Steve Carroll: stop being a fucktard
Anne Onime
> On Jun 2, 5:34 am, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> I'd like to apologize for my above posting. It was not fair of me to
>> use whatever problem you're having against you,
>
>
> Used "against" him? Neither you, nor I, used anything "against" Snit.
> I merely pointed to something Snit wrote that might explain his
> bizarre usenet behavior (not justify it, explain it). Snit likes
> people to feel sorry for him, of this there is no question, and you've
> fallen for the bait. For all anyone knows, Snit is lying about, well,
> everything he posts regarding his personal life. He obviously lies
> about everyone else. As we all know the cost of being a repetitive
> liar is people tend not to believe you. Of Snit's sacred ground (one
> of them is the 'alt.support.anxiety-panic ' newsgroup)? I exposed an
> incident of Snit testing out a sock puppet there (who knows how many
> he successfully used?). When Snit slipped up, a poster in that
> newsgroup wrote:
>
> "Good grief, Snit - I would never have thought Brock McNuggets was
> YOU"
>
> Snit's reply:
>
> "Oops. I am just setting up my new computer and I forgot to change
> the name back to snit before posting. But, yes, Brock McNuggets is
> another name I sometimes use. I just find it funny. :)"
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/msg/2d0deae7fab02dda?
> hl=en&dmode=source
>
> Anyone can do a google search and see if the name Brock McNuggets
> appears in any posts prior to this claim. Hint: it doesn't. Snit has a
> lie prepared for this, I'd bet my child's eyes on it. In any event,
> Snit didn't find funny the fact that Google showed that the name
> 'Brock McNuggets' had never been used to post to the internet prior to
> this claim. More notable is that when I confronted him with this he
> said he used it "once"... by "mistake":
>
> "Such proof cannot be shown being that I never "prepared a new sock
> puppet for use in a newsgroup based on people with health problems"...
> though I did once post with the name "Brock McNuggets" into such a
> group *by mistake* and then told people about the mistake" - written
> by Snit on Mar 31 2008
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/788ec67e79c8f71d?hl=e
> n&
>
> Why was that notable? A few days earlier Snit posted that he had used
> the name "as a joke":
>
> "Long ago I used the name "Brock McNuggets" as a joke. I was also told
> by some of the trolls that if I admitted to using another name they
> would stop trolling me - so I used that name and then admitted to it.
> They, of course, lied and then whined for *years* about my using the
> name they asked me to." - written by Snit on Mar 27 2008,
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/106a422a39ee83fb?hl=e
> n&
>
>
> (convenient how "others" have "asked" him to admit to something so
> they would stop trolling 'him' - an absolutely absurd notion, isn't
> it? This doesn't pass the laugh test!
>
> It gets better... the above was written by Snit long after his
> *multiple* uses of his Brock McNuggets puppet.The link below proves
> that Snit used the Brock McNuggets handle more than once... and did so
> ~ 5 years prior to his 2008 claim that "others" had "asked him to
> "admit" to something in order for them to stop trolling him. A
> "mistake"? A "joke". "Once"? More than "once"? The obvious thing to do
> here is... ask Snit who these "others" are and ask him to point to the
> posts (prior to Sep, of 2003, the latest of the Brock ones in my link)
> where they are 'asking' him to "admit" he used a sock puppet and they
> will agree to stop trolling him. How much do you wanna bet he can't
> point to such posts prior to Sep. of 2003? According to Snit, these
> people "whined for years", surely he could drum up a few of these
> pre-2003 posts!
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=1
> 0&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2009&as_maxd
> =1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2009&as_ugroup=alt.support.anxiety-panic&as_usubject=&as_
> uauthors=Brock+McNuggets&safe=off
>
>
> Snit is obviously a pathological liar who cannot keep his lies
> straight and a simple timeline bit him on the ass again.
>
> I predict one or more of the following from Snit
>
> He will NOT produce any posts prior to Sep. of 2003 that show
> "others" "whining" about a name Snit claims he was "asked" to use.
> ("...using the name they asked me to")
>
> Attempt to garner more sympathy with an additional cock and bull
> story.
>
> Attempt to obfuscate the fact that he unquestionably said he used his
> Brock puppet only "once", and only then by "mistake" (a clear and
> blatant lie proven by Google).
>
> Claim I am "attacking" him by pointing out a reality that he solely
> created with the text that he posted to an anxiety newsgroup and csma.
>
> Claim it is all just a big "mistake" (this is one of his favorites
> lines)... or parts of it are 'mistakes'... or some such BS.
>
> Claim that I am lying, despite Google *clearly* showing him to be the
> liar on not only the initial outing of Brock but also on subsequent
> attempts to get him to explain his bizarre actions in an anxiety
> newsgroup (that he likes to claim he is being "attacked" if anyone
> ever mentions it)
Steve, stop being a fucktard. You claim that in 2008 he was wrong about something you say happened in 2003. What the fuck! Whatever problems Snit has your problems are many times worse.
Steve Carroll
> Steve Carroll stated in post 183f5e86-7e4b-40a3-ac5c-ba1617d36...@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com on 6/2/11 7:28 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 5:34 am, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> >> I'd like to apologize for my above posting. It was not fair of me to
> >> use whatever problem you're having against you,
>
> > Used "against" him? Neither you, nor I, used anything "against" Snit.
> > I merely pointed to something Snit wrote that might explain his
> > bizarre usenet behavior (not justify it, explain it). Snit likes
> > people to feel sorry for him, of this there is no question, and you've
> > fallen for the bait. For all anyone knows, Snit is lying about, well,
> > everything he posts regarding his personal life. He obviously lies
> > about everyone else. As we all know the cost of being a repetitive
> > liar is people tend not to believe you. Of Snit's sacred ground (one
> > of them is the 'alt.support.anxiety-panic ' newsgroup)? I exposed an
> > incident of Snit testing out a sock puppet there (who knows how many
> > he successfully used?). When Snit slipped up, a poster in that
> > newsgroup wrote:
>
> > "Good grief, Snit - I would never have thought Brock McNuggets was
> > YOU"
>
> > Snit's reply:
>
> > "Oops. I am just setting up my new computer and I forgot to change
> > the name back to snit before posting. But, yes, Brock McNuggets is
> > another name I sometimes use. I just find it funny. :)"
>
> > hl=en&dmode=source
>
> > Anyone can do a google search and see if the name Brock McNuggets
> > appears in any posts prior to this claim. Hint: it doesn't. Snit has a
> > lie prepared for this, I'd bet my child's eyes on it. In any event,
> > Snit didn't find funny the fact that Google showed that the name
> > 'Brock McNuggets' had never been used to post to the internet prior to
> > this claim. More notable is that when I confronted him with this he
> > said he used it "once"... by "mistake":
>
> > "Such proof cannot be shown being that I never "prepared a new sock
> > puppet for use in a newsgroup based on people with health problems"...
> > though I did once post with the name "Brock McNuggets" into such a
> > group *by mistake* and then told people about the mistake" - written
> > by Snit on Mar 31 2008
>
> > n&
>
> > Why was that notable? A few days earlier Snit posted that he had used
> > the name "as a joke":
>
> > "Long ago I used the name "Brock McNuggets" as a joke. I was also told
> > by some of the trolls that if I admitted to using another name they
> > would stop trolling me - so I used that name and then admitted to it.
> > They, of course, lied and then whined for *years* about my using the
> > name they asked me to." - written by Snit on Mar 27 2008,
>
> > n&
>
> > (convenient how "others" have "asked" him to admit to something so
> > they would stop trolling 'him' - an absolutely absurd notion, isn't
> > it? This doesn't pass the laugh test!
>
> > It gets better... the above was written by Snit long after his
> > *multiple* uses of his Brock McNuggets puppet.The link below proves
> > that Snit used the Brock McNuggets handle more than once... and did so
> > ~ 5 years prior to his 2008 claim that "others" had "asked him to
> > "admit" to something in order for them to stop trolling him. A
> > "mistake"? A "joke". "Once"? More than "once"? The obvious thing to do
> > here is... ask Snit who these "others" are and ask him to point to the
> > posts (prior to Sep, of 2003, the latest of the Brock ones in my link)
> > where they are 'asking' him to "admit" he used a sock puppet and they
> > will agree to stop trolling him. How much do you wanna bet he can't
> > point to such posts prior to Sep. of 2003? According to Snit, these
> > people "whined for years", surely he could drum up a few of these
> > pre-2003 posts!
>
> > 0&scoring=&lr=&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2009&as_m axd
> > =1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2009&as_ugroup=alt.support.anxiety-panic&as_usubject=& as_
> > uauthors=Brock+McNuggets&safe=off
>
> > Snit is obviously a pathological liar who cannot keep his lies
> > straight and a simple timeline bit him on the ass again.
>
> > I predict one or more of the following from Snit
>
> > He will NOT produce any posts prior to Sep. of 2003 that show
> > "others" "whining" about a name Snit claims he was "asked" to use.
> > ("...using the name they asked me to")
>
> > Attempt to garner more sympathy with an additional cock and bull
> > story.
>
> > Attempt to obfuscate the fact that he unquestionably said he used his
> > Brock puppet only "once", and only then by "mistake" (a clear and
> > blatant lie proven by Google).
>
> > Claim I am "attacking" him by pointing out a reality that he solely
> > created with the text that he posted to an anxiety newsgroup and csma.
>
> > Claim it is all just a big "mistake" (this is one of his favorites
> > lines)... or parts of it are 'mistakes'... or some such BS.
>
> > Claim that I am lying, despite Google *clearly* showing him to be the
> > liar on not only the initial outing of Brock but also on subsequent
> > attempts to get him to explain his bizarre actions in an anxiety
> > newsgroup (that he likes to claim he is being "attacked" if anyone
> > ever mentions it)
>
> Steve, stop
Snit, stop whining that your lies are still following you around like
so much toilet paper dangling from the back of your pants.
Snit
6/2/11 8:25 AM:
...
>> Claim that I am lying, despite Google *clearly* showing him to be the
>> liar on not only the initial outing of Brock but also on subsequent
>> attempts to get him to explain his bizarre actions in an anxiety
>> newsgroup (that he likes to claim he is being "attacked" if anyone
>> ever mentions it)
>
> Steve, stop being a fucktard. You claim that in 2008 he was wrong about
> something you say happened in 2003. What the fuck! Whatever problems Snit
> has your problems are many times worse.
Let's look at the timeline here. Now much of this is *years* in the past,
so details might be off. Who cares.
2003:
* I used a Usenet client where the email shown was tied to a joke email I
used. As I switched computers I had things set incorrectly and used the
joke email name in a Usenet post... and used my normal .sig and did
*nothing* to hide the mistake.
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.
In any case, 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).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris
> and used
> the joke email name in a Usenet post...
> ...
> * I used the same joke name in CSMA.
Why would yo post with a "joke email" or "joke name" in the first place?
> (yes, he claimed his goal was
> to have the person he claimed I was "impersonating" fired... he is,
> literally, insane).
As I don't follow what different persons may have said, would you mind
pointing to a post where he said that? In my opinion it is not OK to do
that, no matter what you might have posted on usenet.
Drs. Arend Preudhomme
news:29cdc757-a99d-41fe...@h36g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Stop whining, Carroll, you whining nuggethead!
Steve, you sure look like a Brock Cocked, nuggets paw to me!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH!, you pathetic whining brock pizza!
Snit
8:53 AM:
> Am Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:42:06 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>
>> and used
>> the joke email name in a Usenet post...
>
>> ...
>
>> * I used the same joke name in CSMA.
>
> Why would yo post with a "joke email" or "joke name" in the first place?
I used it as a silly name in email. My Usenet client ties Usenet accounts
to email accounts. I had tied it to the wrong one or not made the other
or... whatever. It was in 2003.
>> (yes, he claimed his goal was
>> to have the person he claimed I was "impersonating" fired... he is,
>> literally, insane).
>
> As I don't follow what different persons may have said, would you mind
> pointing to a post where he said that? In my opinion it is not OK to do
> that, no matter what you might have posted on usenet.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5ce16bd71bad1e12>
-----
Why, because I don't believe that a college level instructor,
at least, not one in his right mind, would act the way that
this "Snit" person has acted? Or that I might reasonably
believe, based on how he has acted, that this "Snit" person
isn't really a college level instructor at all but is merely
impersonating one?
Your position is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that this
potential imposter calling himself "Snit" has been tolerated
as long as he has is what's "SICK". Were you concerned for
the children in our society and fully cognizant of the role
model aspect that teachers play in it... you should be
standing beside me on this!
Undoubtedly, this person named "Snit" will claim I "know" he
is a teacher based on what I just wrote... but my point is
simple, it's to protect the role model aspect for real
teachers who work hard at what they do. I can do that here by
calling into question the likelihood of an imposter or a
person who, by sheer dumb luck, happens to hold a teaching
position while casting a very dark shadow on the teaching
profession in a public forum. Whatever turns out to be the
truth regarding any relationship between "Snit" and Michael
Glasser, given what "Snit" has written and done online, I'm
thoroughly convinced that the folks at Yavapai College will
see my viewpoint on this. If they don't then I'll have some
arm twisting to do. I don't expect to have to do much of that
but I am well aware of the mechanisms.
This "Snit" person... a person who posts while not using his
real name online and has told too many lies to count
(thereby, publicly trashing his reputation), seems to believe
(falsely) that the law will protect his anonymity... but he's
mistaken about that and he's about to have it proven to him
in a way I'm sure he never expected. He obviously believes
he's quite clever and has thought all the angles... but he
clearly hasn't. 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. Being that he's making
jokes about the whole thing... he's obviously not too worried
about it so I don't expect to see any sound reasoning come
from him. I reject the reasoning you've tried to use thus
far. Notably, not one other person has stepped up to offer a
sound reason.
-----
And read his past posts in the same thread. Steve Carroll is clearly not a
rational person.
Also note Steve cannot point to anything I have actually done - when asked,
note he pointed to some posts from 2003 where I accidently posted with a
name other than "Snit" and 2008 where I jokingly used the same name, was
busted, and immediately admitted to it. That is the best "evidence" he has.
And, yes, I know my saying that will lead to him posting a bunch other BS
and insisting if I do not address his lies I am somehow saying he has a
point.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
201106021654...@smtp.cobalt.loc on 6/2/11 9:54 AM:
>> Steve, stop
>>
>>
>> Snit, stop whining that your lies are still following you around like
>> so much toilet paper dangling from the back of your pants.
>
> Stop whining, Carroll, you whining nuggethead!
> Steve, you sure look like a Brock Cocked, nuggets paw to me!
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH!, you pathetic whining brock pizza!
Carroll thinks I am like him and use socks. Some of his known "aliases", as
he has called them:
"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit *
Big Crotch on a Small Fish
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Edward Stanfield
Fretwiz *
Hitman Hero
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Slaveen
Smit
Steve C *
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> *
Steve Carroll <stevec...@nowhere.com> *
Steve Carroll <troll...@TK.com> *
Steve Carroll's Dog *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve Carrroll *
Yevette Owens
Yobo_Obyo
The ones with asterisks are ones he has admitted to at one time or another
(there could be others, I rarely read his posts any more). He will deny
this... but ask him which he is willing to admit to now. He will *not*
answer - he has lost track of what names he has used and what admissions he
has made.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
Just curious... in your opinion... if Snit is impersonating someone is
it OK to try to and find out in order to get him to stop?
Steve Carroll
> Chris stated in post is8bl8$p6...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on 6/2/11
> 8:53 AM:
>
> > Am Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:42:06 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>
> >> and used
> >> the joke email name in a Usenet post...
>
> >> ...
>
> >> * I used the same joke name in CSMA.
>
> > Why would yo post with a "joke email" or "joke name" in the first place?
>
> I used it as a silly name in email. My Usenet client ties Usenet accounts
> to email accounts. I had tied it to the wrong one or not made the other
> or... whatever. It was in 2003.
Which still doesn't explain the reason you lied about its usage.
> >> (yes, he claimed his goal was
> >> to have the person he claimed I was "impersonating" fired... he is,
> >> literally, insane).
>
> > As I don't follow what different persons may have said, would you mind
> > pointing to a post where he said that? In my opinion it is not OK to do
> > that, no matter what you might have posted on usenet.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5ce16bd71bad...>
You mean like this:
"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? "Snit" runs from what he calls
my " total collapse" in 3... 2... 1... "
You never did answer this question. Are you ready to answer it now?
I'm betting no.
> Steve Carroll is clearly not a rational person.
>
> Also note Steve cannot point to anything I have actually done
I have written tons of posts regarding what you have "done" on usenet.
That they are not included in the above quoted material is just
another of your $2 red herrings. I'm sorry but people just aren't this
stupid Snit... they just aren't.
> - when asked,
> note he pointed to some posts from 2003 where I accidently posted with a
> name other than "Snit" and 2008 where I jokingly used the same name, was
> busted, and immediately admitted to it.
I wasn't "asked", I simply posted it at an appropriate time in an
appropriate place (where you made a claim that I countered). What's
more, I proved that you lied about your usage of the name Brock
McNuggets.
>That is the best "evidence" he has.
Another lie... many other posters, myself included, have shown all
kinds of your trolling. People point to it and you deny it. Just like
you are denying that you lied about using the Brock name more than
"once". Trust me, no one is missing the fact that you are completely
avoiding addressing it. Now you are on to another lie about me... done
as a smokescreen to cover the fact that I pointed to one of your other
lies. You really need to stop believing you are smarter than everyone
else... this fantasy isn't working out for you.
> And, yes, I know my saying that will lead to him posting a bunch other BS
> and insisting if I do not address his lies I am somehow saying he has a
> point.
Every sane, honest and honorable person who has read more than 5 of
your posts knows what my point is. That you believe you can go
unscathed in your trolling is another fantasy you need to dump.
In any event, let's see if this guy (Chris) is as stupid as you need
him to be. Let's see if he reads this the way you are trying to spin
it (where, as you claim, I said I'll try to get the person I feel you
might have been impersonating "fired"). Here I'm also betting no.
Drs. Arend Preudhomme
Stop whining, Carroll, you Brock Cocked nuggethead, brock pizza!
Snit
Steve wants to know if I am impersonating the person he claims I am (and he
has posted links to my employer's site with my name listed)... this is
freaking insane.
Carroll is not a rational person. He is completely consumed with hatred to
the point of being, literally, insane.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <fretwiz...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
> >news:1d4caffb-9975-4216...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 2, 9:53 am, Chris <chrisdh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> Am Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:42:06 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>
> >>> and used
> >>> the joke email name in a Usenet post...
> >>> ...
> >>> * I used the same joke name in CSMA.
>
> >> Why would yo post with a "joke email" or "joke name" in the first place?
>
> >>> (yes, he claimed his goal was
> >>> to have the person he claimed I was "impersonating" fired... he is,
> >>> literally, insane).
>
> >> As I don't follow what different persons may have said, would you mind
> >> pointing to a post where he said that? In my opinion it is not OK to do
> >> that, no matter what you might have posted on usenet.
>
> >> Just curious... in your opinion... if Snit is impersonating someone is
> >> it OK to try to and find out in order to get him to stop?
>
> > Stop whining, Carroll, you Brock Cocked nuggethead, brock pizza!
>
> Steve wants to know if I am impersonating the person
...you want everyone to believe you are?
> he claims I am
A delusional newsgroup nitwit.
> Carroll is not a rational person.
Opined the irrational gluehead of usenet.
> He is completely consumed with hatred to
> the point of being, literally, insane.
Quit whining about "hatred", Snit.. stop trying to garner sympathy by
singing your tired ol' victim song, no one is falling for it.
Chris
> Chris stated in post is8bl8$p6l$1...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
> 6/2/11 8:53 AM:
>> Am Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:42:06 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>> and used the joke email name in a Usenet post...
>>> ...
>>> * I used the same joke name in CSMA.
>> Why would yo post with a "joke email" or "joke name" in the first
>> place?
> I used it as a silly name in email. My Usenet client ties Usenet
> accounts to email accounts. I had tied it to the wrong one or not made
> the other or... whatever.
What? Is that supposed to be an explanation why you would bother to post
with another nickname than yours?
I still fail to see the need for a "joke name" or a "silly name in
email" (what does this mean?).
> It was in 2003.
So... you don't remember anymore? Was it something stupid you did a long
time ago? I can't make sense of it...
>>> (yes, he claimed his goal was to have the person he claimed I was
>>> "impersonating" fired... he is,
>>> literally, insane).
>> As I don't follow what different persons may have said, would you mind
>> pointing to a post where he said that? In my opinion it is not OK to do
>> that, no matter what you might have posted on usenet.
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/
msg/5ce16bd71bad1e12>
Hm... I don't know what is going on there. Looks like the usual circle of
accusations that produce a huge thread with no results at all.
> And read his past posts in the same thread. Steve Carroll is clearly
> not a rational person.
I tried...
> Also note Steve cannot point to anything I have actually done
I can't really make sense of it. So I go with not having an opinion on
that matter...
Chris
>> As I don't follow what different persons may have said, would you mind
>> pointing to a post where he said that? In my opinion it is not OK to do
>> that, no matter what you might have posted on usenet.
>
> Just curious... in your opinion... if Snit is impersonating someone is
> it OK to try to and find out in order to get him to stop?
As I said I don't know the background.
If there is evidence for snit claiming to be someone who you can prove he
isn't then yes, it in my opinion is OK to let the person know that
someone is posting in newsgroups using his/her name and maybe let others
know that he/she is no the one in the newsgroups.
If you have not enaugh evidence it shouldn't be hard to verify his
identity by politely contacting the person.
Snit
5:22 PM:
> Am Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:02:45 -0700 schrieb Steve Carroll:
>
>>> As I don't follow what different persons may have said, would you mind
>>> pointing to a post where he said that? In my opinion it is not OK to do
>>> that, no matter what you might have posted on usenet.
>>
>> Just curious... in your opinion... if Snit is impersonating someone is
>> it OK to try to and find out in order to get him to stop?
>
> As I said I don't know the background.
In order to "impersonate" someone, you must be claiming to be that someone.
Steve and his buddies tracked me down to where I work and Steve even posted
info on how to find my name at the work site. He then claimed I was
impersonating this person... so he was going to have me fired (even if he
had to twist arms). This is insane. Why work to get the person he claims I
am "impersonating" fired?
> If there is evidence for snit claiming to be someone who you can prove he
> isn't then yes, it in my opinion is OK to let the person know that
> someone is posting in newsgroups using his/her name and maybe let others
> know that he/she is no the one in the newsgroups.
As I quoted to you, Steve claimed to contact my employer with the intent of
having me be fired. Because he lost Usenet debates. Completely insane.
> If you have not enaugh evidence it shouldn't be hard to verify his
> identity by politely contacting the person.
He could have easily emailed me at the work email - it is at the site.
Instead he repeatedly emails my Usenet account with his lies and trolling.
I have repeatedly asked him to stop and he refuses. He also spends a large
amount of time digging through my web site and the sites of at least some of
my customers (I do not have stats on all of them... but I know of at least
three which he has hundreds of hits at each).
I also have emails from his ISP saying they will get him to cease... but he
now uses another Usenet provider (and his ISP no longer offers the service -
*they claim* in part because they did not want to deal with Steve and a
handful of other trouble makers).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
5:13 PM:
> Am Thu, 02 Jun 2011 10:22:51 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>
>> Chris stated in post is8bl8$p6l$1...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
>> 6/2/11 8:53 AM:
>>> Am Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:42:06 -0700 schrieb Snit:
>>>> and used the joke email name in a Usenet post...
>>>> ...
>>>> * I used the same joke name in CSMA.
>>> Why would yo post with a "joke email" or "joke name" in the first
>>> place?
>> I used it as a silly name in email. My Usenet client ties Usenet
>> accounts to email accounts. I had tied it to the wrong one or not made
>> the other or... whatever.
>
> What? Is that supposed to be an explanation why you would bother to post
> with another nickname than yours?
Oh, you mean when I did it years later in CSMA. Yeah, a joke. Posting with
the name "Brock McNuggets". The end of the world.
> I still fail to see the need for a "joke name" or a "silly name in
> email" (what does this mean?).
The one in email - a junkmail type account. Heck, I still have a "Brock
McNuggets" gmail account, I use for the same thing.
>> It was in 2003.
>
> So... you don't remember anymore? Was it something stupid you did a long
> time ago? I can't make sense of it...
I had a silly email name. Heck, I still have a gmail account with a similar
name. Just a funny name on an account I do not really use for anything
other than junk mail (and occasional emails to my wife or whatever just as a
silly name).
>>>> (yes, he claimed his goal was to have the person he claimed I was
>>>> "impersonating" fired... he is,
>>>> literally, insane).
>>> As I don't follow what different persons may have said, would you mind
>>> pointing to a post where he said that? In my opinion it is not OK to do
>>> that, no matter what you might have posted on usenet.
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/
> msg/5ce16bd71bad1e12>
>
> Hm... I don't know what is going on there. Looks like the usual circle of
> accusations that produce a huge thread with no results at all.
The accusations he makes are insane. He tracked me down to my job and then
accused me of impersonating the person he claims I am... and then said he
would have that person fired... the person he claims I am impersonating and
is not me. All done just to threaten me and show he can track me down. His
ex- tracked me down to where I used to live and tracked down the name of my
neighbors... claimed she was contacting them and having them watch me.
There is no "other side". Steve accuses me of lying and the like, but even
his best efforts to show this are mostly from 2006 and before (though he
moved all the way up to 2008 in his accusations today!). Even if he was
right about my having done told the lie he accused me of (using another name
as something other than a simple joke I admitted to), who cares? I mean,
really... so what? Is this worth tracking me down to my place of
employment? Obsessing over me to the point of trying to have me fired?
Encouraging others to contact my family? Telling the same lie about me
*thousands* of times?
He is completely irrational.
>> And read his past posts in the same thread. Steve Carroll is clearly
>> not a rational person.
>
> I tried...
>
>> Also note Steve cannot point to anything I have actually done
>
> I can't really make sense of it. So I go with not having an opinion on
> that matter...
No opinion on someone threatening to have another person fired... even as
they claim that person is not that person but is "impersonating" the person
to be fired? Ok. Not your battle... but there is no way his actions are
those of a sane person. Seriously, this has been going on since 2006 - he
follows me to every Usenet group I post to and lies about me... posting
posts from 2006 and before. When I do not engage him he babbles about how
this means I must think there is a duration to lies... even though his crap
has been refuted dozens if not hundreds of times.
He needs to find a life and stop following me around. His ex- got bad
enough the police got involved and contacted her - hence the reason she no
longer posts. And that is what this is really about for him... his ex-
obsessed over me (in 2006!) and he freaked out, accusing me of contacting
her outside of Usenet (I never did), etc. He thought I was trying to steal
her or whatever... Steve now claims to be married - *to another woman* - but
cannot let it go (and brags how his ex- lives right around the corner from
him). Oh, and Steve has accused me of contacting his wife to tell her about
his claims of infidelity - but I have never done that. Nor would I. I have
no desire to contact him or his family.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]