Picture of a CSMA regular?

17 views
Skip to first unread message

§¼¡Ý

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 11:12:52 PM4/27/04
to
Anyone recognize this writing style from someone else on this NG....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4146756343

--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh


Sandman

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 2:40:29 AM4/28/04
to
In article <BCB46F44.4C2AE%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>,
尬≡ <sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:

> Anyone recognize this writing style from someone else on this NG....
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4146756343

Didn't you say you would take your trolling to another group? I believed you.

--
Sandman[.net]

§¼¡Ý

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 2:45:07 AM4/28/04
to
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
mr-3222DA.08...@news.fu-berlin.de on 4/27/04 11:40 PM:

Actually, I am responding to most, though not all, troll/flame posts in
another group.

In any case, any comments on the link?

Steve Mackay

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 7:37:52 AM4/28/04
to


What do you think the "Hacking attempt" post was about. It was nothing but
a troll to discredit Steve C. Or myself. No matter, I doubt ANYONE
believes him.

Sandman

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 8:05:06 AM4/28/04
to
In article <BCB4A103.4C389%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>,
尬≡ <sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:

> >> Anyone recognize this writing style from someone else on this NG....
> >>
> >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4146756343
> >
> > Didn't you say you would take your trolling to another group? I believed
> > you.
>
> Actually, I am responding to most, though not all, troll/flame posts in
> another group.

So you will continue to troll this group? If that's the case, I'll take back
the sincere "Thank you" I posted the other day were I actually believed you
wouldn't troll this group any more. I thought you did a good thing, apparently
it was only hot air.

> In any case, any comments on the link?

Yes, you are a troll.

--
Sandman[.net]

§¼¡Ý

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 10:49:55 AM4/28/04
to
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
mr-B76CDA.14...@news.fu-berlin.de on 4/28/04 5:05 AM:

> In article <BCB4A103.4C389%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>,
> 尬≡ <sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Anyone recognize this writing style from someone else on this NG....
>>>>
>>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4146756343
>>>
>>> Didn't you say you would take your trolling to another group? I believed
>>> you.
>>
>> Actually, I am responding to most, though not all, troll/flame posts in
>> another group.
>
> So you will continue to troll this group? If that's the case, I'll take back
> the sincere "Thank you" I posted the other day were I actually believed you
> wouldn't troll this group any more. I thought you did a good thing, apparently
> it was only hot air.

I did doubt your sincerity. Seems I was right to do so. Shame... I still
hold no grudge toward you.


>
>> In any case, any comments on the link?
>
> Yes, you are a troll.

Care to define what objective criteria you use to make such a judgement?

Nash*ton

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 11:43:43 AM4/28/04
to
Steve Mackay wrote:

Birds of a feather...
I see your Carroll's SP now, his apologist and his advocate.
No surprise there, it's just seldom that one sees a mob-like mentality
in a group of ...2 people..;)

Nicolas

Steve Mackay

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 12:12:28 PM4/28/04
to

Well, see, anyone with half a brain could figure out that his "hacking"
claim is nothing but a lie, seeing as there is no possible way for one to
get Snit's current IP address. If you can't see that, then you are a
bigger dimwhit than I thought.<shrug>

And talk about appologist... I see you're still following Snit around like
a lost little puppy dog. Better be careful, if Snit stops too fast, your
nose may become permanently embeded in Snit's ass.


Sandman

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 2:36:33 PM4/28/04
to
In article <BCB512A3.4C437%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>, 次
<sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:

>>>>> Anyone recognize this writing style from someone else on this
>>>>> NG....
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4146756343
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you say you would take your trolling to another group? I
>>>> believed you.
>>>
>>> Actually, I am responding to most, though not all, troll/flame posts
>>> in another group.
>>
>> So you will continue to troll this group? If that's the case, I'll
>> take back the sincere "Thank you" I posted the other day were I
>> actually believed you wouldn't troll this group any more. I thought
>> you did a good thing, apparently it was only hot air.
>
> I did doubt your sincerity. Seems I was right to do so.

Since you are a troll, what you think is irrelevant.

>>> In any case, any comments on the link?
>>
>> Yes, you are a troll.
>
> Care to define what objective criteria you use to make such a
> judgement?

You are trolling, hence you are a troll. Your stupidity act where you
desperatly try to act as if you're not trolling - is trolling.

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 2:38:59 PM4/28/04
to
In article <PiQjc.31373$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Nash*ton
<Na...@nash.com> wrote:

>>>> Anyone recognize this writing style from someone else on this
>>>> NG....
>>>>
>>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4146756343
>>>
>>> Didn't you say you would take your trolling to another group? I
>>> believed you.
>>
>> What do you think the "Hacking attempt" post was about. It was
>> nothing but a troll to discredit Steve C. Or myself. No matter, I
>> doubt ANYONE believes him.
>
> Birds of a feather... I see your Carroll's SP now, his apologist and
> his advocate. No surprise there, it's just seldom that one sees a
> mob-like mentality in a group of ...2 people..;)

Funny, that's just how many you and Michael are. :)

Did you ever stop to notice that you are the only one in the -entire group-
that is coming to Michaels support?

I know why of course - he just happens to have the same enemies as you do - you
have made it quite clear that you in no shape for form actually support
Michaels -views-.

--
Sandman[.net]

§¼¡Ý

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 2:39:57 PM4/28/04
to
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
mr-E459DD.20...@news.fu-berlin.de on 4/28/04 11:36 AM:

I notice you have once again not commented on any objective criteria in
which I am any more of a troll that you or many other people in csma.

Gee, I wonder why that is...

Steve Mackay

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 2:46:33 PM4/28/04
to

He also claims you've admitted to lying. He's just trying to suck people
in to his own 'lil flame group. Oh well, it's better that flaming piece of
donkey dung posts his lies in there.


Sandman

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 2:49:57 PM4/28/04
to
In article <BCB5488D.4C643%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>,
尬≡ <sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:

> >> Care to define what objective criteria you use to make such a
> >> judgement?
> >
> > You are trolling, hence you are a troll. Your stupidity act where you
> > desperatly try to act as if you're not trolling - is trolling.
>
> I notice you have once again not commented on any objective criteria in
> which I am any more of a troll that you or many other people in csma.
>
> Gee, I wonder why that is...

Because you're a troll Michael, and as such you are here to play games instead
of listening to logic and reason. It is what you do. I, along with a lot of
other posters, have already given you explanations on a wide array of subjects
and you have time after time made it perfectly clear that you won't listen to
that.

--
Sandman[.net]

§¼¡Ý

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 2:56:16 PM4/28/04
to
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
mr-D429F1.20...@news.fu-berlin.de on 4/28/04 11:49 AM:


Soooooo.....

What is your objective criteria for calling someone a troll?

Sandman

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 3:43:19 PM4/28/04
to
In article <BCB54C60.4C654%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>, 次
<sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:

>>>>> Care to define what objective criteria you use to make such a
>>>>> judgement?
>>>>
>>>> You are trolling, hence you are a troll. Your stupidity act where
>>>> you desperatly try to act as if you're not trolling - is trolling.
>>>
>>> I notice you have once again not commented on any objective criteria
>>> in which I am any more of a troll that you or many other people in
>>> csma.
>>>
>>> Gee, I wonder why that is...
>>
>> Because you're a troll Michael, and as such you are here to play
>> games instead of listening to logic and reason. It is what you do. I,
>> along with a lot of other posters, have already given you
>> explanations on a wide array of subjects and you have time after time
>> made it perfectly clear that you won't listen to that.
>
> Soooooo.....
>
> What is your objective criteria for calling someone a troll?

See what I mean?

--
Sandman[.net]

Nash*ton

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 6:30:32 PM4/28/04
to
Sandman wrote:

> In article <PiQjc.31373$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Nash*ton
> <Na...@nash.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Anyone recognize this writing style from someone else on this
>>>>>NG....
>>>>>
>>>>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4146756343
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you say you would take your trolling to another group? I
>>>>believed you.
>>>
>>>What do you think the "Hacking attempt" post was about. It was
>>>nothing but a troll to discredit Steve C. Or myself. No matter, I
>>>doubt ANYONE believes him.
>>
>>Birds of a feather... I see your Carroll's SP now, his apologist and
>>his advocate. No surprise there, it's just seldom that one sees a
>>mob-like mentality in a group of ...2 people..;)
>
>
> Funny, that's just how many you and Michael are. :)
>
> Did you ever stop to notice that you are the only one in the -entire group-
> that is coming to Michaels support?

Nope, I don't need validation. You seem to need it and project this upon
me.
So let me get this straight. In order for you to agree/disagree with
somebody, do you make sure your opinion is in tandem with the others?

Interesting, to say the least.

>
> I know why of course - he just happens to have the same enemies as you do - you
> have made it quite clear that you in no shape for form actually support
> Michaels -views-.

Enemies? LOL I hardly take anything posted in this ng seriously enough
to consider anybody an enemy...

Nicolas


Nicolas
>

Nash*ton

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 6:35:29 PM4/28/04
to
Steve Mackay wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:43:43 +0000, Nash*ton wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Mackay wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:40:29 +0200, Sandman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <BCB46F44.4C2AE%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>,
>>>>尬≡ <sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anyone recognize this writing style from someone else on this NG....
>>>>>
>>>>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4146756343
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you say you would take your trolling to another group? I believed you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What do you think the "Hacking attempt" post was about. It was nothing but
>>>a troll to discredit Steve C. Or myself. No matter, I doubt ANYONE
>>>believes him.
>>
>>Birds of a feather...
>>I see your Carroll's SP now, his apologist and his advocate.
>>No surprise there, it's just seldom that one sees a mob-like mentality
>>in a group of ...2 people..;)
>>
>>Nicolas
>
>
> Well, see, anyone with half a brain could figure out that his "hacking"
> claim is nothing but a lie,

Since you and the other Steeve share the same brain, you should take
turns in using it instead of continually using a mere 50%.

;)

seeing as there is no possible way for one to
> get Snit's current IP address. If you can't see that, then you are a
> bigger dimwhit than I thought.<shrug>

Do I care?

> And talk about appologist... I see you're still following Snit around like
> a lost little puppy dog. Better be careful, if Snit stops too fast, your
> nose may become permanently embeded in Snit's ass.


You're projecting *again*. Is that what happened when the other Steeve
stopped abruptly? ;)

Nicolas

Nash*ton

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 6:36:43 PM4/28/04
to
Sandman wrote:


Translation: No criteria, just emotions;)

Nicolas

Steve Mackay

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 6:46:17 PM4/28/04
to
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:35:29 +0000, Nash*ton wrote:

> Steve Mackay wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:43:43 +0000, Nash*ton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve Mackay wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:40:29 +0200, Sandman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <BCB46F44.4C2AE%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>,
>>>>>尬≡ <sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyone recognize this writing style from someone else on this NG....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4146756343
>>>>>
>>>>>Didn't you say you would take your trolling to another group? I believed you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What do you think the "Hacking attempt" post was about. It was nothing but
>>>>a troll to discredit Steve C. Or myself. No matter, I doubt ANYONE
>>>>believes him.
>>>
>>>Birds of a feather...
>>>I see your Carroll's SP now, his apologist and his advocate.
>>>No surprise there, it's just seldom that one sees a mob-like mentality
>>>in a group of ...2 people..;)
>>>
>>>Nicolas
>>
>>
>> Well, see, anyone with half a brain could figure out that his "hacking"
>> claim is nothing but a lie,
>
> Since you and the other Steeve share the same brain, you should take
> turns in using it instead of continually using a mere 50%.
>
> ;)

Nahh, I can think for myself just fine. In fact most of the people in here
can. Which is why the rest of us(meaning MOST of CSMA)see Snit for what he
really is. Why you can't see this, well, says alot about your character in
general. Or should I say lack of character.

>
> seeing as there is no possible way for one to
>> get Snit's current IP address. If you can't see that, then you are a
>> bigger dimwhit than I thought.<shrug>
>
> Do I care?

You should care that you're a dimwit. But hey, someone has to have the
job. And you do seem to do it well.

>
>> And talk about appologist... I see you're still following Snit around like
>> a lost little puppy dog. Better be careful, if Snit stops too fast, your
>> nose may become permanently embeded in Snit's ass.
>
>
> You're projecting *again*. Is that what happened when the other Steeve
> stopped abruptly? ;)
>
> Nicolas

You really need to think up some new material. The "projection" thing has
been used up long ago by Edwin. He also uses it much better than you ever
will.

§¼¡Ý

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 7:03:54 PM4/28/04
to
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
mr-B0A772.21...@news.fu-berlin.de on 4/28/04 12:43 PM:

Yes, I see that you have no objective criteria for determining if someone is
a troll.

You think I am a troll because you *feel* that way.

§¼¡Ý

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 7:06:13 PM4/28/04
to
"Nash*ton" <Na...@nash.com> wrote in
cgWjc.31646$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 4/28/04 3:30 PM:

Who has enemies... Steve Carroll claims he does not dislike me. If what he
says is an example of the words of someone who does not dislike me, I must
be the most popular person in here. :)

Or perhaps Steve is just lying again. Hmmmmmm.....

Steve Mackay

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 8:27:02 PM4/28/04
to
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:03:54 -0700, 尬≡ wrote:

> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
> mr-B0A772.21...@news.fu-berlin.de on 4/28/04 12:43 PM:
>

>> In article <BCB54C60.4C654%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>, 慼


>> <sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Care to define what objective criteria you use to make such a
>>>>>>> judgement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are trolling, hence you are a troll. Your stupidity act where
>>>>>> you desperatly try to act as if you're not trolling - is trolling.
>>>>>
>>>>> I notice you have once again not commented on any objective criteria
>>>>> in which I am any more of a troll that you or many other people in
>>>>> csma.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee, I wonder why that is...
>>>>
>>>> Because you're a troll Michael, and as such you are here to play
>>>> games instead of listening to logic and reason. It is what you do. I,
>>>> along with a lot of other posters, have already given you
>>>> explanations on a wide array of subjects and you have time after time
>>>> made it perfectly clear that you won't listen to that.
>>>
>>> Soooooo.....
>>>
>>> What is your objective criteria for calling someone a troll?
>>
>> See what I mean?
>
> Yes, I see that you have no objective criteria for determining if someone is
> a troll.
>
> You think I am a troll because you *feel* that way.

No you are a troll, because, well, you Troll, lie, forge, and resort to
sockpuppetry. This has *ALL been proven. If you just admitted it, and
stopped your silly games. Oh wait, you can't. You desire this type of
negative attention. Now, lets cover a couple of points about what you will
reply to in your 'lil flame group..


1.) You are Sigmond. Nobody else is, or has been. This has been proven.

http://tinyurl.com/2tpve

My proof was backed up by Sandman.

http://tinyurl.com/2zcra

2.) Sigmond stoped posting AFTER I busted you for using him as a
sockpuppet. NOT after Steve C. left, like you lied about in your 'lil
flame group. Why you continue to keep asking why Sigmond has stoped
posting is beyond me. Except your continued delusional behavior that
prevents you from stating anything with a hint of truth to it.

You can post your reply to your 'lil flame group, where you continue to
look like a complete idiot, being the only one who seems to be posting to
it. Oh yeah, and your 2nd sockpuppet SuperGoober. I'll bet he'll not post
ever again. And why do you think that is? Because Supernews will finally
pull your account for using sockpuppets on their servers.

Steve Carroll

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 8:48:35 PM4/28/04
to
In article <BCB586F5.4C720%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>,
???? <sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:


I made this claim?

> If what he
> says is an example of the words of someone who does not dislike me, I must
> be the most popular person in here. :)
>
> Or perhaps Steve is just lying again. Hmmmmmm.....

Yeah... that must be it:)

Steve

§¼¡Ý

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 8:48:17 PM4/28/04
to
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
pan.2004.04.29....@hotmail.com on 4/28/04 5:27 PM:

> You can post your reply to your 'lil flame group, where you continue to
> look like a complete idiot, being the only one who seems to be posting to
> it.

Well, I have no desire to spew bile all over the group as you did in your
post.

If anyone cares, they know where the full reply is... but, really, why would
anyone care about your little tantrums? Even I only post to the other group
to irk you... cannot say I really care about your repeated lies.

Steve Mackay

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 9:15:30 PM4/28/04
to
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:48:17 -0700, 尬≡ wrote:

> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> pan.2004.04.29....@hotmail.com on 4/28/04 5:27 PM:
>
>> You can post your reply to your 'lil flame group, where you continue to
>> look like a complete idiot, being the only one who seems to be posting to
>> it.
>
> Well, I have no desire to spew bile all over the group as you did in your
> post.

Most of what you've posted in the past 6 months is nothing but bile. Why
stop now?

>
> If anyone cares, they know where the full reply is...

You mean your lies, right...

> but, really, why would
> anyone care about your little tantrums? Even I only post to the other group
> to irk you... cannot say I really care about your repeated lies.

Where have I lied Sigmond/Snit/Supergoober?

Steve Carroll

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 9:47:14 PM4/28/04
to
In article <BCB59EE1.4C76F%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>,
???? <sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:

> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> pan.2004.04.29....@hotmail.com on 4/28/04 5:27 PM:
>
> > You can post your reply to your 'lil flame group, where you continue to
> > look like a complete idiot, being the only one who seems to be posting to
> > it.
>
> Well, I have no desire to spew bile all over the group as you did in your
> post.

If the truth hurts, strive to change that truth. You have the power.

> If anyone cares, they know where the full reply is... but, really, why would
> anyone care about your little tantrums? Even I only post to the other group
> to irk you... cannot say I really care about your repeated lies.

Telling the truth (as he, and many others see it) is not a tantrum.
Mikey, put down the crack pipe:)

Steve

Steve Carroll

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 9:48:05 PM4/28/04
to
In article <pan.2004.04.29....@hotmail.com>,
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Supergoober?

Steve

Steve Mackay

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 1:33:49 AM4/29/04
to

Yup, just check out alt.flame.macintosh and watch Snit/Sigmond/Supergoober
He wasn't getting the attention he desired in his 'lil flame group. So he
created supergoober. Who coincidently has only posted in two groups before
he replied to Snit, one was alt.test a week or so ago, and the
other in alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise. The attempt at humor in the
one in alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise is exactly the same type that
Snit/Sigmond would use. And surprise, surprise. He WAS
super...@cableone.net, posting from... You guessed it, Supernews. His
mental illness knows no bounds. He can't get the desired responses, so he
has to fabricate them.

Just take a gander at a few of those posts in alt.flame.macintosh. He
spends a lot of effort trying to convince anyone that you and I are
Sigmond. Even to the point of lying that Sigmond stoped posting about the
same time you did. It's definately good for a laugh at someone so pathetic.

Elizabot

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 1:35:12 AM4/29/04
to
Steve Mackay wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 02:48:05 +0000, Steve Carroll wrote:

[snip]

>
> Yup, just check out alt.flame.macintosh and watch Snit/Sigmond/Supergoober
> He wasn't getting the attention he desired in his 'lil flame group. So he
> created supergoober. Who coincidently has only posted in two groups before
> he replied to Snit, one was alt.test a week or so ago, and the
> other in alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise. The attempt at humor in the
> one in alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise is exactly the same type that
> Snit/Sigmond would use. And surprise, surprise. He WAS
> super...@cableone.net, posting from... You guessed it, Supernews. His
> mental illness knows no bounds. He can't get the desired responses, so he
> has to fabricate them.
>
> Just take a gander at a few of those posts in alt.flame.macintosh. He
> spends a lot of effort trying to convince anyone that you and I are
> Sigmond. Even to the point of lying that Sigmond stoped posting about the
> same time you did. It's definately good for a laugh at someone so pathetic.

I'm torn between feeling sorry for him because he is so pathetic, or
laughing at him because he is so pathetic.

(Here you go, Snit! Now you have another post to flame in your own
little newsgroup over there!)

Steve Carroll

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 9:22:02 AM4/29/04
to

Isn't the star trek NG the same one that Snit followed Sandman into when
he attempted to misattribute a post directed at Sandy to me? It's pretty
obvious what we're dealing with in Snit:) At least he's taken his
garbage out of this NG for the most part. It seems there are a new crop
of trolls to take his place. Hmmm... I wonder if they are related:)
When did I stop posting?

Steve

Steve Carroll

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 9:34:16 AM4/29/04
to
In article <40909410$0$203$7586...@news.frii.net>,
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:

I wouldn't feel sorry for him at all. It's not like we should really
believe anything (and I mean 'anything') he has ever posted. At this
point, I'm fairly convinced that his 'illness' is made up (like much of
what he posts) for the sole purpose of garnering sympathy. His wife and
teaching jobs are just as likely from the same 'reality'. Look at the
time he spent putting together my shrine. How hard would it be to create
a fake illness, fake wife and fake jobs you've supposedly left etc.? He
claims to have studied things like English and Psychology in college.
After reading even a few of his posts, do you really think this is true?

Steve

Sandman

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 11:13:07 AM4/29/04
to
In article <%lWjc.31650$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Nash*ton
<Na...@nash.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> Care to define what objective criteria you use to make such a
>>>>>>> judgement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are trolling, hence you are a troll. Your stupidity act where
>>>>>> you desperatly try to act as if you're not trolling - is
>>>>>> trolling.
>>>>>
>>>>> I notice you have once again not commented on any objective
>>>>> criteria in which I am any more of a troll that you or many other
>>>>> people in csma.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee, I wonder why that is...
>>>>
>>>> Because you're a troll Michael, and as such you are here to play
>>>> games instead of listening to logic and reason. It is what you do.
>>>> I, along with a lot of other posters, have already given you
>>>> explanations on a wide array of subjects and you have time after
>>>> time made it perfectly clear that you won't listen to that.
>>>
>>> Soooooo.....
>>>
>>> What is your objective criteria for calling someone a troll?
>>
>> See what I mean?
>
> Translation: No criteria, just emotions;)

Where are the emotions?

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 11:15:19 AM4/29/04
to
In article <cgWjc.31646$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Nash*ton
<Na...@nash.com> wrote:

>>>>>> Anyone recognize this writing style from someone else on this
>>>>>> NG....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4146756343
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't you say you would take your trolling to another group? I
>>>>> believed you.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think the "Hacking attempt" post was about. It was
>>>> nothing but a troll to discredit Steve C. Or myself. No matter, I
>>>> doubt ANYONE believes him.
>>>
>>> Birds of a feather... I see your Carroll's SP now, his apologist and
>>> his advocate. No surprise there, it's just seldom that one sees a
>>> mob-like mentality in a group of ...2 people..;)
>>
>> Funny, that's just how many you and Michael are. :)
>>
>> Did you ever stop to notice that you are the only one in the -entire
>> group- that is coming to Michaels support?
>
> Nope, I don't need validation.

I didn't suggest you do - I was merely curious.

> You seem to need it and project this upon me.

From who would I need validation?

> So let me get this straight. In order for you to
> agree/disagree with somebody, do you make sure your opinion is in
> tandem with the others?

NO, not at all - but I wouldn't be blind to their opinions - are you?

> Interesting, to say the least.

I think so too.

>> I know why of course - he just happens to have the same enemies as
>> you do - you have made it quite clear that you in no shape for form
>> actually support Michaels -views-.
>
> Enemies? LOL I hardly take anything posted in this ng seriously enough
> to consider anybody an enemy...

Surely you understood exactly what I meant regardless of whether you agree with
the label I choose to place upon the people you often find on the other end of
your arguments - right?

--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 11:16:00 AM4/29/04
to
In article <BCB5866A.4C71E%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>, 次
<sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> Care to define what objective criteria you use to make such a
>>>>>>> judgement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are trolling, hence you are a troll. Your stupidity act where
>>>>>> you desperatly try to act as if you're not trolling - is
>>>>>> trolling.
>>>>>
>>>>> I notice you have once again not commented on any objective
>>>>> criteria in which I am any more of a troll that you or many other
>>>>> people in csma.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee, I wonder why that is...
>>>>
>>>> Because you're a troll Michael, and as such you are here to play
>>>> games instead of listening to logic and reason. It is what you do.
>>>> I, along with a lot of other posters, have already given you
>>>> explanations on a wide array of subjects and you have time after
>>>> time made it perfectly clear that you won't listen to that.
>>>
>>> Soooooo.....
>>>
>>> What is your objective criteria for calling someone a troll?
>>
>> See what I mean?
>
> Yes, I see that you have no objective criteria for determining if
> someone is a troll.

Incorrect, given that I've supplied said criteria.

> You think I am a troll because you *feel* that way.

Incorrect, given that I've supplied said criteria.

--
Sandman[.net]

§¼¡Ý

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 2:13:57 PM4/29/04
to
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
mr-C8CD14.17...@news.fu-berlin.de on 4/29/04 8:16 AM:

Would you be so kind to provide a link that the post where you did so?


>
>> You think I am a troll because you *feel* that way.
>
> Incorrect, given that I've supplied said criteria.

Are you able to either post to that criteria or remind me. Perhaps I am
wrong on this on... would be interesting to see what your criteria is. So
far it seems like it is based on your whim.

Sandman

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 4:29:20 PM4/29/04
to
In article <BCB693F5.4C9EB%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>,
尬≡ <sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:

> > Incorrect, given that I've supplied said criteria.
>
> Would you be so kind to provide a link that the post where you did so?

Why? It didn't work the last time I did so - what guarantees do I have it would
work now? Why, none of course - you are a troll and me posting proof you are
one will be ignored by you. This is what you do.

> >> You think I am a troll because you *feel* that way.
> >
> > Incorrect, given that I've supplied said criteria.
>
> Are you able to either post to that criteria or remind me. Perhaps I am
> wrong on this on... would be interesting to see what your criteria is. So
> far it seems like it is based on your whim.

Well, you are used to being incorrect, so this time isn't unique.

--
Sandman[.net]

§¼¡Ý

unread,
Apr 30, 2004, 12:34:47 AM4/30/04
to
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in
mr-81D146.22...@news.fu-berlin.de on 4/29/04 1:29 PM:

I am still waiting for the criteria. If I am wrong, so be it. So far,
however, there is no reason to think so.

Sandman

unread,
Apr 30, 2004, 8:08:50 AM4/30/04
to
In article <BCB72577.4CCA1%sn...@nospam.cableone.com>,
尬≡ <sn...@nospam.cableone.com> wrote:

>>>> Incorrect, given that I've supplied said criteria.
>>>
>>> Would you be so kind to provide a link that the post where you did
>>> so?
>>
>> Why? It didn't work the last time I did so - what guarantees do I
>> have it would work now? Why, none of course - you are a troll and me
>> posting proof you are one will be ignored by you. This is what you
>> do.
>>>>>
>>>>> You think I am a troll because you *feel* that way.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect, given that I've supplied said criteria.
>>>
>>> Are you able to either post to that criteria or remind me. Perhaps
>>> I am wrong on this on... would be interesting to see what your
>>> criteria is. So far it seems like it is based on your whim.
>>
>> Well, you are used to being incorrect, so this time isn't unique.
>
> I am still waiting for the criteria.

It has still been given to you.

> If I am wrong, so be it.

You are.

> So far, however, there is no reason to think so.

What you think is irrelevant.

--
Sandman[.net]

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages