Snit the flaming liberal sounds like a frustrated faggot.

[michaelv...@gmail.com]

Snit has a definite lisp. Listen to his skype with Onion Knight. He sounds like a faggot which is why he is pretending to be Onion Knight and using that nym to lash out his twisted sexuality. He uses the Onion Knight nym to attack carrol with all that bowjob crap. No wonder he is voting for Obammy. The democrats love the fags. They cater to them. Snit is just doing what comes naturally to him. Sucking dick and taking it up the ass.

[Foster]

Which voice?

The real snit voice or the one where he pretends to be Onion Knight
and the voice suddenly drops down 2 octaves in the first skype.

He has a stooge for the second one, obviously.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 5:07 PM, in article
9c3b02dc-edaf-412b...@googlegroups.com,

Gee, my stalker gets mad at me and "anonymous" socks start spewing things
like the above. Never happens when he is not around, but often does when he
is.

Now who could it be? LOL!


--
"In fact, the main goal of Linux might be called usability... the most
important thing is that it works well and people ... want to use it."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 5:20 PM, in article vvxz3mwbh6am$.quefjels...@40tude.net,

LOL! Yes, you *are* bragging about how stupid you are. Really... just
amazing.


--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I
have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Foster]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:26:46 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 9/24/12 5:20 PM, in article vvxz3mwbh6am$.quefjels...@40tude.net,
> "Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:07:16 -0700 (PDT),
>> michaelv...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Snit has a definite lisp. Listen to his skype with Onion Knight.
>>> He sounds like a faggot which is why he is pretending to be Onion
>>> Knight and using that nym to lash out his twisted sexuality. He
>>> uses the Onion Knight nym to attack carrol with all that bowjob
>>> crap. No wonder he is voting for Obammy. The democrats love the
>>> fags. They cater to them. Snit is just doing what comes naturally
>>> to him. Sucking dick and taking it up the ass.
>>
>> Which voice?
>>
>> The real snit voice or the one where he pretends to be Onion Knight
>> and the voice suddenly drops down 2 octaves in the first skype.
>>
>> He has a stooge for the second one, obviously.
>
> LOL! Yes, you *are* bragging about how stupid you are. Really... just
> amazing.

Would you like to hear it?
Post a site where I can upload it for free and I will.

I don't think you want to though.

The ball is in your court.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 5:32 PM, in article 1d0rh8ifhtna1$.18dklkrz...@40tude.net,

"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:26:46 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/12 5:20 PM, in article vvxz3mwbh6am$.quefjels...@40tude.net,
>> "Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:07:16 -0700 (PDT),
>>> michaelv...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Snit has a definite lisp. Listen to his skype with Onion Knight.
>>>> He sounds like a faggot which is why he is pretending to be Onion
>>>> Knight and using that nym to lash out his twisted sexuality. He
>>>> uses the Onion Knight nym to attack carrol with all that bowjob
>>>> crap. No wonder he is voting for Obammy. The democrats love the
>>>> fags. They cater to them. Snit is just doing what comes naturally
>>>> to him. Sucking dick and taking it up the ass.
>>>
>>> Which voice?
>>>
>>> The real snit voice or the one where he pretends to be Onion Knight
>>> and the voice suddenly drops down 2 octaves in the first skype.
>>>
>>> He has a stooge for the second one, obviously.
>>
>> LOL! Yes, you *are* bragging about how stupid you are. Really... just
>> amazing.
>
> Would you like to hear it?

Hear your bragging about how you *still* think Onion Knight's voice and mine
are the same but at a different octave. Sure! You just go ahead and brag
about how stupid you are!

> Post a site where I can upload it for free and I will.

Where you can upload a file where you speak of how stupid your claims are...
um, sure... Media Fire.

> I don't think you want to though.

Media Fire. Upload what ever bragging about your stupidity that you want.
Or email the file to me and I will post it and provide a link. You can post
a checksum on it so there is proof it is not modified.

> The ball is in your court.

You are the one pushing an idiotic and frankly *stupid* claim. There is no
"ball" and there is no "court"... for there is *no* chance of you ever
backing something as brain dead as your claim. Got it?

You will *never* prove that two people with two different voices are somehow
using the same voice but with a voice modification program. The fact you
think you can is, get this, *stupid*.

Play ball!

--
"I started Linux as a desktop operating system. And it's the only area
where Linux hasn't completely taken over. That just annoys the hell out
of me." -- Linus Torvalds

[Foster]

MediaFire sits there saying Loading and does nothing.
Got another one?

[Foster]

Ok Chrome worked firefox just hangs.
Here is the link:

http://www.mediafire.com/?x3ii1jkmi1rxvhu

Notice how when "Onion Knight" says "Hi" his voice sounds a lot like
Snit, but when he continues his voice all of a sudden drops down a
few octaves sounding much deeper?

When snit processed the Onion Knight response file, he started too
late and screwed up.

This is direct from the *.wav files offered for the download.

Judge for yourself.

http://www.mediafire.com/?x3ii1jkmi1rxvhu

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 6:26 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/12 5:07 PM, in article
> 9c3b02dc-edaf-412b...@googlegroups.com,
>

> "michaelvester1...@gmail.com" <michaelvester1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Snit has a definite lisp. Listen to his skype with Onion Knight. He sounds
> > like a faggot which is why he is pretending to be Onion Knight and using that
> > nym to lash out his twisted sexuality. He uses the Onion Knight nym to attack
> > carrol with all that bowjob crap. No wonder he is voting for Obammy. The
> > democrats love the fags. They cater to them. Snit is just doing what comes
> > naturally to him. Sucking dick and taking it up the ass.
>
> Gee, my stalker gets mad at me

I'll bite... what am I allegedly "mad" at you for now, Mr. Narcissist?

> and "anonymous" socks start spewing things
> like the above.

Like you've never done this before to garner sympathy.

> Never happens when he is not around, but often does when he
> is.
>
> Now who could it be?  LOL!

You.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 5:52 PM, in article xvtb6iwkhxke.uklm5q7hport$.d...@40tude.net,

Yeah, email me and I will post it. Whatever this file is of yours.

Do you think it proves that two people are one? I look forward to getting
it.

But I bet you cc on this... never producing *anything* because even you know
your claim is stupid.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 5:58 PM, in article lb1k9n7fu5c9$.1a5cu5x8...@40tude.net,

And you think this somehow shows two people with two different voices are
one person. *That* is your claim. You really are making that *stupid* of a
claim... just to be clear.

--
"But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don't even want
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Foster]

Try again Snit......
Your bull shit won't work with me.
This is very simple.


It's one person..... You.....
Your vocal processing failed....

Anyone... Listen to where the supposed Onion Knight says "Hi"
compared to where he continues to speak.
Hear how it sounds different?

It's plainly obvious.

[Foster]

Done.

And there is no way you can deny that Onion Knight's voice has been
processed.

That is EXACTLY why it would never stand up in a court of law.

Where Onion Knight says "HI" and where he continues, sounds
completely different.

You want voice imprints of both?

I can post that as well.

You're not going to like it though.

Trust me.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 7:02 PM, in article 1gl03p8gntbrg$.d40rphbw...@40tude.net,

You are bragging that you are stupid enough to say you think two people with
two different voices who have done two Skypes - including one with cc - are
one person.

You are bragging about being stupid.

But, hey, if Onion Knight is willing to have a Skype with you so am I. But
even if that happens you will still lie and say you have a court expert
"proving" something which is clearly not true.

Really... just stupid. And you brag about it. Amazing.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 7:04 PM, in article 1kvm7rodff9uu.1...@40tude.net,
"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

>>>> Play ball!
>>>
>>> MediaFire sits there saying Loading and does nothing.
>>> Got another one?
>>
>> Yeah, email me and I will post it. Whatever this file is of yours.
>
> Done.
>
> And there is no way you can deny that Onion Knight's voice has been
> processed.

So you claim that Skype quality recordings are a sign of a voice being
"processed".

That is, as I keep telling you, stupid.

You see, Skype might be low quality, and it surely does some "processing" of
the data that goes over the network, but only a stupid person would
insinuate that such "processing" makes two people - with two clearly
different voices - become one person.

And you are claiming - bragging - that you are *that* stupid.

> That is EXACTLY why it would never stand up in a court of law.

You mean Skype calls are not of high enough quality to be used as evidence
in court. Wow. Amazing. All those times I said otherwise... wow... I
rescind them all. Remove them from the record. Done. Those comments of
mine have been *fully* removed from the Google archive and all other.

I am *that* good. :)

> Where Onion Knight says "HI" and where he continues, sounds
> completely different.
>
> You want voice imprints of both?

Sure!

> I can post that as well.
>
> You're not going to like it though.
>
> Trust me.

LOL! I do not exactly like you bragging about how stupid you are as you
push lies about me... but it is not like I will lose sleep over it.

But, hey, if Onion Knight is open to it I will Skype with you and he... but
let's do it *after* you post these "voice imprints" and you directly say you
are proving something even you know to be... you got it... *STUPID*.

Yes, this whole claim of Onion Knight being my sock and his voice and mine
being the same is *STUPID*. Only a very stupid person would believe it at
this point.

Not be clear: are you claiming to be *that* stupid?

[Foster]

No...
I am saying the start of one person speaking does not sound like the
rest of that same person speaking.

It's very simple and easily heard...

Your snit circus won't work with me snit.

Give it up..

The claim is above.

Argue the claim if you want but the audio speaks for itself,
literally.

[Foster]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:21:37 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 9/24/12 7:04 PM, in article 1kvm7rodff9uu.1...@40tude.net,
> "Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>> Play ball!
>>>>
>>>> MediaFire sits there saying Loading and does nothing.
>>>> Got another one?
>>>
>>> Yeah, email me and I will post it. Whatever this file is of yours.
>>
>> Done.
>>
>> And there is no way you can deny that Onion Knight's voice has been
>> processed.
>
> So you claim that Skype quality recordings are a sign of a voice being
> "processed".

No,.

I and others find it very odd that the only difference in sound
quality is right at the start of the audio indicating a screw up on
your part.

The audio through out the rest of file is of a very deep, bass
sounding Onion Knight and is consistent.

You would lose big time in a court of law because of this.
In fact you would be torn to ribbons.

Try again.

I simply do not believe your first skype was anyone but you.
Your second Skype is with you and a stooge.


Add into the equation your second skype where you conveniently
"forgot" to record the entire conversation, coupled with Onion
Knight's obvious cluelessness regarding going on in COLA and it all
smells extremely like a set up.

Sorry Snit but you are faking all of this and as far as postings in
COLA are concerned, there isn't a single person here who believes
your postings and Onion Knights are done by two people.

You are one in the same regardless of how you faked the Skypes.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 8:04 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:50:25 -0700, Snit wrote:

> > On 9/24/12 5:52 PM, in article xvtb6iwkhxke.uklm5q7hport$....@40tude.net,

> > "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:36:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
>

> >>> On 9/24/12 5:32 PM, in article 1d0rh8ifhtna1$.18dklkrznxbkg....@40tude.net,

> >>> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:26:46 -0700, Snit wrote:
>

> >>>>> On 9/24/12 5:20 PM, in article vvxz3mwbh6am$.quefjels6g0l....@40tude.net,

Well, it sure sounds there is some processing going on to my ear...
but I've never used Skype so I don't know what would happen to a voice
as a result of it.

> That is EXACTLY why it would never stand up in a court of law.

Which also means this "proof" of Snit's doesn't prove what he claims
it does... not that there was ever a reason to believe it did anyway.

Long ago I learned that anything Snit is involved in should be highly
suspect. I watched him lie in a multitude of directions when he was
caught red handed by Sandman and Steve Mackay on CSMA over his
sigmond sock puppet. The fool even tried to sell the bogus idea that
sigmond was someone who "snuck" into his house. No, I'm not
kidding... and this is what you'd have to believe to buy his story...
this person:

1 - "snuck" into Snit's house (and got passed Snit's computer
password)

2 - wrote to a particular person on a particular newsgroup on usenet,
all in defense of Snit.

3 - was somehow, miraculously, aware of obscure pieces of CSMA posting
history.

Minus the house entry aspect, this kind of thing kept occurring after
Snit's sigmond sock puppet... and it still does today... and in pretty
much the same ways.

> Where Onion Knight says "HI" and where he continues, sounds
> completely different.

Yeah, very weird... and very unnatural, too.

> You want voice imprints of both?
>
> I can post that as well.

You have voiceprints? LOL!

> You're not going to like it though.
>
> Trust me.

I've read they can be as good as fingerprints if the quality of the
evidence is there... which it may not be in this case.

[Foster]

Obviously processed.

>> That is EXACTLY why it would never stand up in a court of law.
>
> Which also means this "proof" of Snit's doesn't prove what he claims
> it does... not that there was ever a reason to believe it did anyway.

It wouldn't pass even first base in a court of law.

> Long ago I learned that anything Snit is involved in should be highly
> suspect. I watched him lie in a multitude of directions when he was
> caught red handed by Sandman and Steve Mackay on CSMA over his
> sigmond sock puppet. The fool even tried to sell the bogus idea that
> sigmond was someone who "snuck" into his house. No, I'm not
> kidding... and this is what you'd have to believe to buy his story...
> this person:

I know little of snit.
I don't follow him.
I agree with a lot of what he says.
I do notice he starts the snit circus when confronted and I'm not
getting sucked into that.

>> Where Onion Knight says "HI" and where he continues, sounds
>> completely different.
>
> Yeah, very weird... and very unnatural, too.

Of course it is.
It's obvious and the start of the file is the ONLY PLACE where it
occurs.
If it were a Skype artifact, one would expect it, or other artifacts
to occur through out the conversation.

They do not.

The rest is picture perfect, which is the entire point.

>> You want voice imprints of both?
>>
>> I can post that as well.
>
> You have voiceprints? LOL!

Poor choice of words.

Audio prints... Really the same thing since it's just a voice.

I'll upload later today.

Very revealing as it's a graphic.

>> You're not going to like it though.
>>
>> Trust me.
>
> I've read they can be as good as fingerprints if the quality of the
> evidence is there... which it may not be in this case.

Judge for yourself when I post them.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 8:00 PM, in article 1h898py68jck2.yl4j06ww34mu$.d...@40tude.net,

"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> Done.
>>>
>>> And there is no way you can deny that Onion Knight's voice has been
>>> processed.
>>
>> Well, it sure sounds there is some processing going on to my ear...
>> but I've never used Skype so I don't know what would happen to a voice
>> as a result of it.
>
> Obviously processed.

Yes, I am sure Skype "processes" voice that it sends. Of course.

That is the *only* processing, other than whatever slight alterations might
be made with ScreenFlow's recording and saving.

>>> That is EXACTLY why it would never stand up in a court of law.
>>
>> Which also means this "proof" of Snit's doesn't prove what he claims
>> it does... not that there was ever a reason to believe it did anyway.
>
> It wouldn't pass even first base in a court of law.

But yet you are claiming - stupidly - that it somehow shows two *different*
people with *different* voices are the same person, right?

Or are you no longer making that *stupid* claim? Be clear!

>> Long ago I learned that anything Snit is involved in should be highly
>> suspect. I watched him lie in a multitude of directions when he was
>> caught red handed by Sandman and Steve Mackay on CSMA over his
>> sigmond sock puppet. The fool even tried to sell the bogus idea that
>> sigmond was someone who "snuck" into his house. No, I'm not
>> kidding... and this is what you'd have to believe to buy his story...
>> this person:
>
> I know little of snit.
> I don't follow him.
> I agree with a lot of what he says.
> I do notice he starts the snit circus when confronted and I'm not
> getting sucked into that.

I think much of what you say is quite reasonable... but on this you are
being stupid: referring to a Skype call as being "processed" as if there was
something wrong with Skype compressing packets or whatever.

>>> Where Onion Knight says "HI" and where he continues, sounds
>>> completely different.
>>
>> Yeah, very weird... and very unnatural, too.
>
> Of course it is.
> It's obvious and the start of the file is the ONLY PLACE where it
> occurs.
> If it were a Skype artifact, one would expect it, or other artifacts
> to occur through out the conversation.
>
> They do not.
>
> The rest is picture perfect, which is the entire point.

If it is not a Skype artifact then what the hell else could it be?
Remember, *I* did the recording and know the *exact* process:

1) Use Skype
2) Record with ScreenFlow
3) Export in AIFF
4) Upload

Now you tell me where you think additional "processing" happens in that list
of steps.

No. I will tell you: *nowhere*.

>>> You want voice imprints of both?
>>>
>>> I can post that as well.
>>
>> You have voiceprints? LOL!
>
> Poor choice of words.
>
> Audio prints... Really the same thing since it's just a voice.
>
> I'll upload later today.
>
> Very revealing as it's a graphic.

Oh, my! I look forward to it.

But keep in mind - if you claim two different people have the same voice you
are being *stupid*.

And, as I have told you, I am happy to Skype with you and Onion Knight.
Prove you even *more* wrong. And this time I will not be "stupid" and forget
to record myself. :)

>>> You're not going to like it though.
>>>
>>> Trust me.
>>
>> I've read they can be as good as fingerprints if the quality of the
>> evidence is there... which it may not be in this case.
>
> Judge for yourself when I post them.

Hint: he will lie about me *every* chance he gets. Every. Single. Chance.

For a decade.

--

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 7:30 PM, in article 1vsf3hxu3mr69.odi0on75gtk7$.d...@40tude.net,

"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:21:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/12 7:04 PM, in article 1kvm7rodff9uu.1...@40tude.net,
>> "Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>>> Play ball!
>>>>>
>>>>> MediaFire sits there saying Loading and does nothing.
>>>>> Got another one?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, email me and I will post it. Whatever this file is of yours.
>>>
>>> Done.
>>>
>>> And there is no way you can deny that Onion Knight's voice has been
>>> processed.
>>
>> So you claim that Skype quality recordings are a sign of a voice being
>> "processed".
>
> No,.

That is *exactly* what you are claiming.

There is no other "processing" other than what ScreenFlow does in recording
and saving. None.

Given that, what "processing" are you talking about? Be specific here!

> I and others find it very odd that the only difference in sound
> quality is right at the start of the audio indicating a screw up on
> your part.

What you find "odd" is not relevant. The question is this, given this set
of steps, what "processing" are you in reference to:

1) Use Skype
2) Record with ScreenFlow
3) Export in AIFF
4) Upload

Be clear just what type processing you think was being done. In the AIFF I
even turned off leveling and background noise reduction. So no processing
from that. So what processing do you mean?

Hey, ask your court expert friend!

> The audio through out the rest of file is of a very deep, bass
> sounding Onion Knight and is consistent.
>
> You would lose big time in a court of law because of this.
> In fact you would be torn to ribbons.
>
> Try again.

Court? What are you talking about? Be clear with what type "processing"
you think was done (keeping in mind the procedure described above) and what
you think it means.

And since Onion Knight's voice is on his own track, why would part of a
track not get processes but the rest would? Your story is vague and stupid.
Really.

> I simply do not believe your first skype was anyone but you.

We have already established you are claiming to be stupid enough to think
two people have the same voice... after some form of "processing" you cannot
define.

> Your second Skype is with you and a stooge.

A "stooge" with the *exact* same voice. No, that is stupid.

> Add into the equation your second skype where you conveniently
> "forgot" to record the entire conversation, coupled with Onion
> Knight's obvious cluelessness regarding going on in COLA and it all
> smells extremely like a set up.

His "cluelessness"? cc was the one who was completely clueless...

1) Why did cc have no recollection of the "outliers" files I showed him?
2) Why did cc have no recollection of the standard deviation video?
3) Why can't cc provide the Excel file he gave his word he would share?

Onion Knight answered every question asked of him. What more would you have
wanted him to say? Be *specific*... as I am with cc, above.

> Sorry Snit but you are faking all of this and as far as postings in
> COLA are concerned, there isn't a single person here who believes
> your postings and Onion Knights are done by two people.

So your claim is *everyone* is COLA is as stupid as you and thinks two
people have the same voice. Amazing.

> You are one in the same regardless of how you faked the Skypes.

Your stupidity in this is amazing.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 9:00 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

(snip)

> > Yeah, very weird... and very unnatural, too.
>
> Of course it is.
> It's obvious and the start of the file is the ONLY PLACE where it
> occurs.
> If it were a Skype artifact, one would expect it, or other artifacts
> to occur through out the conversation.

I understand your point... but I really don't know enough about Skype
to know the degree and type of artifacts that might crop up. Being
that it is done once and where it is done is, I admit, highly
suspect... but I'm willing to admit I don't know what I don't know...
even when it comes to pointing the finger at this idiot. As Sandman
pointed out in COLA awhile back, Snit has done this exact kind of
thing in the past... so, from my standpoint it really doesn't make a
difference whether it's Snit or not... it's just as likely to be him.

> >> You want voice imprints of both?
>
> >> I can post that as well.
>
> > You have voiceprints? LOL!
>
> Poor choice of words.

Oh... I dunno... I wasn't trying to get picky with the name, I
honestly thought they were called voiceprints. Anyway, whatever we
label them I found it funny that you bothered to get some to prove
Snit is a pathetic liar... I mean, who doesn't know this ;)

> Audio prints... Really the same thing since it's just a voice.
>
> I'll upload later today.
>
> Very revealing as it's a graphic.
>
> >> You're not going to like it though.
>
> >> Trust me.
>
> > I've read they can be as good as fingerprints if the quality of the
> > evidence is there... which it may not be in this case.
>
> Judge for yourself when I post them.

I'm not sure I'll know what I'm looking for to see the match but I'll
take a look. Will it be that obvious?

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 9:14 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/12 8:00 PM, in article 1h898py68jck2.yl4j06ww34mu$....@40tude.net,

>
> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Done.
>
> >>> And there is no way you can deny that Onion Knight's voice has been
> >>> processed.
>
> >> Well, it sure sounds there is some processing going on to my ear...
> >> but I've never used Skype so I don't know what would happen to a voice
> >> as a result of it.
>
> > Obviously processed.
>
> Yes, I am sure Skype "processes" voice that it sends. Of course.

Make up your mind, gluehead! You just finished writing:

"So you claim that Skype quality recordings are a sign of a voice
being
"processed".

That is, as I keep telling you, stupid." - Snit

Are you still smoking crack tonight, Snit? Maybe you should put it
away ;)

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 7:25 PM, in article pj8vt6e6wp03$.571f59bd4xif$.d...@40tude.net,

Ok, enough silliness... time for you to answer questions:

1) Why would part of one track not get "processed" when the rest, you claim,
was? How would such a thing happen?

2) What type "processing" do you mean? Keep in mind the procedure to make
the audio was to use Skype, record in ScreenFlow, export, and upload.

3) Why do you claim two people with *different* voices are the same person?

4) Why would these two people (as shown by the fact that they have the same
voices - though mine was not recorded) make a *second* Skype call with cc?

5) Why would Onion Knight offer to allow a *video* session?

6) Why would I offer to do a Skype with you and Onion Knight?

7) Why would some unknown court "expert" claim two people with different
voices have the same voice? I think you just made him up but maybe he is
merely incompetent.

8) Be specific as to your accusation: are you saying that in that recording
Onion Knight and I used the same voice (are you claiming that two different
people used *one* voice). If so, how do you explain this... as far as I
know we are not even related!

[Foster]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:21:53 -0700, Snit wrote:


> Your stupidity in this is amazing.

Sorry snit.
You can call me whatever you want, the facts are clear for anyone to
hear.
And you can try and explain it any way you please but trust me you
are barely treading water.

I see the snit circus in action here and all the ranting and lying
in the world isn't going to change the facts that I have presented.

The voice is processed.
The voice changes.
YOU are Onion Knight in COLA.
Your second Skype has a stooge who does a real poor job playing the
part of Onion Knight.

These are the facts...

If you dispute them, fine, start explaining.

You can start with the fact that in the second Skype, "Oniion
Knight" seems to have little knowledge of what was previously
discussed in COLA yet he was involved in these discussions in COLA.

How do you explain this?

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 9:14 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

(snip)

> If it is not a Skype artifact then what the hell else could it be?
> Remember, *I* did the recording and know the *exact* process:
>
> 1) Use Skype
> 2) Record with ScreenFlow
> 3) Export in AIFF
> 4) Upload
>
> Now you tell me where you think additional "processing" happens in that list
> of steps.
>
> No.  I will tell you: *nowhere*.

Oh... well being that *you* said it, things are all clear now. LOL!

> >>> You want voice imprints of both?
>
> >>> I can post that as well.
>
> >> You have voiceprints? LOL!
>
> > Poor choice of words.
>
> > Audio prints... Really the same thing since it's just a voice.
>
> > I'll upload later today.
>
> > Very revealing as it's a graphic.
>
> Oh, my!  I look forward to it.
>
> But keep in mind - if you claim two different people have the same voice you
> are being *stupid*.

What if the prints are so obviously matching that even someone with no
experience can spot it? Lemme guess... you'll be like one of those
people that miserably fail lie detector tests multiple times on these
daytime TV shows... you know, the ones that are *still* swearing
they're not lying. ;)

> And, as I have told you, I am happy to Skype with you and Onion Knight.
> Prove you even *more* wrong. And this time I will not be "stupid" and forget
> to record myself.  :)

Oh... you'll still be stupid, I'm afraid nothing can stop that. LOL!

> >>> You're not going to like it though.
>
> >>> Trust me.
>
> >> I've read they can be as good as fingerprints if the quality of the
> >> evidence is there... which it may not be in this case.
>
> > Judge for yourself when I post them.
>
> Hint: he will lie about me *every* chance he gets.  Every. Single. Chance.

Except... I'm the one that agreed with you... oops! Another lie about
me by Snit. LOL!

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 8:36 PM, in article 1qew9yd3dxxsh$.oh01lbu5rv3p$.d...@40tude.net,

"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:21:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>
>> Your stupidity in this is amazing.
>
> Sorry snit.
> You can call me whatever you want, the facts are clear for anyone to
> hear.

I am merely noting your accusations and insinuations are stupid. And they
are. But answer some questions:

1) Why would part of one track not get "processed" when the rest, you claim,
was? How would such a thing happen?

2) What type "processing" do you mean? Keep in mind the procedure to make
the audio was to use Skype, record in ScreenFlow, export, and upload.

3) Why do you claim two people with *different* voices are the same person?

4) Why would these two people (as shown by the fact that they have the same
voices - though mine was not recorded) make a *second* Skype call with cc?

5) Why would Onion Knight offer to allow a *video* session?

6) Why would I offer to do a Skype with you and Onion Knight?

7) Why would some unknown court "expert" claim two people with different
voices have the same voice? I think you just made him up but maybe he is
merely incompetent.

8) Be specific as to your accusation: are you saying that in that recording
Onion Knight and I used the same voice (are you claiming that two different
people used *one* voice). If so, how do you explain this... as far as I
know we are not even related!

> And you can try and explain it any way you please but trust me you
> are barely treading water.

There is nothing to explain - I have already told you what I did to produce
the audio file. What more could I possibly tell you?

> I see the snit circus in action here and all the ranting and lying
> in the world isn't going to change the facts that I have presented.

LOL! You are blaming me for merely responding to you making insane
accusations.

> The voice is processed.

Yes: Skype processes voice as it transmits it. This is not in question.

> The voice changes.

See question 1, above. You cannot answer that. Your story makes no sense.

> YOU are Onion Knight in COLA.

This is a direct lie from you.

> Your second Skype has a stooge who does a real poor job playing the
> part of Onion Knight.

Another direct lie from you.

> These are the facts...

No, those are your lies.

> If you dispute them, fine, start explaining.

I have already told you how the file was made. Nothing else to explain.

> You can start with the fact that in the second Skype, "Oniion
> Knight" seems to have little knowledge of what was previously
> discussed in COLA yet he was involved in these discussions in COLA.
>
> How do you explain this?

Nobody has named a single thing he "should" have known but did not. cc on
the other hand was a clueless idiot:

1) Why did cc have no recollection of the "outliers" files I showed him?
2) Why did cc have no recollection of the standard deviation video?
3) Why can't cc provide the Excel file he gave his word he would share?

But neither you nor cc can answer those questions. Onion Knight clearly
knew *far* more about the COLA conversation than did cc!

--
"90% of computers use Microsoft's Windows ... Macs account for 9% of the
market while the open source system Linux accounts for 0.8%."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Foster]

You screwed up.
Simple.

> 2) What type "processing" do you mean? Keep in mind the procedure to make
> the audio was to use Skype, record in ScreenFlow, export, and upload.

You piped it through a voice processor.
Tons of them exist.

> 3) Why do you claim two people with *different* voices are the same person?

I don't claim that at all.
That is YOUR lame attempt at starting up the snit circus.

> 4) Why would these two people (as shown by the fact that they have the same
> voices - though mine was not recorded) make a *second* Skype call with cc?

You mean the one where you conveniently forgot to record the people?
Yea sure....

Keep digging that hole.

> 5) Why would Onion Knight offer to allow a *video* session?

I haven't seen a video session.
Have you?

> 6) Why would I offer to do a Skype with you and Onion Knight?

Because you would screw it up or have a stooge present.

You are trying to confabulate your first Skype, where you faked OK
with your second skype where you had a stooge.

Two different events.

> 7) Why would some unknown court "expert" claim two people with different
> voices have the same voice? I think you just made him up but maybe he is
> merely incompetent.

She is not claiming that. You are the one claiming that and you keep
saying this despite my explaining to you what is being presented.
The snit circus in action I suppose.

Here it is once and for all, get it or get lost:

The first skype...the person speaking as Onion Knight sounds
completely different when he says "Hi" compared to the rest of his
dialog.
When he says Hi, he sounds a lot like Snit...
That doesn't matter though because in a court of law the entire
dialog, taken as a whole, sounds processed and fake. From the Hi to
the end.
That is a FACT and if you dispute it that's fine but sorry, that is
the way a jury will hear it and you will lose.

> 8) Be specific as to your accusation: are you saying that in that recording
> Onion Knight and I used the same voice (are you claiming that two different
> people used *one* voice). If so, how do you explain this... as far as I
> know we are not even related!

I am completely specific.
Stop the crap Snit.
Stop the snit circus...

I won't be sucked into your half truths and lies.

The audio file is there for anyone to listen.
If they don't hear a difference in sound and the processing of the
so called Onion Knight voice, then they are either using inferior
sound equipment or are deaf.
It's that obvious and all your squirming and snit circus crap won't
change that fact.

[Foster]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:42:57 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 9/24/12 8:36 PM, in article 1qew9yd3dxxsh$.oh01lbu5rv3p$.d...@40tude.net,
> "Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:21:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Your stupidity in this is amazing.
>>
>> Sorry snit.
>> You can call me whatever you want, the facts are clear for anyone to
>> hear.
>
> I am merely noting your accusations and insinuations are stupid. And they
> are. But answer some questions:

No they are not.
Anyone can hear for themselves the processing in Onion Knight's
voice.

Keep dancing snit.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 8:46 PM, in article g8umnlegd84e.rwreowwrttfk$.d...@40tude.net,

"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Ok, enough silliness... time for you to answer questions:
>>
>> 1) Why would part of one track not get "processed" when the rest, you claim,
>> was? How would such a thing happen?
>
> You screwed up.
> Simple.

How does one "screw up" and "process" only part of a track? That makes no
sense. On the initial MP3 I did do some processing - as I have described: I
used ScreenFlow's noise reduction and leveling tools... but I applied them
to tracks as a whole. Now I *could* split tracks or alter the processing
for a track, but to do so would be *added* work. It would take effort to
"screw up" and only process *part* of a track. Does not even make sense to
claim this is possible.

>> 2) What type "processing" do you mean? Keep in mind the procedure to make
>> the audio was to use Skype, record in ScreenFlow, export, and upload.
>
> You piped it through a voice processor.
> Tons of them exist.

ScreenFlow does not have a voice processor. *That* is the tool I used.
Period. Your claim is erroneous.

But let us say it was not - why would only *part* of the track get such
treatment? How would that happen *on accident*?

>> 3) Why do you claim two people with *different* voices are the same person?
>
> I don't claim that at all.
> That is YOUR lame attempt at starting up the snit circus.

It is *exactly* what you are claiming - you are saying two people with
different voices are the same person. *THAT* is your claim. Period. So
explain it!

>> 4) Why would these two people (as shown by the fact that they have the same
>> voices - though mine was not recorded) make a *second* Skype call with cc?
>
> You mean the one where you conveniently forgot to record the people?
> Yea sure....
>
> Keep digging that hole.

cc heard the voices and verified that they were different voices. And Onion
Knights was recorded. And it is clearly the same person in both recordings
(Onion Knight is, well, Onion Knight).

>> 5) Why would Onion Knight offer to allow a *video* session?
>
> I haven't seen a video session.
> Have you?

Your question implied I said there was such a video... even though nobody
made such a claim. You dodged the question: he *offered* and cc declined.
Why would he make the offer if he was, well, me? My face is well known in
COLA - he offered to let people see him talk and hear his voice.

Why would he do this if he was me?

>> 6) Why would I offer to do a Skype with you and Onion Knight?
>
> Because you would screw it up or have a stooge present.
>
> You are trying to confabulate your first Skype, where you faked OK
> with your second skype where you had a stooge.
>
> Two different events.

Ah, you think I found someone who sounds *exactly* like me with a processed
voice.

Seriously, that is *stupid*. I mean, is it even possible? If so, how?

>> 7) Why would some unknown court "expert" claim two people with different
>> voices have the same voice? I think you just made him up but maybe he is
>> merely incompetent.
>
> She is not claiming that.

Wait. I goofed - before it was Torre Starnes who said they had a court
expert listen to it.

Now you say you did.

Um, are you Torre Starnes? LOL! BUSTED!

> You are the one claiming that and you keep
> saying this despite my explaining to you what is being presented.

You are saying it is your belief that two people, Onion Knight and I, have
the same voice. THAT is your claim, right?

> The snit circus in action I suppose.
>
> Here it is once and for all, get it or get lost:
>
> The first skype...the person speaking as Onion Knight sounds
> completely different when he says "Hi" compared to the rest of his
> dialog.

Skype sucks. Oh well.

> When he says Hi, he sounds a lot like Snit...

So somehow only part of the track was "processed" through a program I did
not use. And you think this is anything other than a stupid claim. Got it.

> That doesn't matter though because in a court of law the entire
> dialog, taken as a whole, sounds processed and fake. From the Hi to
> the end.

Skype sound quality sucks. Oh well.

> That is a FACT and if you dispute it that's fine but sorry, that is
> the way a jury will hear it and you will lose.

There is no jury here - just you making stupid, unsupported claims.

>> 8) Be specific as to your accusation: are you saying that in that recording
>> Onion Knight and I used the same voice (are you claiming that two different
>> people used *one* voice). If so, how do you explain this... as far as I
>> know we are not even related!
>
> I am completely specific.
> Stop the crap Snit.
> Stop the snit circus...
>
> I won't be sucked into your half truths and lies.
>
> The audio file is there for anyone to listen.
> If they don't hear a difference in sound and the processing of the
> so called Onion Knight voice, then they are either using inferior
> sound equipment or are deaf.
> It's that obvious and all your squirming and snit circus crap won't
> change that fact.

Are you claiming that the two people in the audio (Onion Knight and myself)
are speaking in the same voice? Come on, *ANSWER THE QUESTION*.

And, no, claiming we are the same person is not an acceptable response to
that question... that would be a lie from you.

[Foster]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:58:45 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 9/24/12 8:46 PM, in article g8umnlegd84e.rwreowwrttfk$.d...@40tude.net,
> "Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ok, enough silliness... time for you to answer questions:
>>>
>>> 1) Why would part of one track not get "processed" when the rest, you claim,
>>> was? How would such a thing happen?
>>
>> You screwed up.
>> Simple.
>
> How does one "screw up" and "process" only part of a track? That makes no
> sense.

Simple.
In order to do your processing, even with the most simplistic DAW
program, you need to highlight the secton of audio you want
processed.

You screwed up and caught Onion Knight short.
You didn't realize it.
I did.
So did others.
It's obvious.
Keep squirming.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 8:48 PM, in article ln7oi3121zgx$.1vygqk13ai8ii$.d...@40tude.net,

"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:42:57 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/12 8:36 PM, in article 1qew9yd3dxxsh$.oh01lbu5rv3p$.d...@40tude.net,
>> "Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:21:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Your stupidity in this is amazing.
>>>
>>> Sorry snit.
>>> You can call me whatever you want, the facts are clear for anyone to
>>> hear.
>>
>> I am merely noting your accusations and insinuations are stupid. And they
>> are. But answer some questions:
>
> No they are not.
> Anyone can hear for themselves the processing in Onion Knight's
> voice.

Skype "processes" voice as it transmits. That is not in question.

> Keep dancing snit.

You are the one making idiotic accusations. I am just toying with you to
see how many times you will make the *same* idiotic accusations.

And as far as "your" court expert - why was it Torre Starnes who is the one
who claimed to have used a court expert... but now you accept is as though
it was you and even added details?

Do you post as Torre Starnes? If not, how do you explain this?

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 9:21 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/12 7:30 PM, in article 1vsf3hxu3mr69.odi0on75gtk7$....@40tude.net,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:21:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
>

> >> On 9/24/12 7:04 PM, in article 1kvm7rodff9uu.1oomiprxw3qcm....@40tude.net,

> >> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> ...
> >>>>>> Play ball!
>
> >>>>> MediaFire sits there saying Loading and does nothing.
> >>>>> Got another one?
>
> >>>> Yeah, email me and I will post it.  Whatever this file is of yours.
>
> >>> Done.
>
> >>> And there is no way you can deny that Onion Knight's voice has been
> >>> processed.
>
> >> So you claim that Skype quality recordings are a sign of a voice being
> >> "processed".
>
> > No,.
>
> That is *exactly* what you are claiming.

Stop trying to twist people's words, Snit. It doesn't work anyway and
it's a waste of time.

> There is no other "processing" other than what ScreenFlow does in recording
> and saving.  None.

First you write:

"So you claim that Skype quality recordings are a sign of a voice
being
"processed".

That is, as I keep telling you, stupid." - Snit

Then you do a complete 180 and write:

"Yes, I am sure Skype "processes" voice that it sends. Of course."

Now you're admitting that even Screen Flow processes the audio. You
shouldn't pretend that you're arguing from a place where you're
untouchable with this recording you call "evidence".

> Given that, what "processing" are you talking about?  Be specific here!

The specifics were already mentioned. Why, in almost every thread you
are in, do people have to keep re-reading things for you?

> > I and others find it very odd that the only difference in sound
> > quality is right at the start of the audio indicating a screw up on
> > your part.
>
> What you find "odd" is not relevant.  The question is this, given this set
> of steps, what "processing" are you in reference to:
>
> 1) Use Skype
> 2) Record with ScreenFlow
> 3) Export in AIFF
> 4) Upload
>
> Be clear just what type processing you think was being done.  In the AIFF I
> even turned off leveling and background noise reduction.  So no processing
> from that.  So what processing do you mean?
>
> Hey, ask your court expert friend!

And you can consult your crack pipe in the mean time ;)

> > The audio through out the  rest of file is of a very deep, bass
> > sounding Onion Knight and is consistent.
>
> > You would lose big time in a court of law because of this.
> > In fact you would be torn to ribbons.
>
> > Try again.
>
> Court?  What are you talking about?

The point is that your 'evidence' doesn't make anything 'evident'
other than the fact that it appears what Foster is alleging you have
done is something you may, in fact, have done.

> Be clear with what type "processing"
> you think was done (keeping in mind the procedure described above) and what
> you think it means.
>
> And since Onion Knight's voice is on his own track, why would part of a
> track not get processes but the rest would?

Maybe you were as inept in doing it as you were in engaging record
when you claimed you'd put up this great Skype track ;)

> Your story is vague and stupid.
> Really.
>
> > I simply do not believe your first skype was anyone but you.
>
> We have already established you are claiming to be stupid enough to think
> two people have the same voice... after some form of "processing" you cannot
> define.

Who is "we"? You and sigmond? Did he sneak into your house again? LOL!

> > Your second Skype is with you and a stooge.
>
> A "stooge" with the *exact* same voice.

Prove it is the same voice any time you feel you can.

> No, that is stupid.

What's stupid is your ridiculous belief that anyone would take your
word... for anything.

> > Add into the equation your second skype where you conveniently
> > "forgot" to record the entire conversation, coupled with Onion
> > Knight's obvious cluelessness regarding going on in COLA and it all
> > smells extremely like a set up.
>
> His "cluelessness"?  cc was the one who was completely clueless...

I didn't listen to it but I'll take cc and Foster's words over yours
every day of the week and ten times on Sunday.

> 1) Why did cc have no recollection of the "outliers" files I showed him?
> 2) Why did cc have no recollection of the standard deviation video?
> 3) Why can't cc provide the Excel file he gave his word he would share?
>
> Onion Knight answered every question asked of him.  What more would you have
> wanted him to say?  Be *specific*... as I am with cc, above.

You seem to forget that cc didn't feel Onion Knight was anything other
than a shill on that Skype recording.

> > Sorry Snit but you are faking all of this and as far as postings in
> > COLA are concerned, there isn't a single person here who believes
> > your postings and Onion Knights are done by two people.
>
> So your claim is *everyone* is COLA is as stupid as you and thinks two
> people have the same voice.  Amazing.
>
> > You are one in the same regardless of how you faked the Skypes.
>
> Your stupidity in this is amazing.

Actually, yours is... and the idea that you think your sock/shill
charade proves anything to to anyone with a brain is all the evidence
needed.

[Foster]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:02:42 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 9/24/12 8:48 PM, in article ln7oi3121zgx$.1vygqk13ai8ii$.d...@40tude.net,
> "Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:42:57 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/24/12 8:36 PM, in article 1qew9yd3dxxsh$.oh01lbu5rv3p$.d...@40tude.net,
>>> "Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:21:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Your stupidity in this is amazing.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry snit.
>>>> You can call me whatever you want, the facts are clear for anyone to
>>>> hear.
>>>
>>> I am merely noting your accusations and insinuations are stupid. And they
>>> are. But answer some questions:
>>
>> No they are not.
>> Anyone can hear for themselves the processing in Onion Knight's
>> voice.
>
> Skype "processes" voice as it transmits. That is not in question.

Yea... And it also apparently seems to process the Onion Knight
voice to sound basically like you.

Tell us, why doesn't skype seem to process the voice anywhere else
in the conversation?
Only at the start.
Seems rather odd, don't you agree?

[Foster]

Snit is a liar, plain and simple.
The audio proves it.
The stooge in the 2nd skype proves it.
The fact snit screwed up the recording in the 2nd skype proves it.
The fact OK appears out of nowhere on queue proves it.
The fact snit is trying to start up the snit circus proves it.

It's obvious......
The guy is a liar.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 9:29 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/12 7:25 PM, in article pj8vt6e6wp03$.571f59bd4xif$....@40tude.net,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:14:54 -0700, Snit wrote:
>

> >> On 9/24/12 7:02 PM, in article 1gl03p8gntbrg$.d40rphbw2b9w....@40tude.net,

> >> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:51:20 -0700, Snit wrote:
>

> >>>> On 9/24/12 5:58 PM, in article lb1k9n7fu5c9$.1a5cu5x8tbhlf....@40tude.net,

> >>>> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:52:11 -0400, Foster wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:36:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On 9/24/12 5:32 PM, in article

> >>>>>>> 1d0rh8ifhtna1$.18dklkrznxbkg....@40tude.net,

> >>>>>>> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:26:46 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On 9/24/12 5:20 PM, in article

> >>>>>>>>> vvxz3mwbh6am$.quefjels6g0l....@40tude.net,

I already explained this... could be yet another case of you being a
bonehead... or it could be what Foster said it is.

> 2) What type "processing" do you mean?

The kind that kicked in during one spot on the recording that caused a
bizarre sounding shift that appears no where else on the recording.

> 3) Why do you claim two people with *different* voices are the same person?

Where was it proven that the voices are not the same? Fact: It wasn't,
therefore, this is a bogus question that assumes facts not in
evidence.

> 4) Why would these two people (as shown by the fact that they have the same
> voices - though mine was not recorded) make a *second* Skype call with cc?

This first alleged "fact" has not been established to be a fact,
therefore, attempts to link it to a second recording also assumes
facts not in evidence.

> 5) Why would Onion Knight offer to allow a *video* session?

How would such an offer (note that it is merely an offer at this
point) prove Onion Knight is the same person on these Skype
recordings? For that matter, even if a video recording was produced
how do you propose to prove the person appearing as Onion Knight is
the same person on these Skype recordings? No matter... an offer is
proof of nothing.

> 6) Why would I offer to do a Skype with you and Onion Knight?

Too much crack? Could be a million reasons... none of them have
anything to do with proving your claim. See how easy this is yet?

> 7) Why would some unknown court "expert" claim two people with different
> voices have the same voice?

Again, this assumes facts not in evidence. Your questions are like
those of a third grader, Snit ;)

> 8) Be specific as to your accusation: are you saying that in that recording
> Onion Knight and I used the same voice (are you claiming that two different
> people used *one* voice).

Foster already made this clear, many times.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 9:10 PM, in article vcgekgfmzjbc.1qebqbtl1ujbx$.d...@40tude.net,

"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Snit is a liar, plain and simple.
> The audio proves it.
> The stooge in the 2nd skype proves it.
> The fact snit screwed up the recording in the 2nd skype proves it.
> The fact OK appears out of nowhere on queue proves it.
> The fact snit is trying to start up the snit circus proves it.

Ok, your game is up.

1) Foster also post as Torre Starnes.
2) I was correct that your "court expert" does not exist.

Here is how you were busted. You were making the same idiotic arguments
that you did as Torre Starnes... and I legitimately confused you with your
other name. Did not occur to me that you were the same person until you
screwed up and said:

-----

On 9/24/12 8:46 PM, in article
g8umnlegd84e.rwreowwrttfk$.d...@40tude.net, "Foster"
<frankf...@yahoo.com| wrote:

|| 7) Why would some unknown court "expert" claim two people

|| with different voices have the same voice? I think you
|| just made him up but maybe he is merely incompetent.
|

| She is not claiming that. You are the one claiming that

| and you keep saying this despite my explaining to you what
| is being presented.

-----

Well, I thought before you had said this "expert" of yours was male. Now
you refer to the expert as "she". So I did some digging:

-----
On 8/21/12 4:40 PM, in article
1ruqvwegx1t64$.4dleza69rw0w$.d...@40tude.net, "Torre Starnes"
<torre....@gmail.org| wrote:

| So still being suspicious due to the text posts in COLA by Onion
| Knight and suspecting something was not right, I sent both the
| original and processed (by snit) files to a friend of mine who has
| credentials at the level of being able to testify in court as an
| expert witness and asked for advice.
|
| His findings are that the entire conversation is faked.
-----

Well what do you know? You posted the claim of the expert when you were
posting as "Torre Starnes" *and* your "expert" switched genders.

Again:

1) Foster also post as Torre Starnes.
2) I was correct that your "court expert" does not exist.

And that, Torre Foster Starnes, is what a smoking gun looks like. Your
accusations have been proved to be, as I have been saying, "stupid". You
have no gender-changing court expert, and *you* are the one with the sock...
not me.

Completely busted. Love it!

[Foster]

Explained several times already.
The snit circus in action.

>> 2) What type "processing" do you mean?
>
> The kind that kicked in during one spot on the recording that caused a
> bizarre sounding shift that appears no where else on the recording.

Exactly...
Very odd indeed and enough to have a court of law exclude it.

>> 3) Why do you claim two people with *different* voices are the same person?
>
> Where was it proven that the voices are not the same? Fact: It wasn't,
> therefore, this is a bogus question that assumes facts not in
> evidence.

Yep.
That's the snit circus in action.

He picks some bogus event and runs with it hoping others won't
discover how bogus it really is.

>> 4) Why would these two people (as shown by the fact that they have the same
>> voices - though mine was not recorded) make a *second* Skype call with cc?
>
> This first alleged "fact" has not been established to be a fact,
> therefore, attempts to link it to a second recording also assumes
> facts not in evidence.

Correct again.

Snit tries to enact the snit circus and fails.

>> 5) Why would Onion Knight offer to allow a *video* session?
>
> How would such an offer (note that it is merely an offer at this
> point) prove Onion Knight is the same person on these Skype
> recordings? For that matter, even if a video recording was produced
> how do you propose to prove the person appearing as Onion Knight is
> the same person on these Skype recordings? No matter... an offer is
> proof of nothing.

I have not seen a video?
Have you?
Has anyone?

Asking oneself to do a video is kind of bogus lol :)

>> 6) Why would I offer to do a Skype with you and Onion Knight?
>
> Too much crack? Could be a million reasons... none of them have
> anything to do with proving your claim. See how easy this is yet?

Exactly.
He would find a way to fake the results.
He's very good at it.

>
>> 7) Why would some unknown court "expert" claim two people with different
>> voices have the same voice?
>
> Again, this assumes facts not in evidence. Your questions are like
> those of a third grader, Snit ;)

He is wrong.
My expert friend contends that the voice changes within the
conversation.
That in and of itself is enough to get it tossed from a court of
law.

>
>> 8) Be specific as to your accusation: are you saying that in that recording
>> Onion Knight and I used the same voice (are you claiming that two different
>> people used *one* voice).
>
> Foster already made this clear, many times.

Many, many times.

Snit is crazy.
It's obvious.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 9:05 PM, in article 12yzgx6d09evy$.1bv5jthn...@40tude.net,

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57a0d75878354eab>

Proved:

1) Foster also post as Torre Starnes.
2) I was correct that your "court expert" does not exist.

And that, Torre Foster Starnes, is what a smoking gun looks like. Your
accusations have been proved to be, as I have been saying, "stupid". You
have no gender-changing court expert, and *you* are the one with the sock...
not me.

Completely busted. Love it!


--

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 9:01 PM, in article 2o812p0x0di3.1wq6vlgsjip3t$.d...@40tude.net,

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57a0d75878354eab>

Proved:

1) Foster also post as Torre Starnes.
2) I was correct that your "court expert" does not exist.

And that, Torre Foster Starnes, is what a smoking gun looks like. Your
accusations have been proved to be, as I have been saying, "stupid". You
have no gender-changing court expert, and *you* are the one with the sock...
not me.

Completely busted. Love it!


--

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 9:01 PM, in article 2o812p0x0di3.1wq6vlgsjip3t$.d...@40tude.net,
"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Foster]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:30:20 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 9/24/12 9:10 PM, in article vcgekgfmzjbc.1qebqbtl1ujbx$.d...@40tude.net,
> "Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit is a liar, plain and simple.
>> The audio proves it.
>> The stooge in the 2nd skype proves it.
>> The fact snit screwed up the recording in the 2nd skype proves it.
>> The fact OK appears out of nowhere on queue proves it.
>> The fact snit is trying to start up the snit circus proves it.
>
> Ok, your game is up.

Wow, you're a genius.......
You are only about 6 months behind the curve.

So let's get back to your Onion Knight and skype claims.

Oh, I get it, you don't want to talk about that do you.....
Ok.

Mum is the word......

LMAO!!!

[Foster]

Wow!!!

You just figured that out?

You must be pretty ignorant.
Even Ahlstrom figured that out.

BTW stop trying to shift the focus off your lies and on to me.

You have been caught.....

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 9:34 PM, in article xnu0lkp3fb6h.1wmblv6zidoxb$.d...@40tude.net,

There is nothing to discuss with your accusations about Onion Knight and I
having the same voice. We do not and cannot, given that we are not the same
person. What more needs to be "talked" about? But what has been proved is
*you* use socks *and* you lied about your gender-changing court expert.

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57a0d75878354eab>

Absolutely proved. You have been busted.

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 9:31 PM, in article ie01quecotv1$.1rhdeme8jn4lg$.d...@40tude.net,
"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

>>> 1) Why would part of one track not get "processed" when the rest, you claim,
>>> was?  How would such a thing happen?
>>
>> I already explained this... could be yet another case of you being a
>> bonehead... or it could be what Foster said it is.
>
> Explained several times already.
> The snit circus in action.

The "snit circus" is my tendency to respond to people who troll me.

Such as yourself, who has now been busted:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57a0d75878354eab>

Proved:

1) Foster also post as Torre Starnes.

2) I was correct that your "court expert" does not exist.

So you use socks and lied about your "evidence" that I do as you (which I do
not). This has been absolutely proved... you are a liar. Come on, admit
it, your gender changing and incompetent court expert never existed. You
made that up to try to make it sound like you knew what you were talking
about when you clearly do not.

>>> 2) What type "processing" do you mean?
>>
>> The kind that kicked in during one spot on the recording that caused a
>> bizarre sounding shift that appears no where else on the recording.
>
> Exactly...
> Very odd indeed and enough to have a court of law exclude it.

Does this court of law accept the word of fictional gender changing
incompetent voice experts?

>>> 3) Why do you claim two people with *different* voices are the same person?
>>
>> Where was it proven that the voices are not the same? Fact: It wasn't,
>> therefore, this is a bogus question that assumes facts not in
>> evidence.
>
> Yep.
> That's the snit circus in action.
>
> He picks some bogus event and runs with it hoping others won't
> discover how bogus it really is.

Accept there is nothing bogus about my claim. To produce the video I did as
I said: used Skype and ScreenFlow. Nothing else.

>>> 4) Why would these two people (as shown by the fact that they have the same
>>> voices - though mine was not recorded) make a *second* Skype call with cc?
>>
>> This first alleged "fact" has not been established to be a fact,
>> therefore, attempts to link it to a second recording also assumes
>> facts not in evidence.
>
> Correct again.
>
> Snit tries to enact the snit circus and fails.

Again: the "snit circus" is nothing but my responding to people who troll me
and lie - as you have been proved to be doing.

>>> 5) Why would Onion Knight offer to allow a *video* session?
>>
>> How would such an offer (note that it is merely an offer at this
>> point) prove Onion Knight is the same person on these Skype
>> recordings? For that matter, even if a video recording was produced
>> how do you propose to prove the person appearing as Onion Knight is
>> the same person on these Skype recordings? No matter... an offer is
>> proof of nothing.
>
> I have not seen a video?
> Have you?
> Has anyone?
>
> Asking oneself to do a video is kind of bogus lol :)

Nobody ever claimed a video was made. See how you twist! The question was
why would Onion Knight *offer* to make a video... had cc accepted the offer
I would have made one.

>>> 6) Why would I offer to do a Skype with you and Onion Knight?
>>
>> Too much crack? Could be a million reasons... none of them have
>> anything to do with proving your claim. See how easy this is yet?
>
> Exactly.
> He would find a way to fake the results.
> He's very good at it.

So good you had to fabricate a gender changing incompetent court "expert" to
back your claims. LOL!

Again: on the recording you hear *two* voices - and that the "processing" is
nothing more than the use of Skype and ScreenFlow. You claim I am doing
something wrong to tell you this... as if I should *MAKE SOMETHING UP* to
please you... and if I do not then it is my fault for telling you the truth.

Really... you have been busted lying in this. Own up to it.

>>> 7) Why would some unknown court "expert" claim two people with different
>>> voices have the same voice?
>>
>> Again, this assumes facts not in evidence. Your questions are like
>> those of a third grader, Snit ;)
>
> He is wrong.
> My expert friend contends that the voice changes within the
> conversation.
> That in and of itself is enough to get it tossed from a court of
> law.

Your gender changing court expert friend? LOL!

>>> 8) Be specific as to your accusation: are you saying that in that recording
>>> Onion Knight and I used the same voice (are you claiming that two different
>>> people used *one* voice).
>>
>> Foster already made this clear, many times.
>
> Many, many times.
>
> Snit is crazy.
> It's obvious.

Are you getting ready for a tantrum? LOL!

--

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 9:58 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/12 8:46 PM, in article g8umnlegd84e.rwreowwrttfk$....@40tude.net,

>
> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Ok, enough silliness... time for you to answer questions:
>
> >> 1) Why would part of one track not get "processed" when the rest, you claim,
> >> was?  How would such a thing happen?
>
> > You screwed up.
> > Simple.
>
> How does one "screw up" and "process" only part of a track?  That makes no
> sense.

Well... little you do makes any sense. Got a point?

> On the initial MP3 I did do some processing - as I have described: I
> used ScreenFlow's noise reduction and leveling tools... but I applied them
> to tracks as a whole.  Now I *could* split tracks or alter the processing
> for a track, but to do so would be *added* work.  It would take effort to
> "screw up" and only process *part* of a track.  Does not even make sense to
> claim this is possible.

Exactly... therefore, as is often the case, the simplest explanation
is probably the correct once. Point to Foster. Well... that was
easy ;)

> >> 2) What type "processing" do you mean?  Keep in mind the procedure to make
> >> the audio was to use Skype, record in ScreenFlow, export, and upload.
>
> > You piped it through a voice processor.
> > Tons of them exist.
>
> ScreenFlow does not have a voice processor.  *That* is the tool I used.
> Period.  Your claim is erroneous.

Prove it's erroneous. Oh, you can't.

> But let us say it was not - why would only *part* of the track get such
> treatment?

The way Foster described it would easily account for such an event.

> How would that happen *on accident*?

SImple, you're Snit... you couldn't even turn record on after crowing
loudly in a newsgroup ;)

> >> 3) Why do you claim two people with *different* voices are the same person?
>
> > I don't claim that at all.
> > That is YOUR lame attempt at starting up the snit circus.
>
> It is *exactly* what you are claiming

You're the one claiming that there definitely are two people, not
Foster. Think about it... you can't even read and you're asking how
it's possible for you to make mistakes. The irony of that is scalding.
LOL!

> >> 4) Why would these two people (as shown by the fact that they have the same
> >> voices - though mine was not recorded) make a *second* Skype call with cc?
>
> > You mean the one where you conveniently forgot to record the people?
> > Yea sure....
>
> > Keep digging that hole.
>
> cc heard the voices and verified that they were different voices.

But he didn't verify they were the same voice in both Skypes (no way
he could have). That you used a shill in Skype 2 is not in question...
even cc pointed this out... you know, your star witness here. Poor
Snit... has NO clue how this stuff works ;)

> And Onion
> Knights was recorded.  And it is clearly the same person in both recordings

Clear to whom and as ascertained by what method? Assertion isn't
proof, Snit.

> (Onion Knight is, well, Onion Knight).
>
> >> 5) Why would Onion Knight offer to allow a *video* session?
>
> > I haven't seen a video session.
> > Have you?
>
> Your question implied I said there was such a video

I'll see your BS and raise you a reality: Your statement implied that
a video offer (in the future) is some form of proof for your current
claim. Now that's *really* silly, even for you.

> >> 6) Why would I offer to do a Skype with you and Onion Knight?
>
> > Because you would screw it up or have a stooge present.
>
> > You are trying to confabulate your first Skype, where you faked OK
> > with your second skype where you had a stooge.
>
> > Two different events.
>
> Ah, you think I found someone who sounds *exactly* like me with a processed
> voice.
>
> Seriously, that is *stupid*.  I mean, is it even possible?  If so, how?

Foster explained how.

> >> 7) Why would some unknown court "expert" claim two people with different
> >> voices have the same voice?  I think you just made him up but maybe he is
> >> merely incompetent.
>
> > She is not claiming that.
>
> Wait.  I goofed - before it was Torre Starnes who said they had a court
> expert listen to it.
>
> Now you say you did.
>
> Um, are you Torre Starnes?  LOL!  BUSTED!

Busted? Where was this hidden?

> > You are the one claiming that and you keep
> > saying this despite my explaining to you what is being presented.
>
> You are saying it is your belief that two people, Onion Knight and I, have
> the same voice.  THAT is your claim, right?

The claim is that you used a voice processor on the first Skype to
produce the voice of Onion Knight. Why do you need to have it repeated
to you over and over?

> > The snit circus in action I suppose.
>
> > Here it is once and for all, get it or get lost:
>
> > The first skype...the person speaking as Onion Knight sounds
> > completely different when he says "Hi" compared to the rest of his
> > dialog.
>
> Skype sucks.  Oh well.

So you're finally getting around to blaming it on Skype? Took you long
enough to even admit it exists.

> > When he says Hi, he sounds a lot like Snit...
>
> So somehow only part of the track was "processed" through a program I did
> not use.  And you think this is anything other than a stupid claim.  Got it.

Not stupid at all if it happened the obvious way... the way Foster
believes it happened.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 10:02 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/12 8:48 PM, in article ln7oi3121zgx$.1vygqk13ai8ii$....@40tude.net,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:42:57 -0700, Snit wrote:
>

> >> On 9/24/12 8:36 PM, in article 1qew9yd3dxxsh$.oh01lbu5rv3p$....@40tude.net,

> >> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:21:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> >>>> Your stupidity in this is amazing.
>
> >>> Sorry snit.
> >>> You can call me whatever you want, the facts are clear for anyone to
> >>> hear.
>
> >> I am merely noting your accusations and insinuations are stupid.  And they
> >> are.  But answer some questions:
>
> > No they are not.
> > Anyone can hear for themselves the processing in Onion Knight's
> > voice.
>
> Skype "processes" voice as it transmits.  That is not in question.

Interesting... especially coming from a guy who recently (tonight)
wrote:

"So you claim that Skype quality recordings are a sign of a voice
being
"processed".

That is, as I keep telling you, stupid." - Snit

Poor Snit;)

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 10:10 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

(snip)

> Snit is a liar, plain and simple.

For as often as he does it you'd think he'd be much better at it ;)

> The audio proves it.
> The stooge in the 2nd skype proves it.
> The fact snit screwed up the recording in the 2nd skype proves it.
> The fact OK appears out of nowhere on queue proves it.
> The fact snit is trying to start up the snit circus proves it.
>
> It's obvious......
> The guy is a liar.

Here's something I've wondered about... the 2nd Skype (I didn't bother
to listen)... did it ever exhibit that same type of artifact to any
degree in any spot on the audio?

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 9:36 PM, in article 1mdwwa6pr72u8.z...@40tude.net,

"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57a0d75878354eab>
>>
>> Proved:
>>
>> 1) Foster also post as Torre Starnes.
>
> Wow!!!
>
> You just figured that out?

Correct. I do not try to figure out who is who in the sock puppet games.

But, good, you do not deny that you are using socks.

Now how about the other half of what you were busted on:

2) I was correct that your "court expert" does not exist.

You screwed up and first claimed the expert was male and then later claimed
the expert was female. You keep snipping that.

> You must be pretty ignorant.
> Even Ahlstrom figured that out.
>
> BTW stop trying to shift the focus off your lies and on to me.
>
> You have been caught.....

Caught doing what? Having a different voice than Onion Knight. Sure. I
openly admit to that. But you keep insisting otherwise. Which is, well, as
dishonest as your claim you had a gender-changing court expert backing your
BS.

[Snit]

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57a0d75878354eab>

You claimed your bogus voice analysis came from a gender-changing court
expert.

You lied.

Why not just admit to it?

You have been busted. Smoking gun. Why do you keep dodging?

--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 10:45 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/12 9:31 PM, in article ie01quecotv1$.1rhdeme8jn4lg$....@40tude.net,

>
> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>> 1) Why would part of one track not get "processed" when the rest, you claim,
> >>> was?  How would such a thing happen?
>
> >> I already explained this... could be yet another case of you being a
> >> bonehead... or it could be what Foster said it is.
>
> > Explained several times already.
> > The snit circus in action.
>
> The "snit circus" is my tendency to respond to people who troll me.
>
> Such as yourself, who has now been busted:
>

> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57a0d758783...>

>
> Proved:
>
> 1) Foster also post as Torre Starnes.

You needed "proof" of this? Where did Foster deny using both names?

> 2) I was correct that your "court expert" does not exist.

Based on what? You finding "evidence" of a mention of a male and
another of a female?

Fact: By using this exact method I could claim your "wife" doesn't
exist because you have also referred to her as a "him":

"Sandman has tracked down my wife's email and started sending him
bizarre accusations" - Snit

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/526694414e4e9327

Fact: The likelihood of an error exists far more between the words
'she' and 'he' (as in Foster's case)... this, as opposed to the words
'her' and 'him' (in your case), words that are far less likely to be
swapped due to the disparate spellings.

Face it, Snit... compared to me you absolutely *suck* at this and your
own posting history is always there to f*ck you anyway. Like I've
always said, you can pretty much pick a topic and you've already pre-
f*cked yourself on it. LOL!

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 24, 11:00 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57a0d758783...>

>
> You claimed your bogus voice analysis came from a gender-changing court
> expert.

You claimed Sandman tracked down your gender changing "wife". You can
now explain why own your method of "proof" doesn't apply to you.

> You lied.

Then by the same token, you are lying about the existence of your
"wife".

> Why not just admit to it?

So you're now ready to admit you lied about the existence of your
gender changing "wife"?

> You have been busted.  Smoking gun.  Why do you keep dodging?

You've been busted. Smoking gun. Will you keep dodging? You've been
doing it a LONG time now.

[TomB]

On 2012-09-25, the following emerged from the brain of Steve Carroll:

8<

> Long ago I learned that anything Snit is involved in should be
> highly suspect. I watched him lie in a multitude of directions when
> he was caught red handed by Sandman and Steve Mackay on CSMA over
> his sigmond sock puppet. The fool even tried to sell the bogus idea
> that sigmond was someone who "snuck" into his house. No, I'm not
> kidding... and this is what you'd have to believe to buy his
> story... this person:
>
> 1 - "snuck" into Snit's house (and got passed Snit's computer
> password)
>
> 2 - wrote to a particular person on a particular newsgroup on
> usenet, all in defense of Snit.
>
> 3 - was somehow, miraculously, aware of obscure pieces of CSMA
> posting history.

You are kidding, right?

--
Nothing is more reliable than a man whose loyalties can be bought with
hard cash.
~ Boris Balkan

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 11:51 PM, in article 201209250...@usenet.drumscum.be,

"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-09-25, the following emerged from the brain of Steve Carroll:
>
> 8<
>
>> Long ago I learned that anything Snit is involved in should be
>> highly suspect. I watched him lie in a multitude of directions when
>> he was caught red handed by Sandman and Steve Mackay on CSMA over
>> his sigmond sock puppet. The fool even tried to sell the bogus idea
>> that sigmond was someone who "snuck" into his house. No, I'm not
>> kidding... and this is what you'd have to believe to buy his
>> story... this person:
>>
>> 1 - "snuck" into Snit's house (and got passed Snit's computer
>> password)
>>
>> 2 - wrote to a particular person on a particular newsgroup on
>> usenet, all in defense of Snit.
>>
>> 3 - was somehow, miraculously, aware of obscure pieces of CSMA
>> posting history.
>
> You are kidding, right?

Yes. He is. When they were trolling me I *jokingly* noted how their BS
claims could be explained by someone breaking into my house. As a joke.
But Carroll has been lying about this and trolling me over it for *years*.
Notice how he did not post a link to where I did as he claimed.

Now ask Carroll to list the "aliases" he has used. He refused to - and
insists on calling them "aliases" and not "socks", which is what they are.



--
"But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don't even want
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Snit]

On 9/24/12 11:51 PM, in article 201209250...@usenet.drumscum.be,
"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-09-25, the following emerged from the brain of Steve Carroll:
>
> 8<
>
>> Long ago I learned that anything Snit is involved in should be
>> highly suspect. I watched him lie in a multitude of directions when
>> he was caught red handed by Sandman and Steve Mackay on CSMA over
>> his sigmond sock puppet. The fool even tried to sell the bogus idea
>> that sigmond was someone who "snuck" into his house. No, I'm not
>> kidding... and this is what you'd have to believe to buy his
>> story... this person:
>>
>> 1 - "snuck" into Snit's house (and got passed Snit's computer
>> password)
>>
>> 2 - wrote to a particular person on a particular newsgroup on
>> usenet, all in defense of Snit.
>>
>> 3 - was somehow, miraculously, aware of obscure pieces of CSMA
>> posting history.
>
> You are kidding, right?

Carroll:
-----
I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage
starring elizabot... what of it?"
-----

Though, to be fair, when Carroll wrote that he dishonestly attributed it to
me:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8435cc74e7ae5096>

Carroll has been lying about me and forging quotes he claims are from me for
a long, long time.

--
"90% of computers use Microsoft's Windows ... Macs account for 9% of the
market while the open source system Linux accounts for 0.8%."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Torre Starnes]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:00:02 -0700, Snit wrote:

> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57a0d75878354eab>
>
> You claimed your bogus voice analysis came from a gender-changing court
> expert.
>
> You lied.
>
> Why not just admit to it?
>
> You have been busted. Smoking gun. Why do you keep dodging?

It actually came from 3 people, none of them me.
That's one reason why it took so long.
That's a different kettle of fish though.

I notice you've rolled the snit circus into town once again
again.

It won't work this time.

Face it snit, nobody believes Onion Knight is a different person.
Whether it's a faked voice over, posts to COLA that appear at just
the right time and from a person who seems to know exactly what
threads are being discussed at that time or a friend playing the
stooge who doesn't seem to be able to say anything other than "your
stalker" and obviously all of a sudden knows nothing about what is
being discussed in COLA, the bottom line is it's you perpetuating
this myth of Onion Knight.

It has nothing to do with your stalker, me or anyone else.

You put up a sock and got caught and the evidence taken as a whole
is overwhelming.

I'll say no more on this topic.
The COLA group can decide for themselves.
If they haven't already.

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 5:42 AM, in article pfh4660yf94i$.cv5mln0n...@40tude.net,

"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:00:02 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57a0d75878354eab>
>>
>> You claimed your bogus voice analysis came from a gender-changing court
>> expert.
>>
>> You lied.
>>
>> Why not just admit to it?
>>
>> You have been busted. Smoking gun. Why do you keep dodging?
>
> It actually came from 3 people, none of them me.
> That's one reason why it took so long.
> That's a different kettle of fish though.
>
> I notice you've rolled the snit circus into town once again
> again.
>
> It won't work this time.
>
> Face it snit, nobody believes Onion Knight is a different person.

What you claim to *believe* is irrelevant.

> Whether it's a faked voice over, posts to COLA that appear at just
> the right time and from a person who seems to know exactly what
> threads are being discussed at that time or a friend playing the
> stooge who doesn't seem to be able to say anything other than "your
> stalker" and obviously all of a sudden knows nothing about what is
> being discussed in COLA, the bottom line is it's you perpetuating
> this myth of Onion Knight.

You might or might not be stupid enough to believe this... but either way it
is not relevant to the truth.

> It has nothing to do with your stalker, me or anyone else.

Your views have everything to do with you and nothing to do with me. Do not
blame me for your faulty views.

> You put up a sock and got caught and the evidence taken as a whole
> is overwhelming.

But there is no "evidence" of my using a sock given how I did not use one.
Sorry, Torre Foster Starnes - you are projecting.

> I'll say no more on this topic.

You have not said anything of value on the topic yet... just made empty
accusations and been caught lying, repeatedly.

> The COLA group can decide for themselves.

Oh, as you know the COLA group is, as a whole, amazingly dishonest and often
goes into attack mode against anyone who is honest. I am honest so people
will *claim* to believe things about me they cannot support and show no
signs of *actually* believing. They - like you - will even lie to try to
"back" their accusations.

Your claim, in the end, is nothing more than saying two unrelated people
have the same voice - and that is a stupid claim... one you base solely on
an the sound of a voice being "processes", as you call it, by nothing other
than Skype and ScreenFlow (with the latter having all sound processing
features turned off other than, perhaps, increasing the volume on a a
track).

Get it through your head - there is *no* other "processing" that was done.
None. Not in the AIFF (in the first file there was background noise
reduction and some leveling).

> If they haven't already.

Of course they have - most in COLA assume others are as dishonest as they
are. I assume people are honest - hence the reason I was so far behind the
times in figuring out you and your sock. I never even considered it. I am
very trusting because I am very trustworthy. This is why my stalker, after
almost a decade of trying, cannot quote lies from me (none he can show are
*actual* lies and not him just twisting things or lying himself). That is
why he has his list of (largely forged) quotes about me. By the way, did
you see his recent post where he admitted he has been stalking me so closely
for the last 10 years he thinks he knows when I have taken vacations, etc.
for that whole time?

He is sick... and the only one you could get to play your game yesterday.
Interesting company you keep when you are pushing your circus.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 25, 12:51 am, TomB <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-09-25, the following emerged from the brain of Steve Carroll:
>
> 8<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Long ago I learned that anything Snit is involved in should be
> > highly suspect. I watched him lie in a multitude of directions when
> > he was caught  red handed by Sandman and Steve Mackay on CSMA over
> > his sigmond sock puppet. The fool even tried to sell the bogus idea
> > that sigmond was someone who "snuck" into his house. No,  I'm not
> > kidding... and this is what you'd have to believe to buy his
> > story...  this person:
>
> > 1 - "snuck" into Snit's house (and got passed Snit's computer
> > password)
>
> > 2 - wrote to a particular person on a particular newsgroup on
> > usenet, all in defense of Snit.
>
> > 3 - was somehow, miraculously, aware of obscure pieces of CSMA
> > posting history.
>
> You are kidding, right?

C'mon… would anything Snit do surprise you? As I've been saying all
along... he obviously believes that he's smarter than everyone he
comes into contact with and crap like this (and his response to you
here) proves it. Here's the quote:

--
"Wrong again - I have no idea who Sigmond is.  Maybe someone who snuck
into
my house.

BTW: I just checked my IP, that is not it, though mine does begin
with 
24.117." - Snit

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ea3ed8f91e8b9b09
--

Snit not only wrote this idiocy but, as expected, he is seen
accompanying it with *another* attempt at misdirection… about his IP
being different than the one he was caught red-handed with (as spotted
by several CSMA posters), posting as Snit in one newsgroup and sigmond
in CSMA using that IP. Ebot pointed it out here:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa73f23aa86474cf

Snit is a pathological liar. Notice that in his reply to this thread
he tells you he wrote this "snuck" post as a "joke". When I initially
confronted him he did his usual dance and tried to pretend he didn't
write it... that I was 'spreading lies' by saying he did. Realizing
that wasn't going to wash (probably because too many people were
watching) he relented:

"I stand corrected.  Those are my words, and there is no lie there.
 Just wanted to make sure you understood they were sarcastic"

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/826006cb93538a27

So… according to Snit (a person for whom there is a *ton* more
evidence that he posted as sigmond - much of it detailed on Sandman's
site), he posted this "snuck" response as some sort of 'sarcastic
joke'. Does his response look like sarcasm to you? Or even a joke? And
why the need for additional IP misdirection when you're telling a
"joke" about someone sneaking into your house? OK, such misdirection
could just be habit on his part... but why lie about telling a joke by
first disowning it? If you *knew* you told a "joke" you don't disown
it and claim someone is lying about you having told it like Snit did
with me. This doesn't pass the laugh test.

The only joke here is Snit's belief that people are as stupid as he
needs them to be. The fact is, Snit is actually one very stupid son of
a b*itch and this proves it... again... as has been done many times.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 25, 8:05 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/12 5:42 AM, in article pfh4660yf94i$.cv5mln0nybat....@40tude.net,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Torre Starnes" <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:00:02 -0700, Snit wrote:
>

> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/57a0d758783...>

>
> >> You claimed your bogus voice analysis came from a gender-changing court
> >> expert.
>
> >> You lied.
>
> >> Why not just admit to it?
>
> >> You have been busted.  Smoking gun.  Why do you keep dodging?
>
> > It actually came from 3 people, none of them me.
> > That's one reason why it took so long.
> > That's a different kettle of fish though.
>
> > I notice you've rolled the snit circus into town once again
> > again.
>
> > It won't work this time.
>
> > Face it snit, nobody believes Onion Knight is a different person.
>
> What you claim to *believe* is irrelevant.

What else could you possibly reply with, right? This is the exact same
thing you *must* say to every poster on your quotes list ;)

> > Whether it's a faked voice over, posts to COLA that appear at just
> > the right time and from a person who seems to know exactly what
> > threads are being discussed at that time or a friend playing the
> > stooge who doesn't seem to be able to say anything other than "your
> > stalker" and obviously all of a sudden knows nothing about what is
> > being discussed in COLA, the bottom line is it's you perpetuating
> > this myth of Onion Knight.
>
> You might or might not be stupid enough to believe this... but either way it
> is not relevant to the truth.

The potential that you are possibly "perpetuating this myth of Onion
Knight" isn't relevant to the truth that you might be "perpetuating
this myth of Onion Knight"?

OMG! Only you could come up with that. ROFLMAO!

(snip total crap by Snit)

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 25, 1:22 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/12 11:51 PM, in article 20120925084935....@usenet.drumscum.be,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "TomB" <tommy.bongae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2012-09-25, the following emerged from the brain of Steve Carroll:
>
> > 8<
>
> >> Long ago I learned that anything Snit is involved in should be
> >> highly suspect. I watched him lie in a multitude of directions when
> >> he was caught  red handed by Sandman and Steve Mackay on CSMA over
> >> his sigmond sock puppet. The fool even tried to sell the bogus idea
> >> that sigmond was someone who "snuck" into his house. No,  I'm not
> >> kidding... and this is what you'd have to believe to buy his
> >> story...  this person:
>
> >> 1 - "snuck" into Snit's house (and got passed Snit's computer
> >> password)
>
> >> 2 - wrote to a particular person on a particular newsgroup on
> >> usenet, all in defense of Snit.
>
> >> 3 - was somehow, miraculously, aware of obscure pieces of CSMA
> >> posting history.
>
> > You are kidding, right?
>
>   Carroll:
>     -----
>     I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage
>     starring elizabot... what of it?"
>     -----
>
> Though, to be fair, when Carroll wrote that he dishonestly attributed it to
> me:

And I also admitted to having done so... unlike the idiocy that is
you, I knew it was wrong and there was no way to really hide it.
Contrast this to your similar shenanigans.

> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8435cc74e7ae...>

I freely admit the action was completely Snit-like and it was meant to
be... but it's no more or less "dishonest" than the many times you had
done this very thing to many different people (and it's not nearly as
bad as your blatant forgeries and bogus website bullsh*t). Your beef
with this rare occurrence is that you (hypocritically) didn't like the
taste of your own medicine. Tough sh*t, asshole ;)

But this doesn't overshadow the fact regarding what Tom asked about
here, you not only posted offensive crap under the sigmond handle (and
claimed sigmond was someone who snuck into your house), you also did
finally admit to using that handle:

"If it takes me admitting I have posted as Sigmond, I will do so. I
admit I have posted under the name Sigmond." - Snit

"https://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/
74b085999d94dc70"

(as can be expected, cue up yet *another* form of misdirection by Snit
in an attempt to hide what Tom asked about here)

> Carroll has been lying about me and forging quotes he claims are from me for
> a long, long time.

Bullsh*t.

I think ed summed it up quite nicely when he swapped Ebot's name for
yours to highlight what you did as sigmond. From the same thread you
are whining about this:

"if someone posted under the name "Elizabot", from the same ISP as the
"legit" Elizabot, from the same city, from an ip address that all
indications show Elizabot had previously used, it'd be a pretty good
bet that you can connect the posts." - ed

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ebd54cf910a27404

[cc]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 11:58:56 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> You dodged the question: he *offered* and cc declined. Why would he
> make the offer if he was, well, me? My face is well known in COLA -
> he offered to let people see him talk and hear his voice. Why would
> he do this if he was me?

You had a stooge there for the audio. The same stooge would be there for the video.

You're purposefully confusing the two skype sessions. Also I noted, but admitted I was not sure, that the person you had playing Onion Knight on the chat with my sound different from the Onion Knight in the original recording. Then of course I asked for specifics... and you know the rest.

--
"what is the harm in, say, letting two 80 year old siblings have sex if they want?" - Snit

[cc]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:30:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Ok, your game is up.
> 1) Foster also post as Torre Starnes.

HAHAHAHA! No shit! How was that even a game? When did he ever try to hide it?

You already knew this though, and are just trying to make a scene to keep people from talking about your lies:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/20f337a9de04d8eb?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/295840627f80d5f7?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5724a7faae900ca6?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e3631622b798d36c?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

This was common knowledge way before that thread. But you responded in that thread. You even responded to the post where Foster explicitly said he was never denying it. Which he never was.

But now you're claiming he's been busted? Unless you're going to plead extreme retardation, then you're obviously just trying to change the topic away from your lies, by lying again ironically enough.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 25, 10:25 am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:30:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > Ok, your game is up.
> > 1) Foster also post as Torre Starnes.
>
> HAHAHAHA! No shit! How was that even a game? When did he ever try to hide it?
>
> You already knew this though, and are just trying to make a scene to keep people from talking about your lies:
>

> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/20f337a9de...
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/295840627f...
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5724a7faae...
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e3631622b7...

>
> This was common knowledge way before that thread. But you responded in that thread. You even responded to the post where Foster explicitly said he was never denying it. Which he never was.
>
> But now you're claiming he's been busted? Unless you're going to plead extreme retardation

What? You have a problem with that? ;)

> , then you're obviously just trying to change the topic away from your lies, by lying again ironically enough.

It's a common pattern for him, lie and then keep lying... don't ever
stop lying.

Great catch here... hilariously expected BS from Snit... outed once
again. LOL!

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 9:25 AM, in article
4d745f99-c901-4add...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:30:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Ok, your game is up.
>> 1) Foster also post as Torre Starnes.
>
> HAHAHAHA! No shit! How was that even a game? When did he ever try to hide it?

I had no idea. As I have noted, and as those of you who troll take
advantage of, my basic nature is to not only be honest and trustworthy, but
to assume others are as well. I start with the assumption that people are,
for example, not using socks. Only when I see strong evidence that someone
is lying do I conclude they are... and only when I see a pattern of this do
I assume it is a pattern for that person.

For example: you have shown you often pretend to be knowledgeable about
things you clearly are not - hence the reason it was easy to figure out that
you were lying when you said you had an Excel file that would back your
unsupportable claims. But had you not already shown me your history of such
dishonesty I would not have so quickly come to that conclusion.

> You already knew this though

Nope. I had no clue.

> , and are just trying to make a scene to keep
> people from talking about your lies:

If you think I have lied then quote it. Looking at the links I do see where
I played your silly game of saying you were another person - but made it
clear quite quickly I was merely using your own idiotic "logic" against you.
You claimed

...

> But now you're claiming he's been busted? Unless you're going to plead extreme
> retardation, then you're obviously just trying to change the topic away from
> your lies, by lying again ironically enough.

Oh, I see looking at the COLA history that others have noted this in the
past - and you now offer more evidence of that. Yup - I have been caught,
again, assuming others are honest and straight-forward as I am... being
overly trusting. I never denied I am overly trusting

But I also busted him on lying about having a court "expert" listen to the
sound file... and, of course, you heard both my voice and Onion Knights's at
the same time, so you *know* there was no post processing. I even had you
pick a phrase and we said it as the same time... so you know his claim that
Onion Knight's voice is mine with post-processing is completely and utterly
absurd.

You *know* he is wrong.
You *know* I am right.

But you prefer to lie and troll me, so you will never admit to this. See,
even being overly trusting I do learn who can be predicted beyond any
reasonable doubt who will lie. You, for example, will lie.

I would welcome being proved wrong on that.


--

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 9:05 AM, in article
f26d2c5a-96f5-4795...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, September 24, 2012 11:58:56 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> You dodged the question: he *offered* and cc declined. Why would he
>> make the offer if he was, well, me? My face is well known in COLA -
>> he offered to let people see him talk and hear his voice. Why would
>> he do this if he was me?
>
> You had a stooge there for the audio. The same stooge would be there for the
> video.

But why would this "stooge" need to use my voice, post processed?

Bottom line: you know beyond *any* doubt that Foster is flat out wrong...
you heard both voices - the same as on the first file - and you heard them
at the same time.

But you will never admit to this - you are too pissed I caught you lying
with all the stat BS (and let us not pretend you were ever being honest, if
you were you would be able to share your Excel file - which exists no more
than Foster's gender-changing expert).

You lie. He lies. Boring.

> You're purposefully confusing the two skype sessions. Also I noted, but
> admitted I was not sure, that the person you had playing Onion Knight on the
> chat with my sound different from the Onion Knight in the original recording.
> Then of course I asked for specifics... and you know the rest.

You are the one who fell down on specifics, hence why you cannot answer the
question about the Skype call between you, Onion Knight, and myself:

1) Why did cc have no recollection of the "outliers" files I showed him?
2) Why did cc have no recollection of the standard deviation video?
3) Why can't cc provide the Excel file he gave his word he would share?

And you have not listed a single thing Onion Knight or I did not know that
we should have. Not *ONE* thing. Nothing. Got it? Again, there is more
evidence that the person presenting himself as you was a "stooge" than there
is evidence against Onion Knight or myself - but I do not make such
accusations as you do. You make accusations you cannot back because you are
a liar. Period.

[cc]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:47:29 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Nope. I had no clue.

You responded to posts where I used the fact that Foster was Torre to make a point, and where Foster explicitly said that it was never a secret that he was also Torre (which is true). You responded to those posts, and quoted those sections in your reply.

So you had a clue.

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 10:54 AM, in article
82d80b44-89f0-4f92...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:47:29 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Nope. I had no clue.
>
> You responded to posts where I used the fact that Foster was Torre to make a
> point,

As noted - and you snipped - I pay no attention to such accusations. You
caught me being overly trusting.

> and where Foster explicitly said that it was never a secret that he was
> also Torre (which is true). You responded to those posts, and quoted those
> sections in your reply.
>
> So you had a clue.

Nope. I was completely ignorant of the fact. Never paid attention to those
comments and never cared who was accusing whom of what.

But you can spread whatever lies you want - it is not like I can stop you!

[cc]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:52:23 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Bottom line: you know beyond *any* doubt that Foster is flat
> out wrong... you heard both voices - the same as on the first file
> - and you heard them at the same time.

Foster is discussing the first skype chat, not the second. They were two different scenarios, no matter how hard you try to equate them.

And yes, I heard both of you talk. I said that in my very first post after the chat, and have never said anything different. But no, as I pointed on in the very post you responded to, I did not think that Onion Knight's voice was the same in both recordings. I say that in the audio you posted. I thought it sounded different.

> You are the one who fell down on specifics, hence why you cannot
> answer the question about the Skype call between you,
> Onion Knight, and myself:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ff1119b61682adbc?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

> And you have not listed a single thing Onion Knight
> or I did not know that we should have. Not *ONE* thing.

I asked the person pretending to be Onion Knight to name one specific thing in his posting history. He had nothing. I have already listed many things Onion Knight should have known:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/40db13fe5f7306be?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ca2ebeecd1d300a5?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1166a065d91aa570?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect


Keep repeating your lies. You're only digging yourself deeper into a hole.

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 11:15 AM, in article
941e8d2c-0131-4fb0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:52:23 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Bottom line: you know beyond *any* doubt that Foster is flat
>> out wrong... you heard both voices - the same as on the first file
>> - and you heard them at the same time.
>
> Foster is discussing the first skype chat, not the second. They were two
> different scenarios, no matter how hard you try to equate them.

The two people from the first Skype were in the second... so what is said of
those two people in the first chat applies to the second. To try to twist
things and deny this, as he and you do, is dishonest.

Gee, you two being dishonest on this. What a shock!

> And yes, I heard both of you talk. I said that in my very first post after the
> chat, and have never said anything different. But no, as I pointed on in the
> very post you responded to, I did not think that Onion Knight's voice was the
> same in both recordings. I say that in the audio you posted. I thought it
> sounded different.

I am well aware of your idiotic claims. They are not relevant to the *fact*
that the people you heard on your Skype were the same as on the first one.
There is no doubt that this is true.

>> You are the one who fell down on specifics, hence why you cannot
>> answer the question about the Skype call between you,
>> Onion Knight, and myself:
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ff1119b61682adbc?dm
> ode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

Right: you dodged the questions and never were able to produce this Excel
file you lied about having. You lied. What a shock!

>> And you have not listed a single thing Onion Knight
>> or I did not know that we should have. Not *ONE* thing.
>
> I asked the person pretending to be Onion Knight

There have been several forgeries of his posts in COLA. What you have asked
of those people is not relevant.

> to name one specific thing in
> his posting history.

Incorrect.

> He had nothing.

You have not listed *one* thing he "should" have known - where you were
completely clueless about the stats files I had shown you, the standard
deviation video, and your *own* claim of having an Excel file which you
never were able to produce.

You were caught in lie after lie. And cannot list a single error made by
Onion Knight or myself.

> I have already listed many things Onion
> Knight should have known:
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/40db13fe5f7306be?dm
> ode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ca2ebeecd1d300a5?dm
> ode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1166a065d91aa570?dm
> ode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

Three links to say you believe he should have mentioned his cross posts to
another forum where you were proved to be an ignorant liar. Wow. One
problem with that, though - you never asked him about it! If you wanted to
know about that why not ask him what forums he had posted to? I am sure he
would have been happy to answer.

You on the other hand never could answer for your lies - such as why you
cannot produce your Excel file to back your dishonest and unsupportable
claims.

> Keep repeating your lies. You're only digging yourself deeper into a hole.

You are projecting, yea who co-trolls with my stalker.

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 11:15 AM, in article
941e8d2c-0131-4fb0...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:52:23 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Bottom line: you know beyond *any* doubt that Foster is flat
>> out wrong... you heard both voices - the same as on the first file
>> - and you heard them at the same time.
>
> Foster is discussing the first skype chat, not the second. They were two
> different scenarios, no matter how hard you try to equate them.

If someone says something in one post and then says something completely
contrary to it in another that is, in your view, fine - because while it is
the same person saying contradictory things they are separate posts
(different scenarios). This is your "logic"... and it is idiotic. When
someone (or two people in this case) do something in two "scenarios", it is
absurd to look at one and then deny the second one is relevant in any way,
esp. when the info from the second "scenario" proves a point about the
first!

[cc]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:40:55 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> One problem with that, though - you never asked him about it!

I asked him to name ANYTHING specific about his posting history, which he could not, because the guy talking as Onion Knight has never posted to cola. He could not give one single detail of anything he was supposed to have posted. ANYTHING! I gave him free range to talk about anything in particular he wanted, and he came up blank. He couldn't even come up with something as generic as, "I once responded to a post of yours in a thread about statistics." Not even that! Not only that, when we did start specifically talking about statistics, he had nothing to add to a discussion he participated in for over a month. Your toadie sat there like he didn't know what we were talking about... because he does not post as Onion Knight so he DIDN'T know what we were talking about!

You wanted me to ask the guy something using specific details, so he could have an idea of what to answer. Basically, you wanted me to give him the specifics I was asking him about! Sorry, I'm not that dumb, and that's why you got busted.

[cc]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Nope. I was completely ignorant

You continue to be.

Your excuse has become you don't read the posts you respond to. The problem with people who lie as much as they do is they need to keep adding to their lies to try to make them sound even slightly believable.

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 12:11 PM, in article
6712effe-f275-4c9e...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:57:46 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Nope. I was completely ignorant
>
> You continue to be.

Not only is this incorrect, but I have made it *very* clear I now know he
posts under those two names.

In other words, you have *again* been caught lying.

> Your excuse has become you don't read the posts you respond to. The problem
> with people who lie as much as they do is they need to keep adding to their
> lies to try to make them sound even slightly believable.

Yawn. You are not the expert in what I know and do not know or when I knew
something. Hate to break it to you but that is just the way it is.

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 12:06 PM, in article
deeb8ae7-403b-4999...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:40:55 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> One problem with that, though - you never asked him about it!
>
> I asked

You snipped.

Bottom line: you *never* asked him what other forums he posted to. Never.

And now you are whining that he did not tell you what other forums he posted
to. So what?

And you lied and said you would provide an Excel file to back your dishonest
claims... you piled lie upon lie.

[Snit]

You claimed you had an Excel file which backed your dishonest claims:

cc:
-----
There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
-----
There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
out for yourself.
-----

Of note, my stalker claimed to have been able to replicate these results.
You both lied. I, on the other hand, back my claims. Here are the forms of
outlier detection I used:

Median and Array (with different Z-score Tolerances):
* PDF: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
* Excel: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.xls>

Grubbs and Quartile:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>

BoxPlot:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>

Doing all I could to support cc's findings:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>

Bottom line: cc lied. Period. While I was sincerely hoping to eat crow on
this one, I will go with second best - showing proof beyond any doubt,
again, that cc is an ignorant liar.

[cc]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:17:48 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Bottom line: you *never* asked him what other forums he
> posted to. Never.

I asked him to name something specific. Cross-posting was only one small example of something he could have said. Literally *anything* specific would have been acceptable. He had freedom to answer with anything he chose. He chose not to answer at all..

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 12:24 PM, in article
123e5425-8f54-495e...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:17:48 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Bottom line: you *never* asked him what other forums he
>> posted to. Never.
>
> I asked him to name something specific.

What? What specific thing did you ask him?

Oh. None. You lied. Just like you lied when you claimed to have an Excel
file to back your BS:

cc:
-----
There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
-----
There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
out for yourself.
-----

Yes, cc, you are a liar.

> Cross-posting was only one small example of something he could have said.

And *would* have said, no doubt, had you *asked* him. You are mad he did
not answer questions YOU DID NOT ASK... meanwhile you run from your own
claims.

Yes, you are a liar.

> Literally *anything* specific would have been acceptable. He had freedom to
> answer with anything he chose. He chose not to answer at all..

Listen to the recording. He spoke quite a bit... you even whined how much
he talked about my stalker... but now you say he did not list anything
specific. I guess you think my stalker's actions are known to the world,
eh?

My goodness you are an idiot.

[cc]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:37:54 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> What? What specific thing did you ask him?

I asked him for *anything* specific about his posting history:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anything

Do you not understand the meaning of the word?

I mentioned his reasons for responding to the statistics thread in the first place, which he couldn't give an answer to.

You bring up the "stalker" comments, which is funny, because he never once mentioned a stalker in any of his posts for the longest time, and certainly never in the beginning, which was the situation I was talking about.

So the only specific thing he could mention was a *single word* that he never actually used.

[Steve Carroll]

You can tell him that, you can prove to everyone else (like you
have)... but you'll never get him to grasp the idea that you're not as
stupid as he needs you to be.

> --
> "what is the harm in, say, letting two 80 year old siblings have sex if they want?" - Snit

I'll see your quote and raise ya these:

"I do not see any *logical* reason to disallow incest."-Snit

"To see the mechanism of our incest taboo at work, imagine a world in
which consensual adult incest was legal. Once we see or hear of
couples - even a relatively small number - who engage in legal,
consensual, adult incestuous relationships, the whole idea of incest
with minors becomes thinkable." - Snit

Having "incest with minors" might become "thinkable" for someone
like, Snit, he's a strange one. The more bizarre aspect of this is
that Snit, presumably aware of what he's written here (that's always
an issue), doesn't see his problem when having also written the
statement you are quoting and the "disallow" quote I just put up.
Apparently it's not "logical", in his mind, to "disallow" a thing he
feels would lead to having "incest with minors". I don't understand
this kind of 'thinking'... but that's Snit. For all the stuff he
writes about Stallman... well, he should look at his own writings
first.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 25, 11:47 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/12 9:25 AM, in article
> 4d745f99-c901-4add...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>

> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:30:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> >> Ok, your game is up.
> >> 1) Foster also post as Torre Starnes.
>
> > HAHAHAHA! No shit! How was that even a game? When did he ever try to hide it?
>
> I had no idea.  As I have noted, and as those of you who troll take
> advantage of, my basic nature is to not only be honest and trustworthy, but
> to assume others are as well.  I start with the assumption that people are,
> for example, not using socks.  Only when I see strong evidence that someone
> is lying do I conclude they are... and only when I see a pattern of this do
> I assume it is a pattern for that person.
>
> For example: you have shown you often pretend to be knowledgeable about
> things you clearly are not - hence the reason it was easy to figure out that
> you were lying when you said you had an Excel file that would back your
> unsupportable claims.  But had you not already shown me your history of such
> dishonesty I would not have so quickly come to that conclusion.
>
> > You already knew this though
>
> Nope.  I had no clue.

Snit admits he "had no clue" to what he responded to... I love it. :)

> > , and are just trying to make a scene to keep
> > people from talking about your lies:
>
> If you think I have lied then quote it.

He just quoted you responding to posts that made it clear Foster was
using the Torre handle so it's a lie for you to claim you weren't
aware of that fact. Of course, if you wanna go with the story you just
told... that you "had no clue" about what you responded to when you
read those posts... well, that'd be pretty believable. LOL!

> But I also busted him on lying about having a court "expert" listen to the
> sound file...

If that's true then I "busted" you about the existence of your "wife"
for the exact same reason, Mr. Hypocrite.

> and, of course, you heard both my voice and Onion Knights's at
> the same time, so you *know* there was no post processing.

False, you can certainly have post processed the Skype audio with cc
(sorry., people aren't as stupid as you need them to be). The only
thing he can say (and did say) is that he believed there were two
different people at that Skype meeting that you didn't properly
record.

(snip even more BS by Snit)

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 25, 1:37 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/12 12:24 PM, in article
> 123e5425-8f54-495e...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>

> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:17:48 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> >> Bottom line: you *never* asked him what other forums he
> >> posted to. Never.
>
> > I asked him to name something specific.
>
> What?  What specific thing did you ask him?
>
> Oh.  None.  You lied.

Uh... gluehead? If you recall, one of the main purposes for even
doing the Skype was for you to prove to COLA that the Onion Knight who
was meeting with you and cc was the same Onion Knight who posted to
COLA. If your stooge in Skype session II sat zombie like, and it
sounds like that's the case, then you missed your goal.

> > Cross-posting was only one small example of something he could have said.
>
> And *would* have said, no doubt, had you *asked* him.

Why should have to ask him? Blaming this on cc is bullshit... this was
*your* opportunity to prove *your* case.

> You are mad he did
> not answer questions YOU DID NOT ASK... meanwhile you run from your own
> claims.

A weak and feeble spin from a guy who didn't do everything possible to
prove *his* claim. The burden was on you, not cc. It was *your* claim
that the Onion Knight posting to COLA would be the same Onion Knight
in Skype session II...therefore, the burden of proof was *yours*.

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 12:49 PM, in article
14f157ce-6b2f-47f9...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:37:54 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> What? What specific thing did you ask him?
>
> I asked him for *anything* specific about his posting history:

So you are ashamed you did asked a vague question and were not happy with
the answer and now, far too late, you figured out a specific question you
wanted to ask him. Oh well. I do not care if you are not happy with your
actions. I am not here to help boost the ego of liars such as you or tell
you it is alright you acted in a way you do not like. Deal with it and stop
whining about how inadequate you are.

This is like you blamed others for not being able to get your claimed
results - which you lied about:

cc:
-----
There are four outliers in the latter half of 2011.
-----
There are some low numbers sprinkled in there from late 2007,
early 2008, that are also outliers, if you can't figure that
out for yourself.
-----

Those claims were completely fabricated based on your own wishes and then
you lied and claimed you had an Excel file that would back your claims.
Yes, cc, you are a liar. This is now proved.

Your newest whine about how you did not think of a specific question is just
another attempt on your part to run from your own BS.

...



--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 25, 1:49 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:37:54 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > What? What specific thing did you ask him?
>
> I asked him for *anything* specific about his posting history:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anything
>
> Do you not understand the meaning of the word?
>
> I mentioned his reasons for responding to the statistics thread in the first place, which he couldn't give an answer to.

That raises a huge red flag right there.

> You bring up the "stalker" comments, which is funny, because he never once mentioned a stalker in any of his posts for the longest time, and certainly never in the beginning, which was the situation I was talking about.

Good point.

> So the only specific thing he could mention was a *single word* that he never actually used.

Snit is just trying to shift his burden onto you.

[cc]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:45:14 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> were not happy with the answer

> I do not care if you are not happy with your actions.

Oh, I was very happy with the (lack of an) answer and my actions. As you can see from the overwhelming support I received from neutral observers, and people who just don't like me, they all agreed you got busted in the Skype chat. That was the whole purpose, and I wasn't sure I could pull it off. But since you didn't arm your stooge with even a tiny bit of information to use, your scheme didn't work.

Add to that Foster's analysis (a guy who has no problems with you, no reason to lie, and who also happens to be a universally agreed upon audio guru in these parts) and you got busted twice.

Now you're snipping and running, getting caught in even more lies, and generally running around like a chicken with his head cut off.

So, yeah, I'm pretty pleased.

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 12:49 PM, in article
14f157ce-6b2f-47f9...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You bring up the "stalker" comments, which is funny, because he never once
> mentioned a stalker in any of his posts for the longest time, and certainly
> never in the beginning, which was the situation I was talking about.

His first day of posting, from what I can find, was 6/13. On 6/15 he posted
this:

Onion Knight: 3rd day of posting
-----
I have been posting to usenet for many years though I used to go by
a different name. A large part of the reason I am using a different
name now is because of Steve and his gang from comp.sys.mac.advocacy
as they tracked me down and contacted my family and tried to contact
my boss though they got the information wrong and contacted a
coworker who shared the emails with me. Steve is now trying to track
me down again and has repeatedly emailed me with threats that he
will find my employer and who I really am. When Steve is on the
attack as he is now people should know how fucked up he is. I
suggest people report Steve to COMCAST as he posts things which are
inappropriate. I did so but have not yet heard back from them. Maybe
if they get enough complaints they will cancel his account and it
will be harder for him to attack people as he does.
-----

But you say he did not mention the stalker "for the longest time". Even
before that he noted:

the stalker, as quoted by Onion Knight on 6/13 from an email:
-----
If you are Snit's shill and not his sock I will find you and destroy
you if you continue to support him. You know he is a liar and your
game will backfire on you. I have dealt with your kind before and
you do not scare me.
-----

Onion Knight, 6/13 (first day of posting):
-----
He seems to be convinced that I am you but also says he will track
me down if I am not you. He is inconsistent and irrational. As far
as I know he has no way to track me down but he claims he can. Steve
Carroll truly is a deranged person.
-----

But you say he did not speak of the stalker "for the longest time". What a
crock of sh*t from you.

Once again you have been shown to know *less* about the conversation than
Onion Knight seemed to on the Skype you had with him... and yet you whine he
should have answered specific question *you never asked*!


On the topic of stats: on that first day of his posting he also noted how
you were incorrect in your claim that I had not created a trend line in the
way MS suggests - he references my video where I showed my process. On the
second and third day of his posting he made it clear he did not know much
about the stats topic:

Onion Knight, 2nd and 3rd day of posting:
-----
Does anyone see any missing steps for the creation of a linear trend
line? I admit this is a bit over my head so any input would be
welcome.
-----
While a lot of that still goes over my head, if I get the gist of it ...
-----

And now you are shocked, just shocked!, that he did not go into much details
on a topic he admitted was "a bit over [his] head. Still, I believe he
spoke of that video I produced in the Skype conversation... speaking of the
very things he spoke of on the first days of his posting.

In other words, cc, you are completely clueless and/or dishonest. Again.
So easy to show!

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 25, 1:37 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 9/25/12 12:24 PM, in article
> 123e5425-8f54-495e...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>

> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:17:48 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> >> Bottom line: you *never* asked him what other forums he
> >> posted to. Never.
>
> > I asked him to name something specific.
>
> What?  What specific thing did you ask him?

He didn't ask a specific thing of him, he asked for *any* specific
thing that Onion Knight could offer up on his own... so as to prove
that this Onion Knight was the same one that posted to CSMA. *Any*
specific thing would have worked. So why couldn't Onion Knight answer
such an open ended and easy question? You have no answer so you're
pretending to not have understood the question.

> Oh.  None.  You lied.

Oh, you played stupid and were convincing... but not for the reason
you went for. LOL!

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 1:53 PM, in article
8248be3f-21b4-4537...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:45:14 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> were not happy with the answer
>> I do not care if you are not happy with your actions.
>
> Oh

You snipped again and hence your post has been snipped. Here is what is
important though:

1) You whined you did not get a specific answer to a vague question and are
now whining you did not ask a specific question. Fine, you screwed up. You
do that a lot.

2) You claimed Onion Knight did not speak of the stalker "for a long time"
but he let on to his history with the stalker by his third day of posting.
You showed you knew less about the COLA conversation than did Onion Knight!

3) Onion Knight made it clear from the start he knew little of the stats,
admitting "this is a bit over [his] head" and now you are just shocked he
did not go into details of the stats when you talked with him on Skype.

4) You *still* have never backed your lies about having an Excel file which
showed "four outliers in the latter half of 2011" and also includes the
outliers from earlier years you mentioned. You lied about that, too.

On and on, you lie. And then when busted you snip. And, yes, when you snip
I shall snip your posts... in *response* to your actions. Don't want your
posts snipped away then stop running like the lying coward you are. Got it
yet you lying scumbag?


--

[Onion Knight]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:26:14 -0700, Snit wrote:

>> Snit has a definite lisp. Listen to his skype with Onion Knight. He sounds
>> like a faggot which is why he is pretending to be Onion Knight and using that
>> nym to lash out his twisted sexuality. He uses the Onion Knight nym to attack
>> carrol with all that bowjob crap. No wonder he is voting for Obammy. The
>> democrats love the fags. They cater to them. Snit is just doing what comes
>> naturally to him. Sucking dick and taking it up the ass.
>
> Gee, my stalker gets mad at me and "anonymous" socks start spewing things
> like the above. Never happens when he is not around, but often does when he
> is.
>
> Now who could it be? LOL!

Come out of the closet, Snit. I'll be waiting for you. Kisses.

[Snit]

Hi Tattoo. Why forging someone else's name?


--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I

[Snit]

On 9/25/12 12:49 PM, in article
14f157ce-6b2f-47f9...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You bring up the "stalker" comments, which is funny, because he never once
> mentioned a stalker in any of his posts for the longest time, and certainly
> never in the beginning, which was the situation I was talking about.

[Steve Carroll]

So your sock/shill lied about being stalked and included me in it. What about it? Are you so bored with the current posts that you need to re-animate your past trolling efforts?

> But you say he did not mention the stalker "for the longest time". Even
> before that he noted:
>
> the stalker, as quoted by Onion Knight on 6/13 from an email:
> -----
> If you are Snit's shill and not his sock I will find you and destroy
> you if you continue to support him. You know he is a liar and your
> game will backfire on you. I have dealt with your kind before and
> you do not scare me.
> -----
>
> Onion Knight, 6/13 (first day of posting):
> -----
> He seems to be convinced that I am you but also says he will track
> me down if I am not you. He is inconsistent and irrational. As far
> as I know he has no way to track me down but he claims he can. Steve
> Carroll truly is a deranged person.
> -----
>
> But you say he did not speak of the stalker "for the longest time". What a
> crock of sh*t from you.

The "crock of sh*t" here was from your sock/shill. Get your money back, Snit, your "psych degree" isn't worth wiping your fat ass with ;)