Measles = Snit
Elizabot v2.0.2
that I missed during my absence and ran across this jewel:
Check out Measle's sig on Measle's last post to csma:
Look's like Snit's sig, huh?
Snit admits he can still use Supernews:
Hey Snit! YOU'RE BUSTED!!!
LOL!!
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Sandman
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> Thought I'd look into some of the posts around the 10/19/04 timeline
> that I missed during my absence and ran across this jewel:
>
> Check out Measle's sig on Measle's last post to csma:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/45wzr
>
> Look's like Snit's sig, huh?
>
> Snit admits he can still use Supernews:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4vkm9
>
> Hey Snit! YOU'RE BUSTED!!!
>
> LOL!!
There is no challenge in exposing Snits sock puppets anymore. They are so many
and so easily detected that the fun is gone. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Nasht0n
> Thought I'd look into some of the posts around the 10/19/04 timeline
> that I missed during my absence and ran across this jewel:
>
> Check out Measle's sig on Measle's last post to csma:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/45wzr
>
> Look's like Snit's sig, huh?
>
> Snit admits he can still use Supernews:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4vkm9
>
> Hey Snit! YOU'RE BUSTED!!!
>
> LOL!!
Bored Ebot? Can't you *ignore* him? How difficult can that be, unless
you want him to pollute the ng with even more of his cheap shots.
Nicolas
Sandman
Nasht0n <na...@na.ca> wrote:
How come you can't ignore Ebot?
--
Sandman[.net]
Nasht0n
Speaking of cheap shots..
And this coming from Sandman, who has spent countless hours on snit's
case, which begs the question, why can't *you* ignore snit, hypocrite?
Nicolas
Steve Carroll
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> Thought I'd look into some of the posts around the 10/19/04 timeline
> that I missed during my absence and ran across this jewel:
>
> Check out Measle's sig on Measle's last post to csma:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/45wzr
>
> Look's like Snit's sig, huh?
>
> Snit admits he can still use Supernews:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4vkm9
>
> Hey Snit! YOU'RE BUSTED!!!
>
> LOL!!
This was done intentionally on Snit's part.
--
Steve C
Sandman
Nasht0n <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> Bored Ebot? Can't you *ignore* him? How difficult can that be,
>>> unless you want him to pollute the ng with even more of his cheap
>>> shots.
>>
>> How come you can't ignore Ebot?
>
> Speaking of cheap shots.. And this coming from Sandman, who has spent
> countless hours on snit's case, which begs the question, why can't
> *you* ignore snit, hypocrite?
Nashton makes a fool out of himself again - this is becoming a daily treat.
This is me killfiling (that's "eh-gno-ring" in nashton-friendly speak).
Date: Aug 14 2004.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mr-6A5B9D.19551914082004%40individual.net
This is me lifting the killfile ("uhn-eh-gno-ring"):
Date: Nov 20 2004.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mr-E5AC1A.12233120112004%40individual.net
It is quite obvious that I am fully capable of eh-gno-ring Snit, but why should
I? I am generally found making fun of trolls in this group (why do you think I
talk so much to you?) and why would I treat Snit different? The only reason I
killfiled Snit was because he was effectively destroying csma. It's not like I
couldn't have kept making fun of him for months on end - there is lots of
material for THAT.
And apart form that - I am not the one questioning Elizabots ability to ignore
other posters, I am the one pointing out to the troll (that's you Nicolas!) who
does just that that he himself can't manage a killfile even if his life
depended on it.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
41ad9071$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/1/04 2:35 AM:
> Thought I'd look into some of the posts around the 10/19/04 timeline
> that I missed during my absence and ran across this jewel:
>
> Check out Measle's sig on Measle's last post to csma:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/45wzr
>
> Look's like Snit's sig, huh?
Yes, my sig, but from a different news reader.
Hmmm, so I would have had to go out of my way to add that - in other words
I, or someone, would have had to go out of my way to make it look like I was
measles.
Hmmm, and measles has the same news reader and service as Steve does when he
posted as "John". What a mystery here.
Any questions?
>
> Snit admits he can still use Supernews:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4vkm9
>
> Hey Snit! YOU'RE BUSTED!!!
>
> LOL!!
>
--
"He's guilty of committing the crime, not of breaking the law."
- CSMA Troll playing silly semantic games
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41ad9071$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/1/04 2:35 AM:
>
> > Thought I'd look into some of the posts around the 10/19/04 timeline
> > that I missed during my absence and ran across this jewel:
> >
> > Check out Measle's sig on Measle's last post to csma:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/45wzr
> >
> > Look's like Snit's sig, huh?
>
> Yes, my sig, but from a different news reader.
>
> Hmmm, so I would have had to go out of my way to add that
Are you trying to suggest that you have never gone out of your way by adding
things like this to your posts? You aren't *really* trying to sell this one, are
you? LOL!
> - in other words
> I, or someone, would have had to go out of my way to make it look like I was
> measles.
>
> Hmmm, and measles has the same news reader and service as Steve does when he
> posted as "John". What a mystery here.
When Steve *allegedly* posted as John. No one has been able to show I ever
posted using Supernews. This won't ever be possible because I've never done it.
This tired allegation turned to dust so long ago it's no longer visible.
> Any questions?
Yeah... what made you think that your ruse wouldn't be recognized?
> >
> > Snit admits he can still use Supernews:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/4vkm9
> >
> > Hey Snit! YOU'RE BUSTED!!!
> >
> > LOL!!
> >
--
Steve C
Snit
fretwizz-65173E...@netnews.comcast.net on 12/1/04 8:28 AM:
> In article <BDD32EB2.14E94%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 41ad9071$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/1/04 2:35 AM:
>>
>>> Thought I'd look into some of the posts around the 10/19/04 timeline
>>> that I missed during my absence and ran across this jewel:
>>>
>>> Check out Measle's sig on Measle's last post to csma:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/45wzr
>>>
>>> Look's like Snit's sig, huh?
>>
>> Yes, my sig, but from a different news reader.
>>
>> Hmmm, so I would have had to go out of my way to add that
>
> Are you trying to suggest that you have never gone out of your way by adding
> things like this to your posts? You aren't *really* trying to sell this one,
> are
> you? LOL!
>
>
>> - in other words
>> I, or someone, would have had to go out of my way to make it look like I was
>> measles.
>>
>> Hmmm, and measles has the same news reader and service as Steve does when he
>> posted as "John". What a mystery here.
>
> When Steve *allegedly* posted as John. No one has been able to show I ever
> posted using Supernews. This won't ever be possible because I've never done
> it.
> This tired allegation turned to dust so long ago it's no longer visible.
Steve: the matter was settled when you admitted to posting as "John".
>
>> Any questions?
>
> Yeah... what made you think that your ruse wouldn't be recognized?
>
>>>
>>> Snit admits he can still use Supernews:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4vkm9
>>>
>>> Hey Snit! YOU'RE BUSTED!!!
>>>
>>> LOL!!
>>>
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Steve Mackay
The fun part was seeing him try and twist and lie his way out of it, which
I'm sure he'll do again. But no matter, I'll not see a single reply of
his.
Snit
pan.2004.12.01....@hotmail.com on 12/1/04 9:46 AM:
Naw, the fun part will be waiting for the dishonest FAQ's from Sandman with
dozens of easy to see errors and the blurry jpeg from you that "proves" the
point.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41ad9071$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/1/04 2:35 AM:
>
> > Thought I'd look into some of the posts around the 10/19/04 timeline
> > that I missed during my absence and ran across this jewel:
> >
> > Check out Measle's sig on Measle's last post to csma:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/45wzr
> >
> > Look's like Snit's sig, huh?
>
> Yes, my sig, but from a different news reader.
>
> Hmmm, so I would have had to go out of my way to add that - in other words
> I, or someone, would have had to go out of my way to make it look like I was
> measles.
>
> Hmmm, and measles has the same news reader and service as Steve does when he
> posted as "John". What a mystery here.
Is this via a supernews account? An account that Steve has denied ever
having? An account with a service that you have used and quite possibly
still do have and use?
>
> Any questions?
>
> >
> > Snit admits he can still use Supernews:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/4vkm9
> >
> > Hey Snit! YOU'RE BUSTED!!!
> >
> > LOL!!
> >
--
Tim
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Oh look - there's another lie by snit.
> >
> >> Any questions?
> >
> > Yeah... what made you think that your ruse wouldn't be recognized?
> >
> >>>
> >>> Snit admits he can still use Supernews:
> >>>
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/4vkm9
> >>>
> >>> Hey Snit! YOU'RE BUSTED!!!
> >>>
> >>> LOL!!
> >>>
--
Tim
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-DC6033.14...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/1/04
12:29 PM:
>> Steve: the matter was settled when you admitted to posting as "John".
>
> Oh look - there's another lie by snit.
While it is possible Steve was lying when he made his admission, with the
other information that supports the conclusion I find that highly unlikely.
Other than to deny the evidence that has been repeatedly offered to you, do
you have a reason to doubt that Steve was posting as "John"?
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Steve Mackay
Why not alert us of Snit actually telling the truth, you'd do far
less replying to Snit then :)
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-DC6033.14...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/1/04
> 12:29 PM:
>
> >> Steve: the matter was settled when you admitted to posting as "John".
> >
> > Oh look - there's another lie by snit.
>
> While it is possible Steve was lying when he made his admission,
That is your lie. Steve NEVER MADE ANY SUCH ADMISSION!
If you didn't have a reading comprehension problem, you might see that.
> with the
> other information that supports the conclusion I find that highly unlikely.
>
> Other than to deny the evidence that has been repeatedly offered to you, do
> you have a reason to doubt that Steve was posting as "John"?
--
Tim
Nasht0n
> In article <VLird.188177$Np3.7...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> Nasht0n <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>Bored Ebot? Can't you *ignore* him? How difficult can that be,
>>>>unless you want him to pollute the ng with even more of his cheap
>>>>shots.
>>>
>>>How come you can't ignore Ebot?
>>
>>Speaking of cheap shots.. And this coming from Sandman, who has spent
>>countless hours on snit's case, which begs the question, why can't
>>*you* ignore snit, hypocrite?
>
>
> Nashton makes a fool out of himself again - this is becoming a daily treat.
You're missing the point *again* Sleepyman.
You admonished me for not being able to ignore Ebot. OTOH, you have
spent endless hours on snit. Can you fathom this? I know making pretty
web pages is as far apart from abstracting as pizza is to sushi, but try
to get some of the neurons in your right brain firing.
>
> This is me killfiling (that's "eh-gno-ring" in nashton-friendly speak).
That's nice.
>
> Date: Aug 14 2004.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mr-6A5B9D.19551914082004%40individual.net
>
> This is me lifting the killfile ("uhn-eh-gno-ring"):
That's not nice. You were probably between jobs and were bored.
>
> Date: Nov 20 2004.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mr-E5AC1A.12233120112004%40individual.net
>
> It is quite obvious that I am fully capable of eh-gno-ring Snit, but why should
> I?
Why should I ignore Ebot, genius?
I am generally found making fun of trolls in this group (why do you think I
> talk so much to you?) and why would I treat Snit different? The only reason I
> killfiled Snit was because he was effectively destroying csma. It's not like I
> couldn't have kept making fun of him for months on end - there is lots of
> material for THAT.
>
> And apart form that - I am not the one questioning Elizabots ability to ignore
> other posters, I am the one pointing out to the troll (that's you Nicolas!) who
> does just that that he himself can't manage a killfile even if his life
> depended on it.
I hope you're not as stupid in real as you appear to be in this ng, for
your sake.
Nicolas
Snit
>>> Steve: the matter was settled when you admitted to posting as "John".
>>
>> Oh look - there's another lie by snit.
>
> Why not alert us of Snit actually telling the truth, you'd do far
> less replying to Snit then :)
Rick G: you recently mentioned how KF-ing a user is cowardly behavior. I do
not think that is always the case - but in the case of Steve Mackay you are
exactly right. He makes these type trolling comments frequently, but is too
cowardly to even read the responses.
Sad... really.
Snit
2:14 PM:
>>>> Steve: the matter was settled when you admitted to posting as "John".
>>>>
>>> Oh look - there's another lie by snit.
>>>
>> While it is possible Steve was lying when he made his admission,
>>
> That is your lie. Steve NEVER MADE ANY SUCH ADMISSION! If you didn't have a
> reading comprehension problem, you might see that.
>
>> with the other information that supports the conclusion I find that highly
>> unlikely.
>>
>> Other than to deny the evidence that has been repeatedly offered to you, do
>> you have a reason to doubt that Steve was posting as "John"?
Wow, look! You simply are denying the information that has been repeatedly
offered to you and gave no other reason to doubt that Steve was posting as
"John". What a shock.
Now care to deal with the facts you have been provided, or do you prefer to
troll?
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.01....@hotmail.com on 12/1/04 9:46 AM:
>
> > On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:19:37 +0100, Sandman wrote:
> >
> >> In article <41ad9071$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> >> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thought I'd look into some of the posts around the 10/19/04 timeline
> >>> that I missed during my absence and ran across this jewel:
> >>>
> >>> Check out Measle's sig on Measle's last post to csma:
> >>>
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/45wzr
> >>>
> >>> Look's like Snit's sig, huh?
> >>>
> >>> Snit admits he can still use Supernews:
> >>>
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/4vkm9
> >>>
> >>> Hey Snit! YOU'RE BUSTED!!!
> >>>
> >>> LOL!!
> >>
> >> There is no challenge in exposing Snits sock puppets anymore. They are so
> >> many
> >> and so easily detected that the fun is gone. :)
> >
> > The fun part was seeing him try and twist and lie his way out of it, which
> > I'm sure he'll do again. But no matter, I'll not see a single reply of
> > his.
> >
> Naw, the fun part will be waiting for the dishonest FAQ's from Sandman with
> dozens of easy to see errors and the blurry jpeg from you that "proves" the
> point.
*yawn*
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<na...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Bored Ebot? Can't you *ignore* him? How difficult can that be,
>>>>> unless you want him to pollute the ng with even more of his cheap
>>>>> shots.
>>>>
>>>> How come you can't ignore Ebot?
>>>
>>> Speaking of cheap shots.. And this coming from Sandman, who has
>>> spent countless hours on snit's case, which begs the question, why
>>> can't *you* ignore snit, hypocrite?
>>
>> Nashton makes a fool out of himself again - this is becoming a daily
>> treat.
>
> You're missing the point *again* Sleepyman. You admonished me for not
> being able to ignore Ebot.
Haha! Talk about missing the point, Einstein! I was making FUN of you because
YOU claimed that Ebot couldn't ignore Snit - while you are apparently having
problems ignoring Ebot. This is so ironic that it's killing me!
> OTOH, you have spent endless hours on snit.
> Can you fathom this?
Did I deny it? Did I complain about someone else having problems ignoring
someone else - apart from this particular event where I made fun of you?
Smell reality, Nicolas.
>> This is me killfiling (that's "eh-gno-ring" in nashton-friendly
>> speak).
>
> That's nice.
Anything for you. Don't want to be way over your head. I know you have
difficulties understanding english - what with your problems regarding the 30"
monitor.
>> Date: Aug 14 2004.
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mr-6A5B9D.19551914082004%40indiv
>> idual.n et
>>
>> This is me lifting the killfile ("uhn-eh-gno-ring"):
>
> That's not nice. You were probably between jobs and were bored.
Do you have a point? Are you ALWAYS between jobs and bored - since you do
nothing but spew unnecessary posts on usenet?
>> Date: Nov 20 2004.
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mr-E5AC1A.12233120112004%40indiv
>> idual.n et
>>
>> It is quite obvious that I am fully capable of eh-gno-ring Snit, but
>> why should I?
>
> Why should I ignore Ebot, genius?
Why should you claim she is having problems ignoring Snit?
>> I am generally found making fun of trolls in this group (why do you
>> think I talk so much to you?) and why would I treat Snit different?
>> The only reason I killfiled Snit was because he was effectively
>> destroying csma. It's not like I couldn't have kept making fun of him
>> for months on end - there is lots of material for THAT.
>>
>> And apart form that - I am not the one questioning Elizabots ability
>> to ignore other posters, I am the one pointing out to the troll
>> (that's you Nicolas!) who does just that that he himself can't manage
>> a killfile even if his life depended on it.
>
> I hope you're not as stupid in real as you appear to be in this ng,
> for your sake.
Oh no - Miss Ignorant calls me stupid! Whatever should I do?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.01....@hotmail.com on 12/1/04 1:18 PM:
>
> >>> Steve: the matter was settled when you admitted to posting as "John".
> >>
> >> Oh look - there's another lie by snit.
> >
> > Why not alert us of Snit actually telling the truth, you'd do far
> > less replying to Snit then :)
>
> Rick G: you recently mentioned how KF-ing a user is cowardly behavior. I do
> not think that is always the case - but in the case of Steve Mackay you are
> exactly right. He makes these type trolling comments frequently, but is too
> cowardly to even read the responses.
>
> Sad... really.
That's one of the weirdest things you ever said. He - among with pretty much
the rest of the group - thinks you're an idiot. He doesn't want to talk to you
or read your posts. Yet he has no problems talking to others about your
boundless stupidity.
Ignoring you isn't being a coward, it's being relieved.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <BDD48B2A.1513F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2004.12.02....@hotmail.com on 12/2/04 8:25 AM:
>>
>>>>> Naw, the fun part will be waiting for the dishonest FAQ's from Sandman
>>>>> with
>>>>> dozens of easy to see errors and the blurry jpeg from [Mackay] that
>>>>> "proves"
>>>>> the point.
>>>>
>>>> *yawn*
>>>
>>> I can't believe he is still going on about the "blurry jpeg" bullshit.
>>
>> Poor Mackay... he is tossing around trollish accusations about me and is mad
>> that I have not forgotten his blurry, overly-compressed, clearly fakes jpeg
>> that he tried to use as evidence against me.
>
> To say this, you are not only saying Steve did what you claim, you are also
> saying Sandman lied about it. Gee... who to believe... LOL!
>
>> No wonder he has me in a KF, if such things are so troubling to him.
>>
>>> When he was proven by _several_ people in here to have been _constantly_
>>> changing his "version" of the PDF.
>>
>> Oh... poor Mackay... feels the need to change the topic to the PDF's where
>> he thinks he has some leg to stand on... based on the fact that I
>> re-uploaded my whole site instead of doing a proper sunc.
>
> What fact? Is this another trolling attempt?
>
>>> Dates constantly changing on his server, etc... All for what? The same PDF
>>> is
>>> still on my ISP's server, with the _exact_ same date, 6-13-2004. I can't
>>> believe _anyone_ is as stupid as Snit... But then again, Sandman, you and I
>>> both know without a shadow of a doubt, that email is 100% factual.
>>
>> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
>>
>> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
>
> Reality check: This is a *claim* that it's his original, nothing more. That
> the
> claim belongs to you is a problem for you when made in csma... all of your own
> doing.
>
>> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
>
> Uh hunh... and I suppose it has his unmistakable signature on it, right?
> Yeah... like you've NEVER been caught changing data on your site after
> stating it doesn't change. Give it up, very early on you ruined your
> credibility by doing such things and you still persist with doing them. Deal
> with it.
>
>> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
>> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
>
> With you having full control as to what goes on your site, you don't think the
> possibility occurs to others that you tampered with things? Or do you believe
> people here think it is beyond you to do such tampering? Two guys claim to
> know you are lying on this issue, I didn't see the data first hand so I can't
> say I know it for a fact
This is the only important part of your accusations.
You admit you do not know the facts but still post accusations about me.
Very much your style.
In any case, as was pointed out to me in the discussion, it is easy to get
the creation date and hard to fake that without specialized and fairly
expensive software. As far as I know, there is no easy way the data
provided by the PDFs themselves could be easily faked. Not even Mackay
could do it - and he likely has more knowledge in that area than I do. In
order to "prove" his point, he did not even post the PDF in question, he
took a screen shot of the info, modified it, compressed it heavily so that
it would be blurred, and then posted the jpeg.
Even if you do not believe he did that - why would he not post the PDF in
question? Why post an overly compressed and blurred jpeg instead of real
evidence... especially when it is clear he has the room and the know how to
keep larger files on his site?
Again, Steve, you jump in with no knowledge of the facts (and this time even
you admit to it) but still make accusations.
Why do you feel the need to do this?
> but, personally, I'll take the word of either one of
> them over yours. When both of their words concur against your word, honestly,
> how many people do you think you'll convince in csma?
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Steve Mackay
I can't believe he is still going on about the "blurry jpeg" bullshit.
When he was proven by _several_ people in here to have been _constantly_
changing his "version" of the PDF. Dates constantly changing on his
Snit
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:22:02 +0100, Sandman wrote:
>
>> In article <BDD3C6D5.14F48%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>>> pan.2004.12.01....@hotmail.com on 12/1/04 1:18 PM:
>>>
>>>>>> Steve: the matter was settled when you admitted to posting as "John".
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh look - there's another lie by snit.
>>>>
>>>> Why not alert us of Snit actually telling the truth, you'd do far
>>>> less replying to Snit then :)
>>>
>>> Rick G: you recently mentioned how KF-ing a user is cowardly behavior. I do
>>> not think that is always the case - but in the case of Steve Mackay you are
>>> exactly right. He makes these type trolling comments frequently, but is too
>>> cowardly to even read the responses.
>>>
>>> Sad... really.
>
> LOL, Snit, the bait wont work. You're just far to stupid for me to lift my
> KF of you. You're just far to dishonest and pathetic to read your bullshit
> on a daily basis. Life is so much better without the ringleader of the
> Snit circus.
>
>>
>> That's one of the weirdest things you ever said. He - among with pretty much
>> the rest of the group - thinks you're an idiot. He doesn't want to talk to
>> you or read your posts. Yet he has no problems talking to others about your
>> boundless stupidity.
I do not care if you KF me or not. I am merely pointing out the weakness in
character it shows in you. If you were to lift the KF based on my comments,
it would not change the fact that you have been acting in a cowardly and
trollish manner.
>
> You hit that one right on the head :)
>
>> Ignoring you isn't being a coward, it's being relieved.
>
> No, it's refreshing :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in post
> mr-65148F.09...@individual.net on 12/2/04 1:22 AM:
> His comments about me are cowardly. If he merely wanted nothing to do with
> me, he would ignore me. Instead, he tossed silly accusations about in
> regards to me... he is a coward and a troll.
Yeah... right. Like YOU never do this.
--
Steve C
Steve Mackay
> In article <BDD3C6D5.14F48%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2004.12.01....@hotmail.com on 12/1/04 1:18 PM:
>>
>> >>> Steve: the matter was settled when you admitted to posting as "John".
>> >>
>> >> Oh look - there's another lie by snit.
>> >
>> > Why not alert us of Snit actually telling the truth, you'd do far
>> > less replying to Snit then :)
>>
>> Rick G: you recently mentioned how KF-ing a user is cowardly behavior. I do
>> not think that is always the case - but in the case of Steve Mackay you are
>> exactly right. He makes these type trolling comments frequently, but is too
>> cowardly to even read the responses.
>>
>> Sad... really.
LOL, Snit, the bait wont work. You're just far to stupid for me to lift my
KF of you. You're just far to dishonest and pathetic to read your bullshit
on a daily basis. Life is so much better without the ringleader of the
Snit circus.
>
> That's one of the weirdest things you ever said. He - among with pretty much
> the rest of the group - thinks you're an idiot. He doesn't want to talk to you
> or read your posts. Yet he has no problems talking to others about your
> boundless stupidity.
You hit that one right on the head :)
> Ignoring you isn't being a coward, it's being relieved.
No, it's refreshing :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.02....@hotmail.com on 12/2/04 8:25 AM:
>
> >>> Naw, the fun part will be waiting for the dishonest FAQ's from Sandman
> >>> with
> >>> dozens of easy to see errors and the blurry jpeg from [Mackay] that
> >>> "proves"
> >>> the point.
> >>
> >> *yawn*
> >
> > I can't believe he is still going on about the "blurry jpeg" bullshit.
>
> Poor Mackay... he is tossing around trollish accusations about me and is mad
> that I have not forgotten his blurry, overly-compressed, clearly fakes jpeg
> that he tried to use as evidence against me.
To say this, you are not only saying Steve did what you claim, you are also
saying Sandman lied about it. Gee... who to believe... LOL!
> No wonder he has me in a KF, if such things are so troubling to him.
>
> > When he was proven by _several_ people in here to have been _constantly_
> > changing his "version" of the PDF.
>
> Oh... poor Mackay... feels the need to change the topic to the PDF's where
> he thinks he has some leg to stand on... based on the fact that I
> re-uploaded my whole site instead of doing a proper sunc.
What fact? Is this another trolling attempt?
> > Dates constantly changing on his server, etc... All for what? The same PDF
> > is
> > still on my ISP's server, with the _exact_ same date, 6-13-2004. I can't
> > believe _anyone_ is as stupid as Snit... But then again, Sandman, you and I
> > both know without a shadow of a doubt, that email is 100% factual.
>
> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
>
> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
Reality check: This is a *claim* that it's his original, nothing more. That the
claim belongs to you is a problem for you when made in csma... all of your own
doing.
> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
Uh hunh... and I suppose it has his unmistakable signature on it, right? Yeah...
like you've NEVER been caught changing data on your site after stating it
doesn't change. Give it up, very early on you ruined your credibility by doing
such things and you still persist with doing them. Deal with it.
> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
With you having full control as to what goes on your site, you don't think the
possibility occurs to others that you tampered with things? Or do you believe
people here think it is beyond you to do such tampering? Two guys claim to know
you are lying on this issue, I didn't see the data first hand so I can't say I
know it for a fact but, personally, I'll take the word of either one of them
over yours. When both of their words concur against your word, honestly, how
many people do you think you'll convince in csma?
--
Steve C
Snit
>>> Naw, the fun part will be waiting for the dishonest FAQ's from Sandman with
>>> dozens of easy to see errors and the blurry jpeg from [Mackay] that "proves"
>>> the point.
>>
>> *yawn*
>
> I can't believe he is still going on about the "blurry jpeg" bullshit.
Poor Mackay... he is tossing around trollish accusations about me and is mad
that I have not forgotten his blurry, overly-compressed, clearly fakes jpeg
that he tried to use as evidence against me.
No wonder he has me in a KF, if such things are so troubling to him.
> When he was proven by _several_ people in here to have been _constantly_
> changing his "version" of the PDF.
Oh... poor Mackay... feels the need to change the topic to the PDF's where
he thinks he has some leg to stand on... based on the fact that I
re-uploaded my whole site instead of doing a proper sunc.
> Dates constantly changing on his server, etc... All for what? The same PDF is
> still on my ISP's server, with the _exact_ same date, 6-13-2004. I can't
> believe _anyone_ is as stupid as Snit... But then again, Sandman, you and I
> both know without a shadow of a doubt, that email is 100% factual.
Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
His original PDF with whacky fonts:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
claiming I hacked his server to change them.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-DC6033.14...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/1/04
> 12:29 PM:
>
> >> Steve: the matter was settled when you admitted to posting as "John".
> >
> > Oh look - there's another lie by snit.
>
> While it is possible Steve was lying when he made his admission, with the
> other information that supports the conclusion I find that highly unlikely.
>
> Other than to deny the evidence that has been repeatedly offered to you, do
> you have a reason to doubt that Steve was posting as "John"?
As usual, in matters of making a claim, you have it backwards... the burden of
proof is on you... no one needs to provide such a reason. Tim, along with
everyone else (except for Phil, who is no longer willing to even talk about it:)
has plainly stated that your pasta is not sticking to the wall here.
--
Steve C
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-0B70D5.16...@news1.east.earthlink.net on 12/1/04
> 2:14 PM:
>
> >>>> Steve: the matter was settled when you admitted to posting as "John".
> >>>>
> >>> Oh look - there's another lie by snit.
> >>>
> >> While it is possible Steve was lying when he made his admission,
> >>
> > That is your lie. Steve NEVER MADE ANY SUCH ADMISSION! If you didn't have a
> > reading comprehension problem, you might see that.
> >
> >> with the other information that supports the conclusion I find that highly
> >> unlikely.
> >>
> >> Other than to deny the evidence that has been repeatedly offered to you, do
> >> you have a reason to doubt that Steve was posting as "John"?
>
> Wow, look! You simply are denying the information that has been repeatedly
> offered to you and gave no other reason to doubt that Steve was posting as
> "John". What a shock.
How about:
1) Steve has stated, more than once he didn't post as John
2) Steve has stated, again more than once, he doesn't have a Supernew
account.
and finally
3) snit has never denied posting as 'evil john' and DOES have, and has
used a supernews account.
Back to you, Troll
>
> Now care to deal with the facts you have been provided, or do you prefer to
> troll?
--
Tim
Snit
You're right... such trolling by you and Mackay is so old it is boring, not
"fun" like I claimed. Thanks for the correction.
Snit
> In article <BDD3C6D5.14F48%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
His comments about me are cowardly. If he merely wanted nothing to do with
me, he would ignore me. Instead, he tossed silly accusations about in
regards to me... he is a coward and a troll.
--
Snit
>> I do not care if you KF me or not. I am merely pointing out the weakness in
>> character it shows in you. If you were to lift the KF based on my comments,
>> it would not change the fact that you have been acting in a cowardly and
>> trollish manner.
>
> It's obvious that you are projecting here... you're calling someone a coward
> because you are a coward.
Funny... in the same sentence you call me a coward you claim that such
claims are based on projection.
In essence, Steve, you just called yourself a coward.
> Only a true coward would take advantage of a NG to pull the kind of crap that
> you pull in here every week. You have repeatedly shown that you are an
> extremely disingenuous liar who will do things like change data on your site
> after stating that it didn't change.
Please support this accusation.
> You were caught doing this red-handed and were forced to admit it.
Oh my, this should be good.
> You have been caught in many outright lies and too many others that you were
> able to obscure for a period of time... but the truth will always out and this
> is no different in your case. The people in csma recognize you for what you
> are and people that never agree on anything agree over you.
Do you see the irony in your claims? Just curious.
In any case, did you see my recent post to Rick G. where I stated:
Worse than that, however, he has sunk to making completely unrelated
accusations against me... and my guess is those will increase in the
near future as I refuse to accept any of his continued attempts at a
defense for Edwin's lie.
This game is not new to you, Steve. You are embarrassed by your error and
hope to obfuscate it by making unrelated accusations against me - even ones
in which you openly admitted you had no proof and did not even see the
evidence.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
It's obvious that you are projecting here... you're calling someone a coward
because you are a coward. Only a true coward would take advantage of a NG to
pull the kind of crap that you pull in here every week. You have repeatedly
shown that you are an extremely disingenuous liar who will do things like change
data on your site after stating that it didn't change. You were caught doing
this red-handed and were forced to admit it. You have been caught in many
outright lies and too many others that you were able to obscure for a period of
time... but the truth will always out and this is no different in your case. The
people in csma recognize you for what you are and people that never agree on
anything agree over you.
--
Steve C
Elizabot v2.0.2
> Sandman wrote:
>
>>
>> It is quite obvious that I am fully capable of eh-gno-ring Snit, but
>> why should I?
>
>
> Why should I ignore Ebot, genius?
Because you cmailed to have plonked me in the past, genius.
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> alangbaker-CCF8C...@news.telus.net on 12/2/04 6:02 PM:
>
> > In article <BDD4F891.15213%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> >> alangbaker-32E8F...@news.telus.net on 12/2/04 1:05 PM:
> >>
> >>>> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
> >>>>
> >>>> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
> >>>> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I explained that the "changed" IP address was in fact the same
> >>> address that was found underneath, and I explained how such a change
> >>> would be evidence that *you* had done it.
> >>
> >> I never did see what was "under" anything on the PDF's in question. I
> >> would
> >> like to know.
> >
> > Liar.
> >
> > Since you put it there...
>
> Hmmm, you used to claim that I put something on top of the other number.
> Now you claim I placed something under the number that shows.
>
> Which lie of yours do you want to claim is the true one?
>
> In any case, despite my efforts, I was never able to see what is under the
> forged text, if anything. If you have a method to show what is under the
> forged text, I would love to have you share it. You certainly imply in your
> comments above that you have seen the text "under" the forged IP... I would
> love to know how to do that.
>
> Since Steve will claim I will edit the PDF's on my site, please feel free to
> download a copy of the PDF's from my site... I would love to have as many
> people as possible get copies. Of course, that will not Steve from lying
> and saying it changed, but at least his lie will be more apparent.
Why so anxious to have people access your site? So you can later use their IP
info against them and claim they've been mining it?
--
Steve C
Alan Baker
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> alangbaker-A0BF8...@news.telus.net on 12/2/04 8:23 PM:
>
> >>>>>> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
> >>>>>> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Actually, I explained that the "changed" IP address was in fact the
> >>>>> same
> >>>>> address that was found underneath, and I explained how such a change
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> be evidence that *you* had done it.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I never did see what was "under" anything on the PDF's in question. I
> >>>> would like to know.
> >>>
> >>> Liar.
> >>>
> >>> Since you put it there...
> >>
> >> Hmmm, you used to claim that I put something on top of the other number.
> >> Now you claim I placed something under the number that shows.
> >
> > Don't even bother. You put the numbers on top; hence, you saw what was
> > under when you were doing it.
>
> If I placed it there, it would be likely that I would know what was under
> there... or if there was anything under there. Since I do not, your story
> makes no sense.
So...
Since you *claim* you don't know what's there, that defines objective
reality, does it?
LOL
> >>
> >> Which lie of yours do you want to claim is the true one?
> >>
> >> In any case, despite my efforts, I was never able to see what is under the
> >> forged text, if anything. If you have a method to show what is under the
> >> forged text, I would love to have you share it. You certainly imply in
> >> your
> >> comments above that you have seen the text "under" the forged IP... I
> >> would
> >> love to know how to do that.
> >
> > It's all in google....
>
> Link?
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&threadm=alangbaker-B5
07B3.22063313082004%40news.telus.net&rnum=27&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dauthor:al
an%2Bauthor:baker%2Bmackay%2Bpdf%2Bsnit%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26
c2coff%3D1%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3Dalangbaker-B507B3.22063313082004%2540ne
ws.telus.net%26rnum%3D27%26filter%3D0>
>
> >> Since Steve will claim I will edit the PDF's on my site, please feel free
> >> to
> >> download a copy of the PDF's from my site... I would love to have as many
> >> people as possible get copies. Of course, that will not Steve from lying
> >> and saying it changed, but at least his lie will be more apparent.
> >
> > And the PDF you edited is no longer on your site; having been exchanged
> > for another edited version long since.
>
> Er? So what is under the "new" edited version? How would one find out?
Why would I care?
You showed one version and when I caught out what you had done, you
changed it. The fact that you changed it says it all.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
> fretwizz-4333E4...@netnews.comcast.net on 12/2/04 10:14 AM:
>
> > In article <BDD48B2A.1513F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> >> pan.2004.12.02....@hotmail.com on 12/2/04 8:25 AM:
> >>
> >>>>> Naw, the fun part will be waiting for the dishonest FAQ's from Sandman
> >>>>> with
> >>>>> dozens of easy to see errors and the blurry jpeg from [Mackay] that
> >>>>> "proves"
> >>>>> the point.
> >>>>
> >>>> *yawn*
> >>>
> >>> I can't believe he is still going on about the "blurry jpeg" bullshit.
> >>
> >> Poor Mackay... he is tossing around trollish accusations about me and is
> >> mad
> >> that I have not forgotten his blurry, overly-compressed, clearly fakes
> >> jpeg
> >> that he tried to use as evidence against me.
> >
> > To say this, you are not only saying Steve did what you claim, you are also
> > saying Sandman lied about it. Gee... who to believe... LOL!
No comment, Snit?
> >> No wonder he has me in a KF, if such things are so troubling to him.
> >>
> >>> When he was proven by _several_ people in here to have been _constantly_
> >>> changing his "version" of the PDF.
> >>
> >> Oh... poor Mackay... feels the need to change the topic to the PDF's where
> >> he thinks he has some leg to stand on... based on the fact that I
> >> re-uploaded my whole site instead of doing a proper sunc.
> >
> > What fact? Is this another trolling attempt?
A tacit admission?
> >>> Dates constantly changing on his server, etc... All for what? The same
> >>> PDF
> >>> is
> >>> still on my ISP's server, with the _exact_ same date, 6-13-2004. I can't
> >>> believe _anyone_ is as stupid as Snit... But then again, Sandman, you and
> >>> I
> >>> both know without a shadow of a doubt, that email is 100% factual.
> >>
> >> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
> >>
> >> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
> >>
> >> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
> >
> > Reality check: This is a *claim* that it's his original, nothing more. That
> > the
> > claim belongs to you is a problem for you when made in csma... all of your
> > own
> > doing.
I didn't expect to see you answer this one.
> >> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
> >>
> >> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
> >
> > Uh hunh... and I suppose it has his unmistakable signature on it, right?
> > Yeah... like you've NEVER been caught changing data on your site after
> > stating it doesn't change. Give it up, very early on you ruined your
> > credibility by doing such things and you still persist with doing them.
> > Deal
> > with it.
Never expected an answer here, either.
> >> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
> >> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
> >
> > With you having full control as to what goes on your site, you don't think
> > the
> > possibility occurs to others that you tampered with things? Or do you
> > believe
> > people here think it is beyond you to do such tampering? Two guys claim to
> > know you are lying on this issue, I didn't see the data first hand so I
> > can't
> > say I know it for a fact
>
> This is the only important part of your accusations.
Not to the people who might be reading this.
> You admit you do not know the facts but still post accusations about me.
This accusation was not first made by me. If I later agreed to this particular
accusation, as I clearly stated earlier, it is because I am quite willing to
take the word of either of the other two parties involved over yours. What part
of that confused you?
> Very much your style.
>
> In any case, as was pointed out to me in the discussion, it is easy to get
> the creation date and hard to fake that without specialized and fairly
> expensive software. As far as I know, there is no easy way the data
> provided by the PDFs themselves could be easily faked. Not even Mackay
> could do it - and he likely has more knowledge in that area than I do. In
> order to "prove" his point, he did not even post the PDF in question, he
> took a screen shot of the info, modified it, compressed it heavily so that
> it would be blurred, and then posted the jpeg.
Uh hunh... and how do you propose to prove that he did this?
> Even if you do not believe he did that - why would he not post the PDF in
> question? Why post an overly compressed and blurred jpeg instead of real
> evidence... especially when it is clear he has the room and the know how to
> keep larger files on his site?
I only saw you make the blurry jpeg comment.
> Again, Steve, you jump in with no knowledge of the facts (and this time even
> you admit to it) but still make accusations.
>
> Why do you feel the need to do this?
>
> > but, personally, I'll take the word of either one of
> > them over yours. When both of their words concur against your word,
> > honestly,
> > how many people do you think you'll convince in csma?
Nothing to say here?
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
> Here's proof that he does this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6vakj
>
> Note he never responded to the post where I provided 24 message IDs to
> posts of his where he went into regurgitation mode and did not actually
> address the points in my reply.
>
> Therefore Snit is a coward, troll, and hypocrite.
And a regurgitater! Regurgitation mode... that's a good one:)
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
> fretwizz-13D5AB...@netnews.comcast.net on 12/2/04 10:34 AM:
>
> >> I do not care if you KF me or not. I am merely pointing out the weakness
> >> in
> >> character it shows in you. If you were to lift the KF based on my
> >> comments,
> >> it would not change the fact that you have been acting in a cowardly and
> >> trollish manner.
> >
> > It's obvious that you are projecting here... you're calling someone a
> > coward
> > because you are a coward.
>
> Funny... in the same sentence you call me a coward you claim that such
> claims are based on projection.
>
> In essence, Steve, you just called yourself a coward.
That's how you read it... but I've heard it said that you have a reading
comprehension problem. Ask around...
> > Only a true coward would take advantage of a NG to pull the kind of crap
> > that
> > you pull in here every week. You have repeatedly shown that you are an
> > extremely disingenuous liar who will do things like change data on your
> > site
> > after stating that it didn't change.
>
> Please support this accusation.
Why? So you can pretend it is something other than it is? No thanks.
> > You were caught doing this red-handed and were forced to admit it.
>
> Oh my, this should be good.
Not really... it was pathetic the first time.
> > You have been caught in many outright lies and too many others that you
> > were
> > able to obscure for a period of time... but the truth will always out and
> > this
> > is no different in your case. The people in csma recognize you for what you
> > are and people that never agree on anything agree over you.
>
> Do you see the irony in your claims? Just curious.
Snit, you see lots of things that aren't there... no one but you questions this.
>
> In any case, did you see my recent post to Rick G. where I stated:
>
> Worse than that, however, he has sunk to making completely unrelated
> accusations against me... and my guess is those will increase in the
> near future as I refuse to accept any of his continued attempts at a
> defense for Edwin's lie.
Yeah... you're a real psychic:)
> This game is not new to you, Steve. You are embarrassed by your error and
> hope to obfuscate it by making unrelated accusations against me - even ones
> in which you openly admitted you had no proof and did not even see the
> evidence.
You are the only one that believes this.
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
> fretwizz-3F24DC...@netnews.comcast.net on 12/2/04 9:53 PM:
>
> >>>>> With you having full control as to what goes on your site, you don't
> >>>>> think
> >>>>> the possibility occurs to others that you tampered with things? Or do
> >>>>> you
> >>>>> believe people here think it is beyond you to do such tampering? Two
> >>>>> guys
> >>>>> claim to know you are lying on this issue, I didn't see the data first
> >>>>> hand so I can't say I know it for a fact
> >>>>>
> >>>> This is the only important part of your accusations. You admit you do
> >>>> not
> >>>> know the facts but still post accusations about me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Very much your style.
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, as was pointed out to me in the discussion, it is easy to
> >>>> get
> >>>> the creation date and hard to fake that without specialized and fairly
> >>>> expensive software. As far as I know, there is no easy way the data
> >>>> provided by the PDFs themselves could be easily faked. Not even Mackay
> >>>> could do it - and he likely has more knowledge in that area than I do.
> >>>> In
> >>>> order to "prove" his point, he did not even post the PDF in question, he
> >>>> took a screen shot of the info, modified it, compressed it heavily so
> >>>> that
> >>>> it would be blurred, and then posted the jpeg.
> >>>>
> >>> Uh hunh... and how do you propose to prove that he did this?
> >>
> >> Look at his PDF's. They are still on his site, and they are still
> >> blurred:
> >>
> >> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/mine.jpg
> >> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/snit.jpg
> >
> > What is it that you think this proves?
>
> They are on his site, and they are still blurred.
I looked... they are both blurred and one appears to be a bit darker than the
other. What is it that you think this proves?
> Looking more closely at them, I notice the placement of the document summary
> is in the *exact* same place - not a pixel higher, lower, or to the left or
> right.
Why wouldn't they be in the exact same place? The app likely has a default to
this screen real estate when you access the summary.
> It is conveniently placed to show the word "unverified" but to hide
> the IP address... again, close to pixel perfect there.
Conveniently or coincidentally? How do you intend to prove this?
> The text in the
> Document Summary window has a greater amount of jpeg artifacting than the
> text in the rest of the image. The one Mackay has named "mine.jpg" has
> lettering near the bottom which is clearly faded out - which is *not* the
> case in any of the PDF's (yet he says the one named "snit.jpg" is the fake).
This doesn't mean the unfaded one isn't the fake. Some fonts fade during
compression. You could easily have noted the fade and decided to redo that text
to make the claim his is faded so his must be a fake.
> Much of the rest of the images are close to if not exactly pixel perfect,
> but in other places they clearly are not.
> This is easy to see here:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>
> All I have done, and this is easy to verify for anyone who cares to, is copy
> Steve's images and turn them into a roll-over. By doing this, you can see
> where the images are near-pixel-perfect, pixel-perfect, and not-at-all-pixel
> perfect.
>
> Why does Mackay not provide us with the two PDF's in question? What is he
> hiding?
Weren't YOU the one that initially had the *two* PDF's? Also, there was a
reverse time aspect to this that you never could explain, Snit. Steve would have
had to go back in time by 7 hours to do what you claim. I'm not buying it.
> Steve Mackay's claims are easily shown to be lies, and his jpegs are fakes.
> >
> >> I would not be surprised to see crisper jpegs appearing on his site
> >> soon...
> >> grab a copy now. I have.
> >
> > I looked... I have no need to grab anything as I believe them when they say
> > you are lying.
>
> You may believe what you want - just do not pretend it is based on reason or
> rationality. Or the evidence.
Like I said, if you can remove me having to believe your word, I'll reconsider.
I don't see how that's possible in this case because here, it's word against
word.
--
Nothing does not equal nothing.
Steve C
Elizabot v2.0.2
> In article <41b00903$0$203$7586...@news.frii.net>,
>
>
> LOL! Snit - the creator of the shitmouth loop:)
Uh oh...
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
> fretwizz-215A53...@netnews.comcast.net on 12/2/04 11:22 PM:
No response?
> >
> >> It is conveniently placed to show the word "unverified" but to hide
> >> the IP address... again, close to pixel perfect there.
> >
> >
> > Conveniently or coincidentally? How do you intend to prove this?
No response?
> >> The text in the
> >> Document Summary window has a greater amount of jpeg artifacting than the
> >> text in the rest of the image. The one Mackay has named "mine.jpg" has
> >> lettering near the bottom which is clearly faded out - which is *not* the
> >> case in any of the PDF's (yet he says the one named "snit.jpg" is the
> >> fake).
> >
> > This doesn't mean the unfaded one isn't the fake. Some fonts fade during
> > compression. You could easily have noted the fade and decided to redo that
> > text
> > to make the claim his is faded so his must be a fake.
No response?
> >> Much of the rest of the images are close to if not exactly pixel perfect,
> >> but in other places they clearly are not.
> >
> >
> >
> >> This is easy to see here:
> >>
> >> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
> >>
> >> All I have done, and this is easy to verify for anyone who cares to, is
> >> copy
> >> Steve's images and turn them into a roll-over. By doing this, you can see
> >> where the images are near-pixel-perfect, pixel-perfect, and
> >> not-at-all-pixel
> >> perfect.
> >>
> >> Why does Mackay not provide us with the two PDF's in question? What is he
> >> hiding?
> >
> > Weren't YOU the one that initially had the *two* PDF's? Also, there was a
> > reverse time aspect to this that you never could explain, Snit. Steve would
> > have
> > had to go back in time by 7 hours to do what you claim. I'm not buying it.
No response?
> >> Steve Mackay's claims are easily shown to be lies, and his jpegs are
> >> fakes.
> >>>
> >>>> I would not be surprised to see crisper jpegs appearing on his site
> >>>> soon...
> >>>> grab a copy now. I have.
> >>>
> >>> I looked... I have no need to grab anything as I believe them when they
> >>> say
> >>> you are lying.
> >>
> >> You may believe what you want - just do not pretend it is based on reason
> >> or
> >> rationality. Or the evidence.
> >
> > Like I said, if you can remove me having to believe your word, I'll
> > reconsider.
>
> Gee, if I can, with my words, convince you with something else other than
> words, you will reconsider.
I already understood this, Snit... you have no way to prove your case other than
expect me to simply believe you're telling the truth. It's word against word
here.
> How noble of you.
It's called reality... and you created this particular one.
> I am sure you will ignore and deny evidence I present
If you can present evidence where you don't expect me to have to believe some
tale you're spinning, I'll reconsider. How do you propose to do that in this
case? For one thing... how do you propose to get around the reverse time
problem? If you have a logical reason, it will remain logical despite the fact
that you are presenting it. If it's just another Snit tale, it will be quite
evident.
Alan Baker
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Actually, I explained that the "changed" IP address was in fact the same
address that was found underneath, and I explained how such a change
would be evidence that *you* had done it.
--
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.02....@hotmail.com on 12/2/04 8:25 AM:
> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed
Yes he did. He showed that you changed them.
> and resorted to
> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
IIRC, that was *your* claim. Can you show me a post where he claimed
that you hacked his server?
Alan Baker
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> alangbaker-CCF8C...@news.telus.net on 12/2/04 6:02 PM:
>
> > In article <BDD4F891.15213%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> >> alangbaker-32E8F...@news.telus.net on 12/2/04 1:05 PM:
> >>
> >>>> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
> >>>>
> >>>> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
> >>>> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, I explained that the "changed" IP address was in fact the same
> >>> address that was found underneath, and I explained how such a change
> >>> would be evidence that *you* had done it.
> >>
> >> I never did see what was "under" anything on the PDF's in question. I
> >> would
> >> like to know.
> >
> > Liar.
> >
> > Since you put it there...
>
> Hmmm, you used to claim that I put something on top of the other number.
> Now you claim I placed something under the number that shows.
Don't even bother. You put the numbers on top; hence, you saw what was
under when you were doing it.
>
> Which lie of yours do you want to claim is the true one?
>
> In any case, despite my efforts, I was never able to see what is under the
> forged text, if anything. If you have a method to show what is under the
> forged text, I would love to have you share it. You certainly imply in your
> comments above that you have seen the text "under" the forged IP... I would
> love to know how to do that.
It's all in google....
>
> Since Steve will claim I will edit the PDF's on my site, please feel free to
> download a copy of the PDF's from my site... I would love to have as many
> people as possible get copies. Of course, that will not Steve from lying
> and saying it changed, but at least his lie will be more apparent.
And the PDF you edited is no longer on your site; having been exchanged
for another edited version long since.
--
Snit
>> Hmmm, you used to claim that I put something on top of the other number.
>> Now you claim I placed something under the number that shows.
>>
>> Which lie of yours do you want to claim is the true one?
>>
>> In any case, despite my efforts, I was never able to see what is under the
>> forged text, if anything. If you have a method to show what is under the
>> forged text, I would love to have you share it. You certainly imply in your
>> comments above that you have seen the text "under" the forged IP... I would
>> love to know how to do that.
>>
>> Since Steve will claim I will edit the PDF's on my site, please feel free to
>> download a copy of the PDF's from my site... I would love to have as many
>> people as possible get copies. Of course, that will not Steve from lying
>> and saying it changed, but at least his lie will be more apparent.
>
> Why so anxious to have people access your site? So you can later use their IP
> info against them and claim they've been mining it?
How would clicking on a link be "mining" my site?
Really, Steve, you need to take a logic class.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> In article <BDD545D3.15283%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
[snip]
> Weren't YOU the one that initially had the *two* PDF's? Also, there was a
> reverse time aspect to this that you never could explain, Snit. Steve would have
> had to go back in time by 7 hours to do what you claim. I'm not buying it.
Originally, Steve had the one pdf. Snit had multiple pdf's.
Elizabot v2.0.2
Goes with Snit's compulsive loggorhea issues.
--
Elizabot v2.0.2
Sandman has Snit's lying documented on his website:
http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=42111&start=1
Note there are 4 pages.
I thought this part was the best:
"Steve replies and says he did no such thing and links to two
screenshots about the information of the two PDFs clearly displaying
that one is made by Internet Explorer for PC while the other is made by
OmniGraffle on a Mac. Steve also links to the web directory that holds
his files and point to the modification date which is June 13, not
August 10 like the one Michael has."
Steve Carroll
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
I forgot about it being on his site. I guess Snit did, too:)
--
Steve C
Snit
> In article <BDD545D3.15283%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
Gee, if I can, with my words, convince you with something else other than
words, you will reconsider.
How noble of you.
I am sure you will ignore and deny evidence I present - just like a KKK
member would of a black man.
> I don't see how that's possible in this case because here, it's word against
> word.
--
Elizabot v2.0.2
> In article <BDD4870D.15135%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>
Here's proof that he does this:
Note he never responded to the post where I provided 24 message IDs to
posts of his where he went into regurgitation mode and did not actually
address the points in my reply.
Therefore Snit is a coward, troll, and hypocrite.
--
Alan Baker
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
> alangbaker-32E8F...@news.telus.net on 12/2/04 1:05 PM:
>
> >> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
> >>
> >> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
> >>
> >> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
> >>
> >> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
> >>
> >> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
> >>
> >> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
> >> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
> >
> > Actually, I explained that the "changed" IP address was in fact the same
> > address that was found underneath, and I explained how such a change
> > would be evidence that *you* had done it.
>
> I never did see what was "under" anything on the PDF's in question. I would
> like to know.
Liar.
Since you put it there...
--
Elizabot v2.0.2
LOL! Either that or it helps with his poor self esteem.
Snit
>>>>>> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
>>>>>> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I explained that the "changed" IP address was in fact the same
>>>>> address that was found underneath, and I explained how such a change would
>>>>> be evidence that *you* had done it.
>>>>>
>>>> I never did see what was "under" anything on the PDF's in question. I
>>>> would like to know.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> Since you put it there...
>>
>> Hmmm, you used to claim that I put something on top of the other number.
>> Now you claim I placed something under the number that shows.
>
> Don't even bother. You put the numbers on top; hence, you saw what was
> under when you were doing it.
If I placed it there, it would be likely that I would know what was under
there... or if there was anything under there. Since I do not, your story
makes no sense.
>>
>> Which lie of yours do you want to claim is the true one?
>>
>> In any case, despite my efforts, I was never able to see what is under the
>> forged text, if anything. If you have a method to show what is under the
>> forged text, I would love to have you share it. You certainly imply in your
>> comments above that you have seen the text "under" the forged IP... I would
>> love to know how to do that.
>
> It's all in google....
Link?
>> Since Steve will claim I will edit the PDF's on my site, please feel free to
>> download a copy of the PDF's from my site... I would love to have as many
>> people as possible get copies. Of course, that will not Steve from lying
>> and saying it changed, but at least his lie will be more apparent.
>
> And the PDF you edited is no longer on your site; having been exchanged
> for another edited version long since.
Er? So what is under the "new" edited version? How would one find out?
--
"He's guilty of committing the crime, not of breaking the law."
- CSMA Troll playing silly semantic games
Snit
>>> With you having full control as to what goes on your site, you don't think
>>> the possibility occurs to others that you tampered with things? Or do you
>>> believe people here think it is beyond you to do such tampering? Two guys
>>> claim to know you are lying on this issue, I didn't see the data first hand
>>> so I can't say I know it for a fact
>>
>> This is the only important part of your accusations. You admit you do not
>> know the facts but still post accusations about me.
>>
>> Very much your style.
>>
>> In any case, as was pointed out to me in the discussion, it is easy to get
>> the creation date and hard to fake that without specialized and fairly
>> expensive software. As far as I know, there is no easy way the data provided
>> by the PDFs themselves could be easily faked. Not even Mackay could do it -
>> and he likely has more knowledge in that area than I do. In order to "prove"
>> his point, he did not even post the PDF in question, he took a screen shot of
>> the info, modified it, compressed it heavily so that it would be blurred, and
>> then posted the jpeg.
>>
> Uh hunh... and how do you propose to prove that he did this?
Look at his PDF's. They are still on his site, and they are still blurred:
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/mine.jpg
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/snit.jpg
I would not be surprised to see crisper jpegs appearing on his site soon...
grab a copy now. I have.
>
>> Even if you do not believe he did that - why would he not post the PDF in
>> question? Why post an overly compressed and blurred jpeg instead of real
>> evidence... especially when it is clear he has the room and the know how to
>> keep larger files on his site?
>>
> I only saw you make the blurry jpeg comment.
In other words you have not been following the discussion and have no clue
about it - but you still are willing to draw conclusions.
As you stated: you do not know anything for a fact (at least not that you
are willing to share), and yet you still come to a conclusion...
Hmmmm, wonder if you can see the irrationality of your view.
Somehow I doubt it, but I have little doubt you will continue to make
unsupported accusations against me.
>
>> Again, Steve, you jump in with no knowledge of the facts (and this time even
>> you admit to it) but still make accusations.
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to do this?
Well, why do you feel the need to do this?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
What is it that you think this proves?
> I would not be surprised to see crisper jpegs appearing on his site soon...
> grab a copy now. I have.
I looked... I have no need to grab anything as I believe them when they say you
are lying.
> >> Even if you do not believe he did that - why would he not post the PDF in
> >> question? Why post an overly compressed and blurred jpeg instead of real
> >> evidence... especially when it is clear he has the room and the know how
> >> to
> >> keep larger files on his site?
> >>
> > I only saw you make the blurry jpeg comment.
>
> In other words you have not been following the discussion and have no clue
> about it - but you still are willing to draw conclusions.
Yes. I will draw the conclusion based on the word of any of the people involved
against your word. In order to believe your story, at some point, I have to
believe you. If you could take yourself out of the equation and present proof, I
would reconsider.
> http://snipurl.com/b26d
>
> As you stated: you do not know anything for a fact (at least not that you
> are willing to share), and yet you still come to a conclusion...
Correct, I do not know for a fact but I will take the word of Sandman, Steve
Mackay and Alan Baker over your word. What is confusing you over this?
> Hmmmm, wonder if you can see the irrationality of your view.
It's your word against theirs. The rational money doesn't get bet on you, Snit.
> Somehow I doubt it, but I have little doubt you will continue to make
> unsupported accusations against me.
> >
> >> Again, Steve, you jump in with no knowledge of the facts (and this time
> >> even
> >> you admit to it) but still make accusations.
> >>
> >> Why do you feel the need to do this?
>
> Well, why do you feel the need to do this?
Though I didn't make this accusation, I do believe what these people are saying.
I have no reason to doubt any of them. I have plenty of reasons to doubt you.
Snit
>> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
>>
>> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
>>
>> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
>>
>> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
>> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
>
> Actually, I explained that the "changed" IP address was in fact the same
> address that was found underneath, and I explained how such a change
> would be evidence that *you* had done it.
I never did see what was "under" anything on the PDF's in question. I would
like to know.
--
Snit
>>>>> With you having full control as to what goes on your site, you don't think
>>>>> the possibility occurs to others that you tampered with things? Or do you
>>>>> believe people here think it is beyond you to do such tampering? Two guys
>>>>> claim to know you are lying on this issue, I didn't see the data first
>>>>> hand so I can't say I know it for a fact
>>>>>
>>>> This is the only important part of your accusations. You admit you do not
>>>> know the facts but still post accusations about me.
>>>>
>>>> Very much your style.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, as was pointed out to me in the discussion, it is easy to get
>>>> the creation date and hard to fake that without specialized and fairly
>>>> expensive software. As far as I know, there is no easy way the data
>>>> provided by the PDFs themselves could be easily faked. Not even Mackay
>>>> could do it - and he likely has more knowledge in that area than I do. In
>>>> order to "prove" his point, he did not even post the PDF in question, he
>>>> took a screen shot of the info, modified it, compressed it heavily so that
>>>> it would be blurred, and then posted the jpeg.
>>>>
>>> Uh hunh... and how do you propose to prove that he did this?
>>
>> Look at his PDF's. They are still on his site, and they are still blurred:
>>
>> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/mine.jpg
>> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/snit.jpg
>
> What is it that you think this proves?
They are on his site, and they are still blurred.
Looking more closely at them, I notice the placement of the document summary
is in the *exact* same place - not a pixel higher, lower, or to the left or
right. It is conveniently placed to show the word "unverified" but to hide
the IP address... again, close to pixel perfect there. The text in the
Document Summary window has a greater amount of jpeg artifacting than the
text in the rest of the image. The one Mackay has named "mine.jpg" has
lettering near the bottom which is clearly faded out - which is *not* the
case in any of the PDF's (yet he says the one named "snit.jpg" is the fake).
Much of the rest of the images are close to if not exactly pixel perfect,
but in other places they clearly are not.
This is easy to see here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
All I have done, and this is easy to verify for anyone who cares to, is copy
Steve's images and turn them into a roll-over. By doing this, you can see
where the images are near-pixel-perfect, pixel-perfect, and not-at-all-pixel
perfect.
Why does Mackay not provide us with the two PDF's in question? What is he
hiding?
Steve Mackay's claims are easily shown to be lies, and his jpegs are fakes.
>
>> I would not be surprised to see crisper jpegs appearing on his site soon...
>> grab a copy now. I have.
>
> I looked... I have no need to grab anything as I believe them when they say
> you are lying.
You may believe what you want - just do not pretend it is based on reason or
rationality. Or the evidence.
Let's face it, Steve: you are so pissed at me that there is no chance you
will ever, no matter how much data you are shown, accept the truth. Your
irrational and emotion-based bias will blind you. There is nothing I can do
about that. I provide the information here not to convince you - no amount
of information will help you to see reality. Perhaps others reading this,
however, will see the data. Either way, it is fun to watch you squirm and
try to pretend you know something when even you have admitted you have no
facts to base it on.
>
>>>> Even if you do not believe he did that - why would he not post the PDF in
>>>> question? Why post an overly compressed and blurred jpeg instead of real
>>>> evidence... especially when it is clear he has the room and the know how to
>>>> keep larger files on his site?
>>>>
>>> I only saw you make the blurry jpeg comment.
>>>
>> In other words you have not been following the discussion and have no clue
>> about it - but you still are willing to draw conclusions.
>>
> Yes. I will draw the conclusion based on the word of any of the people
> involved against your word. In order to believe your story, at some point, I
> have to believe you. If you could take yourself out of the equation and
> present proof, I would reconsider.
For you it is all about the people and not about the facts. For once we
agree on something. No matter how wrong you are on this, no matter how much
proof I were to provide, no matter how stupid MacKay's claims become - you
will believe him. You are simply that gullible, biased, and blinded by your
hatred.
>
>> http://snipurl.com/b26d
>>
>> As you stated: you do not know anything for a fact (at least not that you
>> are willing to share), and yet you still come to a conclusion...
>
> Correct, I do not know for a fact but I will take the word of Sandman, Steve
> Mackay and Alan Baker over your word. What is confusing you over this?
What makes you think I am confused?
>
>> Hmmmm, wonder if you can see the irrationality of your view.
>
> It's your word against theirs. The rational money doesn't get bet on you,
> Snit.
Awwww.... poor Stevie... with nothing to fall back on, not even your
semantic games... you resort to silly claims.
Face it, Steve, you have shown you are too bigoted against me to ever side
with me. Just like a black man is unlikely to convince KKK member based on
logic and reason, I am unlikely to convince you based on logic and reason.
The analogy is far more accurate than you will ever publicly admit to.
>
>> Somehow I doubt it, but I have little doubt you will continue to make
>> unsupported accusations against me.
>>>
>>>> Again, Steve, you jump in with no knowledge of the facts (and this time
>>>> even you admit to it) but still make accusations.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you feel the need to do this?
>>>>
>> Well, why do you feel the need to do this?
>>
> Though I didn't make this accusation, I do believe what these people are
> saying. I have no reason to doubt any of them. I have plenty of reasons to
> doubt you.
LOL... yeah... just like the KKK has "reason" to doubt black people.
Some day I hope you bet over your bigotry.
Snit
> In article <BDD4F891.15213%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
>> alangbaker-32E8F...@news.telus.net on 12/2/04 1:05 PM:
>>
>>>> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
>>>>
>>>> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
>>>>
>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
>>>>
>>>> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
>>>>
>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
>>>> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
>>>
>>> Actually, I explained that the "changed" IP address was in fact the same
>>> address that was found underneath, and I explained how such a change
>>> would be evidence that *you* had done it.
>>
>> I never did see what was "under" anything on the PDF's in question. I would
>> like to know.
>
> Liar.
>
> Since you put it there...
Hmmm, you used to claim that I put something on top of the other number.
Now you claim I placed something under the number that shows.
Which lie of yours do you want to claim is the true one?
In any case, despite my efforts, I was never able to see what is under the
forged text, if anything. If you have a method to show what is under the
forged text, I would love to have you share it. You certainly imply in your
comments above that you have seen the text "under" the forged IP... I would
love to know how to do that.
Since Steve will claim I will edit the PDF's on my site, please feel free to
download a copy of the PDF's from my site... I would love to have as many
people as possible get copies. Of course, that will not Steve from lying
and saying it changed, but at least his lie will be more apparent.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41ad9071$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/1/04 2:35 AM:
>
>
>>Thought I'd look into some of the posts around the 10/19/04 timeline
>>that I missed during my absence and ran across this jewel:
>>
>>Check out Measle's sig on Measle's last post to csma:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/45wzr
>>
>>Look's like Snit's sig, huh?
>
>
> Yes, my sig, but from a different news reader.
Are you suggesting that you don't know how to add that sig to OE 6?
> Hmmm, so I would have had to go out of my way to add that - in other words
> I, or someone, would have had to go out of my way to make it look like I was
> measles.
You went out of your way to add a sig when you posted through Google Groups:
You've even used a Windows newsreader while posting before as well:
> Hmmm, and measles has the same news reader and service as Steve does when he
> posted as "John". What a mystery here.
I've provided ample evidence that you are "evil John." You, "evil John,"
and Measles all have problems with your clocks. You somehow knew that it
wasn't John posting before he verified that it wasn't him. You have
access to Supernews and provided zero evidence that Steve Carroll does.
I will provide urls demonstrating all of this if you'd like.
> Any questions?
Did you think that adding your sig to OE 6 proves that it wasn't you
posting?
>
>>Snit admits he can still use Supernews:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/4vkm9
>>
>>Hey Snit! YOU'RE BUSTED!!!
>>
>>LOL!!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in post
> fretwizz-00C206...@netnews.comcast.net on 12/2/04 8:02 PM:
>
> >> Hmmm, you used to claim that I put something on top of the other number.
> >> Now you claim I placed something under the number that shows.
> >>
> >> Which lie of yours do you want to claim is the true one?
> >>
> >> In any case, despite my efforts, I was never able to see what is under the
> >> forged text, if anything. If you have a method to show what is under the
> >> forged text, I would love to have you share it. You certainly imply in
> >> your
> >> comments above that you have seen the text "under" the forged IP... I
> >> would
> >> love to know how to do that.
> >>
> >> Since Steve will claim I will edit the PDF's on my site, please feel free
> >> to
> >> download a copy of the PDF's from my site... I would love to have as many
> >> people as possible get copies. Of course, that will not Steve from lying
> >> and saying it changed, but at least his lie will be more apparent.
> >
> > Why so anxious to have people access your site? So you can later use their
> > IP
> > info against them and claim they've been mining it?
>
> How would clicking on a link be "mining" my site?
Who said it would?
> Really, Steve, you need to take a logic class.
You need to take a reading comprehension class.
Steve Carroll
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
LOL! Snit - the creator of the shitmouth loop:)
--
Snit
> In article <BDD52C01.15263%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in post
>> alangbaker-A0BF8...@news.telus.net on 12/2/04 8:23 PM:
>>
>>>>>>>> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
>>>>>>>> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, I explained that the "changed" IP address was in fact the same
>>>>>>> address that was found underneath, and I explained how such a change
>>>>>>> would be evidence that *you* had done it.
You have not been able to show what is under the changed IP. I still would
like very much to know how to see it. I just spend some time with a few PDF
tools and failed to see it.
>>>>>> I never did see what was "under" anything on the PDF's in question. I
>>>>>> would like to know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you put it there...
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, you used to claim that I put something on top of the other number.
>>>> Now you claim I placed something under the number that shows.
>>>
>>> Don't even bother. You put the numbers on top; hence, you saw what was
>>> under when you were doing it.
>>
>> If I placed it there, it would be likely that I would know what was under
>> there... or if there was anything under there. Since I do not, your story
>> makes no sense.
>
> So...
>
> Since you *claim* you don't know what's there, that defines objective
> reality, does it?
>
> LOL
Who else do you think is a greater authority on what I know and do not know?
Really, this is getting silly. To believe the stories told one would have
to accept:
I can control and alter the Google record
I can go back in time
I can hack into Mackay's site and alter his files
I can edit PDF files in a way that I am not even sure if it is possible
I have X-ray vision
But I can't remember any of this
If you want to believe that, be my guest.
Here, how about this... we each can present our view. You can even decide
who goes first. We can then each post one times saying "no no no you lying
swine" and then be done with it. That will get across all that this thread
will accomplish without taking as much time.
Heck, let's just end it now.
NO NO NO YOU LYING SWINE
There, now you post that about me... and we are done. Fair enough?
>
>
>>>>
>>>> Which lie of yours do you want to claim is the true one?
>>>>
>>>> In any case, despite my efforts, I was never able to see what is under the
>>>> forged text, if anything. If you have a method to show what is under the
>>>> forged text, I would love to have you share it. You certainly imply in
>>>> your comments above that you have seen the text "under" the forged IP... I
>>>> would love to know how to do that.
>>>
>>> It's all in google....
>>
>> Link?
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&threadm=alangbaker-B5
> 07B3.22063313082004%40news.telus.net&rnum=27&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dauthor:al
> an%2Bauthor:baker%2Bmackay%2Bpdf%2Bsnit%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26
> c2coff%3D1%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3Dalangbaker-B507B3.22063313082004%2540ne
> ws.telus.net%26rnum%3D27%26filter%3D0>
Well, technically you fulfilled my request and presented me with a link.
Now how about presenting a link that supports your claim.
>
>>
>>>> Since Steve will claim I will edit the PDF's on my site, please feel free
>>>> to
>>>> download a copy of the PDF's from my site... I would love to have as many
>>>> people as possible get copies. Of course, that will not Steve from lying
>>>> and saying it changed, but at least his lie will be more apparent.
>>>
>>> And the PDF you edited is no longer on your site; having been exchanged
>>> for another edited version long since.
>>
>> Er? So what is under the "new" edited version? How would one find out?
>
> Why would I care?
LOL! 'Cause you are the one saying there is proof "under" the forged text.
You see, if you want to make that claim, you should support your claims.
>
> You showed one version and when I caught out what you had done, you
> changed it. The fact that you changed it says it all.
Where is that version? Please present it.
keep in mind, Mackay's faked jpegs are still on his site... you can find
them there, or you can look at them on my site... placed in a roll over
image so you can clearly see the forgeries:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
Now I do not know when Mackay will edit the images on his site, so please
grab a copy quickly... from his site and then mine, if you like. If there
are any differences, he has changed the one on his site. As of last night,
he had not done so.
Ok... so in contradiction to all evidence you can now call me a lying swine.
Enjoy. If you have any questions that seem meaningful I may be kind enough
to answer. If all you are going to do is join the Steve / Elizabot troll
duo and make it a trio, I am not really interested.
The one thing I really would like to know is how to see layers on a PDF...
do you need Acrobat? Is there a better way that does not cost as much
(preferably free). I would like to know not just for this silly caper, but
just in general. If you know how, please share, I will be grateful.
Steve Mackay
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>> In article <BDD545D3.15283%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Weren't YOU the one that initially had the *two* PDF's? Also, there was a
>> reverse time aspect to this that you never could explain, Snit. Steve would have
>> had to go back in time by 7 hours to do what you claim. I'm not buying it.
>
> Originally, Steve had the one pdf. Snit had multiple pdf's.
Yup. There was only one PDF. Unfortunately, Snit had to go and modify my
PDF, and then try to claim the original, and put it up on his site. But
being the simpleton he is, couldn't fathom that people can, and do look at
file dates. Dates that CAN'T be changed, since I don't have root access to
the server in question.
Everything is where it's always been.
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/
Unlike Snit, I have no need to change things.
email.pdf is the original, which has never changed. You can easily see
that by the file date, and PDF creator.
email_snit_lie1.pdf is the 1st version that Snit had on his site, that he
claimed to be the original. But just look at the PDF creator. It's sure
not Acrobat 5 for NT.
email_snit_lie2.pdf is the 2nd version that Snit had on his site, after he
was made aware of the PDF creator.
mine.jpg shows the PDF creator.
snit.jpg shows the PDF creator of Snit's "original".
he's never quite explained how his version, which has always had a later
file date, creator, etc... on his site, why it is different, and the
original on my site is still there, for all to see.
Is Snit *THAT* intent on looking stupid, and dishonest?
He keeps going ON AND ON about some blurry jpg. Big friggin deal, I had
low server space. It proves absolutely *NOTHING*. What proves anything, is
the original is still up on my site, with the EXACT same date and time
that has always been there.
Elizabot v2.0.2
Yep. And I still have copies of Snit's original OmniGraffle pdfs that
came from his site on my computer somewhere.
Snit
Excellent! Perfect timing, Steve... thanks! Just finished a page that
references the same files you made mention of:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
Hmmm, it is clear that your e-mail.pdf and your mine.jpg files are not from
the same source, yet you have claimed they are.
Please note that while my link points to my site, you can get the files from
Steve's site as well... I welcome people to do so. Unless they magically
change on his site, as they have in the past, then it will be clear that
Steve is lying.
Edwin
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in message
news:41b0af3d$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net...
His site is on your computer somewhere?
--
"I will admit that I occasionally defend an Apple position I don't really
agree with. Advocacy is a game that I enjoy playing."
-- ZnU, March 17,2001
Snit
KE2sd.1645$nE7...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com on 12/3/04 11:55 AM:
>> Yep. And I still have copies of Snit's original OmniGraffle pdfs that came
>> from his site on my computer somewhere.
>
> His site is on your computer somewhere?
Would help explain her data mining my site...
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
> KE2sd.1645$nE7...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com on 12/3/04 11:55 AM:
>
>
>>>Yep. And I still have copies of Snit's original OmniGraffle pdfs that came
>>>from his site on my computer somewhere.
>>
>>His site is on your computer somewhere?
>
>
> Would help explain her data mining my site...
So when are you going to provide proof for your "data mining" claim?
Snit
41b0d843$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/3/04 2:18 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>> KE2sd.1645$nE7...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com on 12/3/04 11:55 AM:
>>
>>
>>>> Yep. And I still have copies of Snit's original OmniGraffle pdfs that came
>>>> from his site on my computer somewhere.
>>>
>>> His site is on your computer somewhere?
>>
>>
>> Would help explain her data mining my site...
>
> So when are you going to provide proof for your "data mining" claim?
What proof would you accept? I mean, really, you do not accept
quotes of Edwin's lies about my finding feature X to Y to use, even
though I have made screen shots of how I use it.
Steve Mackay's forgeries even though I provide clear details:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
And you are repeatedly posting only about me - showing your irrational
obsession... and it is not a good thing in my book.
So, really, Elizabot, what purpose would there be in spending the time to
see if the logs even still exist (I think they are erased after 30 days) and
then posting them? You would simply lie about them and deny.
Elizabot v2.0.2
You'd have to prove that the logs are real.
Edwin
"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in message
> Snit wrote:
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>> KE2sd.1645$nE7...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com on 12/3/04 11:55 AM:
>>
>>
>>>>Yep. And I still have copies of Snit's original OmniGraffle pdfs that
>>>>came
>>>>from his site on my computer somewhere.
>>>
>>>His site is on your computer somewhere?
>>
>>
>> Would help explain her data mining my site...
>
> So when are you going to provide proof for your "data mining" claim?
I think he gave that job to Sigmond...
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 41b0d843$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/3/04 2:18 PM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>>>> KE2sd.1645$nE7...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com on 12/3/04 11:55 AM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. And I still have copies of Snit's original OmniGraffle pdfs that
>>>>>> came
>>>>>> from his site on my computer somewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> His site is on your computer somewhere?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would help explain her data mining my site...
>>>
>>> So when are you going to provide proof for your "data mining" claim?
>>
>>
>> What proof would you accept? I mean, really, you do not accept
>>
>> quotes of Edwin's lies about my finding feature X to Y to use, even
>> though I have made screen shots of how I use it.
No comment?
>>
>> Steve Mackay's forgeries even though I provide clear details:
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
No comment?
>>
>> And you are repeatedly posting only about me - showing your irrational
>> obsession... and it is not a good thing in my book.
No comment?
>>
>> So, really, Elizabot, what purpose would there be in spending the time to
>> see if the logs even still exist (I think they are erased after 30 days) and
>> then posting them? You would simply lie about them and deny.
>
> You'd have to prove that the logs are real.
And what would accept as proof of that?
Elizabot v2.0.2
It's your claim, Snit. You need to either present credible proof or drop it.
I'm not giving you any tips on how to prove your case. Do your own homework.
Snit
>>>>> Would help explain her data mining my site...
>>>>>
>>>>> So when are you going to provide proof for your "data mining" claim?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What proof would you accept? I mean, really, you do not accept
>>>>
>>>> quotes of Edwin's lies about my finding feature X to Y to use, even
>>>> though I have made screen shots of how I use it.
>>
>>
>> No comment?
Still no comment? See... you do not accept the Google record as "proof"...
as though you think I can change that...
>>
>>>> Steve Mackay's forgeries even though I provide clear details:
>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>>
>>
>> No comment?
You do not accept files on Mackay's site as proof... as though I could
change that...
>>
>>>> And you are repeatedly posting only about me - showing your irrational
>>>> obsession... and it is not a good thing in my book.
>>
>>
>> No comment?
And you have repeatedly shown your obsession with me... and your
irrationality...
>>
>>>> So, really, Elizabot, what purpose would there be in spending the time to
>>>> see if the logs even still exist (I think they are erased after 30 days)
>>>> and
>>>> then posting them? You would simply lie about them and deny.
>>>
>>> You'd have to prove that the logs are real.
>>
>>
>> And what would accept as proof of that?
>
> It's your claim, Snit. You need to either present credible proof or drop it.
Before I present proof you will see as credible, I want to know what you
would accept... esp. being that you already know how much time you spend
mining my site and apparently still question it.
Seems you can not suggest *anything* that you would accept as proof. If I
am wrong, please let me know - but if you are asking for something that you
know you will not accept, why even ask?
In any case, I am not sure how long the site keeps its stats... so they may
be gone... but if there are there, would you accept that as proof?
>
> I'm not giving you any tips on how to prove your case. Do your own homework.
LOL... I am not asking how to prove anything... I am asking what you would
accept as proof. So far you have shown you will not accept facts or logic
as proof - so what will you?
Elizabot v2.0.2
More trolling and accusations by Snit. Not at all surprising.
Finding credible proof to back up your claim is *your* problem, Snit,
not mine.
If you are having problems with this, then why don't you ask Rick G.
what he thinks would be credible proof? I still see him as an impartial
3rd party. I'm not handing him my proxy on this. Ask someone else for
help with your problem.
Steve Mackay
> Snit wrote:
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 41b0d843$0$200$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/3/04 2:18 PM:
>>
>>
>>>Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote in post
>>>>KE2sd.1645$nE7...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com on 12/3/04 11:55 AM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Yep. And I still have copies of Snit's original OmniGraffle pdfs that came
>>>>>>from his site on my computer somewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>His site is on your computer somewhere?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Would help explain her data mining my site...
>>>
>>>So when are you going to provide proof for your "data mining" claim?
>>
>>
>> What proof would you accept? I mean, really, you do not accept
>>
>> quotes of Edwin's lies about my finding feature X to Y to use, even
>> though I have made screen shots of how I use it.
>>
>> Steve Mackay's forgeries even though I provide clear details:
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
ROFLMAO!! Snit, you're pathetic. We've been thru this, MONTHS ago. How do
you explain the original, that has *NEVER* changed on my ISP's server? Yet
all of a suddent you have this new one, that has a different PDF creator,
then after confronted about that, you change the "original" PDF on your
site, and remove the creator to something else. Yet, as always the
original is still on my site. Really, you've never been able to explain
why your copies kept changing, yet mine as always stayed the same, as it
did since JUNE.
Now, lets go thru this step by step. Have your wife/mom/cat/blow up sex
doll, read this to you, since it may contain some big words that will
certainly have your reading comprehension rearing it's ugly head yet
again. You have 48 hours reprieve on my KF... After that, I wont subject
the group to my participation in your games.
"Look at the placement of the Document Summary window. It is placed,
almost pixel perfect, to show the word "unverified" but to cover the IP
address that is not verified. What IP's is Steve trying to hide"
Yes, it is placed EXACTLY where Adobe acrobat placed them, the center of
the screen. WOW, what a conspiracy, you better call Adobe and complain
that they are consistant <eye roll>
"The file that is supposedly my "faked" one has the fonts for the text
shown above looking the way it should. The "real" one, according to Steve,
has messed up fonts. Now how can that be? "
There are no fonts messed up on the true original. Which can EASILY be
seen by downloading the original http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf
This is the unchanged original. It's been up there since 13-Jun-2004 14:17
GMT, the file dates can easily be seen by peering at the directory
contents http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays . It is impossible for me to change
the file dates on the server owned by RoadRunner.
The fact that you are claiming some conspiracy by the Jpegs is nothing but
a pathetic, and predictable spin job by you.
"Speaking of bad artifacting, though, why did Steve decide to save the
images with such heavy compression... other images on his site do not have
nearly the artifacting that these ones do. Check out the clarity of his
other images: shiftknob, explorerweb, thermometer. Why go out of his way
to post blurry images as "proof". Anyone have a theory, other than the
obvious idea that he is trying to hide something?"
Because I was not worried about server space at the time. As more files
have been uploaded, I was approaching the limit. I know it's difficult for
you to fathom, that I really didn't think it's all that important to have
a press quality jpeg to show you trying to spin, and lie yet again.
Really, the only question I have for you, how do you explain all the
differences in my original email.pdf, and your "original"? Mine is
unchanged since the day I uploaded it to RR's site. I'm quite certain you
wont honestly answer this question, but I put it out there for you to
amuse me with your pathetic spin tactics.
The ball is in your court now Spin boy...
Snit
>>> Steve Mackay's forgeries even though I provide clear details:
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>
> ROFLMAO!! Snit, you're pathetic. We've been thru this, MONTHS ago.
Yes, we have... and your site still has the forged files on it. This is
very clear. Look at my site (which is just looking at the files that are
now, or have been, on your site... I think all but one still are, unless
they "magically" change again).
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
I start of by comparing the two files e-mail.pdf and mine.pdf - both on your
site as of last night. You claim that mine.pdf comes from the "real" pdf
file, but it does not. You got the fonts wrong. I show it very clearly on
my site... the font is much to dim, much like Steve Carroll. :)
Speaking of fonts, I look at the various versions of the email.pdf that you
have had. Based on a roll over it is clear you changed the fonts I pointed
out were incorrect on the IP number. What I had not noticed before I did
the roll over is the other change - the e-mail address is was not even
accurate! Again, these pdf's came from your site. How do you explain this?
I then look at the details of the two files from above, e-mail.pdf and
mine.pdf - again both are on your site as of last night... though I suspect
that will change soon. I created a roll over with those two images and talk
about the reasons to doubt the authenticity of your files.
You missed your timing, Steve... you should have sent your "evidence" to Dan
Rather before he retired. Maybe he would have accepted it. :)
> How do you explain the original, that has *NEVER* changed on my ISP's server?
> Yet all of a suddent you have this new one, that has a different PDF creator,
> then after confronted about that, you change the "original" PDF on your site,
> and remove the creator to something else. Yet, as always the original is still
> on my site. Really, you've never been able to explain why your copies kept
> changing, yet mine as always stayed the same, as it did since JUNE.
>
> Now, lets go thru this step by step. Have your wife/mom/cat/blow up sex doll,
> read this to you, since it may contain some big words that will certainly have
> your reading comprehension rearing it's ugly head yet again. You have 48 hours
> reprieve on my KF... After that, I wont subject the group to my participation
> in your games.
Why even come back at all? Why not just KF me and post a bunch of dishonest
accusations like you have been? What makes you so brave for 2 whole days
that you can look at the facts against you? Really - I want to know... what
makes these two days so special to you... what makes you grow a bit of a
backbone?
>
> "Look at the placement of the Document Summary window. It is placed, almost
> pixel perfect, to show the word "unverified" but to cover the IP address that
> is not verified. What IP's is Steve trying to hide"
>
> Yes, it is placed EXACTLY where Adobe acrobat placed them, the center of the
> screen. WOW, what a conspiracy, you better call Adobe and complain that they
> are consistant <eye roll>
Adobe works to cover IP's? No... Steve... I do not think so.
>
> "The file that is supposedly my "faked" one has the fonts for the text shown
> above looking the way it should. The "real" one, according to Steve, has
> messed up fonts. Now how can that be? "
>
> There are no fonts messed up on the true original. Which can EASILY be seen by
> downloading the original http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf This is the
> unchanged original. It's been up there since 13-Jun-2004 14:17 GMT, the file
> dates can easily be seen by peering at the directory contents
> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays . It is impossible for me to change the file
> dates on the server owned by RoadRunner.
Then why does your jpg not match the PDF if you claim the jpg came from the
PDF and the PDF has not changed? Again, it is clear that the two are not
the same - the jpeg has a faded font in one area... check out the first
image here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
If you click the image of each of your files it points to *your* site... so
any claim you make about my modifying the files is absurd. That is unless
you still are claiming *I* can change your site but you can not.
How do you explain the fact that your jpeg is not an image of your PDF?
>
> The fact that you are claiming some conspiracy by the Jpegs is nothing but a
> pathetic, and predictable spin job by you.
>
> "Speaking of bad artifacting, though, why did Steve decide to save the images
> with such heavy compression... other images on his site do not have nearly the
> artifacting that these ones do. Check out the clarity of his other images:
> shiftknob, explorerweb, thermometer. Why go out of his way to post blurry
> images as "proof". Anyone have a theory, other than the obvious idea that he
> is trying to hide something?"
Speaking of spin... read what you write here...
>
> Because I was not worried about server space at the time. As more files have
> been uploaded, I was approaching the limit. I know it's difficult for you to
> fathom, that I really didn't think it's all that important to have a press
> quality jpeg to show you trying to spin, and lie yet again.
Interesting story you create here: you were so close to filling up your
quota that a reasonably made jpeg would push you over the edge but a blurred
one would not... not bloody likely, Steve... and that does not explain why
the blurred jpeg is not from the source file you claim it is. How do you
explain that little oddity in your story?
>
> Really, the only question I have for you, how do you explain all the
> differences in my original email.pdf, and your "original"? Mine is unchanged
> since the day I uploaded it to RR's site. I'm quite certain you wont honestly
> answer this question, but I put it out there for you to amuse me with your
> pathetic spin tactics.
Compare your two "original" files:
The real original (310,396 bytes):
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/images/email.pdf
The one you claim is the original (159,159 bytes):
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/images/email-new.pdf
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf
How come these files, both of which came from your site, are different? And
why does your jpeg (mine.jpg) not match the PDF (email.pdf) on your site if
you have never changed it and the jpeg came from the PDF? How does that
happen? How do fonts get changed like that?
You have not explained this: on *your* site there is a jpeg that is *not* of
what you call the original file, but it *is* of what I call the original
file.
Funny, that, eh? Your own site proves you wrong. So tell me, Steve, how
did I get those files on your site? Did I replace the PDF on your site, or
did I replace the jpeg on your site.
How long until these little oddities fix themselves "magically". My
guess... less than 48 hours. I suggest anyone who is reading this get a
copy of the two files now, so that Steve's lie will be easier to see when /
if he changes the files:
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/mine.jpg
http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf
Oh, and to be complete, you have two other versions of the email pdf on your
site... one is 224,007 bytes and the other 211,938 bytes... so neither of
these are a copy of the 310,296 real original that you call my lie... so
what are these files? And why do you not have the real original on your
site... the file that matches the mine.jpg?
Let me guess: you will not answer these questions. You will never explain
why your "mine.jpg" comes from the the PDF that is no longer even on your
site!
> The ball is in your court now
Back to you
> Spin boy...
This is a great sig line for you.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 41b0deb8$0$202$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/3/04 2:46 PM:
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Would help explain her data mining my site...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So when are you going to provide proof for your "data mining" claim?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What proof would you accept? I mean, really, you do not accept
>>>>>>
>>>>>> quotes of Edwin's lies about my finding feature X to Y to use, even
>>>>>> though I have made screen shots of how I use it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No comment?
>>
>>
>> Still no comment? See... you do not accept the Google record as "proof"...
>> as though you think I can change that...
Still no comment from Elizabot. It is clear: the Google record is not proof
in Elizabot's opinion.
>>
>>>>>> Steve Mackay's forgeries even though I provide clear details:
>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No comment?
>>
>>
>> You do not accept files on Mackay's site as proof... as though I could
>> change that...
Still no comment from Elizabot. It is clear: Mackay's site is not proof in
Elizabot's opinion.
So now you want me to go out of my way to prove to you what you have done?
Do you really not remember? Are you that mentally broken?
Here you are begging me to prove to you what you have done, and then
refusing to let me know what you would accept as proof. Do you realize the
irrationality of your posts on this topic?
If you want proof of your actions, buy a video camera and a lot of tapes.
Do not come running to me. I do not care enough about what you do, where
you surf, who you call, who calls you, what movies you watch, or anything
else about your life to really care.
> If you are having problems with this,
I am not. You, however, seem to be having some problems with this.
> then why don't you ask Rick G.
About what? Do you think he knows what you did better than you or I? How
did he get involved in this? Do you think he cares so much about you he is
going to try to provide proof for your day to day actions? I do not care
what you do with your life... why do you think he does?
> what he thinks would be credible proof? I still see him as an impartial
> 3rd party. I'm not handing him my proxy on this. Ask someone else for
> help with your problem.
What problem? You data mined my site a couple times. Big deal. I thought
it was noteworthy, but not problematic. You, however, clearly have a
problem with bringing it to the group. Why is that?
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41b0e543$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/3/04 3:14 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>>41b0deb8$0$202$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/3/04 2:46 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>Would help explain her data mining my site...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So when are you going to provide proof for your "data mining" claim?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What proof would you accept? I mean, really, you do not accept
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> quotes of Edwin's lies about my finding feature X to Y to use, even
>>>>>>> though I have made screen shots of how I use it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No comment?
>>>
>>>
>>>Still no comment? See... you do not accept the Google record as "proof"...
>>>as though you think I can change that...
>
>
> Still no comment from Elizabot. It is clear: the Google record is not proof
> in Elizabot's opinion.
Are you suggesting that because I did not address something that means I
agree with it?
>>>>>>> Steve Mackay's forgeries even though I provide clear details:
>>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No comment?
>>>
>>>
>>>You do not accept files on Mackay's site as proof... as though I could
>>>change that...
>
>
> Still no comment from Elizabot. It is clear: Mackay's site is not proof in
> Elizabot's opinion.
Are you suggesting that because I did not address something that means I
agree with it?
Actually I want you to prove your claim. Simple concept, really.
> Do you really not remember? Are you that mentally broken?
Apparently you are. You've been making claims about me that you are
unable to prove. Now you are trying to deflect attention from that.
> Here you are begging me to prove to you what you have done, and then
> refusing to let me know what you would accept as proof. Do you realize the
> irrationality of your posts on this topic?
Prove your claim that I have done what you have stated, Snit.
> If you want proof of your actions, buy a video camera and a lot of tapes.
> Do not come running to me. I do not care enough about what you do, where
> you surf, who you call, who calls you, what movies you watch, or anything
> else about your life to really care.
>
>
>>If you are having problems with this,
>
>
> I am not. You, however, seem to be having some problems with this.
Yes you are. You are in a quandry. You've made a claim that you are
unable to prove and now you are spinning wildly and trying to blame me
for your problem.
>
>>then why don't you ask Rick G.
>
>
> About what?
Try reading the rest of my sentence below.
> Do you think he knows what you did better than you or I? How
> did he get involved in this? Do you think he cares so much about you he is
> going to try to provide proof for your day to day actions? I do not care
> what you do with your life... why do you think he does?
>
>
>>what he thinks would be credible proof? I still see him as an impartial
>>3rd party. I'm not handing him my proxy on this. Ask someone else for
>>help with your problem.
>
>
> What problem? You data mined my site a couple times. Big deal. I thought
> it was noteworthy, but not problematic. You, however, clearly have a
> problem with bringing it to the group. Why is that?
It's your claim that I have done so. All I'm asking you to do is back
your claim with credible proof. So far you've not been able to offer
even a tiny shred of evidence.
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>> 41b0e543$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/3/04 3:14 PM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>>> 41b0deb8$0$202$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/3/04 2:46 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would help explain her data mining my site...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So when are you going to provide proof for your "data mining" claim?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What proof would you accept? I mean, really, you do not accept
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> quotes of Edwin's lies about my finding feature X to Y to use, even
>>>>>>>> though I have made screen shots of how I use it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No comment?
>>>>
>>>> Still no comment? See... you do not accept the Google record as "proof"...
>>>> as though you think I can change that...
>>
>> Still no comment from Elizabot. It is clear: the Google record is not proof
>> in Elizabot's opinion.
>
> Are you suggesting that because I did not address something that means I
> agree with it?
I am saying it is clear that you do not accept the Google record as proof.
Of course, you can always prove me wrong... can not say I really care what
you do or think.
>
>>>>>>>> Steve Mackay's forgeries even though I provide clear details:
>>>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No comment?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You do not accept files on Mackay's site as proof... as though I could
>>>> change that...
>>
>>
>> Still no comment from Elizabot. It is clear: Mackay's site is not proof in
>> Elizabot's opinion.
>
> Are you suggesting that because I did not address something that means I
> agree with it?
I am saying it is clear that you do not accept the Mackay's site as proof.
Of course, you can always prove me wrong... can not say I really care what
you do or think.
In other words you want me to go out of my way to prove my claim to you...
why the hell would I want to prove what you have done to you? Really... I
have no idea what would make you think I care one iota about what you
believe about your own actions.
>
>> Do you really not remember? Are you that mentally broken?
>
> Apparently you are. You've been making claims about me that you are
> unable to prove. Now you are trying to deflect attention from that.
You act like a care what you think. Where did you get this weird idea. I
have not even gone far enough to see if the logs at the site are still
there... and if they are I would have to see if I could make them available
without giving out my password... and then I would have to "prove" to you
that I did not alter the site, the same way I would have to "prove" to you
that I did not alter Mackay's site.
No thanks. Not playing your silly little game where you pretend you want
proof but then will not accept anything. Not even you have been able to
state what you would accept. Face it - there is nothing you would accept...
nothing in the world... and the sad thing is you are *still* asking me to
prove to you your own actions!
>
>> Here you are begging me to prove to you what you have done, and then
>> refusing to let me know what you would accept as proof. Do you realize the
>> irrationality of your posts on this topic?
>
> Prove your claim that I have done what you have stated, Snit.
>
>> If you want proof of your actions, buy a video camera and a lot of tapes.
>> Do not come running to me. I do not care enough about what you do, where
>> you surf, who you call, who calls you, what movies you watch, or anything
>> else about your life to really care.
>>
>>
>>> If you are having problems with this,
>>
>>
>> I am not. You, however, seem to be having some problems with this.
>
> Yes you are. You are in a quandry. You've made a claim that you are
> unable to prove and now you are spinning wildly and trying to blame me
> for your problem.
>
>>
>>> then why don't you ask Rick G.
>>
>>
>> About what?
>
> Try reading the rest of my sentence below.
Rest of your sentence? Are you now claiming I added the question mark to
your sentence, above? Or are you just lying?
>
>> Do you think he knows what you did better than you or I? How
>> did he get involved in this? Do you think he cares so much about you he is
>> going to try to provide proof for your day to day actions? I do not care
>> what you do with your life... why do you think he does?
>>
>>
>>> what he thinks would be credible proof? I still see him as an impartial
>>> 3rd party. I'm not handing him my proxy on this. Ask someone else for
>>> help with your problem.
>>
>>
>> What problem? You data mined my site a couple times. Big deal. I thought
>> it was noteworthy, but not problematic. You, however, clearly have a
>> problem with bringing it to the group. Why is that?
>
> It's your claim that I have done so. All I'm asking you to do is back
> your claim with credible proof. So far you've not been able to offer
> even a tiny shred of evidence.
--
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.02....@hotmail.com on 12/2/04 8:25 AM:
>
> >>> Naw, the fun part will be waiting for the dishonest FAQ's from Sandman
> >>> with
> >>> dozens of easy to see errors and the blurry jpeg from [Mackay] that
> >>> "proves"
> >>> the point.
> >>
> >> *yawn*
> >
> > I can't believe he is still going on about the "blurry jpeg" bullshit.
>
> Poor Mackay... he is tossing around trollish accusations about me and is mad
> that I have not forgotten his blurry, overly-compressed, clearly fakes jpeg
> that he tried to use as evidence against me.
>
> No wonder he has me in a KF, if such things are so troubling to him.
>
> > When he was proven by _several_ people in here to have been _constantly_
> > changing his "version" of the PDF.
>
> Oh... poor Mackay... feels the need to change the topic to the PDF's where
> he thinks he has some leg to stand on... based on the fact that I
> re-uploaded my whole site instead of doing a proper sunc.
>
> > Dates constantly changing on his server, etc... All for what? The same PDF
> > is
> > still on my ISP's server, with the _exact_ same date, 6-13-2004. I can't
> > believe _anyone_ is as stupid as Snit... But then again, Sandman, you and I
> > both know without a shadow of a doubt, that email is 100% factual.
>
> Mackay's claim is easily shown to be a lie:
>
> His original PDF with whacky fonts:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email.pdf
>
> His corrected PDF with corrected fonts:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/email-new.pdf
>
> Mackay has never been able to explain why they changed and resorted to
> claiming I hacked his server to change them.
Lying as usual.
http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=42111
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Naw, the fun part will be waiting for the dishonest FAQ's from
>>> Sandman with dozens of easy to see errors and the blurry jpeg from
>>> you that "proves" the point.
>>
>> *yawn*
>
> I can't believe he is still going on about the "blurry jpeg" bullshit.
> When he was proven by _several_ people in here to have been
> _constantly changing his "version" of the PDF. Dates constantly
> changing on his server, etc... All for what? The same PDF is still on
> my ISP's server, with the _exact_ same date, 6-13-2004. I can't
> believe _anyone_ is as stupid as Snit... But then again, Sandman, you
> and I both know without a shadow of a doubt, that email is 100%
> factual.
Well, Snit helped you prove it given his desperate alterations to the PDF. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41b0f62a$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/3/04 4:26 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>>41b0e543$0$206$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/3/04 3:14 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
>>>>>41b0deb8$0$202$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/3/04 2:46 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Would help explain her data mining my site...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So when are you going to provide proof for your "data mining" claim?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What proof would you accept? I mean, really, you do not accept
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> quotes of Edwin's lies about my finding feature X to Y to use, even
>>>>>>>>> though I have made screen shots of how I use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No comment?
>>>>>
>>>>>Still no comment? See... you do not accept the Google record as "proof"...
>>>>>as though you think I can change that...
>>>
>>>Still no comment from Elizabot. It is clear: the Google record is not proof
>>>in Elizabot's opinion.
>>
>>Are you suggesting that because I did not address something that means I
>>agree with it?
>
>
> I am saying it is clear that you do not accept the Google record as proof.
>
> Of course, you can always prove me wrong... can not say I really care what
> you do or think.
The only thing clear is that I said nothing about your point originally.
That won't stop you from trying to put words in my mouth.
>>>>>>>>> Steve Mackay's forgeries even though I provide clear details:
>>>>>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No comment?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You do not accept files on Mackay's site as proof... as though I could
>>>>>change that...
>>>
>>>
>>>Still no comment from Elizabot. It is clear: Mackay's site is not proof in
>>>Elizabot's opinion.
>>
>>Are you suggesting that because I did not address something that means I
>>agree with it?
>
>
> I am saying it is clear that you do not accept the Mackay's site as proof.
>
> Of course, you can always prove me wrong... can not say I really care what
> you do or think.
The only thing clear is that I said nothing about your point originally.
That won't stop you from trying to put words in my mouth.
It is your claim that I have "data mined" your site. It's up to you to
prove that I have done so. Simple concept, really.
>>>Do you really not remember? Are you that mentally broken?
>>
>>Apparently you are. You've been making claims about me that you are
>>unable to prove. Now you are trying to deflect attention from that.
>
>
> You act like a care what you think. Where did you get this weird idea. I
> have not even gone far enough to see if the logs at the site are still
> there... and if they are I would have to see if I could make them available
> without giving out my password... and then I would have to "prove" to you
> that I did not alter the site, the same way I would have to "prove" to you
> that I did not alter Mackay's site.
>
> No thanks. Not playing your silly little game where you pretend you want
> proof but then will not accept anything. Not even you have been able to
> state what you would accept. Face it - there is nothing you would accept...
> nothing in the world... and the sad thing is you are *still* asking me to
> prove to you your own actions!
I am asking you to prove your claim that I have "data mined" your site.
It's up to you to prove that I have done so. Simple concept, really.
>>>Here you are begging me to prove to you what you have done, and then
>>>refusing to let me know what you would accept as proof. Do you realize the
>>>irrationality of your posts on this topic?
>>
>>Prove your claim that I have done what you have stated, Snit.
>>
>>
>>>If you want proof of your actions, buy a video camera and a lot of tapes.
>>>Do not come running to me. I do not care enough about what you do, where
>>>you surf, who you call, who calls you, what movies you watch, or anything
>>>else about your life to really care.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you are having problems with this,
>>>
>>>
>>>I am not. You, however, seem to be having some problems with this.
>>
>>Yes you are. You are in a quandry. You've made a claim that you are
>>unable to prove and now you are spinning wildly and trying to blame me
>>for your problem.
So by your own logic, since you did not address this, I assume that
means you agree with it.
>>
>>>>then why don't you ask Rick G.
>>>
>>>
>>>About what?
>>
>>Try reading the rest of my sentence below.
>
>
> Rest of your sentence? Are you now claiming I added the question mark to
> your sentence, above? Or are you just lying?
The "About what?" is *your* sentence. (BTW, A question is an
interrogative sentence.) You seem rather confused.
My question was "If you are having problems with this, then why don't
you ask Rick G. what he thinks would be credible proof?"
>>>Do you think he knows what you did better than you or I? How
>>>did he get involved in this? Do you think he cares so much about you he is
>>>going to try to provide proof for your day to day actions? I do not care
>>>what you do with your life... why do you think he does?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>what he thinks would be credible proof? I still see him as an impartial
>>>>3rd party. I'm not handing him my proxy on this. Ask someone else for
>>>>help with your problem.
See, above, is the rest of my interrogative sentence that has confused
you so badly.
>>>
>>>
>>>What problem? You data mined my site a couple times. Big deal. I thought
>>>it was noteworthy, but not problematic. You, however, clearly have a
>>>problem with bringing it to the group. Why is that?
>>
>>It's your claim that I have done so. All I'm asking you to do is back
>>your claim with credible proof. So far you've not been able to offer
>>even a tiny shred of evidence.
So by your own logic, since you did not address this, I assume that
means you agree with it.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> The ball is in your court now Spin boy...
Keep in mind this whole pdf issue is a spin in order to deflect
attention that "sigmond" was posting to csma with the exact same IP
address as in Snit's email.
http://csma.sandman.net/atlas/faq/index.php?faq=sigmond
Do you still have that email in your hotmail account?
Snit
>> I am saying it is clear that you do not accept the Google record as proof.
>>
>> Of course, you can always prove me wrong... can not say I really care what
>> you do or think.
>
> The only thing clear is that I said nothing about your point originally.
> That won't stop you from trying to put words in my mouth.
Yet you still will not and have not accepted the Google record as proof.
Nor will you. I need not put words in your mouth, as your actions speak
loud and clear.
>> I am saying it is clear that you do not accept the Mackay's site as proof.
>>
>> Of course, you can always prove me wrong... can not say I really care what
>> you do or think.
>
> The only thing clear is that I said nothing about your point originally.
> That won't stop you from trying to put words in my mouth.
Yet you still will not and have not accepted the Mackay's site as proof.
Nor will you. I need not put words in your mouth, as your actions speak
loud and clear.
>> In other words you want me to go out of my way to prove my claim to you...
>> why the hell would I want to prove what you have done to you? Really... I
>> have no idea what would make you think I care one iota about what you
>> believe about your own actions.
>
> It is your claim that I have "data mined" your site. It's up to you to
> prove that I have done so. Simple concept, really.
You act as though I have something to prove... to ... get this.. *you*!
That is funny.
You act like a care what you think. Where did you get this weird idea. I
have not even gone far enough to see if the logs at the site are still
there... and if they are I would have to see if I could make them available
without giving out my password... and then I would have to "prove" to you
that I did not alter the site, the same way I would have to "prove" to you
that I did not alter Mackay's site.
No thanks. Not playing your silly little game where you pretend you want
proof but then will not accept anything. Not even you have been able to
state what you would accept. Face it - there is nothing you would accept...
nothing in the world... and the sad thing is you are *still* asking me to
prove to you your own actions!
>>> Yes you are. You are in a quandry. You've made a claim that you are
>>> unable to prove and now you are spinning wildly and trying to blame me
>>> for your problem.
>
> So by your own logic, since you did not address this, I assume that
> means you agree with it.
And then you wonder why I do not feel the need to "prove" anything to you...
you are completely irrational. Your actions show you will not accept the
Google record or Mackay's site as proof. Your words simply add support for
that.
Oh... and oops for the error of mine you point out about the question
mark... shows this conversation has gotten to the point where I am not
really paying attention. Why should I. I am just feeding you as you
troll...
Snit
Thank you for admitting to it, but what does this have to do with Mackay's
forged PDF's?
I notice you do not even address the topic and discuss them.... you just
jump in and present you silly site that even you describe as "lying as
usual".
Snit
I notice you still do not account for the clear lies on Mackay's site. I
have discussed them in csma, and I have this page that discusses them. When
last I checked, the files in question were still on Mackay's site, so unless
he has modified them or removed them, then the data is still available for
the looking by anyone.
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
With all the posturing and fake FAQ's and other silliness from you, you
still are ignoring Mackay's site with its easy-to-see lies.
Why is that?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
You think that comment was directed at his site? Put the glue down, Snit...
--
Nothing does not equal nothing.
Steve C
Steve Mackay
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
> pan.2004.12.03....@hotmail.com on 12/3/04 3:16 PM:
>
>>>> Steve Mackay's forgeries even though I provide clear details:
>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>>
>> ROFLMAO!! Snit, you're pathetic. We've been thru this, MONTHS ago.
>
> Yes, we have... and your site still has the forged files on it. This is
> very clear. Look at my site (which is just looking at the files that are
> now, or have been, on your site... I think all but one still are, unless
> they "magically" change again).
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
Snit, files on my server space haven't changed. No matter how you spin
this... Yours on the other hand have continued to change. You haven't been
able to truthfully explain that.
>
> I start of by comparing the two files e-mail.pdf and mine.pdf - both on
> your site as of last night. You claim that mine.pdf comes from the
> "real" pdf file, but it does not.
I hate to burst your bubble loser boy, but there is no mine.pdf on my
site. Confused again Snit? See, if you actually told the truth once in a
great while, you'd not get so confused trying to cover your lies.
> You got the fonts wrong. I show it
> very clearly on my site... the font is much to dim, much like Steve
> Carroll. :)
It's called compression in the jpg. Ever hear of it? Wow, you really are
trying to spin this one good, arencha?
>
> Speaking of fonts, I look at the various versions of the email.pdf that
> you have had.
I've only had one. The other two were taken from your site, that you
claimed were the original. This has been shown to you by several people in
the past.
> Based on a roll over it is clear you changed the fonts I
> pointed out were incorrect on the IP number. What I had not noticed
> before I did the roll over is the other change - the e-mail address is
> was not even accurate! Again, these pdf's came from your site. How do
> you explain this?
No, the email.pdf is the one and only PDF I made. The other two were taken
from your site. But you already knew this. We've been thru this snit. I'm
not the only one that showed you changed your version of the "original" on
your site, and your site only.
> I then look at the details of the two files from above, e-mail.pdf and
> mine.pdf - again both are on your site as of last night... though I
> suspect that will change soon. I created a roll over with those two
> images and talk about the reasons to doubt the authenticity of your
> files.
Again, there isn't and hasn't been a mine.pdf on my site. Try to stay on
track here spin boy.
>
> You missed your timing, Steve... you should have sent your "evidence" to
> Dan Rather before he retired. Maybe he would have accepted it. :)
Nice one, but unfortunately, the only one falsifying things is you.
>
>> How do you explain the original, that has *NEVER* changed on my ISP's
>> server? Yet all of a suddent you have this new one, that has a
>> different PDF creator, then after confronted about that, you change the
>> "original" PDF on your site, and remove the creator to something else.
>> Yet, as always the original is still on my site. Really, you've never
>> been able to explain why your copies kept changing, yet mine as always
>> stayed the same, as it did since JUNE.
>>
>> Now, lets go thru this step by step. Have your wife/mom/cat/blow up sex
>> doll, read this to you, since it may contain some big words that will
>> certainly have your reading comprehension rearing it's ugly head yet
>> again. You have 48 hours reprieve on my KF... After that, I wont
>> subject the group to my participation in your games.
>
> Why even come back at all? Why not just KF me and post a bunch of
> dishonest accusations like you have been?
Unlike you spin boy, I don't need to lie.
> What makes you so brave for 2
> whole days that you can look at the facts against you? Really - I want
> to know... what makes these two days so special to you... what makes you
> grow a bit of a backbone?
Brave, and backbone? Snit, if we did ever meet face to face, you'd be
runing away screaming like a little school girl.
See, it's about not helping you spread your bullshit through this whole
group. i wont do it beyond those 48 hours. You have approximately 32 hours
left. So you better pack as much spin in as you can get. I know you will.
>>
>> "Look at the placement of the Document Summary window. It is placed,
>> almost pixel perfect, to show the word "unverified" but to cover the IP
>> address that is not verified. What IP's is Steve trying to hide"
>>
>> Yes, it is placed EXACTLY where Adobe acrobat placed them, the center
>> of the screen. WOW, what a conspiracy, you better call Adobe and
>> complain that they are consistant <eye roll>
>
> Adobe works to cover IP's? No... Steve... I do not think so.
No they work to center dialog boxes. Where are you confused on this issue?
>>
>> "The file that is supposedly my "faked" one has the fonts for the text
>> shown above looking the way it should. The "real" one, according to
>> Steve, has messed up fonts. Now how can that be? "
>>
>> There are no fonts messed up on the true original. Which can EASILY be
>> seen by downloading the original
>> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf This is the unchanged original.
>> It's been up there since 13-Jun-2004 14:17 GMT, the file dates can
>> easily be seen by peering at the directory contents
>> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays . It is impossible for me to change the
>> file dates on the server owned by RoadRunner.
>
> Then why does your jpg not match the PDF if you claim the jpg came from
> the PDF and the PDF has not changed?
It matches just fine. It's called compression artificats. How is this
confusing you?
> Again, it is clear that the two
> are not the same - the jpeg has a faded font in one area... check out
> the first image here:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>
> If you click the image of each of your files it points to *your* site...
> so any claim you make about my modifying the files is absurd. That is
> unless you still are claiming *I* can change your site but you can not.
>
> How do you explain the fact that your jpeg is not an image of your PDF?
But it is. It always has been.
>>
>> The fact that you are claiming some conspiracy by the Jpegs is nothing
>> but a pathetic, and predictable spin job by you.
>>
>> "Speaking of bad artifacting, though, why did Steve decide to save the
>> images with such heavy compression... other images on his site do not
>> have nearly the artifacting that these ones do. Check out the clarity
>> of his other images: shiftknob, explorerweb, thermometer. Why go out of
>> his way to post blurry images as "proof". Anyone have a theory, other
>> than the obvious idea that he is trying to hide something?"
>
> Speaking of spin... read what you write here...
>>
>> Because I was not worried about server space at the time. As more files
>> have been uploaded, I was approaching the limit. I know it's difficult
>> for you to fathom, that I really didn't think it's all that important
>> to have a press quality jpeg to show you trying to spin, and lie yet
>> again.
>
> Interesting story you create here: you were so close to filling up your
> quota that a reasonably made jpeg would push you over the edge but a
> blurred one would not... not bloody likely, Steve...
So I need to teach you JPEG compression theory now?<eye roll> Who exactly
are your try to convince here?
> and that does not
> explain why the blurred jpeg is not from the source file you claim it
> is. How do you explain that little oddity in your story?
If you don't understand how compression works maybe I can suggest that you
read up on the subject. This is all nothing more than spin, on your case.
The more compression, the less space a jpeg will take... WOW!!! What a
conspiracy... If you don't like that answer, tough shit spin boy. Find
another subject to spin on. This doesn't deflect from the fact that you're
a sockpuppet using coward.
>>
>> Really, the only question I have for you, how do you explain all the
>> differences in my original email.pdf, and your "original"? Mine is
>> unchanged since the day I uploaded it to RR's site. I'm quite certain
>> you wont honestly answer this question, but I put it out there for you
>> to amuse me with your pathetic spin tactics.
>
> Compare your two "original" files:
>
> The real original (310,396 bytes):
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/images/email.pdf
>
> The one you claim is the original (159,159 bytes):
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/images/email-new.pdf
> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf
>
> How come these files, both of which came from your site, are different?
#1, YOUR file that you claim is the original, is indeed not the original.
In fact it's not even the 1st original that you claimed was on your site.
> And why does your jpeg (mine.jpg) not match the PDF (email.pdf) on your
> site if you have never changed it and the jpeg came from the PDF? How
> does that happen? How do fonts get changed like that?
It's called compression artifacts. And has nothing to do with the proof
that you are sigmond.
>
> You have not explained this: on *your* site there is a jpeg that is
> *not* of what you call the original file, but it *is* of what I call the
> original file.
But what you call original, is a lie. But you, and everyone else knows
this.
>
> Funny, that, eh? Your own site proves you wrong. So tell me, Steve,
> how did I get those files on your site? Did I replace the PDF on your
> site, or did I replace the jpeg on your site.
Snit, my own site proves you're a lying piece of shit. The original PDF,
with the EXACT same date, time, and file size has always been there. This
is something that nobody can change without root access to RR's server.
All the rest of this is just your spin on things. The other PDF's in
question on my site, were taken directly from your site, remember, the
ones YOU claimed were the originals? But kept on changing on your site.
The dates, and file sizes kept changing. There were several people that
brought this to your attention. But you ignored them.
>
> How long until these little oddities fix themselves "magically". My
> guess... less than 48 hours. I suggest anyone who is reading this get a
> copy of the two files now, so that Steve's lie will be easier to see
> when / if he changes the files:
>
> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/mine.jpg
> http://home.wi.rr.com/mackays/email.pdf
Ummm, unlike you, I've never changed them. They have the same dates and
times they always have had. I'm not the dishonest piece of shit that
continues to try and change things. I don't need to. You on the other hand
are that dishonest peice of shit in
>
> Oh, and to be complete, you have two other versions of the email pdf on
> your site... one is 224,007 bytes and the other 211,938 bytes... so
> neither of these are a copy of the 310,296 real original that you call
> my lie... so what are these files? And why do you not have the real
> original on your site... the file that matches the mine.jpg?
Actually, spin boy, the original, which is 159,159 bytes. But you already
knew that.
Why is it, on Aug 11th, YOUR email.pdf, the one YOU claimed was
original(though it wasn't), was 224007 bytes. And now it's 310296
bytes? Why does it keep changing, spin boy? :)
btw, Google doesn't lie, so before you continue your spin on things I'd
give up now if I were you.
here's some references....
It shows that on Aug 13th, your "email.pdf" wasn't what it is now :) How
do you explain that?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1gigbps.iwgxqsup6n7kN%25blam%40mac.com&output=gplain
and yet another, showing you changed them.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2004081409501438165%25stevemackay%40hotmailcom&output=gplain
> Let me guess: you will not answer these questions. You will never
> explain why your "mine.jpg" comes from the the PDF that is no longer
> even on your site!
It does come from it. What you seem to think is a font difference, isn't.
It's a compression artifacting problem. WOW, what a conspiracy. Get real
mikey you're not fooling anyone.
>
>> The ball is in your court now
>
> Back to you
>
>> Spin boy...
>
> This is a great sig line for you.
Naah. I don't need to spin things in my favor. I tell the truth. You may
want to try it sometime.
The ball is back in your court spin boy.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41b17ad7$0$202$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/4/04 1:52 AM:
>
> >> I am saying it is clear that you do not accept the Google record as proof.
> >>
> >> Of course, you can always prove me wrong... can not say I really care what
> >> you do or think.
> >
> > The only thing clear is that I said nothing about your point originally.
> > That won't stop you from trying to put words in my mouth.
>
> Yet you still will not and have not accepted the Google record as proof.
> Nor will you. I need not put words in your mouth, as your actions speak
> loud and clear.
>
Funny how, when Wally points out your lies, using the Google timeline,
you run away. why is that snit? Apparently you don't even accept it as
proof.
~snip
--
Tim
Snit
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:49:34 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2004.12.03....@hotmail.com on 12/3/04 3:16 PM:
>>
>>>>> Steve Mackay's forgeries even though I provide clear details:
>>>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO!! Snit, you're pathetic. We've been thru this, MONTHS ago.
>>
>> Yes, we have... and your site still has the forged files on it. This is
>> very clear. Look at my site (which is just looking at the files that are
>> now, or have been, on your site... I think all but one still are, unless
>> they "magically" change again).
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>
>
> Snit, files on my server space haven't changed. No matter how you spin
> this... Yours on the other hand have continued to change. You haven't been
> able to truthfully explain that.
>
>>
>> I start of by comparing the two files e-mail.pdf and mine.pdf - both on
>> your site as of last night. You claim that mine.pdf comes from the
>> "real" pdf file, but it does not.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble loser boy, but there is no mine.pdf on my
> site. Confused again Snit? See, if you actually told the truth once in a
> great while, you'd not get so confused trying to cover your lies.
Oh my goodness! I made a typo! I meant mine.jpg and typed mine.pdf. I
suppose that is your defense for your lies, eh?
And below you claimed to not need any spin... yet here you are, spinning.
Why is that?
Is the 48 hours up yet? Are you ready to run or are you going to actually
explain why mine.jpg does not match email.pdf as you claim it should.
>
>> You got the fonts wrong. I show it
>> very clearly on my site... the font is much to dim, much like Steve
>> Carroll. :)
>
> It's called compression in the jpg. Ever hear of it? Wow, you really are
> trying to spin this one good, arencha?
So why is one font more compressed that the others? That makes no sense...
esp. when you claim it is a screen shot.
<snip of your silliness where you avoid talking about why mine.jpg does not
match email.pdf on *your* site. Or has that been changed yet?
>>> Now, lets go thru this step by step. Have your wife/mom/cat/blow up sex
>>> doll, read this to you, since it may contain some big words that will
>>> certainly have your reading comprehension rearing it's ugly head yet
>>> again. You have 48 hours reprieve on my KF... After that, I wont
>>> subject the group to my participation in your games.
>>
>> Why even come back at all? Why not just KF me and post a bunch of dishonest
>> accusations like you have been? What makes you so brave for 2 whole days
>> that you can look at the facts against you? Really - I want to know... what
>> makes these two days so special to you... what makes you grow a bit of a
>> backbone?
>
> Brave, and backbone? Snit, if we did ever meet face to face, you'd be
> runing away screaming like a little school girl.
Why? And what makes you think this? And, even if I did, do you think that
would prove your point? Just what are you getting at?
You are the one who runs away and not only hides behind a KF but then still
tosses out accusations against me. You are a coward.
>
> See, it's about not helping you spread your bullshit through this whole
> group. i wont do it beyond those 48 hours.
You won't spread your bullshit through the whole site for more than 48
hours... ok. Does that mean after you KF me you will stop spreading, as you
call it, your bullshit about me?
> You have approximately 32 hours left.
Then what? Then you will run "away screaming like a little school girl".
So? Wow... you are warning me about your cowardly behavior. How brave of
you.
<snip of more of Steve's silliness>
>>> Because I was not worried about server space at the time. As more files
>>> have been uploaded, I was approaching the limit. I know it's difficult
>>> for you to fathom, that I really didn't think it's all that important
>>> to have a press quality jpeg to show you trying to spin, and lie yet
>>> again.
>>
>> Interesting story you create here: you were so close to filling up your
>> quota that a reasonably made jpeg would push you over the edge but a
>> blurred one would not... not bloody likely, Steve...
>
> So I need to teach you JPEG compression theory now?<eye roll> Who exactly
> are your try to convince here?
LOL... yeah... teach me oh wise one.
While you are in your teacher mode, care to tell me how to find what is
under the changed IP and e-mail address. I have not been able to find it,
but would love to know.
>
>> and that does not explain why the blurred jpeg is not from the source file
>> you claim it is. How do you explain that little oddity in your story?
>
> If you don't understand how compression works maybe I can suggest that you
> read up on the subject. This is all nothing more than spin, on your case.
Wow... look at you obfuscate. But I will indulge you: why would one font be
compressed completely differently than others in a screen shot... as you
claim.
Do you think people will buy your story there. Oh wait... there are some
people in CSMA who really are that stupid / bigoted / whatever.
>
> The more compression, the less space a jpeg will take... WOW!!! What a
> conspiracy... If you don't like that answer, tough shit spin boy. Find
> another subject to spin on. This doesn't deflect from the fact that you're
> a sockpuppet using coward.
How does that explain how one font is compressed differently than the
others?
On my site I show the difference between the two, and guess what! I use
jpgs to do it! That's right, Steve, your claim about a jpg of a screen shot
compressing different fonts to different amounts is just plain silliness on
your part. You see, Steve, when you take a screen shot, the computer no
longer treats each font as a separate font... they are all just pixels of
different colors.
Your next lesson will be on vector vs. bitmapped images. :)
<snip... nothing of use can come from your lies>
>> And why does your jpeg (mine.jpg) not match the PDF (email.pdf) on your
>> site if you have never changed it and the jpeg came from the PDF? How
>> does that happen? How do fonts get changed like that?
>>
>> You have not explained this: on *your* site there is a jpeg that is
>> *not* of what you call the original file, but it *is* of what I call the
>> original file.
>>
>> Funny, that, eh? Your own site proves you wrong. So tell me, Steve,
>> how did I get those files on your site? Did I replace the PDF on your
>> site, or did I replace the jpeg on your site.
>
> Snit, my own site proves you're a lying piece of shit.
Wow... when facts fail you do you always run to name calling, or is this a
special occasion?
> The original PDF, with the EXACT same date, time, and file size has always
> been there. This is something that nobody can change without root access to
> RR's server.
I never use root on my own computer and I can change this. Your claim is a
lie. You can do this with lower access than root.
> All the rest of this is just your spin on things.
How are the files on your site a part of my spin? You claim you would need
root access to modify your site, but then imply that I can change your site
with no access.
> The other PDF's in question on my site, were taken directly from your site,
> remember, the ones YOU claimed were the originals? But kept on changing on
> your site. The dates, and file sizes kept changing. There were several people
> that brought this to your attention. But you ignored them.
Funny how you have two PDF's not from my site, but the one that is on my
site (the original) is not on your site. Why did you not put this one on
your site?
Again, Steve, your own site is all the evidence needed to show you are
lying. Your words are just icing on the cake.
<snip of more of your lies and name calling>
>> Let me guess: you will not answer these questions. You will never
>> explain why your "mine.jpg" comes from the the PDF that is no longer
>> even on your site!
>
> It does come from it. What you seem to think is a font difference, isn't.
Really? Well, look at the first screen shots:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
Notice how they link directly to your site. Unless or until your site
changes, which it likely will, the evidence is clear that mine.jpg is not
from email.pdf (the one on your site). This is in direct contradiction to
your claims.
> It's a compression artifacting problem. WOW, what a conspiracy. Get real
> mikey you're not fooling anyone.
You keep stating this... but have yet to explain why the compression would
be different for one font in one area of a screen shot than it is on the
rest of the screen shot. It is not even as though the font were sideways or
something - which would have a possible effect. If you need to know why, I
can point you to sources to explain jpg compression to you in more detail.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 41b17ad7$0$202$7586...@news.frii.net on 12/4/04 1:52 AM:
>
>
>>>I am saying it is clear that you do not accept the Google record as proof.
>>>
>>>Of course, you can always prove me wrong... can not say I really care what
>>>you do or think.
>>
>>The only thing clear is that I said nothing about your point originally.
>>That won't stop you from trying to put words in my mouth.
>
>
> Yet you still will not and have not accepted the Google record as proof.
> Nor will you. I need not put words in your mouth, as your actions speak
> loud and clear.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>I am saying it is clear that you do not accept the Mackay's site as proof.
>>>
>>>Of course, you can always prove me wrong... can not say I really care what
>>>you do or think.
>>
>>The only thing clear is that I said nothing about your point originally.
>>That won't stop you from trying to put words in my mouth.
>
>
> Yet you still will not and have not accepted the Mackay's site as proof.
> Nor will you. I need not put words in your mouth, as your actions speak
> loud and clear.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>>In other words you want me to go out of my way to prove my claim to you...
>>>why the hell would I want to prove what you have done to you? Really... I
>>>have no idea what would make you think I care one iota about what you
>>>believe about your own actions.
>>
>>It is your claim that I have "data mined" your site. It's up to you to
>>prove that I have done so. Simple concept, really.
>
>
> You act as though I have something to prove... to ... get this.. *you*!
Actually, you made the claim to the newsgroup. It just happened to be me
to point out that you've made a claim that you are unable to back up.
> That is funny.
>
> You act like a care what you think. Where did you get this weird idea. I
> have not even gone far enough to see if the logs at the site are still
> there... and if they are I would have to see if I could make them available
> without giving out my password... and then I would have to "prove" to you
> that I did not alter the site, the same way I would have to "prove" to you
> that I did not alter Mackay's site.
>
> No thanks. Not playing your silly little game where you pretend you want
> proof but then will not accept anything. Not even you have been able to
> state what you would accept. Face it - there is nothing you would accept...
> nothing in the world... and the sad thing is you are *still* asking me to
> prove to you your own actions!
I am asking you to prove your claim that I have "data mined" your site.
It's up to you to prove that I have done so. Simple concept, really.
>
>>>>Yes you are. You are in a quandry. You've made a claim that you are
>>>>unable to prove and now you are spinning wildly and trying to blame me
>>>>for your problem.
>>
>>So by your own logic, since you did not address this, I assume that
>>means you agree with it.
>
>
> And then you wonder why I do not feel the need to "prove" anything to you...
> you are completely irrational. Your actions show you will not accept the
> Google record or Mackay's site as proof. Your words simply add support for
> that.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Oh... and oops for the error of mine you point out about the question
> mark... shows this conversation has gotten to the point where I am not
> really paying attention. Why should I. I am just feeding you as you
> troll...
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
Steve Mackay
He did just that to me also. I posted proof of him changing his version of
email.pdf on his site, via google. And he snips it. Why do you suppose
that is? LOL!
Steve Mackay
Nope, nothing needs to change on my site. I'm honest. Try it sometime...
>>>> Now, lets go thru this step by step. Have your wife/mom/cat/blow up sex
>>>> doll, read this to you, since it may contain some big words that will
>>>> certainly have your reading comprehension rearing it's ugly head yet
>>>> again. You have 48 hours reprieve on my KF... After that, I wont
>>>> subject the group to my participation in your games.
>>>
>>> Why even come back at all? Why not just KF me and post a bunch of dishonest
>>> accusations like you have been? What makes you so brave for 2 whole days
>>> that you can look at the facts against you? Really - I want to know... what
>>> makes these two days so special to you... what makes you grow a bit of a
>>> backbone?
>>
>> Brave, and backbone? Snit, if we did ever meet face to face, you'd be
>> runing away screaming like a little school girl.
>
> Why? And what makes you think this? And, even if I did, do you think that
> would prove your point? Just what are you getting at?
No, it would prove what you are. A sniveling little coward.
>
> You are the one who runs away and not only hides behind a KF but then still
> tosses out accusations against me. You are a coward.
Naah, no matter how many times you repeat it, wont make it true. I KF you
for several reasons.
A) Rarely do you tell the truth, I'd rather not read your lies, and word
salading methods.
B) I wont continue to reply, and subject the rest of the group to your
silly games. When someone engages you in debate, when you are losing, you
end up making a whole new thread, in attempt to gain some more attnetion
from the group.
C) You're a piece of shit.
>>
>> See, it's about not helping you spread your bullshit through this whole
>> group. i wont do it beyond those 48 hours.
>
> You won't spread your bullshit through the whole site for more than 48
> hours... ok. Does that mean after you KF me you will stop spreading, as you
> call it, your bullshit about me?
I don't spread it. However, I am replying to your bullshit.
Now who's obsuscating? It's you.
>
> Do you think people will buy your story there. Oh wait... there are some
> people in CSMA who really are that stupid / bigoted / whatever.
There's no story to buy. Only the truth from me.
>>
>> The more compression, the less space a jpeg will take... WOW!!! What a
>> conspiracy... If you don't like that answer, tough shit spin boy. Find
>> another subject to spin on. This doesn't deflect from the fact that you're
>> a sockpuppet using coward.
>
> How does that explain how one font is compressed differently than the
> others?
Umm, do you UNDERSTAND how compression works, with colors and such? By
your continued spin, I'd have to say, no, you're cluelss on the subjest,
as you are in most others.
>
> On my site I show the difference between the two, and guess what! I use
> jpgs to do it!
With higher compression/different settings <gasp> it's a conspiracy!
That's right, Steve, your claim about a jpg of a screen shot
> compressing different fonts to different amounts is just plain silliness on
> your part. You see, Steve, when you take a screen shot, the computer no
> longer treats each font as a separate font... they are all just pixels of
> different colors.
No, cpmpression doesn't care what a font is, all it cares about is pixels,
and the colors of pixels. And guess what, those two fonts have differnt
colors... WOW!!! Whata concept, eh mikey?
>
> Your next lesson will be on vector vs. bitmapped images. :)
>
> <snip... nothing of use can come from your lies>
>
>>> And why does your jpeg (mine.jpg) not match the PDF (email.pdf) on
>>> your site if you have never changed it and the jpeg came from the PDF?
>>> How does that happen? How do fonts get changed like that?
>>>
>>> You have not explained this: on *your* site there is a jpeg that is
>>> *not* of what you call the original file, but it *is* of what I call
>>> the original file.
>>>
>>> Funny, that, eh? Your own site proves you wrong. So tell me, Steve,
>>> how did I get those files on your site? Did I replace the PDF on your
>>> site, or did I replace the jpeg on your site.
>>
>> Snit, my own site proves you're a lying piece of shit.
>
> Wow... when facts fail you do you always run to name calling, or is this
> a special occasion?
Naah, just telling the truth. You are indeed a lying piece of shit.
>
>> The original PDF, with the EXACT same date, time, and file size has
>> always been there. This is something that nobody can change without
>> root access to RR's server.
>
> I never use root on my own computer and I can change this. Your claim
> is a lie. You can do this with lower access than root.
its a bit different when you have direct access to the files. Being on a
remote BSD server, it's a tad different. Or do I have to teach you this
too?
>
>> All the rest of this is just your spin on things.
>
> How are the files on your site a part of my spin? You claim you would
> need root access to modify your site, but then imply that I can change
> your site with no access.
Snit we've been thru this before. I've never claimed you had access to my
site. I've never even implied it. If you got that impression, I'd have to
say your reading comprehension is rearing it's ugly head once again.
>
>> The other PDF's in question on my site, were taken directly from your
>> site, remember, the ones YOU claimed were the originals? But kept on
>> changing on your site. The dates, and file sizes kept changing. There
>> were several people that brought this to your attention. But you
>> ignored them.
>
> Funny how you have two PDF's not from my site, but the one that is on my
> site (the original) is not on your site. Why did you not put this one
> on your site?
They were from your site. You can deny this all you like, but you'd be
lying. But this isn't something really new, or different from you.
>
> Again, Steve, your own site is all the evidence needed to show you are
> lying. Your words are just icing on the cake.
>
> <snip of more of your lies and name calling>
>
>>> Let me guess: you will not answer these questions. You will never
>>> explain why your "mine.jpg" comes from the the PDF that is no longer
>>> even on your site!
>>
>> It does come from it. What you seem to think is a font difference,
>> isn't.
>
> Really? Well, look at the first screen shots:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/mackay/
>
> Notice how they link directly to your site. Unless or until your site
> changes, which it likely will, the evidence is clear that mine.jpg is
> not from email.pdf (the one on your site). This is in direct
> contradiction to your claims.
it is. But be my guest and don't believe it and try to spin that. It
hasn't worked before, but I'm sure you'll keep trying, and keep looking
stupid by doing it.
>
>> It's a compression artifacting problem. WOW, what a conspiracy. Get
>> real mikey you're not fooling anyone.
>
> You keep stating this... but have yet to explain why the compression
> would be different for one font in one area of a screen shot than it is
> on the rest of the screen shot. It is not even as though the font were
> sideways or something - which would have a possible effect. If you need
> to know why, I can point you to sources to explain jpg compression to
> you in more detail.
I noticed you snipped the portion that showed others showing you changing
email.pdf on your site, more than once. What's wrong haven't figured out
how to lie about this one? But just so you don't forget, here they are
again.,
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Blah, blah, blah... irrelevant bullshit from my pov. Why not address the
reference Steve made? From the link Steve just provided:
"Snit uploads a different copy of 'email.pdf' to his own site - the files
size has now changed to 224,007 bytes [b]"
Earlier, you were trying to convince me... well, it has to start with
addressing the questions you keep snipping that involve the original and this
file size business. You appear to be contending that Steve hacked RR's server.
How do you propose to show this took place? Are you going to demonstrate this
capability?