
commented on. This all directly contradicts what he says below,
surprise surprise. Not that he's lying below, he's just a complete
moron. While some would be small portions of an HCI class (or a highly
specialized HCI class at a high level), none are really "classes" as
far as class names go, some are not even related to HCI, and some are
laughable and obviously made up. "Experiments in UIs," "design
technologies" and "others."
> > Snit, did you actually complete the classes you claimed, at the time you
> > claimed them?
>
> I have no idea what classes he is even talking about. I noted I have
> covered UI principles in classes I had taken... which I have. Heck, as is
> now public knowledge, I recently earned my Master in Information Technology.
> Of course some of the classes covered such things.
>
You claimed to take specific HCI classes, before. I see you've
softened your stance some. I would ask what classes you took that
covered UI priniciples in a Masters of Information Technology, but I
don't care to read more bullshit.
cc
> DFS stated in post isja8n$en...@dont-email.me on 6/6/11 12:36 PM:
>
> > On 6/6/2011 10:51 AM, cc wrote:
>
> >> Snit's biggest problem is not that he's a liar. It's that
> >> he's a whiney little netnannying douchebag that can never own up to
> >> being incorrect.
>
> > Netnannies are annoying, no doubt about it, but Snit's no worse than any
> > others. In fact, Hadron has netnannied me much more than Snit.
>
> > If Snit won't own up to being incorrect, and you have proof he is
> > incorrect, sometimes you just have to drop it and move on.
>
> > That's what we've all been doing with 7 and Rex Ballard for years and years.
>
> If someone thinks I am incorrect I welcome them to quote the comment where I
> was incorrect and to have them explain why. Now there are times this gets
> absurd, such as with Carroll obsessing over things from 2006 that have been
> responded to perhaps *hundreds* of times, but if cc thinks I have been wrong
> I am happy to see his evidence.
>
Ironic, considering that I have responded to your comments perhaps
*hundreds* of times (actually there's no perhaps about it) and you've
just ignored it. So what you call running away, I call tired of
correcting your bullshit on this topic. You can have real teachers/
authors with much much more experience and knowledge than me correct
you if you desire. But you don't really care. You just want to think
you're right, which is why you'll never seek the truth. You can claim
I'm freaking out or have lost something all you wish, as I could
really care less because I am done debating this topic. I just wanted
to point out instances where you've lied to me not dredge up this old
topic.
Snit
96304ca8-73f2-44af...@h9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 6/6/11
1:08 PM:
...
>> If someone thinks I am incorrect I welcome them to quote the comment where I
>> was incorrect and to have them explain why. Now there are times this gets
>> absurd, such as with Carroll obsessing over things from 2006 that have been
>> responded to perhaps *hundreds* of times, but if cc thinks I have been wrong
>> I am happy to see his evidence.
>
> Ironic, considering that I have responded to your comments perhaps
> *hundreds* of times (actually there's no perhaps about it) and you've
> just ignored it.
You have no response to the evidence of your error in claiming the
principles of UI design do not exist is just absurd. Your claim was absurd
- and it was proved wrong (as if it needed to be - it was liking proving the
sky is up or 4 is larger than 2).
> So what you call running away, I call tired of correcting your bullshit on
> this topic.
Ah, yes, you "corrected" me by claiming books about a topic supported your
denial of the existence of the topic and by claiming prominent people in the
field rescinded their public views in private emails to you.
In other words: you lied.
> You can have real teachers/ authors with much much more experience and
> knowledge than me correct you if you desire.
The level of experience needed to know you were flat out wrong is minimal.
Really, your error was not a complex one or one that takes an expert to see
why it is so wrong.
> But you don't really care. You just want to think you're right, which is why
> you'll never seek the truth. You can claim I'm freaking out or have lost
> something all you wish, as I could really care less because I am done debating
> this topic. I just wanted to point out instances where you've lied to me not
> dredge up this old topic.
Yet you cannot quote the "lies"... you are just whining that I proved you
were wrong about general UI principles not existing. Oh no! You better
bad-mouth me some more... I bested you in a Usenet debate. Man, how
horrible!
Are you going to keep escalating your anger until you reach Carrollesque
levels? Are you going to join him in having the type of breakdown he
clearly has had? I hope not, but do not expect me to pity you and not call
you on your BS just because you are at possible risk of that.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
cf18b5cb-1e71-4732...@gv8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com on 6/6/11
1:04 PM:
Look above at your quote. Notice how you do not even quote the entire
sentence. Why not? Oh, because nobody ever said those were *classes*, I
noted I had covered those *topics* in classes. The full sentence:
Classes on data visualization, HCI general concepts,
graphics and multimedia, design technologies, experiments in
UIs, cross cultural UI design and others.
In other words, your claim that I took those classes is a lie... I have
taken classes which have covered those topics. At first I was going to give
you the benefit of the doubt you were merely mistaken - but the fact you
snipped the sentence the way you did makes it clear you are out and out
lying. You also claimed my stance has "softened", but you cannot quote
where.
Great example of you trying to quote "my" alleged lies... to do so you have
to clearly be dishonest in how you snip the sentence.
Now let us look at the classes from the college you claimed to take classes
from - the very one you claimed taught you there are no such things as
design principles:
<http://www.hci.vt.edu/courses.php>
-----
CS 5714 - Usability Engineering
Design and evaluation of effective user interfaces, beginning with
principles for designing the product.
CS 5764 - Information Visualization
Discuss design principles, interaction strategies, information
types, and experimental results.
-----
Oh no! Your claim even there is not honest.
So as you were insisting I lied about my education, the reality is I did no
such thing... but you either lied about yours or were so lost you cannot
figure out what the classes offered at your college were even about.
Check and mate. Once again, you clearly have been bested in a Usenet
debate. Now the question is how you will respond. My guess is you will
respond poorly and call me names and make even more accusations.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> DFS stated in post isja8n$en...@dont-email.me on 6/6/11 12:36 PM:
>
> > On 6/6/2011 10:51 AM, cc wrote:
>
> >> Snit's biggest problem is not that he's a liar. It's that
> >> he's a whiney little netnannying douchebag that can never own up to
> >> being incorrect.
>
> > Netnannies are annoying, no doubt about it, but Snit's no worse than any
> > others. In fact, Hadron has netnannied me much more than Snit.
>
> > If Snit won't own up to being incorrect, and you have proof he is
> > incorrect, sometimes you just have to drop it and move on.
>
> > That's what we've all been doing with 7 and Rex Ballard for years and years.
>
> If someone thinks I am incorrect I welcome them to quote the comment where I
> was incorrect and to have them explain why.
You mean like where I pointed out that MacBook Air thread you started
was incorrect ... where you subsequently tried to pass the buck to the
place you had parroted the faulty info from... trying to sell the idea
that you were not the only idiot who fell for it?
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it is clearly disposable...
when the battery dies you can pretty much just throw it away." - Snit
> Now there are times this gets absurd
As absurd as your suggestion of an $1800 disposable laptop?
> such as with Carroll obsessing over things from 2006 that have been
> responded to perhaps *hundreds* of times, but if cc thinks I have been wrong
> I am happy to see his evidence.
Yeah, you responded to this one hundreds of times... but, as cc just
accurately pointed out, you were unable to admit you were wrong for
the longest time. Which is just another reason why I decided to
outnetnannhy the biggest netnanny on usenet (I also decided to give
you the "gift" of correcting your mistake).
Steve Carroll
> DFS stated in post isja4i$en...@dont-email.me on 6/6/11 12:34 PM:
Poor Snit... he never was very good at keeping all his many, many lies
"straight" (think DFS is watching here?) LOL!
A poster writes: "I guess so, but I meant more of what classes"
You answered with:
"Classes on data visualization, HCI general concepts, graphics and
multimedia, design technologies, experiments in UIs, cross cultural UI
design and others." - written by Snit on Feb 19 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f1ad3fbe212ea898?hl=en&
Hint: That's you, Snit... claiming to have taken "classes" in direct
response to a person (cc, seems his memory for your lies is pretty
good) talking about taking "classes".
My prediction: Snit will now claim that he made a "mistake" by using
the word "classes" in direct response to a statement about
"classes" ;)
Or... he'll use is other ol' standby... this post is no longer
applicable because it has passed its 'expiration date'.
ROFLMAO!
Steve Carroll
> On Jun 6, 3:43 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > DFS stated in post isja4i$en...@dont-email.me on 6/6/11 12:34 PM:
>
> > > On 6/6/2011 11:17 AM, cc wrote:
>
> > >> [To Snit]: Claiming you took classes you never took is a lie.
>
> > > Where did Snit claim he took classes? And how do you know he never took
> > > them?
>
> I don't know where he claimed to take them.
The Google archive does:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f1ad3fbe212ea898?hl=en&
cc
I asked what HCI classes you have taken, and you responded with the
statement below.
> Classes on data visualization, HCI general concepts,
> graphics and multimedia, design technologies, experiments in
> UIs, cross cultural UI design and others.
>
> In other words, your claim that I took those classes is a lie... I have
> taken classes which have covered those topics. At first I was going to give
> you the benefit of the doubt you were merely mistaken - but the fact you
> snipped the sentence the way you did makes it clear you are out and out
> lying. You also claimed my stance has "softened", but you cannot quote
> where.
I asked what *HCI* classes you took, and you said, "Classes on..."
which I suppose could mean you just answering what topics you took and
not actual class names, but that doesn't correctly answer the question
I originally asked. In context it sure sounded like you meant those to
be HCI classes. Like, "I took HCI classs on.." Now you're saying they
weren't actually HCI classes, but certain subjects you consider to be
HCI (like experiments in UIs) were touched on in other classes. Hmm...
But I've also asked you point blank if you've taken HCI classes and
you still responded yes and referred to that quote. So...
> Great example of you trying to quote "my" alleged lies... to do so you have
> to clearly be dishonest in how you snip the sentence.
>
> Now let us look at the classes from the college you claimed to take classes
> from - the very one you claimed taught you there are no such things as
> design principles:
Depending on how you use the phrase design principles, there are no
such thing. Your definition and made up term "principle of general
consistency" certainly does not exist. There are also no "general
principles." You're reading alot into a one sentence class blurb.
> <http://www.hci.vt.edu/courses.php>
> -----
> CS 5714 - Usability Engineering
> Design and evaluation of effective user interfaces, beginning with
> principles for designing the product.
>
> CS 5764 - Information Visualization
> Discuss design principles, interaction strategies, information
> types, and experimental results.
> -----
>
> Oh no! Your claim even there is not honest.
So what are the design principles discussed in CS 5764? Are they
general? Is the "general principle of consistency" discussed? Is it
possible they are referring to the techniques for coming up with your
design, none of which include the "general princple of consistency"?
Do you not know the answer to these questions because you've never
taken these particular classes?
> So as you were insisting I lied about my education, the reality is I did no
> such thing... but you either lied about yours or were so lost you cannot
> figure out what the classes offered at your college were even about.
Well I know that everything I learned in those classes is not in a one
sentence summation. I know that we didn't use the phrase "design
principles." But you're right. Maybe I couldn't figure out what the
classes I took were even about, but you can just from reading a single
sentence.
> Check and mate. Once again, you clearly have been bested in a Usenet
> debate. Now the question is how you will respond. My guess is you will
> respond poorly and call me names and make even more accusations.
>
Yes, I've clearly been bested by someone who looks at a one sentence
class summation and somehow seems to know what was taught in those
classes. You win, mindreader.
Peter Köhlmann
> "Snit may be the first retraction of my general killfile
> amnesty. The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping,
> back-tracking, goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that
> effete candy-ass beggars belief."
>
Well, nobody should do that.
It is an unbelievable insult to all "effete candy-ass beggars" to be
compared to that filthy rat
Snit
79c5b905-96a3-40d6...@r20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 6/6/11
2:16 PM:
...
On and on you go: you are pretending you thought the list of topics I listed
in classes were all individual classes... and to push that lie of yours you
snipped the sentence in a clearly dishonest way. Got it: you are not a good
liar. And you are lying because you lost a Usenet debate - you made the
absurd claim that the very principles taught even at the college you claimed
to go to *do not exist*. No higher education needed to know you were wrong.
>> Great example of you trying to quote "my" alleged lies... to do so you have
>> to clearly be dishonest in how you snip the sentence.
>>
>> Now let us look at the classes from the college you claimed to take classes
>> from - the very one you claimed taught you there are no such things as
>> design principles:
>
> Depending on how you use the phrase design principles, there are no
> such thing.
Depending on how you use the phrase? Oh my! How can do you use the phrase
where you can accept them?
> Your definition and made up term "principle of general consistency" certainly
> does not exist. There are also no "general principles." You're reading alot
> into a one sentence class blurb.
As noted: every source you or I could find supported the obvious fact you
were wrong. To deal with this you lied and made absurd claims about people
in the field emailing you to denounce their public claims and how books
about a topic were written to deny the topic exists. You were bested in a
Usenet debate... and you are still just whining about it and making absurd
accusations.
>> <http://www.hci.vt.edu/courses.php>
>> -----
>> CS 5714 - Usability Engineering
>> Design and evaluation of effective user interfaces, beginning with
>> principles for designing the product.
>>
>> CS 5764 - Information Visualization
>> Discuss design principles, interaction strategies, information
>> types, and experimental results.
>> -----
>>
>> Oh no! Your claim even there is not honest.
>
> So what are the design principles discussed in CS 5764? Are they
> general? Is the "general principle of consistency" discussed? Is it
> possible they are referring to the techniques for coming up with your
> design, none of which include the "general princple of consistency"?
> Do you not know the answer to these questions because you've never
> taken these particular classes?
You can move goal posts all day long: you denied the existence of basic
design principles - and you also claimed to go to that college. The classes
at that college, however, are clearly contrary to your claims. As far as
your BS about my not having taken the class - lovely... I never claimed to.
>> So as you were insisting I lied about my education, the reality is I did no
>> such thing... but you either lied about yours or were so lost you cannot
>> figure out what the classes offered at your college were even about.
>
> Well I know that everything I learned in those classes is not in a one
> sentence summation. I know that we didn't use the phrase "design
> principles."
So they discussed them without ever using the term? Sounds amazingly likely
there... LOL!
> But you're right. Maybe I couldn't figure out what the
> classes I took were even about, but you can just from reading a single
> sentence.
Gee, I can figure out that a class that with a description starting with
"Discuss design principles" will have something to do with *design
principles*. Yeah, I went way out on a limb there. LOL!
>> Check and mate. Once again, you clearly have been bested in a Usenet
>> debate. Now the question is how you will respond. My guess is you will
>> respond poorly and call me names and make even more accusations.
>
> Yes, I've clearly been bested by someone who looks at a one sentence
> class summation and somehow seems to know what was taught in those
> classes. You win, mindreader.
You cannot figure out how I could tell a class with that description would
include discussion on design principles.
*That* is funny. Very, very funny.
See: there is a reason I humor you with responses - you are a very funny
guy!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
Snip)
> I asked what *HCI* classes you took, and you said, "Classes on..."
> which I suppose could mean you just answering what topics you took and
> not actual class names
Not if it is to make any sense.
Hold up, though... Snit *claims* to be a teacher. Are you actually
suggesting that he cannot differentiate between topics covered in a
class and the class itself? ;)
> , but that doesn't correctly answer the question
> I originally asked. In context it sure sounded like you meant those to
> be HCI classes. Like, "I took HCI classs on.." Now you're saying they
> weren't actually HCI classes, but certain subjects you consider to be
> HCI (like experiments in UIs) were touched on in other classes. Hmm...
> But I've also asked you point blank if you've taken HCI classes and
> you still responded yes and referred to that quote. So...
No question of that. So either Snit is:
unable to differentiate a topic taught in a class from the class
itself (not something that seems likely for a guy claiming to be a
"computer teacher").
or
telling another lie and had trouble keeping it straight from all his
other lies.
One thing you guys have to understand about Snit... lying is like
breathing to him.
Well, at the least, you're able to differentiate a topic from a class
that might teach several of them. We now know Snit can't lay claim to
this ability.
Steve Carroll
Yeah... the nerve of him actually believing what *you* wrote about
"Classes" when he specifically asked you about "classes" !
cc: "I guess so, but I meant more of what classes"
You: "Classes on data visualization, HCI general concepts, graphics
and multimedia, design technologies, experiments in UIs, cross
cultural UI design and others."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f1ad3fbe212ea898?hl=en&
DFS
You quoted it wrong, dumbkopf.
I didn't say that about Snit. Linosuck did - but first he asked his
wife for an allowance and permission.
DFS
> cc<scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
> and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
> implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
How can it be a "science" when any old Joe can create a funky new UI
that people immediately take to, ie Bryce and the Sims games and so on?
Maybe lining things up and spacing them and using color and highlights,
etc, could be "science", but I see it more as creativity or art.
> Which was a surpise as you normally post good stuff and certainly know
> how to handle the likes of Creepy.
Small milk biscuits and $20 bills is all you need to control that weenie.
Ezekiel
"DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in message news:isjoik$ef9$5...@dont-email.me...
> On 6/6/2011 11:03 AM, Hadron wrote:
>> cc<scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
>> and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
>> implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>
>
> How can it be a "science" when any old Joe can create a funky new UI that
> people immediately take to, ie Bryce and the Sims games and so on?
>
> Maybe lining things up and spacing them and using color and highlights,
> etc, could be "science", but I see it more as creativity or art.
>
>
To me UI design is a ratio/combination of the two. Anyone can whip together
a UI but the *best* designs have just the right amount of science and art
behind them. I don't think you can do a good job with just one and not the
other.
Snit
> On 6/6/2011 11:03 AM, Hadron wrote:
>> cc<scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
>> and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
>> implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>
>
> How can it be a "science" when any old Joe can create a funky new UI
> that people immediately take to, ie Bryce and the Sims games and so on?
>
> Maybe lining things up and spacing them and using color and highlights,
> etc, could be "science", but I see it more as creativity or art.
Think of it this way: when someone designs a car or a house there is a lot
of science behind it - material science, aerodynamics (for a car), heating
and cooling and much more. There is, of course, also a lot of art - and
both are important.
With UI development it is much the same - there is a lot of science behind
the general principles (consistency / inconsistency, the way widgets work,
metaphors, focus, etc.), but there is also a lot of art.
>> Which was a surpise as you normally post good stuff and certainly know
>> how to handle the likes of Creepy.
>
> Small milk biscuits and $20 bills is all you need to control that weenie.
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
>
> "DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in message news:isjoik$ef9$5...@dont-email.me...
>> On 6/6/2011 11:03 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>> cc<scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
>>> and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
>>> implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>>
>>
>> How can it be a "science" when any old Joe can create a funky new UI that
>> people immediately take to, ie Bryce and the Sims games and so on?
>>
>> Maybe lining things up and spacing them and using color and highlights,
>> etc, could be "science", but I see it more as creativity or art.
>>
>>
>
> To me UI design is a ratio/combination of the two. Anyone can whip together
> a UI but the *best* designs have just the right amount of science and art
> behind them. I don't think you can do a good job with just one and not the
> other.
Exactly: as is the case in pretty much any well done design, whether it is a
car, a house, a plane, etc.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
Before you kept telling cc it was all about science. Good to see you can
admit you were wrong.
Steve Carroll
> DFS stated in post isjoik$ef9$5...@dont-email.me on 6/6/11 4:41 PM:
>
>> On 6/6/2011 11:03 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>> cc<scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a
>>> mess and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI
>>> design and implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>>
>>
>> How can it be a "science" when any old Joe can create a funky new UI
>> that people immediately take to, ie Bryce and the Sims games and so
>> on?
>>
>> Maybe lining things up and spacing them and using color and
>> highlights, etc, could be "science", but I see it more as creativity
>> or art.
>
> Think of it this way: when someone designs a car or a house there is
> a lot of science behind it - material science, aerodynamics (for a
> car), heating and cooling and much more. There is, of course, also a
> lot of art - and both are important.
>
> With UI development it is much the same - there is a lot of science
> behind the general principles (consistency / inconsistency, the way
> widgets work, metaphors, focus, etc.), but there is also a lot of art.
How much is a lot? If you really know what you are talking about Mr. IT
Teacher you should be able to give a percentage. Snit runs in 3... 2...
1...
100% predictable.
Steve Carroll
Stop lying gluey. I already quoted where you claimed it was a list of
classes.
>>> Great example of you trying to quote "my" alleged lies... to do so
>>> you have to clearly be dishonest in how you snip the sentence.
>>>
>>> Now let us look at the classes from the college you claimed to take
>>> classes from - the very one you claimed taught you there are no
>>> such things as design principles:
>>
>> Depending on how you use the phrase design principles, there are no
>> such thing.
>
> Depending on how you use the phrase? Oh my! How can do you use the
> phrase where you can accept them?
Context my dear gluey.
>> Your definition and made up term "principle of general consistency"
>> certainly does not exist. There are also no "general principles."
>> You're reading alot into a one sentence class blurb.
>
> As noted: every source you or I could find supported the obvious fact
> you were wrong.
Because you say so. Notice you offer no support.
> To deal with this you lied and made absurd claims
> about people in the field emailing you to denounce their public
> claims and how books about a topic were written to deny the topic
> exists.
Quote where he did this. But you won't. 100% predictable.
> You were bested in a Usenet debate... and you are still just
> whining about it and making absurd accusations.
You are the one who stepped on your own dick.
>>> <http://www.hci.vt.edu/courses.php>
>>> -----
>>> CS 5714 - Usability Engineering
>>> Design and evaluation of effective user interfaces, beginning with
>>> principles for designing the product.
>>>
>>> CS 5764 - Information Visualization
>>> Discuss design principles, interaction strategies, information
>>> types, and experimental results.
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Oh no! Your claim even there is not honest.
>>
>> So what are the design principles discussed in CS 5764? Are they
>> general? Is the "general principle of consistency" discussed? Is it
>> possible they are referring to the techniques for coming up with your
>> design, none of which include the "general princple of consistency"?
>> Do you not know the answer to these questions because you've never
>> taken these particular classes?
>
> You can move goal posts all day long: you denied the existence of
> basic design principles - and you also claimed to go to that college.
> The classes at that college, however, are clearly contrary to your
> claims. As far as your BS about my not having taken the class -
> lovely... I never claimed to.
You ran from his questions gluey.
>>> So as you were insisting I lied about my education, the reality is
>>> I did no such thing... but you either lied about yours or were so
>>> lost you cannot figure out what the classes offered at your college
>>> were even about.
>>
>> Well I know that everything I learned in those classes is not in a
>> one sentence summation. I know that we didn't use the phrase "design
>> principles."
>
> So they discussed them without ever using the term? Sounds amazingly
> likely there... LOL!
You have no idea what the class is about, do you?
>> But you're right. Maybe I couldn't figure out what the
>> classes I took were even about, but you can just from reading a
>> single sentence.
>
> Gee, I can figure out that a class that with a description starting
> with "Discuss design principles" will have something to do with
> *design principles*. Yeah, I went way out on a limb there. LOL!
You made that up. You never took the class like cc did.
>>> Check and mate. Once again, you clearly have been bested in a Usenet
>>> debate. Now the question is how you will respond. My guess is you
>>> will respond poorly and call me names and make even more
>>> accusations.
>>
>> Yes, I've clearly been bested by someone who looks at a one sentence
>> class summation and somehow seems to know what was taught in those
>> classes. You win, mindreader.
>
> You cannot figure out how I could tell a class with that description
> would include discussion on design principles.
>
> *That* is funny. Very, very funny.
>
> See: there is a reason I humor you with responses - you are a very
> funny guy!
You are not funny. You are simply mentally ill with a severe social anxiety
disorder and you are a pathalogical liar.
Steve Carroll
One of yours (forgeries) again, Snit?
Steve Carroll
One of yours (forgeries) again, Snit?
Steve Carroll
One of yours (forgeries) again, Snit?
Steve Carroll
Speaking of Snit, do you see all of his forgeries of me? He forges my name
*a lot*. He is the one who is obsessed with me and is keeping the flame war
going, that is why it is called the Snit Circus.
Steve Carroll
> On 6/6/2011 10:51 AM, cc wrote:
>
>
>> Snit's biggest problem is not that he's a liar. It's that
>> he's a whiney little netnannying douchebag that can never own up to
>> being incorrect.
>
>
> Netnannies are annoying, no doubt about it, but Snit's no worse than
> any others. In fact, Hadron has netnannied me much more than Snit.
After reading what I have shown you how can you say Snit is no worse? Snit
has been pulling this shit for years and nobody has stopped him. Yet.
If we all call him on his shit and let the college he claims to work at know
and contact his wife maybe he will finally stop lying about me and making
claims about me having an ex. Nothing else short of that will get him to
stop.
cc
So you have never taken HCI classes. Good to finally hear you say
that.
So what were the design principles they discussed in that class?
Do you know?
Since you've never taken an HCI class, could it be possible that you
don't know what they mean by design principles (or any of the other
phrases) in the class blurb?
Would you like me to tell you what they are referring to?
Would you like to know what they are laughably referring to as
experimental results?
Would you be shocked to learn that the phrase "experimental results"
was never uttered in the class? As in no one ever came close to saying
anything like "Today we're learning about experimental results" or "in
this class you will learn about experimental results."
Don't run from the questions.
cc
> "DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in messagenews:isjoik$ef9$5...@dont-email.me...
> > On 6/6/2011 11:03 AM, Hadron wrote:
>
> >> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
> >> and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
> >> implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>
> > How can it be a "science" when any old Joe can create a funky new UI that
> > people immediately take to, ie Bryce and the Sims games and so on?
>
> > Maybe lining things up and spacing them and using color and highlights,
> > etc, could be "science", but I see it more as creativity or art.
You can also use things like critical parameters to show that you are
achieving your desired effect with whatever UI you have created, which
also allows for some reuse. There are some other verification methods
as well.
> To me UI design is a ratio/combination of the two. Anyone can whip together
> a UI but the *best* designs have just the right amount of science and art
> behind them. I don't think you can do a good job with just one and not the
> other.
>
>
>
I see Snit agrees, and I'm sure Hadron does as well. I've never said
anything different. I believe I said the exact same thing in this
thread. The only disagreement is that I call this combination of art
and science, "not science." Apparently that's just ludicrous. Oh well.
Hadron
> DFS stated in post isja4i$en0$1...@dont-email.me on 6/6/11 12:34 PM:
>
>> On 6/6/2011 11:17 AM, cc wrote:
>>
>>
>>> [To Snit]: Claiming you took classes you never took is a lie.
>>
>>
>> Where did Snit claim he took classes? And how do you know he never took
>> them?
>>
>> Snit, did you actually complete the classes you claimed, at the time you
>> claimed them?
>
> I have no idea what classes he is even talking about. I noted I have
> covered UI principles in classes I had taken... which I have. Heck, as is
> now public knowledge, I recently earned my Master in Information Technology.
> Of course some of the classes covered such things.
That reminds me of that kid who keeps showing off about his "degree"
"ROTFLM"ing when I mentioned compiler courses on good CS/CS-EE
courses. How stupid did he look when all the links were posted...
He started strutting around claiming I was clueless if I thought a CS
degree would include compiler engineering ... LOL! "Advocates" like
sMarti saw a chance and hitched themselves to his hearse "LOL"ing and
saying "how stupid of Hadron". I suspect, from his low IQ and tendency
to boast about his certificate, that his "CS Degree" is more likely one
of these "back to work" college "Keyboard familiarity" conversion
courses offered to those in need of "care in the community".....
Hadron
> On 6/6/2011 10:51 AM, cc wrote:
>
>> Snit's biggest problem is not that he's a liar. It's that
>> he's a whiney little netnannying douchebag that can never own up to
>> being incorrect.
>
> Netnannies are annoying, no doubt about it, but Snit's no worse than any others.
> In fact, Hadron has netnannied me much more than Snit.
Only about the private "harassment" issues I believe ... and moaning
about net nannying is net nannying....ha! .. ;) The main thing is that
we dont allow it to detract from our main purpose here : to slap down
ignorant "advocates" like swatting flies around the dung heap.
>
> If Snit won't own up to being incorrect, and you have proof he is incorrect,
> sometimes you just have to drop it and move on.
>
> That's what we've all been doing with 7 and Rex Ballard for years and
> years.
You dont have to do anything with them as they are always lying and/or
wrong!
Where is Chris Ahlstrom asking for proof of 7s world wide transaction
manager in Gambas? Why isn't it GPL open source? I think we should
know...
Hadron
> On 6/6/2011 11:03 AM, Hadron wrote:
>> cc<scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
>> and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
>> implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>
> How can it be a "science" when any old Joe can create a funky new UI that people
> immediately take to, ie Bryce and the Sims games and so on?
>
> Maybe lining things up and spacing them and using color and highlights, etc,
> could be "science", but I see it more as creativity or art.
*blink*
You amaze me if you really believe that. Am I missing you being sarcy? I
hope so.
Millions have gone into research for UI standards. And thats only the SW
part. UIs encompass HW etc too - do you really believe the cockpit of a
new Airbus is just "aligning" a few controls?
Hadron
> "DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in message news:isjoik$ef9$5...@dont-email.me...
>> On 6/6/2011 11:03 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>> cc<scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
>>> and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
>>> implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>>
>>
>> How can it be a "science" when any old Joe can create a funky new UI that
>> people immediately take to, ie Bryce and the Sims games and so on?
>>
>> Maybe lining things up and spacing them and using color and highlights,
>> etc, could be "science", but I see it more as creativity or art.
>>
>>
>
> To me UI design is a ratio/combination of the two. Anyone can whip together
> a UI but the *best* designs have just the right amount of science and art
> behind them. I don't think you can do a good job with just one and not the
> other.
Exactly.
Snit
092e4f44-74da-4d2b...@fr19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com on 6/7/11
3:46 AM:
...
>>> I asked what *HCI* classes you took, and you said, "Classes on..."
>>> which I suppose could mean you just answering what topics you took and
>>> not actual class names, but that doesn't correctly answer the question
>>> I originally asked. In context it sure sounded like you meant those to
>>> be HCI classes. Like, "I took HCI classs on.." Now you're saying they
>>> weren't actually HCI classes, but certain subjects you consider to be
>>> HCI (like experiments in UIs) were touched on in other classes. Hmm...
>>> But I've also asked you point blank if you've taken HCI classes and
>>> you still responded yes and referred to that quote. So...
>>
>> On and on you go: you are pretending you thought the list of topics I listed
>> in classes were all individual classes... and to push that lie of yours you
>> snipped the sentence in a clearly dishonest way. Got it: you are not a good
>> liar. And you are lying because you lost a Usenet debate - you made the
>> absurd claim that the very principles taught even at the college you claimed
>> to go to *do not exist*. No higher education needed to know you were wrong.
>
> So you have never taken HCI classes. Good to finally hear you say
> that.
Interesting goal post move from my proving you lied - your snipped sentences
prove it.
As far as what HCI classes I have or have not taken, that is not relevant.
Again: no classes are needed to be able to show you are wrong about your
denial of the common design principles we discussed. You were repeatedly
busted lying: lying about Carroll sending you emails denouncing his public
views, lying about how books about how to best implement some of these
principles supported your denial of their existence, etc.
On and on you made a complete and utter fool of yourself. Now you are
running to the red herring of who has taken what classes - as though it
matters to showing your lies. And remember, your claim of taking classes is
very questionable - the very school you claim you went to clearly has
classes which discuss these principles you deny exist. When faced with
this, you claimed - almost surely dishonestly - that the classes did not
discuss what they claimed to in their descriptions.
On and on. You have *no* leg to stand on. You just go on and on and on...
hoping to find some trolling BS to hang your clearly incorrect claims on.
You were wrong. You were proved wrong. Your claims were foolish. Why not
just accept that and move on - stop lying, stop calling people names, stop
bringing it up (as you did in this thread).
...
> So what were the design principles they discussed in that class?
>
> Do you know?
It is not relevant. You denied the good designers would follow *any*
principles.
cc:
-----
No, every designer does not start from scratch. Some
designers follow your principals because, like you, they
don't know any better.
-----
But now it has been shown you made that up... it is contrary to the
teachings of the college you claim you went to.
> Since you've never taken an HCI class,
You made that up. This is not something I have ever said.
> could it be possible that you don't know what they mean by design principles
> (or any of the other phrases) in the class blurb?
>
> Would you like me to tell you what they are referring to?
I am referring to these classes:
<http://www.hci.vt.edu/courses.php>
-----
CS 5714 - Usability Engineering
Design and evaluation of effective user interfaces, beginning with
principles for designing the product.
CS 5764 - Information Visualization
Discuss design principles, interaction strategies, information
types, and experimental results.
-----
Of course, you know this - your denial is a *lie*. You keep lying to try to
find some trolling BS that will stick. Stop lying. Please.
> Would you like to know what they are laughably referring to as
> experimental results?
>
> Would you be shocked to learn that the phrase "experimental results"
> was never uttered in the class? As in no one ever came close to saying
> anything like "Today we're learning about experimental results" or "in
> this class you will learn about experimental results."
>
> Don't run from the questions.
The questions are irrelevant. You lied and were busted. Period. So stop
whining like a little child and just admit you were, again, busted.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
977f3797-19e2-46da...@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com on 6/7/11
4:01 AM:
This is what your claimed college says of HCI:
-----
Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is the region of
intersection between the social and behavioral sciences, and
information technology.
-----
And what you have said:
-----
Science has indisputable rules. A good UI is just whatever
pleases most of the people, but not all. Right now the only
thing everyone agrees on is that the UI is important.
-----
HCI is more than sufficient to describe what is being talked
about, without tacking on science.
-----
But whatever. It is not like anyone thinks you have any clue as to what is
being discussed.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> 3:46 AM:
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> I asked what *HCI* classes you took, and you said, "Classes on..."
> >>> which I suppose could mean you just answering what topics you took and
> >>> not actual class names, but that doesn't correctly answer the question
> >>> I originally asked. In context it sure sounded like you meant those to
> >>> be HCI classes. Like, "I took HCI classs on.." Now you're saying they
> >>> weren't actually HCI classes, but certain subjects you consider to be
> >>> HCI (like experiments in UIs) were touched on in other classes. Hmm...
> >>> But I've also asked you point blank if you've taken HCI classes and
> >>> you still responded yes and referred to that quote. So...
>
> >> On and on you go: you are pretending you thought the list of topics I listed
> >> in classes were all individual classes... and to push that lie of yours you
> >> snipped the sentence in a clearly dishonest way. Got it: you are not a good
> >> liar. And you are lying because you lost a Usenet debate - you made the
> >> absurd claim that the very principles taught even at the college you claimed
> >> to go to *do not exist*. No higher education needed to know you were wrong.
>
> > So you have never taken HCI classes. Good to finally hear you say
> > that.
>
> Interesting goal post move from my proving you lied - your snipped sentences
> prove it.
I didn't snip any sentences. I posted the list of classes you said you
took. I asked what HCI classes, and you responded with that list. The
fact that you say they are topics now is not me moving the goal
posts...
> As far as what HCI classes I have or have not taken, that is not relevant.
> Again: no classes are needed to be able to show you are wrong about your
> denial of the common design principles we discussed. You were repeatedly
> busted lying: lying about Carroll sending you emails denouncing his public
> views, lying about how books about how to best implement some of these
> principles supported your denial of their existence, etc.
All the things you said I was lying about can be verified, easily, but
you prefer not to.
> On and on you made a complete and utter fool of yourself. Now you are
> running to the red herring of who has taken what classes - as though it
> matters to showing your lies. And remember, your claim of taking classes is
> very questionable - the very school you claim you went to clearly has
> classes which discuss these principles you deny exist. When faced with
> this, you claimed - almost surely dishonestly - that the classes did not
> discuss what they claimed to in their descriptions.
No, the very school I went to clearly has class blurbs that mention
things like design principles and experimental results, and which make
it sound like they have trouble fitting in an entire semesters worth
of material. That is not actually the case. Perhaps you can email the
instructors?
> On and on. You have *no* leg to stand on. You just go on and on and on...
> hoping to find some trolling BS to hang your clearly incorrect claims on.
>
> You were wrong. You were proved wrong. Your claims were foolish. Why not
> just accept that and move on - stop lying, stop calling people names, stop
> bringing it up (as you did in this thread).
>
Right. So someone who has never taken HCI classes, never taken the
specific HCI classes I referenced, and who skims through online papers
and pulls out material out of context, has now educated me on HCI, and
proven exactly what is taught in specific HCI classes. You're the one
with clearly no leg to stand on. The fact that you won't even do the
simple verification and shoot off some emails shows you know you're
wrong.
> > So what were the design principles they discussed in that class?
>
> > Do you know?
>
> It is not relevant. You denied the good designers would follow *any*
> principles.
No. Learn to read. "Some designers follow *YOUR* principals." I was
explicitly referring to your made principles, and incorrect thought
process. There really aren't any principles, just techniques, which we
have discussed. The fact that you don't know what was discussed in the
class, makes it irrelevant as to what you think they are talking about
when they say "design principles."
By the way, do you know who wrote the blurbs for the classes?
> cc:
> -----
> No, every designer does not start from scratch. Some
> designers follow your principals because, like you, they
> don't know any better.
> -----
>
> But now it has been shown you made that up... it is contrary to the
> teachings of the college you claim you went to.
>
> > Since you've never taken an HCI class,
>
> You made that up. This is not something I have ever said.
>
I asked what HCI classes you took. You responded with "Classes on... "
and now you're saying that list was just topics. So you never took any
HCI classes. If you have, you can go ahead and mention them.
> > could it be possible that you don't know what they mean by design principles
> > (or any of the other phrases) in the class blurb?
>
> > Would you like me to tell you what they are referring to?
>
> I am referring to these classes:
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you understand English? I know
what classes you are talking about. I was asking if you want me to
inform you of what they mean by design principles or even interaction
strategies, information types or "experimental results."
> <http://www.hci.vt.edu/courses.php>
> -----
> CS 5714 - Usability Engineering
> Design and evaluation of effective user interfaces, beginning with
> principles for designing the product.
>
> CS 5764 - Information Visualization
> Discuss design principles, interaction strategies, information
> types, and experimental results.
> -----
>
> Of course, you know this - your denial is a *lie*. You keep lying to try to
> find some trolling BS that will stick. Stop lying. Please.
You're obviously an idiot who can't read.
> > Would you like to know what they are laughably referring to as
> > experimental results?
>
> > Would you be shocked to learn that the phrase "experimental results"
> > was never uttered in the class? As in no one ever came close to saying
> > anything like "Today we're learning about experimental results" or "in
> > this class you will learn about experimental results."
>
> > Don't run from the questions.
>
> The questions are irrelevant. You lied and were busted. Period. So stop
> whining like a little child and just admit you were, again, busted.
>
I did not lie, and the fact that you refuse to answer the questions
shows that.
Anyone thinking of taking HCI classes please stop! Don't waste your
money! Snit has skimmed through literally a handful of papers found
online and knows what is taught in 5000 level courses based on a one
line class blurb written by a department head secretary. He will
educate you for free! Learn all about the "general principle of
consistency!" Learn why the GNOME Guidelines are the bible in HCI!
And... well that's about it and all you need to know anyway.
cc
Right, and without getting into the argument again, there have been
huge debates over whether social and behavior sciences are really
science. I have quoted famous physicists and respected Scientific
journals that claim they are not. There is a whole wikipedia article
dedicated to the science wars. So there is no contridiction.
Snit
4:06 AM:
It is a pretty pathetic attempt to save his ego: a tacit admission he has
been completely busted lying and spewing nonsense only to fall back to
claiming he has an education (from a school whose classes contradict his
claims) and then making up claims about my education. As it it takes *any*
college classes to know how amazing wrong his claims were and how dishonest
his lies were.
Really: who does he think he is fooling?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> Hadron stated in post nooc29lx3q....@news.eternal-september.org on 6/7/11> >> DFS stated in post isja4i$en...@dont-email.me on 6/6/11 12:34 PM:
It doesn't take college classes at all. But as I've explained
everything to you, and you read only two sentences out of papers, and
you still get everything wrong, I don't know what to do.
The offer stands for you and Hadron to separate your bodies from each
other long enough to fire off an email to anyone and everyone and get
some answers. Which takes longer, for you to write a hundreds lines of
your bullshit, or for you to write an email to Carroll and ask about
the general principle of consistency and if he would call HCI a
science? But by all means, continue to fondle each other and claim to
be correct.
Snit
c4c6affb-96f2-429e...@m4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com on 6/7/11
7:54 AM:
Above you just keep denying and trying to push things off topic. Boring.
You were busted lying. You have been shown to be clueless on the topic of
UI design. Why not just drop it and move on - stop whining about what
classes anyone has taken (not relevant) and trying to push the topic to
whatever other side issue you can think of.
Just deal with the fact you were busted lying and move on with your life.
You lost a Usenet debate and dealt with it poorly - oh no! Better harp on
your failings forever and try to save some face. Get over it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
947c33c0-a0e2-47ca...@v10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com on 6/7/11
7:57 AM:
You have no argument to get into again - you just make things up as you go
and when busted you work to move goal posts and you lie and you call people
names.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
5b1b78c6-6f9a-46d5...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com on 6/7/11
8:01 AM:
Right: no classes are needed to see through your lies and ignorant claims.
None.
> But as I've explained
> everything to you, and you read only two sentences out of papers, and
> you still get everything wrong, I don't know what to do.
Your "explanations" are bogus gibberish where you do thinks like deny a book
on the importance and methods of following principles supports your denial
of those principles.
> The offer stands for you and Hadron to separate your bodies from each
> other long enough to fire off an email to anyone and everyone and get
> some answers.
Ah, like Carroll who will denounce his public stance but only in emails.
Get over yourself and stop trying to save face. You made a fool of
yourself. Move on.
> Which takes longer, for you to write a hundreds lines of
> your bullshit, or for you to write an email to Carroll and ask about
> the general principle of consistency and if he would call HCI a
> science? But by all means, continue to fondle each other and claim to
> be correct.
Stop whining.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4:10 AM:
> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>
>> On 6/6/2011 11:03 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>> cc<scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I didnt notice him lying. I did however see you get yourself in a mess
>>> and make silly claims about UIs and consistency. Claiming UI design and
>>> implementation is not a science is plainly ludicrous.
>>
>> How can it be a "science" when any old Joe can create a funky new UI that
>> people
>> immediately take to, ie Bryce and the Sims games and so on?
>>
>> Maybe lining things up and spacing them and using color and highlights, etc,
>> could be "science", but I see it more as creativity or art.
>
> *blink*
>
> You amaze me if you really believe that. Am I missing you being sarcy? I
> hope so.
>
> Millions have gone into research for UI standards. And thats only the SW
> part. UIs encompass HW etc too - do you really believe the cockpit of a
> new Airbus is just "aligning" a few controls?
And building a skyscraper is just tossing some materials together. Why
would anyone question this? :)
>>> Which was a surpise as you normally post good stuff and certainly know
>>> how to handle the likes of Creepy.
>>
>> Small milk biscuits and $20 bills is all you need to control that weenie.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
The problem is, that's not his public stance.
> > Which takes longer, for you to write a hundreds lines of
> > your bullshit, or for you to write an email to Carroll and ask about
> > the general principle of consistency and if he would call HCI a
> > science? But by all means, continue to fondle each other and claim to
> > be correct.
>
> Stop whining.
>
I understand completely. You have the opportunity to completely prove
yourself right or wrong (but you're obviously right. I mean you read
tiny portions of a handful of papers and you took an unknown class
that had a topic dedicated to experiments in UIs and graphics and
multimedia), but you don't want to. I get it. I mean if the Founding
Fathers were around today and answered emails, I would in no way want
to know if my views on the Constitution are what they were actually
thinking at the time they wrote it, or if I was misinterpreting
things. Hadron backs you up, so what more do you need? I think you're
making the right move, here. Just keep calling me a liar without ever
checking to see if I'm really telling the truth or not. Easy peezy.
It's the COLA way, afterall. Why act any different than Peter "I
refuse to read the links you give me" Kohlmann? Snit "I refuse to
email living authors who respond to emails quickly and verify whether
cc is lying" LastNameHere has a nice ring to it.
Hadron
>
> I understand completely. You have the opportunity to completely prove
> yourself right or wrong (but you're obviously right. I mean you read
> tiny portions of a handful of papers and you took an unknown class
Seriously, what on earth are you rambling on about? Nowhere has Snit
claimed to be an expert. He has stated, and correctly and prvably, that
he recognises the importance of UI design. As do oodles of tech writers,
standards bodies, technical institutions, architects, aircraft
designers, games writers, robot designers (hi 7!) etc etc etc.
Its not some sort of "black art" - millions go into research for these
things. There are oodles of documents outlining adopted standards.
I am at a loss to understand why keep showing up your lack of
understanding and knowledge of this very obvious fact.