Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is Snit Really Onion Knight?
42 views
Skip to first unread message
Torre Starnes
Aug 20, 2012, 11:03:15 PM8/20/12
to
I doubt there is a single person in COLA who does not believe that
Snit = Onion Knight.
At least when it comes to posting in COLA.
Snit is a few other people as well but that's for another day.
I had a friend of mine take a listen to the SKYPE cast of Snit and
Onion Knight and here are the comments.
1. Recorded on 2 different tracks.
2. Onion Knight's track was highly processed. Snit's was not.
3. Various edit points detected.
4. Slip editing detected. This is where one track is backed up into
another track to make it seem like both people are talking at the
same time.
5. Re-processing Onion Knight's voice through a vocal processor
yields a voice that is very, very similar to Snit's voice.
Bottom line:
Snit recorded his "questions and patter" on one track, then recorded
the answers on another track, processed the voice and shifted the
track to have them both "sort of" talking at the same time.
Forensics reveal his games.
This is from an expert.....
Snit = Onion Knight.
At least when it comes to posting in COLA.
Snit is a few other people as well but that's for another day.
I had a friend of mine take a listen to the SKYPE cast of Snit and
Onion Knight and here are the comments.
1. Recorded on 2 different tracks.
2. Onion Knight's track was highly processed. Snit's was not.
3. Various edit points detected.
4. Slip editing detected. This is where one track is backed up into
another track to make it seem like both people are talking at the
same time.
5. Re-processing Onion Knight's voice through a vocal processor
yields a voice that is very, very similar to Snit's voice.
Bottom line:
Snit recorded his "questions and patter" on one track, then recorded
the answers on another track, processed the voice and shifted the
track to have them both "sort of" talking at the same time.
Forensics reveal his games.
This is from an expert.....
Snit
Aug 20, 2012, 11:12:27 PM8/20/12
to
On 8/20/12 8:03 PM, in article 1cv7gdjrsmhxq$.92ha6nrg20gh$.d...@40tude.net,
> 2. Onion Knight's track was highly processed. Snit's was not.
Onion Knight's was through Skpe. Mine was local.
> 3. Various edit points detected.
Where?
> 4. Slip editing detected. This is where one track is backed up into
> another track to make it seem like both people are talking at the
> same time.
Nope.
> 5. Re-processing Onion Knight's voice through a vocal processor
> yields a voice that is very, very similar to Snit's voice.
Nope.
> Bottom line:
>
> Snit recorded his "questions and patter" on one track, then recorded
> the answers on another track, processed the voice and shifted the
> track to have them both "sort of" talking at the same time.
Nope. That is an out and out lie. And if cc does not run, as expected, he
will hear us both at the same time, soon. And he can record it, too. So
can Onion Knight.
> Forensics reveal his games.
Your lies reveal your dishonesty and bias.
> This is from an expert.....
No, it is from a liar or an ignorant fool. But what will your story become
when (if?) cc actually has the Skye call and he hears the same voice. Heck,
in real time, with a phrase of cc's choosing, I am happy to say the same
thing Onion Knight says in real time.
And we will both have the same voices we have on the recording you heard.
And your "expert" will be proved an idiot.
--
* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.
"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
> I doubt there is a single person in COLA who does not believe that
> Snit = Onion Knight.
> At least when it comes to posting in COLA.
> Snit is a few other people as well but that's for another day.
>
> I had a friend of mine take a listen to the SKYPE cast of Snit and
> Onion Knight and here are the comments.
>
> 1. Recorded on 2 different tracks.
Of course. I told you that.
> I doubt there is a single person in COLA who does not believe that
> Snit = Onion Knight.
> At least when it comes to posting in COLA.
> Snit is a few other people as well but that's for another day.
>
> I had a friend of mine take a listen to the SKYPE cast of Snit and
> Onion Knight and here are the comments.
>
> 1. Recorded on 2 different tracks.
> 2. Onion Knight's track was highly processed. Snit's was not.
> 3. Various edit points detected.
> 4. Slip editing detected. This is where one track is backed up into
> another track to make it seem like both people are talking at the
> same time.
> 5. Re-processing Onion Knight's voice through a vocal processor
> yields a voice that is very, very similar to Snit's voice.
> Bottom line:
>
> Snit recorded his "questions and patter" on one track, then recorded
> the answers on another track, processed the voice and shifted the
> track to have them both "sort of" talking at the same time.
will hear us both at the same time, soon. And he can record it, too. So
can Onion Knight.
> Forensics reveal his games.
Your lies reveal your dishonesty and bias.
> This is from an expert.....
when (if?) cc actually has the Skye call and he hears the same voice. Heck,
in real time, with a phrase of cc's choosing, I am happy to say the same
thing Onion Knight says in real time.
And we will both have the same voices we have on the recording you heard.
And your "expert" will be proved an idiot.
--
* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.
Sandman
Aug 21, 2012, 2:58:22 AM8/21/12
to
In article <1cv7gdjrsmhxq$.92ha6nrg20gh$.d...@40tude.net>,
Well, color me shocked! :-D
Haha :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Haha :)
--
Sandman[.net]
bbgruff
Aug 21, 2012, 5:59:57 AM8/21/12
to
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 04:03 Torre Starnes wrote:
> I doubt there is a single person in COLA who does not believe that
> Snit = Onion Knight.
- and certainly not The Hooded Plumber, or Foster, or Moshe, or.....eh,
> I doubt there is a single person in COLA who does not believe that
> Snit = Onion Knight.
flatfish?
Tell me again about the "hypocrites" in this group? I'm coming to think
that the American word must have a meaning which is different from the
English one.
White Spirit
Aug 21, 2012, 6:09:39 AM8/21/12
to bbg...@yahoo.co.uk
On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:59:57 AM UTC+1, bbgruff wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 August 2012 04:03 Torre Starnes wrote:
> > I doubt there is a single person in COLA who does not believe that
> > Snit = Onion Knight.
> - and certainly not The Hooded Plumber, or Foster, or Moshe, or.....eh,
> flatfish?
There is a difference between nymshifting and using sock puppets.
> On Tuesday 21 August 2012 04:03 Torre Starnes wrote:
> > I doubt there is a single person in COLA who does not believe that
> > Snit = Onion Knight.
> - and certainly not The Hooded Plumber, or Foster, or Moshe, or.....eh,
> flatfish?
Snit
Aug 21, 2012, 8:31:17 AM8/21/12
to
On 8/20/12 11:58 PM, in article
mr-6B4844.08...@News.Individual.NET, "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net>
wrote:
You are shocked that an "expert" would be either a liar or an idiot... or
that no such "expert" even exists and Torre Starnes is just lying about
that?
Keep in mind, I did not owe anyone any evidence of anything... nor did Onion
Knight... but both of us provided 100% proof we are *not* the same person.
Absolute proof. But Torre Starnes refuses to accept that and instead lies
about both of us. But the last laugh will be ours:
Assuming he does not run away, cc will have a Skype conversation with myself
and Onion Knight... I wonder what excuse Torre Starnes will come up for when
a third party is listening in real time to both of us speak and, of course,
using the same voice as heard on the first recording.
Or is he already working out how I can "trick" people with that, too. Maybe
he will claim cc is *also* the same person as Onion Knight and I. Maybe
everyone but Torre Starnes is the same person! Just idiotic.
mr-6B4844.08...@News.Individual.NET, "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net>
wrote:
that no such "expert" even exists and Torre Starnes is just lying about
that?
Keep in mind, I did not owe anyone any evidence of anything... nor did Onion
Knight... but both of us provided 100% proof we are *not* the same person.
Absolute proof. But Torre Starnes refuses to accept that and instead lies
about both of us. But the last laugh will be ours:
Assuming he does not run away, cc will have a Skype conversation with myself
and Onion Knight... I wonder what excuse Torre Starnes will come up for when
a third party is listening in real time to both of us speak and, of course,
using the same voice as heard on the first recording.
Or is he already working out how I can "trick" people with that, too. Maybe
he will claim cc is *also* the same person as Onion Knight and I. Maybe
everyone but Torre Starnes is the same person! Just idiotic.
Snit
Aug 21, 2012, 8:31:21 AM8/21/12
to
On 8/21/12 2:59 AM, in article a9h4gu...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"
Torre Starnes made a royal idiot of himself. He and his (likely)
non-existent "expert" are making idiotic claims he cannot back. And given
how cc has agreed to a live conversation with Onion Knight and myself, and
given how Onion Knight and I will have the same voices on the Skype call,
Torre Starnes better be working out how to explain *that*! I wonder if he
will claim cc is in on it or if cc is *also* me.
I mean, really, what a pathetic accusation and set of bogus pieces of
"evidence" he made up here. Just to stir the pot. Rather pathetic of him.
non-existent "expert" are making idiotic claims he cannot back. And given
how cc has agreed to a live conversation with Onion Knight and myself, and
given how Onion Knight and I will have the same voices on the Skype call,
Torre Starnes better be working out how to explain *that*! I wonder if he
will claim cc is in on it or if cc is *also* me.
I mean, really, what a pathetic accusation and set of bogus pieces of
"evidence" he made up here. Just to stir the pot. Rather pathetic of him.
bbgruff
Aug 21, 2012, 8:39:33 AM8/21/12
to
Torre Starnes
Aug 21, 2012, 7:40:35 PM8/21/12
to
Snit will go into attack mode, even attacking me for basing my
original assessment on the files that were posted and then claiming
I made an ass of myself.
That's what he will do.
The truth of the matter is that using what was originally posted, I
came to the conclusion snit = Onion Knight. When provided with
other, original files I admitted I could not reach that same
conclusion.
But in the asshole snit's sick and twisted mind, this is making an
ass of oneself.
No snit, this is "manning" up and telling the truth. Something you
should try sometime.
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.
And here is how:
Snit recorded himself on one track, then recorded his responses as
Onion Knight on another track and ran that track through a voice
changing program. The artifacts are there. The background noise
changes and the overall frequency response is far greater than Skype
allows so this was NOT a Skype connection.
Hint: Pitch shift Onion Knight up a few octaves and see what you
get.....
You get snit....
There are other aspects that prove this is a fake but I'm going to
pocket those for future use when CC, Snit and Onion Knight all meet
for a conversation.
Bottom line is, Snit is lying his ass off on this one.
Snit
Aug 21, 2012, 8:00:56 PM8/21/12
to
On 8/21/12 4:40 PM, in article 1ruqvwegx1t64$.4dleza69rw0w$.d...@40tude.net,
The "fact" is that the above claims of yours are unsubstantiated and absurd.
And, of course, if cc does not back out of his Skype with Onion Knight and
I, there will be even more proof to denounce the absurd accusations I (and
Onion Knight) have no obligation to say a word about.
Bottom line: your claims are wrong - other than the first one. Yes, the two
voices are on two tracks - which is what I made clear some time ago:
-----
| This is not an artifact due to processing because then snit's
| voice would also sound processed and it doesn't. He sounds
| basically like he did on Roy's podcast.
I did the recording... my voice is local. Onion Knight is
over Skype which has poor quality. Man, what a mystery!
| Let's see if snit will post the raw file prior to noise
| reduction and snipping.
Why not? No smoothing or removing of background noise or
even altering the volumes of the two voices (they are on
different tracks) to try to make them roughly the same. I
did not bring back the last bit after we hung up... so there
is that "editing"... trimming off the end. I also did not
record the very start... so you do not hear the start of the
call. Re-exported as AIFF... not even compressed as an MP3.
About 55 MB:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-RAW.aiff>
-----
The rest of your points are complete rubbish with *no* backing. None. Not
a shred.
> Snit will go into attack mode, even attacking me for basing my
> original assessment on the files that were posted and then claiming
> I made an ass of myself.
> That's what he will do.
I will note you are telling falsehoods about the sound file.
Curious: what will you say when (if?) cc shows up and he can verify Onion
Knight and I speaking in real time (and, of course, using the same voices
you hear on the above linked recording).
This will *completely* disprove your claim. 100%. Not that there is *any*
support now... not that I have *any* obligation to refute your BS... but
what will you say when your BS above is proved to be false?
> The truth of the matter is that using what was originally posted, I
> came to the conclusion snit = Onion Knight. When provided with
> other, original files I admitted I could not reach that same
> conclusion.
>
> But in the asshole snit's sick and twisted mind, this is making an
> ass of oneself.
You are making an ass out of yourself by making false accusations. And, I
admit, I will enjoy you being proved wrong - assuming cc does not back out
of the Skype call. If he does not, what will your excuse be then? I really
want to know.
> No snit, this is "manning" up and telling the truth. Something you
> should try sometime.
You are the one making up stories about me *and* Onion Knight - stories you
have *no* support for.
> 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.
> And here is how:
>
> Snit recorded himself on one track, then recorded his responses as
> Onion Knight on another track and ran that track through a voice
> changing program. The artifacts are there. The background noise
> changes and the overall frequency response is far greater than Skype
> allows so this was NOT a Skype connection.
This is completely untrue. I would love the name of this "professional"...
and wonder what you will say when your claims are proved wrong.
> Hint: Pitch shift Onion Knight up a few octaves and see what you
> get.....
> You get snit....
Nope... you get Onion Knight's voice shifted "up a few octaves". Since it
is not me you cannot possibly get my voice by doing this.
> There are other aspects that prove this is a fake but I'm going to
> pocket those for future use when CC, Snit and Onion Knight all meet
> for a conversation.
LOL! Yeah, I look forward to seeing what stories you come up with to
"prove" I can use my voice multiple times with multiple sounds at the same
time - tell you what, I will even make sure we speak at the same time.
> Bottom line is, Snit is lying his ass off on this one.
Nope. You are either lying or *very*, *very* ignorant... and your alleged
"professional" either does not exist or is a compete idiot who is not nearly
as good as you think.
But let us imagine you are not lying about him - let us say he really makes
up stories like this and passes himself as having knowledge *in courts*
where people's lives can be affected by his BS "analysis". Really, that
would just suck. People's lives in the hands of someone so incompetent...
So who is this completely incompetent "professional" who came to these
idiotic conclusions?
And, again, what BS lies will you tell once cc is on the Skype call, too?
How will you and your idiot-"professional" explain that? Amazing how the
stories you tell imply I am a master sound engineer who can mock up my own
voice and alter how I pronounce and emphasize words to do the kind of thing
you are talking about.
Your lies show how much respect you have for my abilities. I guess for
that, thanks!
And, of course, if cc does not back out of his Skype with Onion Knight and
I, there will be even more proof to denounce the absurd accusations I (and
Onion Knight) have no obligation to say a word about.
Bottom line: your claims are wrong - other than the first one. Yes, the two
voices are on two tracks - which is what I made clear some time ago:
-----
| This is not an artifact due to processing because then snit's
| voice would also sound processed and it doesn't. He sounds
| basically like he did on Roy's podcast.
I did the recording... my voice is local. Onion Knight is
over Skype which has poor quality. Man, what a mystery!
| Let's see if snit will post the raw file prior to noise
| reduction and snipping.
Why not? No smoothing or removing of background noise or
even altering the volumes of the two voices (they are on
different tracks) to try to make them roughly the same. I
did not bring back the last bit after we hung up... so there
is that "editing"... trimming off the end. I also did not
record the very start... so you do not hear the start of the
call. Re-exported as AIFF... not even compressed as an MP3.
About 55 MB:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-RAW.aiff>
-----
The rest of your points are complete rubbish with *no* backing. None. Not
a shred.
> Snit will go into attack mode, even attacking me for basing my
> original assessment on the files that were posted and then claiming
> I made an ass of myself.
> That's what he will do.
Curious: what will you say when (if?) cc shows up and he can verify Onion
Knight and I speaking in real time (and, of course, using the same voices
you hear on the above linked recording).
This will *completely* disprove your claim. 100%. Not that there is *any*
support now... not that I have *any* obligation to refute your BS... but
what will you say when your BS above is proved to be false?
> The truth of the matter is that using what was originally posted, I
> came to the conclusion snit = Onion Knight. When provided with
> other, original files I admitted I could not reach that same
> conclusion.
>
> But in the asshole snit's sick and twisted mind, this is making an
> ass of oneself.
admit, I will enjoy you being proved wrong - assuming cc does not back out
of the Skype call. If he does not, what will your excuse be then? I really
want to know.
> No snit, this is "manning" up and telling the truth. Something you
> should try sometime.
have *no* support for.
> 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.
> And here is how:
>
> Snit recorded himself on one track, then recorded his responses as
> Onion Knight on another track and ran that track through a voice
> changing program. The artifacts are there. The background noise
> changes and the overall frequency response is far greater than Skype
> allows so this was NOT a Skype connection.
and wonder what you will say when your claims are proved wrong.
> Hint: Pitch shift Onion Knight up a few octaves and see what you
> get.....
> You get snit....
is not me you cannot possibly get my voice by doing this.
> There are other aspects that prove this is a fake but I'm going to
> pocket those for future use when CC, Snit and Onion Knight all meet
> for a conversation.
"prove" I can use my voice multiple times with multiple sounds at the same
time - tell you what, I will even make sure we speak at the same time.
> Bottom line is, Snit is lying his ass off on this one.
"professional" either does not exist or is a compete idiot who is not nearly
as good as you think.
But let us imagine you are not lying about him - let us say he really makes
up stories like this and passes himself as having knowledge *in courts*
where people's lives can be affected by his BS "analysis". Really, that
would just suck. People's lives in the hands of someone so incompetent...
So who is this completely incompetent "professional" who came to these
idiotic conclusions?
And, again, what BS lies will you tell once cc is on the Skype call, too?
How will you and your idiot-"professional" explain that? Amazing how the
stories you tell imply I am a master sound engineer who can mock up my own
voice and alter how I pronounce and emphasize words to do the kind of thing
you are talking about.
Your lies show how much respect you have for my abilities. I guess for
that, thanks!
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 21, 2012, 10:49:22 PM8/21/12
to
Snit wrote:
> I would love the name of this "professional"...
Maybe, like Onionhead, he wishes to remain anonymous. :-P
> I would love the name of this "professional"...
--
Perhaps this situation requires a more Klingon response.
[tv]
Snit
Aug 21, 2012, 11:17:48 PM8/21/12
to
On 8/21/12 7:49 PM, in article iz97nk37...@sitting.at.this.computer,
stupid as the ones Torre Starnes attributes to him would never want his name
mentioned!
Torre Starnes likely made up a story about such a "professional" - hence no
actual evidence... no sound files to back the claims, etc. Nor will there
ever be since the claims are idiotic. His "professional" is an "invisible"
sock... it is him, he is just not going to admit to that. There is nobody
but him... and he is full of BS.
And once cc has his discussion with Onion Knight and I in real time I do
wonder what Torre Starnes will lie about next. Do you have any guesses? I
really am curious what lies he will come up with to explain away how "I" can
have my voice be heard by cc *twice* at the same time... even saying
different things.
His "expert" will have to come up with a whole new set of lies. It should
be amusing to read what Wizardry he claims I am capable of.
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I would love the name of this "professional"...
>
> Maybe, like Onionhead, he wishes to remain anonymous. :-P
Of course he does! Any "professional" who made comments as unbelievably
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I would love the name of this "professional"...
>
> Maybe, like Onionhead, he wishes to remain anonymous. :-P
stupid as the ones Torre Starnes attributes to him would never want his name
mentioned!
Torre Starnes likely made up a story about such a "professional" - hence no
actual evidence... no sound files to back the claims, etc. Nor will there
ever be since the claims are idiotic. His "professional" is an "invisible"
sock... it is him, he is just not going to admit to that. There is nobody
but him... and he is full of BS.
And once cc has his discussion with Onion Knight and I in real time I do
wonder what Torre Starnes will lie about next. Do you have any guesses? I
really am curious what lies he will come up with to explain away how "I" can
have my voice be heard by cc *twice* at the same time... even saying
different things.
His "expert" will have to come up with a whole new set of lies. It should
be amusing to read what Wizardry he claims I am capable of.
Sandman
Aug 22, 2012, 2:16:31 AM8/22/12
to
In article <1ruqvwegx1t64$.4dleza69rw0w$.d...@40tude.net>,
> The truth of the matter is that using what was originally posted, I
> came to the conclusion snit = Onion Knight. When provided with
> other, original files I admitted I could not reach that same
> conclusion.
Well, if there is even the slightest reason to assume they're the same
- then they are 100% the same person. This is what he does. All the
time.
> But in the asshole snit's sick and twisted mind, this is making an
> ass of oneself.
>
> No snit, this is "manning" up and telling the truth. Something you
> should try sometime.
I've seen him online since about 2004, I've never seen him say
anything true ever. It's an obsession to him, to lie about everything
he can possibly twist into a lie. Compulsive...
> 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.
> And here is how:
>
> Snit recorded himself on one track, then recorded his responses as
> Onion Knight on another track and ran that track through a voice
> changing program. The artifacts are there. The background noise
> changes and the overall frequency response is far greater than Skype
> allows so this was NOT a Skype connection.
Of course not.
> Hint: Pitch shift Onion Knight up a few octaves and see what you
> get.....
> You get snit....
I haven't even listened to the audio files. No need.
> There are other aspects that prove this is a fake but I'm going to
> pocket those for future use when CC, Snit and Onion Knight all meet
> for a conversation.
>
> Bottom line is, Snit is lying his ass off on this one.
It would thoroughly surprise me if he ever posted something that
wasn't a lie.
--
Sandman[.net]
Torre Starnes <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
> >> Forensics reveal his games.
> >>
> >> This is from an expert.....
> >
> > Well, color me shocked! :-D
> >
> > Haha :)
>
> It's a fact....
> Snit will go into attack mode, even attacking me for basing my
> original assessment on the files that were posted and then claiming
> I made an ass of myself.
> That's what he will do.
That's all he ever does.
> >> Forensics reveal his games.
> >>
> >> This is from an expert.....
> >
> > Well, color me shocked! :-D
> >
> > Haha :)
>
> It's a fact....
> Snit will go into attack mode, even attacking me for basing my
> original assessment on the files that were posted and then claiming
> I made an ass of myself.
> That's what he will do.
> The truth of the matter is that using what was originally posted, I
> came to the conclusion snit = Onion Knight. When provided with
> other, original files I admitted I could not reach that same
> conclusion.
- then they are 100% the same person. This is what he does. All the
time.
> But in the asshole snit's sick and twisted mind, this is making an
> ass of oneself.
>
> No snit, this is "manning" up and telling the truth. Something you
> should try sometime.
anything true ever. It's an obsession to him, to lie about everything
he can possibly twist into a lie. Compulsive...
> 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.
> And here is how:
>
> Snit recorded himself on one track, then recorded his responses as
> Onion Knight on another track and ran that track through a voice
> changing program. The artifacts are there. The background noise
> changes and the overall frequency response is far greater than Skype
> allows so this was NOT a Skype connection.
> Hint: Pitch shift Onion Knight up a few octaves and see what you
> get.....
> You get snit....
> There are other aspects that prove this is a fake but I'm going to
> pocket those for future use when CC, Snit and Onion Knight all meet
> for a conversation.
>
> Bottom line is, Snit is lying his ass off on this one.
wasn't a lie.
--
Sandman[.net]
Nobody
Aug 22, 2012, 6:03:13 AM8/22/12
to
Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I would love the name of this "professional"...
>
> Maybe, like Onionhead, he wishes to remain anonymous. :-P
Has anybody failed to notice "Onion Knight" is MIA again while Snit
> Snit wrote:
>
>> I would love the name of this "professional"...
>
> Maybe, like Onionhead, he wishes to remain anonymous. :-P
speaks for him?
Big Steel
Aug 22, 2012, 6:07:39 AM8/22/12
to
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 22, 2012, 7:09:15 AM8/22/12
to
Nobody wrote:
> Has anybody failed to notice "Onion Knight" is MIA again while Snit
> speaks for him?
He's Onionhead's spokespuppet!
> Has anybody failed to notice "Onion Knight" is MIA again while Snit
> speaks for him?
Snit
Aug 22, 2012, 10:09:43 AM8/22/12
to
On 8/22/12 3:07 AM, in article
mqCdncrfYpfoMqnN...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
Let me guess: it is my fault Onion Knight is not posting as much as he once
was. This is indicative of something deep and important about me. Must be!
mqCdncrfYpfoMqnN...@earthlink.com, "Big Steel"
was. This is indicative of something deep and important about me. Must be!
Snit
Aug 22, 2012, 12:30:29 PM8/22/12
to
On 8/22/12 4:09 AM, in article oglhe76gm4yk$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
about the four points in my .sig and instead wants to ask Onion Knight
questions... and cc has said he will leave the conversation if Onion Knight
does not respond. In other words, cc is setting it up so he can demand
Onion Knight to say his full name or give other personal info, something
Onion Knight has made clear he does not wish to do, and then cc can leave
and claim it was not his fault he never got to the questions that lead to us
having any desire to have a recorded Skype in the first place.
Bottom line: cc is trying to work it out so he does not have to answer any
questions about the four points in my .sig. He knows he made a complete
fool of himself and wants to avoid that.
I have made it clear from the very start that those four points are the key
reason to have the Skype conversation at all. cc added the absurd
stipulation that Onion Knight be there, too... which is bizarre because he
is not needed for cc to answer my questions... but Onion Knight agreed.
This actually works in my favor (and Onion Knights) now that Torre Starnes
has made a complete and utter fool of himself by claiming he had some
professional determine Onion Knight and I have the same voice (about as
likely as two non-related people having the same DNA!) He even claimed this
unnamed, invisible "professional" was good enough to be a court expert.
Man, how he put his foot in his mouth! Once Onion Knight and I speak with
cc and it is clear it is happening real time and not with any of the
trickery Torre Starnes made stories up about he will have a very hard time
explaining that one!
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Nobody wrote:
>
>> Has anybody failed to notice "Onion Knight" is MIA again while Snit
>> speaks for him?
>
> He's Onionhead's spokespuppet!
I have not spoken for him - I have noted how cc is pushing to *not* speak
> Nobody wrote:
>
>> Has anybody failed to notice "Onion Knight" is MIA again while Snit
>> speaks for him?
>
> He's Onionhead's spokespuppet!
about the four points in my .sig and instead wants to ask Onion Knight
questions... and cc has said he will leave the conversation if Onion Knight
does not respond. In other words, cc is setting it up so he can demand
Onion Knight to say his full name or give other personal info, something
Onion Knight has made clear he does not wish to do, and then cc can leave
and claim it was not his fault he never got to the questions that lead to us
having any desire to have a recorded Skype in the first place.
Bottom line: cc is trying to work it out so he does not have to answer any
questions about the four points in my .sig. He knows he made a complete
fool of himself and wants to avoid that.
I have made it clear from the very start that those four points are the key
reason to have the Skype conversation at all. cc added the absurd
stipulation that Onion Knight be there, too... which is bizarre because he
is not needed for cc to answer my questions... but Onion Knight agreed.
This actually works in my favor (and Onion Knights) now that Torre Starnes
has made a complete and utter fool of himself by claiming he had some
professional determine Onion Knight and I have the same voice (about as
likely as two non-related people having the same DNA!) He even claimed this
unnamed, invisible "professional" was good enough to be a court expert.
Man, how he put his foot in his mouth! Once Onion Knight and I speak with
cc and it is clear it is happening real time and not with any of the
trickery Torre Starnes made stories up about he will have a very hard time
explaining that one!
Snit
Aug 22, 2012, 12:34:36 PM8/22/12
to
On 8/21/12 11:16 PM, in article
mr-1FDE1E.08...@News.Individual.NET, "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net>
wrote:
You are lying about me... and admitting you did not even listen to the audio
file which Torre Starnes' non-existent "professional" friend made idiotic
claims about.
Here is my question for you and Torre Starnes and anyone else: assuming cc
does not run from the Skype call, how will Torre Starnes explain Onion
Knight and I speaking at the same time with a *third* person there? What
amazing trickery will he concoct to say the same two voice from the first
recording are now being done in real time as verified by an unfriendly
source (assuming cc does not lie about it) and even talking at the same time
(I will make sure Onion Knight and I do so).
Torre Starnes will have to be very creative in his story telling then! But
whatever he comes up with you will just buy it and insist it must be true,
no matter how absurd. This is very predictable.
Ah, "advocacy" groups... where honesty is seen as something to attack by the
likes of you and quite a few others. Quite interesting!
mr-1FDE1E.08...@News.Individual.NET, "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net>
wrote:
file which Torre Starnes' non-existent "professional" friend made idiotic
claims about.
Here is my question for you and Torre Starnes and anyone else: assuming cc
does not run from the Skype call, how will Torre Starnes explain Onion
Knight and I speaking at the same time with a *third* person there? What
amazing trickery will he concoct to say the same two voice from the first
recording are now being done in real time as verified by an unfriendly
source (assuming cc does not lie about it) and even talking at the same time
(I will make sure Onion Knight and I do so).
Torre Starnes will have to be very creative in his story telling then! But
whatever he comes up with you will just buy it and insist it must be true,
no matter how absurd. This is very predictable.
Ah, "advocacy" groups... where honesty is seen as something to attack by the
likes of you and quite a few others. Quite interesting!
Snit
Aug 22, 2012, 12:35:50 PM8/22/12
to
On 8/22/12 3:03 AM, in article k12ap1$j71$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
I am not speaking for anyone but myself. I do note what others have said...
such as how Onion Knight does not want his identity known and how cc is
trying to set things up so he does not have to answer for the four points in
my .sig. This is not speaking for either of them, it is merely noting what
they both have said (or done, in the case of cc).
such as how Onion Knight does not want his identity known and how cc is
trying to set things up so he does not have to answer for the four points in
my .sig. This is not speaking for either of them, it is merely noting what
they both have said (or done, in the case of cc).
cc
Aug 22, 2012, 3:09:56 PM8/22/12
to
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 12:30:29 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> I have noted how cc is pushing to *not* speak about the four points
> in my .sig and instead wants to ask Onion Knight questions... and
> cc has said he will leave the conversation if Onion Knight does not
> respond. In other words, cc is setting it up so he can demand
> Onion Knight to say his full name or give other personal info,
> something Onion Knight has made clear he does not wish to do, and then
> cc can leave and claim it was not his fault he never got to the
> questions that lead to us having any desire to have a recorded
> Skype in the first place.
That's a weird twist on what I said. I do not care about Onion Knight's personal info, so questions of that nature will not be asked. But question's will be asked. So Onion Knight can't sit silently, or I leave. I made it clear Onion Knight must be a full participant from the beginning. If you didn't like the terms you didn't have to agree to them.
>
> I have noted how cc is pushing to *not* speak about the four points
> in my .sig and instead wants to ask Onion Knight questions... and
> cc has said he will leave the conversation if Onion Knight does not
> respond. In other words, cc is setting it up so he can demand
> Onion Knight to say his full name or give other personal info,
> something Onion Knight has made clear he does not wish to do, and then
> cc can leave and claim it was not his fault he never got to the
> questions that lead to us having any desire to have a recorded
> Skype in the first place.
My guess is "Onion Knight" doesn't show, making this a huge mistake on my part.
Funny how you're "not speaking for Onion Knight", yet you're the only one who has brought up Onion Knight's fears, demands, etc. Onion Knight made a brief appearance to say he'd join the chat, but other than that everything we know about what Onion Knight wants or doesn't want to do in this chat has come from YOU. That is the very definition of speaking for someone. Of course when you're trying to hide the fact that the other person is really you...
--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
Foster
Aug 22, 2012, 3:27:10 PM8/22/12
to
changing program for Skype so with a little practice one person can
become 2 people simply by turning the program on and off in real
time.
http://onsoftware.en.softonic.com/top-skype-voice-changers
The last option is the best one because snit can obviously answer
any question about COLA you may ask.
I would advise you to record the entire conversation on your end as
well so nobody can play around with your words.
Snit
Aug 22, 2012, 4:33:09 PM8/22/12
to
On 8/22/12 12:27 PM, in article cdydgc74d1we$.1e25a23dup62v$.d...@40tude.net,
And speak at the same time, too, right? Yeah, that must be it!
Really, this whole BS about the two of us having the same voice, just
"altered" in the case of Onion Knight, is absurd. There is *no* backing for
it. None. Nor any backing for any of the other accusations against us
being the same person. Amazing how much group think can alter the way
people think.
And I have been playing with it - the more I speak out against it the more
weak minded people think it is true. This is a well known phenomena... I
have no obligation to defend myself against such absurd accusations, but I
do... and the weak-minded see this as a sign there must be some credence to
the accusations. Psychology is a wonderful and mysterious thing!
> http://onsoftware.en.softonic.com/top-skype-voice-changers
>
> The last option is the best one because snit can obviously answer
> any question about COLA you may ask.
>
> I would advise you to record the entire conversation on your end as
> well so nobody can play around with your words.
I absolutely agree that he should record the conversation.
Really, this whole BS about the two of us having the same voice, just
"altered" in the case of Onion Knight, is absurd. There is *no* backing for
it. None. Nor any backing for any of the other accusations against us
being the same person. Amazing how much group think can alter the way
people think.
And I have been playing with it - the more I speak out against it the more
weak minded people think it is true. This is a well known phenomena... I
have no obligation to defend myself against such absurd accusations, but I
do... and the weak-minded see this as a sign there must be some credence to
the accusations. Psychology is a wonderful and mysterious thing!
> http://onsoftware.en.softonic.com/top-skype-voice-changers
>
> The last option is the best one because snit can obviously answer
> any question about COLA you may ask.
>
> I would advise you to record the entire conversation on your end as
> well so nobody can play around with your words.
Snit
Aug 22, 2012, 4:42:27 PM8/22/12
to
On 8/22/12 12:09 PM, in article
a27117d4-9b9c-487b...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
him any question and if he did not answer to your satisfaction you would
leave - avoiding the *main* topic of the discussion, the four points of my
.sig.
> But question's will be asked.
Excellent.
> So Onion Knight can't sit silently, or I leave.
What he does is up to him.
> I made it clear Onion Knight must be a full participant from the beginning. If
> you didn't like the terms you didn't have to agree to them.
Again, what you want from him is between you and he. Do not involve me. I
have been clear from the start that I want to ask you about the four points
in my .sig. I can even sorta combine the first two, making it three points.
I expect you to make excuses to *not* answer about those things... and your
whole BS about Onion Knight is simply to get out of answering.
> My guess is "Onion Knight" doesn't show, making this a huge mistake on my
> part.
I have no reason to doubt his word.
> Funny how you're "not speaking for Onion Knight", yet you're the only one who
> has brought up Onion Knight's fears, demands, etc.
You were the one demanding you should be able to ask him any question and if
he does not answer to your satisfaction you will not answer the main
questions the whole session is being set up for - for you to answer the
points in my .sig. Again, I completely expect you to dodge that in any way
you can. You have online and you almost surely will on the Skype call.
> Onion Knight made a brief appearance to say he'd join the chat, but other than
> that everything we know about what Onion Knight wants or doesn't want to do in
> this chat has come from YOU.
He has made it clear he does not want his ID known and he has been clear on
the reasons. I expected as a part of your working to dodge the points I
speak of in my .sig to not respect that. You have now said you will not use
*that* tactic to avoid the questions about the points in my .sig. Still,
the question remains as to what tactics you will use. Face it, you are
doing what you can to change the topic *away* from those things.
> That is the very definition of speaking for someone.
Gee, I am calling you out on your BS, making you have to be more creative as
you work to avoid speaking about the points in my .sig. I must say, I am
curious what tactics you will be using to do that. Right now it sounds as
though you are just working to change the focus onto Onion Knight and not
your idiotic and baseless claims, but I suspect you have more up your
sleeve. I will be *shocked* if you do not just run like a scared bunny from
those points. Still, the very idea you agreed to do a Skype discussion
where those points will be discussed surprised me - I did not expect you to.
So you are being interesting... I appreciate that!
> Of course when you're trying to hide the fact that the other person is really
> you...
Yawn. And you are the Pope. Prove you are not!
a27117d4-9b9c-487b...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 12:30:29 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> I have noted how cc is pushing to *not* speak about the four points in my
>> .sig and instead wants to ask Onion Knight questions... and cc has said he
>> will leave the conversation if Onion Knight does not respond. In other words,
>> cc is setting it up so he can demand Onion Knight to say his full name or
>> give other personal info, something Onion Knight has made clear he does not
>> wish to do, and then cc can leave and claim it was not his fault he never got
>> to the questions that lead to us having any desire to have a recorded Skype
>> in the first place.
>>
> That's a weird twist on what I said. I do not care about Onion Knight's
> personal info, so questions of that nature will not be asked.
Good to hear: before you just said you were insisting on being able to ask
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 12:30:29 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> I have noted how cc is pushing to *not* speak about the four points in my
>> .sig and instead wants to ask Onion Knight questions... and cc has said he
>> will leave the conversation if Onion Knight does not respond. In other words,
>> cc is setting it up so he can demand Onion Knight to say his full name or
>> give other personal info, something Onion Knight has made clear he does not
>> wish to do, and then cc can leave and claim it was not his fault he never got
>> to the questions that lead to us having any desire to have a recorded Skype
>> in the first place.
>>
> That's a weird twist on what I said. I do not care about Onion Knight's
> personal info, so questions of that nature will not be asked.
him any question and if he did not answer to your satisfaction you would
leave - avoiding the *main* topic of the discussion, the four points of my
.sig.
> But question's will be asked.
> So Onion Knight can't sit silently, or I leave.
> I made it clear Onion Knight must be a full participant from the beginning. If
> you didn't like the terms you didn't have to agree to them.
have been clear from the start that I want to ask you about the four points
in my .sig. I can even sorta combine the first two, making it three points.
I expect you to make excuses to *not* answer about those things... and your
whole BS about Onion Knight is simply to get out of answering.
> My guess is "Onion Knight" doesn't show, making this a huge mistake on my
> part.
> Funny how you're "not speaking for Onion Knight", yet you're the only one who
> has brought up Onion Knight's fears, demands, etc.
he does not answer to your satisfaction you will not answer the main
questions the whole session is being set up for - for you to answer the
points in my .sig. Again, I completely expect you to dodge that in any way
you can. You have online and you almost surely will on the Skype call.
> Onion Knight made a brief appearance to say he'd join the chat, but other than
> that everything we know about what Onion Knight wants or doesn't want to do in
> this chat has come from YOU.
the reasons. I expected as a part of your working to dodge the points I
speak of in my .sig to not respect that. You have now said you will not use
*that* tactic to avoid the questions about the points in my .sig. Still,
the question remains as to what tactics you will use. Face it, you are
doing what you can to change the topic *away* from those things.
> That is the very definition of speaking for someone.
you work to avoid speaking about the points in my .sig. I must say, I am
curious what tactics you will be using to do that. Right now it sounds as
though you are just working to change the focus onto Onion Knight and not
your idiotic and baseless claims, but I suspect you have more up your
sleeve. I will be *shocked* if you do not just run like a scared bunny from
those points. Still, the very idea you agreed to do a Skype discussion
where those points will be discussed surprised me - I did not expect you to.
So you are being interesting... I appreciate that!
> Of course when you're trying to hide the fact that the other person is really
> you...
Snit
Aug 22, 2012, 4:50:20 PM8/22/12
to
On 8/22/12 12:09 PM, in article
a27117d4-9b9c-487b...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
a27117d4-9b9c-487b...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Of course when you're trying to hide the fact that the other person is really
> you...
You and my stalker have both reduced your posting a lot at about the same
> you...
time. Prove you two are not all the same person. You and he co-trolled on
some obviously insane BS, such as saying Onion Knight and I are the same
person. You and my stalker have also talked about contacting my employer -
in your case even going so far as to claim you did send an email and got a
reply... and you sent me emails from "someone else" who was contacting my
employer under false pretenses and making all sorts of lies (much as my
stalker has threatened to do). You and my stalker also have *serious*
problems with understanding simple concepts and run to absurd definitions
and play other similar games. And I am not the first to suggest you two
might be the same person. My stalker has repeatedly used socks to try to
get me to respond to him, so no reason to think you are not just another of
his socks doing so.
So prove you are not the same person. The evidence against you is
*massively* stronger than the idea that I would go so far out of character
as to use a sock at all... and yet you keep pushing this idea.
So come on, cc, prove you are not the same person as my stalker. If you
cannot, of course, it should be assumed that you are.
Or do you have a problem with that reasoning?
cc
Aug 22, 2012, 5:25:26 PM8/22/12
to
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 4:50:20 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> You and my stalker have both reduced your posting a lot at
> about the same time.
You listed a bunch of outright lies and mere coincidences that I am somehow the same as Steve. Your analogy does not hold up when compared with the similarities between you and Onion Knight. You post using a TOR proxy with Onion Knight. Steve and I don't use anonymous proxies. Therefore it is easy to see that we are two separate people, if it wasn't obvious by our posts already.
>
> You and my stalker have both reduced your posting a lot at
> about the same time.
The entire group knows you're Onion Knight. Your false analogies convince no one.
cc
Aug 22, 2012, 5:33:06 PM8/22/12
to
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 4:42:27 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> What he does is up to him.
That is true, but I have made it clear multiple times now that if doesn't show or if he sits silently, I will leave. Those have been the terms from the beginning, which you both agreed to. Since you seem to know him so well, you might want to remind him again so he doesn't prevent you from getting your questions answered.
>
> What he does is up to him.
> I will be *shocked* if you do not just run like a scared
> bunny from those points.
Snit
Aug 22, 2012, 5:40:25 PM8/22/12
to
On 8/22/12 2:25 PM, in article
62105ee6-5058-40bb...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
And coincidences? Prove it!
> Your analogy does not hold up when compared with the similarities between you
> and Onion Knight.
Of course not - there is *no* evidence to back your accusations against
me... while I *did* find evidence against you.
> You post using a TOR proxy with Onion Knight.
You made that up. You have no support and it is not true.
> Steve and I don't use anonymous proxies. Therefore it is easy to see that we
> are two separate people, if it wasn't obvious by our posts already.
Prove you are not. You can easily be posting with different IPs.
> The entire group knows you're Onion Knight. Your false analogies convince no
> one.
Notice how you work to change the topic. Come on, prove you are not the
same person as my stalker - there is far more evidence pointing to that than
your accusations against me and Onion Knight.
But you cannot. And note how you snipped the evidence away... you do not
want it to be known. Here it is, again:
-----
Where, cc, is your proof you are not the same person as my stalker? Your
*only* evidence against Onion Knight and I is a claim that "the entire group
knows" it... in other words, no evidence at all. None. Not a shred.
The evidence against you is quite damning.
62105ee6-5058-40bb...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 4:50:20 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> You and my stalker have both reduced your posting a lot at
>> about the same time.
>
> You listed a bunch of outright lies and mere coincidences that I am somehow
> the same as Steve.
What lies? Come on, be specific!
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 4:50:20 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> You and my stalker have both reduced your posting a lot at
>> about the same time.
>
> You listed a bunch of outright lies and mere coincidences that I am somehow
> the same as Steve.
And coincidences? Prove it!
> Your analogy does not hold up when compared with the similarities between you
> and Onion Knight.
me... while I *did* find evidence against you.
> You post using a TOR proxy with Onion Knight.
> Steve and I don't use anonymous proxies. Therefore it is easy to see that we
> are two separate people, if it wasn't obvious by our posts already.
> The entire group knows you're Onion Knight. Your false analogies convince no
> one.
same person as my stalker - there is far more evidence pointing to that than
your accusations against me and Onion Knight.
But you cannot. And note how you snipped the evidence away... you do not
want it to be known. Here it is, again:
-----
You and my stalker have both reduced your posting a lot at
about the same time. Prove you two are not all the same
person. You and he co-trolled on some obviously insane BS,
such as saying Onion Knight and I are the same person. You
and my stalker have also talked about contacting my employer
- in your case even going so far as to claim you did send an
email and got a reply... and you sent me emails from "someone
else" who was contacting my employer under false pretenses
and making all sorts of lies (much as my stalker has
threatened to do). You and my stalker also have *serious*
problems with understanding simple concepts and run to absurd
definitions and play other similar games. And I am not the
first to suggest you two might be the same person. My
stalker has repeatedly used socks to try to get me to respond
to him, so no reason to think you are not just another of his
socks doing so.
------
person. You and he co-trolled on some obviously insane BS,
such as saying Onion Knight and I are the same person. You
and my stalker have also talked about contacting my employer
- in your case even going so far as to claim you did send an
email and got a reply... and you sent me emails from "someone
else" who was contacting my employer under false pretenses
and making all sorts of lies (much as my stalker has
threatened to do). You and my stalker also have *serious*
problems with understanding simple concepts and run to absurd
definitions and play other similar games. And I am not the
first to suggest you two might be the same person. My
stalker has repeatedly used socks to try to get me to respond
to him, so no reason to think you are not just another of his
socks doing so.
Where, cc, is your proof you are not the same person as my stalker? Your
*only* evidence against Onion Knight and I is a claim that "the entire group
knows" it... in other words, no evidence at all. None. Not a shred.
The evidence against you is quite damning.
Snit
Aug 22, 2012, 5:42:15 PM8/22/12
to
On 8/22/12 2:33 PM, in article
311a7c8c-9681-4fce...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> Since you seem to know him so well, you might want to remind him again so he
> doesn't prevent you from getting your questions answered.
It is up to *you* to answer the questions. Blaming him for your running is
a complete cop-out.
>> I will be *shocked* if you do not just run like a scared
>> bunny from those points.
>
> I've already responded dozens of times, so what's one more? But it is
> contingent on the terms I set that you both agreed to. No whining.
You have not responded with honest answers even once. Nor will you on the
Skype call. I look quite forward to it... but, face it, you will just work
to avoid those questions. You know you have no reasoned answers.
311a7c8c-9681-4fce...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 4:42:27 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> What he does is up to him.
>
> That is true, but I have made it clear multiple times now that if doesn't show
> or if he sits silently, I will leave. Those have been the terms from the
> beginning, which you both agreed to.
I make no agreements about his actions. None. You are making that up.
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 4:42:27 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> What he does is up to him.
>
> That is true, but I have made it clear multiple times now that if doesn't show
> or if he sits silently, I will leave. Those have been the terms from the
> beginning, which you both agreed to.
> Since you seem to know him so well, you might want to remind him again so he
> doesn't prevent you from getting your questions answered.
a complete cop-out.
>> I will be *shocked* if you do not just run like a scared
>> bunny from those points.
>
> I've already responded dozens of times, so what's one more? But it is
> contingent on the terms I set that you both agreed to. No whining.
Skype call. I look quite forward to it... but, face it, you will just work
to avoid those questions. You know you have no reasoned answers.
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 22, 2012, 7:21:39 PM8/22/12
to
cc wrote:
> Since you seem to know him so well
I wonder why.
> Since you seem to know him so well
Snit
Aug 22, 2012, 7:26:52 PM8/22/12
to
On 8/22/12 4:21 PM, in article hegdjm5i...@sitting.at.this.computer,
him "so well" is a lie.
As I have noted, there is more evidence to show cc and my stalker are the
same person:
cc and my stalker have both reduced their posting a lot at about the same
time. cc and my stalker co-trolled on some obviously insane BS, such as
saying Onion Knight and I are the same person. cc and my stalker have also
talked about contacting my employer - in the case of cc even going so far as
to claim he did send an email and got a reply... and cc sent me emails from
Of course, this does not mean they are the same person - but the evidence
against the two of them is *far* stronger than the complete lack of evidence
against Onion Knight and myself.
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> cc wrote:
>
>> Since you seem to know him so well
>
> I wonder why.
I do not even know who he is... though I have my guess. But to say I know
> cc wrote:
>
>> Since you seem to know him so well
>
> I wonder why.
him "so well" is a lie.
As I have noted, there is more evidence to show cc and my stalker are the
same person:
cc and my stalker have both reduced their posting a lot at about the same
time. cc and my stalker co-trolled on some obviously insane BS, such as
saying Onion Knight and I are the same person. cc and my stalker have also
talked about contacting my employer - in the case of cc even going so far as
to claim he did send an email and got a reply... and cc sent me emails from
"someone else" who was contacting my employer under false pretenses and
making all sorts of lies (much as my stalker has threatened to do). cc and
my stalker also have *serious* problems with understanding simple concepts
and run to absurd definitions and play other similar games. And I am not
the first to suggest the two of them might be the same person. My stalker
and run to absurd definitions and play other similar games. And I am not
has repeatedly used socks to try to get me to respond to him, so no reason
to think cc is not just another of his socks doing so.
Of course, this does not mean they are the same person - but the evidence
against the two of them is *far* stronger than the complete lack of evidence
against Onion Knight and myself.
Foster
Aug 23, 2012, 8:12:33 AM8/23/12
to
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:21:39 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> cc wrote:
>
>> Since you seem to know him so well
>
> I wonder why.
At one point I wondered if CC was snit as well. I did a little IP
> cc wrote:
>
>> Since you seem to know him so well
>
> I wonder why.
checking and it's not unless the game has been going on for 8 years
:)
Also Onion screwed up a couple of times and didn't post through TOR.
The IP has him in CA near Freemont which is suspiciously very close
to where Mark S. Bilk claims to be from.
The IP address however does have an open http port running on it so
it's open season to anonymous proxy in unless there are other safe
guards in place. I didn't check.
Whatever the case may be as to how snit pulled off that Skype as far
as COLA is concerned, snit and Onion Knight are the same person and
the evidence taken as a whole supports it more so than the two of
them being different posters.
cc
Aug 23, 2012, 8:29:31 AM8/23/12
to
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Prove you are not.
That's okay. If that's what you think, that's what you think. As I've learned, no amount of proof will ever be good enough for an idiot like you.
Maybe my tune would change if literally anyone else thought I was Steve, but probably not. If people want to think I'm someone else, then it's not my problem.
>
> Prove you are not.
That's okay. If that's what you think, that's what you think. As I've learned, no amount of proof will ever be good enough for an idiot like you.
Maybe my tune would change if literally anyone else thought I was Steve, but probably not. If people want to think I'm someone else, then it's not my problem.
cc
Aug 23, 2012, 8:37:44 AM8/23/12
to
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:42:15 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Blaming him for your running is a complete cop-out.
You agreed to the terms when you agreed to do this. If you don't meet the terms, then it is not running.
>
> Blaming him for your running is a complete cop-out.
I canceled some plans to do this (not surprisingly you didn't know what the word "tentative" means and waited weeks to respond), and it seems to me that you're now trying to work around what was originally agreed upon. I have said from the beginning if Onion Knight is not on an participating I will not answer questions. You can call it whatever you like, but I've been clear on that since the beginning. So if you had ideas of something happening without Onion Knight, you're very mistaken, and I would appreciate if you would let me know now. Onion Knight can post he had a change in plans or something. I'm honestly going to be very upset if you're doing all this knowing full well that there will be no Onion Knight, not even a pretender. Whatever you're trying to get away with without Onion Knight there, simply won't happen.
Snit
Aug 23, 2012, 9:09:17 AM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/12 5:37 AM, in article
66a64975-ccd2-455a...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
he will be there. Stop whining and trying to work out ways to avoid
speaking about the points in my .sig. As far as you being angry, why would
I care? Really... you keep saying it like your emotions are my problem.
They are not. Buck up and stop whining.
66a64975-ccd2-455a...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:42:15 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Blaming him for your running is a complete cop-out.
>
> You agreed to the terms when you agreed to do this. If you don't meet the
> terms, then it is not running.
>
> I canceled some plans to do this (not surprisingly you didn't know what the
> word "tentative" means and waited weeks to respond), and it seems to me that
> you're now trying to work around what was originally agreed upon. I have said
> from the beginning if Onion Knight is not on an participating I will not
> answer questions. You can call it whatever you like, but I've been clear on
> that since the beginning. So if you had ideas of something happening without
> Onion Knight, you're very mistaken, and I would appreciate if you would let me
> know now. Onion Knight can post he had a change in plans or something. I'm
> honestly going to be very upset if you're doing all this knowing full well
> that there will be no Onion Knight, not even a pretender. Whatever you're
> trying to get away with without Onion Knight there, simply won't happen.
If you want to talk to Onion Knight talk to him. I will be there. He said
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:42:15 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Blaming him for your running is a complete cop-out.
>
> You agreed to the terms when you agreed to do this. If you don't meet the
> terms, then it is not running.
>
> I canceled some plans to do this (not surprisingly you didn't know what the
> word "tentative" means and waited weeks to respond), and it seems to me that
> you're now trying to work around what was originally agreed upon. I have said
> from the beginning if Onion Knight is not on an participating I will not
> answer questions. You can call it whatever you like, but I've been clear on
> that since the beginning. So if you had ideas of something happening without
> Onion Knight, you're very mistaken, and I would appreciate if you would let me
> know now. Onion Knight can post he had a change in plans or something. I'm
> honestly going to be very upset if you're doing all this knowing full well
> that there will be no Onion Knight, not even a pretender. Whatever you're
> trying to get away with without Onion Knight there, simply won't happen.
he will be there. Stop whining and trying to work out ways to avoid
speaking about the points in my .sig. As far as you being angry, why would
I care? Really... you keep saying it like your emotions are my problem.
They are not. Buck up and stop whining.
Snit
Aug 23, 2012, 9:10:56 AM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/12 5:29 AM, in article
ca6e239e-fb8f-411b...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
Quite telling. And I am not the first to suggest you two could be the same
person... but even if I was, why does the count of people who have figured
your lies out matter to you responsibility to prove your claims?
ca6e239e-fb8f-411b...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Prove you are not.
>
> That's okay. If that's what you think, that's what you think. As I've learned,
> no amount of proof will ever be good enough for an idiot like you.
>
> Maybe my tune would change if literally anyone else thought I was Steve, but
> probably not. If people want to think I'm someone else, then it's not my
> problem.
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:40:25 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Prove you are not.
>
> That's okay. If that's what you think, that's what you think. As I've learned,
> no amount of proof will ever be good enough for an idiot like you.
>
> Maybe my tune would change if literally anyone else thought I was Steve, but
> probably not. If people want to think I'm someone else, then it's not my
> problem.
>
-----
You and my stalker have both reduced your posting a lot at
about the same time. Prove you two are not all the same
person. You and he co-trolled on some obviously insane BS,
such as saying Onion Knight and I are the same person. You
and my stalker have also talked about contacting my employer
- in your case even going so far as to claim you did send an
email and got a reply... and you sent me emails from "someone
else" who was contacting my employer under false pretenses
and making all sorts of lies (much as my stalker has
threatened to do). You and my stalker also have *serious*
problems with understanding simple concepts and run to absurd
definitions and play other similar games. And I am not the
first to suggest you two might be the same person. My
stalker has repeatedly used socks to try to get me to respond
to him, so no reason to think you are not just another of his
socks doing so.
------
And you have *nothing* to counter it with. Not a thing.
You and my stalker have both reduced your posting a lot at
about the same time. Prove you two are not all the same
person. You and he co-trolled on some obviously insane BS,
such as saying Onion Knight and I are the same person. You
and my stalker have also talked about contacting my employer
- in your case even going so far as to claim you did send an
email and got a reply... and you sent me emails from "someone
else" who was contacting my employer under false pretenses
and making all sorts of lies (much as my stalker has
threatened to do). You and my stalker also have *serious*
problems with understanding simple concepts and run to absurd
definitions and play other similar games. And I am not the
first to suggest you two might be the same person. My
stalker has repeatedly used socks to try to get me to respond
to him, so no reason to think you are not just another of his
socks doing so.
------
Quite telling. And I am not the first to suggest you two could be the same
person... but even if I was, why does the count of people who have figured
your lies out matter to you responsibility to prove your claims?
Snit
Aug 23, 2012, 9:12:18 AM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/12 5:12 AM, in article 7wgarzhnox74$.173eq43h38emy$.d...@40tude.net,
There is no such evidence.
But the more I note this the more you believe it to be true. It is amazing
how psychology works!
But the more I note this the more you believe it to be true. It is amazing
how psychology works!
cc
Aug 23, 2012, 9:23:18 AM8/23/12
to
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> And you have *nothing* to counter it with. Not a thing.
I don't believe that's the case, but if you do, then that's fine with me. You think I'm Steve. Oh fucking well.
>
> And you have *nothing* to counter it with. Not a thing.
> And I am not the first to suggest you two could be the same person...
If it helps you to think that I'm Steve, then go right ahead. Your idiocy cannot be stopped.
cc
Aug 23, 2012, 9:26:00 AM8/23/12
to
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:09:17 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Stop whining and trying to work out ways to avoid speaking
> about the points in my .sig.
This is getting repetative, but I'm not trying to avoid anything. You knew the conditions when you agreed to do this. So when Onion Knight doesn't show, don't act shocked that I leave in a huff.
>
> Stop whining and trying to work out ways to avoid speaking
> about the points in my .sig.
Big Steel
Aug 23, 2012, 9:27:34 AM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/2012 9:23 AM, cc wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> And you have *nothing* to counter it with. Not a thing.
>
> I don't believe that's the case, but if you do, then that's fine with me. You think I'm Steve. Oh fucking well.
>
>> And I am not the first to suggest you two could be the same person...
>
> The only other post suggesting we could be the same came from Onion Knight...
>
> If it helps you to think that I'm Steve, then go right ahead. Your idiocy cannot be stopped.
>
You seem the type along with you being a dysfunctional and sexual
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> And you have *nothing* to counter it with. Not a thing.
>
> I don't believe that's the case, but if you do, then that's fine with me. You think I'm Steve. Oh fucking well.
>
>> And I am not the first to suggest you two could be the same person...
>
> The only other post suggesting we could be the same came from Onion Knight...
>
> If it helps you to think that I'm Steve, then go right ahead. Your idiocy cannot be stopped.
>
deviant too.
cc
Aug 23, 2012, 9:32:58 AM8/23/12
to
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:27:34 AM UTC-4, Big Fag wrote:
>
> You seem the type along with you being a dysfunctional
> and sexual deviant too.
Interesting, coming from someone who calls himself "Big Fag."
>
> You seem the type along with you being a dysfunctional
> and sexual deviant too.
Big Steel
Aug 23, 2012, 9:51:39 AM8/23/12
to
RAID! :)
Snit
Aug 23, 2012, 9:55:46 AM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/12 6:26 AM, in article
bb3a2c29-538c-4a94...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
.sig. *That* is all I am asking of you.
> You knew the
> conditions when you agreed to do this. So when Onion Knight doesn't show,
> don't act shocked that I leave in a huff.
Oh, you will not likely be happy no matter what. :)
bb3a2c29-538c-4a94...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:09:17 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Stop whining and trying to work out ways to avoid speaking
>> about the points in my .sig.
>
> This is getting repetative, but I'm not trying to avoid anything.
Excellent. So you will answer the questions dealing with the points in my
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:09:17 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Stop whining and trying to work out ways to avoid speaking
>> about the points in my .sig.
>
> This is getting repetative, but I'm not trying to avoid anything.
.sig. *That* is all I am asking of you.
> You knew the
> conditions when you agreed to do this. So when Onion Knight doesn't show,
> don't act shocked that I leave in a huff.
Snit
Aug 23, 2012, 1:12:12 PM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/12 6:23 AM, in article
0f495bac-0054-4e5d...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
have been making. This is a good start. Now let us see if you can stop
making such accusations now that *you* have described them as "idiocy".
I bet you cannot.
0f495bac-0054-4e5d...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> And you have *nothing* to counter it with. Not a thing.
>
> I don't believe that's the case, but if you do, then that's fine with me. You
> think I'm Steve. Oh fucking well.
>
>> And I am not the first to suggest you two could be the same person...
>
> The only other post suggesting we could be the same came from Onion Knight...
>
> If it helps you to think that I'm Steve, then go right ahead. Your idiocy
> cannot be stopped.
Aha! Now you admit it is "idiocy" to make the kinds of accusations *you*
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:10:56 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> And you have *nothing* to counter it with. Not a thing.
>
> I don't believe that's the case, but if you do, then that's fine with me. You
> think I'm Steve. Oh fucking well.
>
>> And I am not the first to suggest you two could be the same person...
>
> The only other post suggesting we could be the same came from Onion Knight...
>
> If it helps you to think that I'm Steve, then go right ahead. Your idiocy
> cannot be stopped.
have been making. This is a good start. Now let us see if you can stop
making such accusations now that *you* have described them as "idiocy".
I bet you cannot.
cc
Aug 23, 2012, 1:22:07 PM8/23/12
to
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:12:12 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Aha! Now you admit it is "idiocy" to make the kinds of accusations
> *you* have been making.
No. I admit it is idiocy for someone to think I am Steve Carroll. "Your idiocy cannot be stopped" refers to you only, and no one else. Do you have trouble reading? Your arguments for me being Steve are vastly different from the proof that you are Onion Knight. So once again, you're working with a false analogy.
>
> Aha! Now you admit it is "idiocy" to make the kinds of accusations
> *you* have been making.
Snit
Aug 23, 2012, 2:40:19 PM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/12 10:22 AM, in article
17b1f35d-4093-4775...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
cc:
-----
If it helps you to think that I'm [someone I am not], then go
You described your own behavior as "idiocy". This is not a debatable
point... it is something you did.
> I admit it is idiocy for someone to think I am Steve Carroll. "Your idiocy
> cannot be stopped" refers to you only, and no one else. Do you have trouble
> reading? Your arguments for me being Steve are vastly different from the proof
> that you are Onion Knight. So once again, you're working with a false analogy.
I offered support while you have not. Yes, that is completely different.
But, no, I do not really think the two of you are the same person, I just
wanted to see how you would react to facing the same idiotic accusations you
spew. And you showed it: you called your *own* form of behavior a sign of
"idiocy".
Anyway... enough of that - just one more thing to note when you go on the
war path on the discussion, that you are arguing something you have noted is
a form of "idiocy".
Ah, I do look forward to Saturday. Should be a *lot* of fun.
17b1f35d-4093-4775...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:12:12 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Aha! Now you admit it is "idiocy" to make the kinds of accusations
>> *you* have been making.
>
> No.
Yes, you did.
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:12:12 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Aha! Now you admit it is "idiocy" to make the kinds of accusations
>> *you* have been making.
>
> No.
cc:
-----
If it helps you to think that I'm [someone I am not], then go
right ahead. Your idiocy cannot be stopped.
-----
You described your own behavior as "idiocy". This is not a debatable
point... it is something you did.
> I admit it is idiocy for someone to think I am Steve Carroll. "Your idiocy
> cannot be stopped" refers to you only, and no one else. Do you have trouble
> reading? Your arguments for me being Steve are vastly different from the proof
> that you are Onion Knight. So once again, you're working with a false analogy.
But, no, I do not really think the two of you are the same person, I just
wanted to see how you would react to facing the same idiotic accusations you
spew. And you showed it: you called your *own* form of behavior a sign of
"idiocy".
Anyway... enough of that - just one more thing to note when you go on the
war path on the discussion, that you are arguing something you have noted is
a form of "idiocy".
Ah, I do look forward to Saturday. Should be a *lot* of fun.
cc
Aug 23, 2012, 3:11:30 PM8/23/12
to
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:40:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Yes, you did.
I guess we have to add "your" to the list of words you don't understand. I bet the phrase, "I tentatively agree to come on to your skype chat which you are arbitrarily calling a radio show" really confuses the fuck out of you. You must see it as "I am guaranteeing to come on to my skype chat which I am calling a radio show for systematic reasons." It's got to be tough getting around with such a limited grasp on the language. I pity you.
>
> Yes, you did.
I guess we have to add "your" to the list of words you don't understand. I bet the phrase, "I tentatively agree to come on to your skype chat which you are arbitrarily calling a radio show" really confuses the fuck out of you. You must see it as "I am guaranteeing to come on to my skype chat which I am calling a radio show for systematic reasons." It's got to be tough getting around with such a limited grasp on the language. I pity you.
Snit
Aug 23, 2012, 3:19:59 PM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/12 12:11 PM, in article
ce0ee640-fc7a-483c...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
No guessing needed:
cc:
-----
If it helps you to think that I'm [someone I am not], then go
right ahead. Your idiocy cannot be stopped.
-----
This is not complex: you have said that claiming that someone is someone
they are not is "idiotic". It is *exactly* what you are doing. But now you
want to push a double standard. Not buying it.
You self-nuked, cc.
ce0ee640-fc7a-483c...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:40:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Yes, you did.
>
> I guess ...
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:40:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Yes, you did.
>
No guessing needed:
cc:
-----
If it helps you to think that I'm [someone I am not], then go
right ahead. Your idiocy cannot be stopped.
-----
they are not is "idiotic". It is *exactly* what you are doing. But now you
want to push a double standard. Not buying it.
You self-nuked, cc.
cc
Aug 23, 2012, 3:30:26 PM8/23/12
to
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:19:59 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> This is not complex: you have said that claiming that someone
> is someone they are not is "idiotic".
It is apparently too complex for you. I said nothing of the sort. I said specifically, that claiming I am Steve is idiotic. I said nothing about all claims in general. Claiming Torre is Foster is not idiotic, for instance. Claiming Clogwog is one of the varius names he posts under is not idiotic. You *are* Onion Knight, so your above statement does not even apply. I am claiming that someone (Snit) is someone they are (Onion Knight) and that is not idiotic. It is common sense. You post as Onion Knight. Torre is Foster, Clogwog is... well Clogwog, and you are Onion Knight.
>
> This is not complex: you have said that claiming that someone
> is someone they are not is "idiotic".
Foster
Aug 23, 2012, 4:04:57 PM8/23/12
to
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:30:26 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:19:59 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> This is not complex: you have said that claiming that someone
>> is someone they are not is "idiotic".
>
> It is apparently too complex for you. I said nothing of the sort.
> I said specifically, that claiming I am Steve is idiotic. I said
> nothing about all claims in general.
> Claiming Torre is Foster is
> not idiotic, for instance.
Has it eve been denied?
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:19:59 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> This is not complex: you have said that claiming that someone
>> is someone they are not is "idiotic".
>
> It is apparently too complex for you. I said nothing of the sort.
> I said specifically, that claiming I am Steve is idiotic. I said
> nothing about all claims in general.
> Claiming Torre is Foster is
> not idiotic, for instance.
> Claiming Clogwog is one of the varius
> names he posts under is not idiotic.
> You *are* Onion Knight, so
> your above statement does not even apply. I am claiming that
> someone (Snit) is someone they are (Onion Knight) and that is not
> idiotic. It is common sense. You post as Onion Knight. Torre is
> Foster, Clogwog is... well Clogwog, and you are Onion Knight.
Big Steel
Aug 23, 2012, 4:09:21 PM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/2012 3:30 PM, cc wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:19:59 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
<snipped>
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:19:59 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
Get a two cans of Raid and drown the Cockroach Clown cc in it Snit and
be rid of that cockroach. I don't think a cockroach can swim. :)
Snit
Aug 23, 2012, 4:33:49 PM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/12 1:04 PM, in article 1wg94ftol849u$.bffiy4ilnwwv$.d...@40tude.net,
person. I presented more and better evidence against him than anyone has
presented against Onion Knight and myself (given how there has been *no*
reasonable evidence given at all *and* Onion Knight and I presented 100%
proof that we are not the same person).
cc is showing his double standard - it is fine for him to show, as he says,
"idiocy", but when I mocked him for it it was not fine.
Poor cc... he self-nuked. Again.
cc:
-----
If it helps you to think that I'm [someone I am not], then go
right ahead. Your idiocy cannot be stopped.
-----
cc is the one who claimed it was "idiocy" to think two people are the same
-----
If it helps you to think that I'm [someone I am not], then go
right ahead. Your idiocy cannot be stopped.
-----
person. I presented more and better evidence against him than anyone has
presented against Onion Knight and myself (given how there has been *no*
reasonable evidence given at all *and* Onion Knight and I presented 100%
proof that we are not the same person).
cc is showing his double standard - it is fine for him to show, as he says,
"idiocy", but when I mocked him for it it was not fine.
Poor cc... he self-nuked. Again.
cc
Aug 23, 2012, 5:08:25 PM8/23/12
to
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:04:57 PM UTC-4, Foster wrote:
>
> Has it eve been denied?
Nope. Didn't mean to imply it was a secret. Just pointing out that saying one poster ISN'T another poster doesn't mean you can't say one poster IS another. I make one specific statement and Snit seems to think it applies to all cases, when obviously it doesn't.
>
> Has it eve been denied?
Snit
Aug 23, 2012, 7:00:57 PM8/23/12
to
On 8/23/12 2:08 PM, in article
a035ad9a-aac2-4087...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
behaving in a way *you* claim shows "idiocy". You, of course, having a
double stand, will *never* own up to that. Good to see you admit that your
own rules, in your mind, do not apply to all cases - only the ones that
benefit your trolling.
cc:
-----
If it helps you to think that I'm [someone I am not], then go
right ahead. Your idiocy cannot be stopped.
-----
Yup... your comments are "idiocy". You are absolutely right about that.
You self-nuked. Again.
a035ad9a-aac2-4087...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:04:57 PM UTC-4, Foster wrote:
>>
>> Has it eve been denied?
>
> Nope. Didn't mean to imply it was a secret. Just pointing out that saying one
> poster ISN'T another poster doesn't mean you can't say one poster IS another.
> I make one specific statement and Snit seems to think it applies to all cases,
> when obviously it doesn't.
My point is if we apply your BS accusations and "rules" to you, then you are
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:04:57 PM UTC-4, Foster wrote:
>>
>> Has it eve been denied?
>
> Nope. Didn't mean to imply it was a secret. Just pointing out that saying one
> poster ISN'T another poster doesn't mean you can't say one poster IS another.
> I make one specific statement and Snit seems to think it applies to all cases,
> when obviously it doesn't.
behaving in a way *you* claim shows "idiocy". You, of course, having a
double stand, will *never* own up to that. Good to see you admit that your
own rules, in your mind, do not apply to all cases - only the ones that
benefit your trolling.
cc:
-----
If it helps you to think that I'm [someone I am not], then go
right ahead. Your idiocy cannot be stopped.
-----
You self-nuked. Again.
Steve Carroll
Aug 25, 2012, 11:33:56 AM8/25/12
to
On Aug 23, 3:08 pm, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:04:57 PM UTC-4, Foster wrote:
>
> > Has it eve been denied?
>
> Nope. Didn't mean to imply it was a secret. Just pointing out that saying one poster ISN'T another poster doesn't mean you can't say one poster IS another. I make one specific statement and Snit seems to think it applies to all cases, when obviously it doesn't.
Dammit, dude... you broke my troll ;)
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:04:57 PM UTC-4, Foster wrote:
>
> > Has it eve been denied?
>
> Nope. Didn't mean to imply it was a secret. Just pointing out that saying one poster ISN'T another poster doesn't mean you can't say one poster IS another. I make one specific statement and Snit seems to think it applies to all cases, when obviously it doesn't.
Steve Carroll
Aug 25, 2012, 2:30:02 PM8/25/12
to
are two different people... not that it matters a whit. Snit is what
he is no matter who he gets to appear with him on some bogus shilling
event.
0 new messages