OT: A rather 'interesting' side argument from a newsgroup regular who has a site about Bush...
Steve Carroll
argument that poster has on his public web page about U.S. President
George W. Bush being guilty of engaging in an illegal war in Iraq:
--
"If, as you say, the U.S. military use of force in Iraq was an illegal
use of force, then the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq must
necessarily also be an illegal action."
The poster's reply: What makes you say that?
Me: Common sense.
The poster: Ah, in your mind it is "common sense"
Me: Of course. If you have some argument to the contrary bring it on.
The poster: You fail to support your claim...
Me:"Common sense" doesn't need support to people that have any.
The poster: Your claim of "common sense" to support your BS is useless.
--
Notably, other than to label it "BS", the poster was completely unable
to address my point. Further down, I continued the discussion with...
--
"I'm sure you don't... but remember... you also recently wrote a
question that indicated your mistaken belief that you haven't yet given
your opinion on the War Powers Resolution... which is an absurd position
for you to take considering that part of 'your' argument is built upon
it:"
I then quoted this poster's relevant question on that issue, he asked:
"When have I shared my views on the War Powers resolution?"
--
noone-78CDF8....@newsgroups.comcast.net
Fact: This person was unable to grasp the reality that he did share his
views on the War Powers resolution when he built 'his' (he *claims* it
is his) argument upon it.
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
John
"Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:noone-FA5776....@newsgroups.comcast.net...
FACT: Steve leaves for a week and 95% of the BS trolling goes away.
Steve Carroll
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
... Bush is not a criminal as Snit states he is based upon Snit's
argument (well, Snit calls it *his* argument;)
John
Steve is a dumbass if he actually believes Bush is an honest guy!
FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the off topic BS trolling
goes away!
Steve Carroll
John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
So you agree with Snit that Bush is a criminal for the reason that Snit
is claiming?
Snit
on 4/4/07 6:49 AM:
>>> FACT:
>>
>> ... Bush is not a criminal as Snit states he is based upon Snit's
>> argument (well, Snit calls it *his* argument;)
>>
>
> Steve is a dumbass if he actually believes Bush is an honest guy!
>
>
> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the off topic BS trolling
> goes away!
It is funny how Steve repeatedly declared my claims about Bush to be wrong
but has not been able - in *years* of trying - to offer a reasoned
refutation or defense.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "John" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post 1317b82...@news.supernews.com
> on 4/4/07 6:49 AM:
>
> >>> FACT:
> >>
> >> ... Bush is not a criminal as Snit states he is based upon Snit's
> >> argument (well, Snit calls it *his* argument;)
> >>
> >
> > Steve is a dumbass if he actually believes Bush is an honest guy!
> >
> >
> > FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the off topic BS trolling
> > goes away!
>
> It is funny how Steve repeatedly declared my claims about Bush to be wrong
> but has not been able - in *years* of trying - to offer a reasoned
> refutation or defense.
Yeah... right;) Who *hasn't* offered a reasoned refutation to the half
baked argument you parroted to csma?
John
FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the BS off topic trolling
went away. Now watch him run from this fact!
John
> In article <C2390101.7C7A8%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "John" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post 1317b82...@news.supernews.com
>> on 4/4/07 6:49 AM:
>>
>>>>> FACT:
>>>> ... Bush is not a criminal as Snit states he is based upon Snit's
>>>> argument (well, Snit calls it *his* argument;)
>>>>
>>> Steve is a dumbass if he actually believes Bush is an honest guy!
>>>
>>>
>>> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the off topic BS trolling
>>> goes away!
>> It is funny how Steve repeatedly declared my claims about Bush to be wrong
>> but has not been able - in *years* of trying - to offer a reasoned
>> refutation or defense.
>
> Yeah... right;) Who *hasn't* offered a reasoned refutation to the half
> baked argument you parroted to csma?
>
Who could ever offer a reasoned explanation of the high crimes and
treason of Bush?
Steve Carroll
John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
So then you agree with Snit that Bush is a criminal for the reasons that
Snit has stated?
Steve Carroll
John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
Speaking of running... why didn't you answer my question?
Snit
on 4/4/07 8:25 AM:
Want some fun: ask Steve where *he* thinks he offered a reasoned refutation.
Watch him dance and run. He *really* thinks, it seems, people are stupid
enough to not see through his BS.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
John
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Or better... ask Snit how he figures he successfully supported his guilt
assertion based on evidence he freely admits didn't prove one single
thing was true so as to have something else follow from it.
"Evidence is not the same thing as proof. My argument does not prove
anything, it offers strong support for my case. Support that has not
been refuted.' - Snit
Too funny;)
John
> In article <1317gqt...@news.supernews.com>,
> John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> In article <C2390101.7C7A8%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post 1317b82...@news.supernews.com
>>>> on 4/4/07 6:49 AM:
>>>>
>>>>>>> FACT:
>>>>>> ... Bush is not a criminal as Snit states he is based upon Snit's
>>>>>> argument (well, Snit calls it *his* argument;)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Steve is a dumbass if he actually believes Bush is an honest guy!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the off topic BS trolling
>>>>> goes away!
>>>> It is funny how Steve repeatedly declared my claims about Bush to be wrong
>>>> but has not been able - in *years* of trying - to offer a reasoned
>>>> refutation or defense.
>>> Yeah... right;) Who *hasn't* offered a reasoned refutation to the half
>>> baked argument you parroted to csma?
>>>
>> Who could ever offer a reasoned explanation of the high crimes and
>> treason of Bush?
>
> So then you agree with Snit that Bush is a criminal for the reasons that
> Snit has stated?
>
I agree that Bush is a criminal. It is so apparent that I don't even
have to hear Snits reasons.
Steve Carroll
What changed your mind?
Jesus
> >>>>> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Steve Carroll" <n...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>>> Fact: This person was unable to grasp the reality that he did share his
> >>>>>>> views on the War Powers resolution when he built 'his' (he *claims* it
> >>>>>>> is his) argument upon it.
>
> >>>>>> FACT:
> >>>>> ... Bush is not a criminal as Snit states he is based upon Snit's
> >>>>> argument (well, Snit calls it *his* argument;)
>
> >>>> Steve is a dumbass if he actually believes Bush is an honest guy!
> >>> So you agree with Snit that Bush is a criminal for the reason that Snit
> >>> is claiming?
>
> >> Here is what Steve keeps running from:
>
> > Speaking of running... why didn't you answer my question?
>
> Here is what Steve keeps running from:
>
> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the BS off topic trolling
> went away. Now watch him run from this fact!
Did you just learn how to use the clipboard or something? We get the
point. Command+V pastes.
I see you're finally posting from a Mac. Get the mouse for your
Windows machine wedged too far up your ass?
Jesus
> In article <1317gqtosbfp...@news.supernews.com>,> > > In article <C2390101.7C7A8%S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > > Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
> > >> "John" <n...@nospam.com> stated in post 1317b82kdnjq...@news.supernews.com
> > >> on 4/4/07 6:49 AM:
>
> > >>>>> FACT:
> > >>>> ... Bush is not a criminal as Snit states he is based upon Snit's
> > >>>> argument (well, Snit calls it *his* argument;)
>
> > >>> Steve is a dumbass if he actually believes Bush is an honest guy!
>
> > >>> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the off topic BS trolling
> > >>> goes away!
> > >> It is funny how Steve repeatedly declared my claims about Bush to be wrong
> > >> but has not been able - in *years* of trying - to offer a reasoned
> > >> refutation or defense.
>
> > > Yeah... right;) Who *hasn't* offered a reasoned refutation to the half
> > > baked argument you parroted to csma?
>
> > Who could ever offer a reasoned explanation of the high crimes and
> > treason of Bush?
>
> So then you agree with Snit that Bush is a criminal for the reasons that
> Snit has stated?
>
> --
> "None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
> "I do not KF people" - Snit
> "Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
> I show evidence from the records".-Snit
> "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
This isn't totally related to the point you're trying to make, but
just out of curiosity, do you support Bush and his reasons for going
to war?
Snit
1175705792.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/4/07 9:56 AM:
>>> Speaking of running... why didn't you answer my question?
>>
>> Here is what Steve keeps running from:
>>
>> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the BS off topic trolling
>> went away. Now watch him run from this fact!
>
> Did you just learn how to use the clipboard or something? We get the
> point. Command+V pastes.
>
> I see you're finally posting from a Mac. Get the mouse for your
> Windows machine wedged too far up your ass?
The hope, and I will admit that it is an unlikely thing to happen, is that
if Steve actually reads the comment he might - just might - finally
understand it.
The fact John is stating is clearly correct: when Steve does not push his
BS, or even pushes it less, CSMA is a much better and more peaceful group.
Steve will never acknowledge this fact, or, if he does, he will twist it in
such as way as to try to claim he is merely some poor victim and that his
trolling is not his fault, just as he tried to deny that the falsely
attributed quote he posted about me for months was his fault and a clear
sign of his dishonesty - even though I had gone above and beyond my
responsibilities and told him not all of his quotes were from me!
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1175705792.114454.165...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/4/07 9:56 AM:
>
> >>> Speaking of running... why didn't you answer my question?
>
> >> Here is what Steve keeps running from:
>
> >> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the BS off topic trolling
> >> went away. Now watch him run from this fact!
>
> > Did you just learn how to use the clipboard or something? We get the
> > point. Command+V pastes.
>
> > I see you're finally posting from a Mac. Get the mouse for your
> > Windows machine wedged too far up your ass?
>
> The hope, and I will admit that it is an unlikely thing to happen, is that
> if Steve actually reads the comment he might - just might - finally
> understand it.
...right. Why don't you and John post it another 60,000 times, then?
>
> The fact John is stating is clearly correct: when Steve does not push his
> BS, or even pushes it less, CSMA is a much better and more peaceful group.
I'm not even interested in that. John's polluting the group with the
same post over and over without accomplishing anything.
> Steve will never acknowledge this fact, or, if he does, he will twist it in
> such as way as to try to claim he is merely some poor victim and that his
> trolling is not his fault, just as he tried to deny that the falsely
> attributed quote he posted about me for months was his fault and a clear
> sign of his dishonesty - even though I had gone above and beyond my
> responsibilities and told him not all of his quotes were from me!
To be fair, I never saw you point out WHICH quotes weren't from you
until recently, at which point he removed the last quote from his
signature.
Snit
>>>>>> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the off topic BS trolling
>>>>>> goes away!
>>>>> It is funny how Steve repeatedly declared my claims about Bush to be wrong
>>>>> but has not been able - in *years* of trying - to offer a reasoned
>>>>> refutation or defense.
>>
>>>> Yeah... right;) Who *hasn't* offered a reasoned refutation to the half
>>>> baked argument you parroted to csma?
>>
>>> Who could ever offer a reasoned explanation of the high crimes and
>>> treason of Bush?
>>
>> So then you agree with Snit that Bush is a criminal for the reasons that
>> Snit has stated?
>
> This isn't totally related to the point you're trying to make, but
> just out of curiosity, do you support Bush and his reasons for going
> to war?
I shall peek under my KF to see Steve's response to this question. I do
look forward to it.
Snit
> On Apr 4, 1:06 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
>> 1175705792.114454.165...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/4/07 9:56 AM:
>>
>>>>> Speaking of running... why didn't you answer my question?
>>
>>>> Here is what Steve keeps running from:
>>
>>>> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the BS off topic trolling
>>>> went away. Now watch him run from this fact!
>>
>>> Did you just learn how to use the clipboard or something? We get the
>>> point. Command+V pastes.
>>
>>> I see you're finally posting from a Mac. Get the mouse for your
>>> Windows machine wedged too far up your ass?
>>
>> The hope, and I will admit that it is an unlikely thing to happen, is that
>> if Steve actually reads the comment he might - just might - finally
>> understand it.
>
> ...right. Why don't you and John post it another 60,000 times, then?
It just may take Steve seeing it - and other similar comments - that many
times to understand it. I would hope he would not be *that* dim.
>> The fact John is stating is clearly correct: when Steve does not push his
>> BS, or even pushes it less, CSMA is a much better and more peaceful group.
>
> I'm not even interested in that. John's polluting the group with the
> same post over and over without accomplishing anything.
Has he posted it even once without being in direct response to Steve's
trolling posts? If so it is irrational to focus on John and not Steve -
well, unless you understand that Steve is clearly unable to hold any
reasoned conversation and John is.
>> Steve will never acknowledge this fact, or, if he does, he will twist it in
>> such as way as to try to claim he is merely some poor victim and that his
>> trolling is not his fault, just as he tried to deny that the falsely
>> attributed quote he posted about me for months was his fault and a clear
>> sign of his dishonesty - even though I had gone above and beyond my
>> responsibilities and told him not all of his quotes were from me!
>
> To be fair, I never saw you point out WHICH quotes weren't from you
> until recently, at which point he removed the last quote from his
> signature.
I had no obligation to tell Steve which of his comments are outright lies
and which are merely deceptive. He should stop himself from spewing lies
and deceptions without input from anyone.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Steve Carroll
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This isn't totally related to the point you're trying to make, but
> just out of curiosity, do you support Bush and his reasons for going
> to war?
I believe that Bush's reasons for going into Iraq had as much, or more,
to do with the U.N. than it did with Iraq's persistent defiance of U.N.
resolutions. My feeling is that the post 9/11 Bush administration was
trying to get the international community to realize that if the U.N.,
as a group, can't get deal with things like terrorists going into major
cities and killing multiple thousands at a crack, then the U.N. is all
but worthless. We now know that 3 of the big 5 U.N. partners were on
the take and were breaking those same resolutions along with Iraq (that,
by signing them, they had agreed not to break) This is something I'm
sure the Bush administration knew all along and it provided the reason
why the 3 were going to veto any resolution that would have seem them
foot part of the bill...(that, and the obvious embarrassment of being
directly involved in the scandals). That they were owed a lot of money
by Iraq also figured into the mix. Sure, Bush could have sat on his
hands... but I believe that would have been an even bigger mistake.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1175705792.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/4/07 9:56 AM:
>
> >>> Speaking of running... why didn't you answer my question?
> >>
> >> Here is what Steve keeps running from:
> >>
> >> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the BS off topic trolling
> >> went away. Now watch him run from this fact!
> >
> > Did you just learn how to use the clipboard or something? We get the
> > point. Command+V pastes.
> >
> > I see you're finally posting from a Mac. Get the mouse for your
> > Windows machine wedged too far up your ass?
>
> The hope, and I will admit that it is an unlikely thing to happen, is that
> if Steve actually reads the comment he might - just might - finally
> understand it.
>
> The fact John is stating is clearly correct: when Steve does not push his
> BS, or even pushes it less, CSMA is a much better and more peaceful group.
> Steve will never acknowledge this fact, or, if he does, he will twist it in
> such as way as to try to claim he is merely some poor victim and that his
> trolling is not his fault, just as he tried to deny that the falsely
> attributed quote he posted about me for months was his fault and a clear
> sign of his dishonesty - even though I had gone above and beyond my
> responsibilities and told him not all of his quotes were from me!
When you acknowledged the following facts, we'll talk...
Fact: Snit has put up more posts in a 2-3 year period than the top 2 or
3 *ALL TIME* posters in csma... "the VAST MAJORITY of Snit's posts"
during this time period have NOTHING to do with Mac advocacy.
Fact: Snit has forged ID's of other posters and has admitted to it
(*after* he was busted).
Fact: Snit has used numerous sock puppets and has admitted to some...
gotten busted over others (by his own stupidity).
Fact: Snit has created too many trolling threads to count
Fact: Snit has nymhifted numerous times to avoid killfilters
Fact: Snit has been caught tampering with documents while trying to
point the finger at others for doing so.
Fact: Snit has written a perverse sexual harassment statement to a
female participant of this ng... and many sexually harassing posts.
Fact: Snit has been labeled a liar, troll or worse by virtually every
poster in csma and many in cola.
Fact: Snit repeatedly lies on this ng and gets caught at it... often.
Fact: Snit disingenuously tries to pretend that he is innocent of all of
the above... but reality shows he is the worst troll to ever hit this ng.
Steve Carroll
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's because he never did point out anything specifically, at least,
not that I ever saw. I asked him to show me where he did so, I'm still
waiting. Notably, I immediately removed the quote Snit was able to show
was not his. I also apologized for having ever included it. Snit and
John then proceeded to show how "honest and honorable" they both are by
spewing lies and spitting on me for doing so. Snit lied by saying I
"*finally*" removed the quote... blah... blah... John, well... he just
lied and spewed shit. I'm gonna keep tossing reality at them as long as
they keep spewing shit.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Here is a copy of Snit's "Honor and Honesty Code preserved on google so
that Snit can't change the wording (he likes to do that sort of thing):
-------
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/honor/
Honer and Honesty Code
The following people agree to treat each other with honor and honesty.
This does not imply that they will always agree, but that in
disagreements they will treat each other in ways that adhere to the
mutually agreed upon code.
The code is:
1 Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that
is bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially in a
forum like this.
2 Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
3 Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with problems
as they arise.
4 Agree to let the past go.
These people have agreed to this pact, and should be held accountable to
treating each other based on the code.
CSMA Name Date Link
Snit 15 May 2004 Author
ed 30 Nov 2004 Pending arrival on Google
dlmui2$59t$3...@domitilla.aioe.org
Note point #1... Snit recommends you to " Be specific " when talking
about what is "bothering you". Obviously, if you don't enter into a
'contract' with Snit over it, things like "Honor and Honesty" just
aren't a part of his responsibilities.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1175705991....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/4/07 9:59 AM:
>
> >>>>>> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the off topic BS trolling
> >>>>>> goes away!
> >>>>> It is funny how Steve repeatedly declared my claims about Bush to be
> >>>>> wrong
> >>>>> but has not been able - in *years* of trying - to offer a reasoned
> >>>>> refutation or defense.
> >>
> >>>> Yeah... right;) Who *hasn't* offered a reasoned refutation to the half
> >>>> baked argument you parroted to csma?
> >>
> >>> Who could ever offer a reasoned explanation of the high crimes and
> >>> treason of Bush?
> >>
> >> So then you agree with Snit that Bush is a criminal for the reasons that
> >> Snit has stated?
> >
> > This isn't totally related to the point you're trying to make, but
> > just out of curiosity, do you support Bush and his reasons for going
> > to war?
>
> I shall peek under my KF to see Steve's response to this question. I do
> look forward to it.
Sure, Snit... sure;)
Snit
noone-8361E2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/4/07 10:44 AM:
> Note point #1... Snit recommends you to " Be specific " when talking
> about what is "bothering you". Obviously, if you don't enter into a
> 'contract' with Snit over it, things like "Honor and Honesty" just
> aren't a part of his responsibilities.
Sadly, Steve, when I tell you that I do not like you falsely attributing
quotes to me in your .sig you find that not specific enough. Says something
about you that will, no doubt, go far, far over your head.
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Hey! I want to join that code!
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-8361E2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/4/07 10:44 AM:
>
> > Note point #1... Snit recommends you to " Be specific " when talking
> > about what is "bothering you". Obviously, if you don't enter into a
> > 'contract' with Snit over it, things like "Honor and Honesty" just
> > aren't a part of his responsibilities.
>
> Sadly, Steve, when I tell you that I do not like you falsely attributing
> quotes to me in your .sig you find that not specific enough. Says something
> about you that will, no doubt, go far, far over your head.
As I was not aware I was doing , what's your point, Snit? Oh... you
don't "actually" have one... OK.
Snit
>> To be fair, I never saw you point out WHICH quotes weren't from you
>> until recently, at which point he removed the last quote from his
>> signature.
>
> That's because he never did point out anything specifically, at least,
> not that I ever saw. I asked him to show me where he did so, I'm still
> waiting.
Do you need me to point out the many times I told you that your .sig
included quotes falsely attributed to me and deceptively snipped from me?
Come on, Steve, not even you can claim to have not seem me doing just
that... can you?
> Notably, I immediately removed the quote Snit was able to show
> was not his.
But, notably, left the deceptively snipped quotes... and thus you still show
you are so consumed by your hatred that you are not able to act in a
rational and honest way.
> I also apologized for having ever included it.
You apologized for one action of yours that you *finally* have, for now,
ended and then tried to excuse your other dishonesty (yes, Steve, your
absurdly snipped quotes are a form of dishonesty).
> Snit and John then proceeded to show how "honest and honorable" they both are
> by spewing lies and spitting on me for doing so.
And yet you cannot point to a lie of mine.
> Snit lied by saying I "*finally*" removed the quote...
Do you deny that you finally removed the quote that, above, you have claimed
to have removed?
> blah... blah... John, well... he just lied and spewed shit. I'm gonna keep
> tossing reality at them as long as they keep spewing shit.
Well, Steve, at least even you know you are "tossing reality". :)
Your dishonest .sig *still* shows how consumed you are by your obsessive
hatred.... it certainly has nothing to do with "tossing reality" at
*anyone*.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-038EA7....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/4/07 10:34 AM:
>
> >> To be fair, I never saw you point out WHICH quotes weren't from you
> >> until recently, at which point he removed the last quote from his
> >> signature.
> >
> > That's because he never did point out anything specifically, at least,
> > not that I ever saw. I asked him to show me where he did so, I'm still
> > waiting.
>
> Do you need me to point out the many times I told you that your .sig
> included quotes falsely attributed to me and deceptively snipped from me?
> Come on, Steve, not even you can claim to have not seem me doing just
> that... can you?
You never pointed it out like you did yesterday. Had you, I would have
removed it... like I did yesterday. I also would have apologized for
having included it... like I did yesterday. Thanks for showing all your
honor here and so very graciously accepting my apology the way you are.
> > Notably, I immediately removed the quote Snit was able to show
> > was not his.
>
> But, notably, left the deceptively snipped quotes... and thus you still show
> you are so consumed by your hatred that you are not able to act in a
> rational and honest way.
Nothing is "deceptively snipped" in my sig.
> > I also apologized for having ever included it.
>
> You apologized for one action of yours that you *finally* have, for now,
> ended and then tried to excuse your other dishonesty (yes, Steve, your
> absurdly snipped quotes are a form of dishonesty).
Yes, I did... and you are showing how big a man you are by being so
gracious about accepting it.
> > Snit and John then proceeded to show how "honest and honorable" they both
> > are
> > by spewing lies and spitting on me for doing so.
>
> And yet you cannot point to a lie of mine.
Claiming that I knew it was a false attribution is a lie of yours,
Snit... made worse by your whining all over the ng about it for
months... when you never actually pointed out your problem with it. I
thought you wrote it, when I found out differently I immediately
apologized and removed it. So why are you still talking about it?
> > Snit lied by saying I "*finally*" removed the quote...
>
> Do you deny that you finally removed the quote that, above, you have claimed
> to have removed?
I deny your bullshit that I falsely attributed to you. When you said
"*finally*" you did so under the dishonest pretense that I knew it was a
false attribution.
> > blah... blah... John, well... he just lied and spewed shit. I'm gonna keep
> > tossing reality at them as long as they keep spewing shit.
>
> Well, Steve, at least even you know you are "tossing reality". :)
Yeah... I'm tossing reality into your face and you are choking on it.
Anyone can see that. Did you really think you had successfully hidden
the fact?
>
> Your dishonest .sig *still* shows how consumed you are by your obsessive
> hatred.... it certainly has nothing to do with "tossing reality" at
> *anyone*.
My sig has nothing dishonest in it. You shouldn't talk about
dishonesty... it makes you look like the hypocrite you are. If anyone
has a problem with my sig they can feel free to ask me about it. You
have already asked and have been given an explanation.
John
Here is a REAL fact to keep in mind. Watch Steve run from it!
FACT: Steve goes away for a week and 95% of the BS off topic trolling
goes away.
John
Here is a REAL fact to keep in mind. Watch Steve run from it!
FACT: Steve goes away for a week and 95% of the BS off topic trolling
goes away.
Snit
mr-127928.19...@News.Individual.NET on 4/4/07 10:53 AM:
I will add you soon. Thanks.
Snit
> In article <C23933E6.7C80F%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-8361E2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/4/07 10:44 AM:
>>
>>> Note point #1... Snit recommends you to " Be specific " when talking
>>> about what is "bothering you". Obviously, if you don't enter into a
>>> 'contract' with Snit over it, things like "Honor and Honesty" just
>>> aren't a part of his responsibilities.
>>
>> Sadly, Steve, when I tell you that I do not like you falsely attributing
>> quotes to me in your .sig you find that not specific enough. Says something
>> about you that will, no doubt, go far, far over your head.
>
> As I was not aware I was doing , what's your point, Snit? Oh... you
> don't "actually" have one... OK.
You were not aware you were doing what you had repeatedly been told you were
doing.
You need to seek help, Steve.
Ok, KF back on... your trolling is simply not entertaining enough right now.
John
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-8A141B....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/4/07 10:53 AM:
>
> > In article <C23933E6.7C80F%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-8361E2....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 4/4/07 10:44 AM:
> >>
> >>> Note point #1... Snit recommends you to " Be specific " when talking
> >>> about what is "bothering you". Obviously, if you don't enter into a
> >>> 'contract' with Snit over it, things like "Honor and Honesty" just
> >>> aren't a part of his responsibilities.
> >>
> >> Sadly, Steve, when I tell you that I do not like you falsely attributing
> >> quotes to me in your .sig you find that not specific enough. Says
> >> something
> >> about you that will, no doubt, go far, far over your head.
> >
> > As I was not aware I was doing , what's your point, Snit? Oh... you
> > don't "actually" have one... OK.
>
> You were not aware you were doing what you had repeatedly been told you were
> doing.
Obviously not... as I have previously said elsewhere:
"You never pointed it out like you did yesterday. Had you, I would have
removed it... like I did yesterday. I also would have apologized for
having included it... like I did yesterday. Thanks for showing all your
honor here and so very graciously accepting my apology the way you are."
> You need to seek help, Steve.
>
> Ok, KF back on... your trolling is simply not entertaining enough right now.
Yeah.. sure, Snit... don't you think your elementary school game of
peek-a-boo is a bit long in the tooth by now;)
John
FACT: Steve goes away for a week and 95% of the BS off topic trolling
goes away.
Jesus
> In article <1175705991.989472.76...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure I follow you. Are you
saying you believe Bush invaded Iraq to make a statement about the
U.N.? Also, hadn't Iraq been cooperating with the U.N. before the war
started in regards to inspections, etc.?
Jesus
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH MY QUESTION?!?!?!?!?! STOP
PASTING THAT ONTO THE END OF EVERY GODDAMN POST!
Jesus
> Here is a copy of Snit's "Honor and Honesty Code preserved on google so
> that Snit can't change the wording (he likes to do that sort of thing):
Hopefully he will change it very soon.
>
> -------http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/honor/
> Honer *snip*
...and that's why. Sorry, Snit. :-)
John
FUCK OFF!!!
Snit
on 4/4/07 12:27 PM:
>> Obviously not... as I have previously said elsewhere:
>>
>> "You never pointed it out like you did yesterday. Had you, I would have
>> removed it... like I did yesterday. I also would have apologized for
>> having included it... like I did yesterday. Thanks for showing all your
>> honor here and so very graciously accepting my apology the way you are."
>>
>>
>>> You need to seek help, Steve.
>>>
>>> Ok, KF back on... your trolling is simply not entertaining enough right now.
>>
>> Yeah.. sure, Snit... don't you think your elementary school game of
>> peek-a-boo is a bit long in the tooth by now;)
>>
> Here is a REAL fact to keep in mind. Watch Steve run from it!
>
>
> FACT: Steve goes away for a week and 95% of the BS off topic trolling
> goes away.
And another fact: when not getting my attention via direct responses to his
posts, Steve *will* beg for my attention. When I do respond, however, he
lies and then claims his trolling is in response to my giving in to his
begging!
Steve needs serious life skills help. Really.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Snit
I am enjoying this exchange... thanks.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Snit
No need to be sorry... I appreciate the "catch".
I have added Sandman, being that he said he wanted to be.
Ed, Sandman - I have stated I will not make changes without an agreement by
all others who have agreed to the code... I hope you do not find it in any
way incorrect to fix an obvious typo. If you do let's please discuss it
but, frankly, it would seem silly to worry about that. :)
Now, how long until Steve whines that I broke my word by altering the code?
LOL!
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Steve Carroll
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure I follow you. Are you
> saying you believe Bush invaded Iraq to make a statement about the
> U.N.?
In part, yes.
> Also, hadn't Iraq been cooperating with the U.N. before the war
> started in regards to inspections, etc.?
No... Iraq had a decade+ history of breaking U.N. resolutions and they
were given a "final opportunity" in U.N. resolution 1441 to comply by a
certain date... Iraq failed to do so.
Steve Carroll
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, if you're gonna get picky:
1 Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that
is bothering you.
;)
John
And why didn't they comply Steve? Because they HAD NO WMD to give up.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "John" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post 1317v07...@news.supernews.com
> on 4/4/07 12:27 PM:
>
> >> Obviously not... as I have previously said elsewhere:
> >>
> >> "You never pointed it out like you did yesterday. Had you, I would have
> >> removed it... like I did yesterday. I also would have apologized for
> >> having included it... like I did yesterday. Thanks for showing all your
> >> honor here and so very graciously accepting my apology the way you are."
> >>
> >>
> >>> You need to seek help, Steve.
> >>>
> >>> Ok, KF back on... your trolling is simply not entertaining enough right
> >>> now.
> >>
> >> Yeah.. sure, Snit... don't you think your elementary school game of
> >> peek-a-boo is a bit long in the tooth by now;)
> >>
> > Here is a REAL fact to keep in mind. Watch Steve run from it!
> >
> >
> > FACT: Steve goes away for a week and 95% of the BS off topic trolling
> > goes away.
>
> And another fact:
Why stop at one?
Fact: Snit has put up more posts in a 2-3 year period than the top 2 or
3 *ALL TIME* posters in csma... "the VAST MAJORITY of Snit's posts"
during this time period have NOTHING to do with Mac advocacy.
Fact: Snit has forged ID's of other posters and has admitted to it
(*after* he was busted).
Fact: Snit has used numerous sock puppets and has admitted to some...
gotten busted over others (by his own stupidity).
Fact: Snit has created too many trolling threads to count
Fact: Snit has nymhifted numerous times to avoid killfilters
Fact: Snit has been caught tampering with documents while trying to
point the finger at others for doing so.
Fact: Snit has written a perverse sexual harassment statement to a
female participant of this ng... and many sexually harassing posts.
Fact: Snit has been labeled a liar, troll or worse by virtually every
poster in csma and many in cola.
Fact: Snit repeatedly lies on this ng and gets caught at it... often.
Fact: Snit disingenuously tries to pretend that he is innocent of all of
the above... but reality shows he is the worst troll to ever hit this ng.
Steve Carroll
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <1317hou...@news.supernews.com>,
> John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve Carroll wrote:
> > > In article <1317gqt...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Steve Carroll wrote:
> > >>> In article <C2390101.7C7A8%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > >>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> "John" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post
> > >>>> 1317b82...@news.supernews.com
> > >>>> on 4/4/07 6:49 AM:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>> FACT:
> > >>>>>> ... Bush is not a criminal as Snit states he is based upon Snit's
> > >>>>>> argument (well, Snit calls it *his* argument;)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Steve is a dumbass if he actually believes Bush is an honest guy!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> FACT: When Steve leaves for a week 95% of the off topic BS trolling
> > >>>>> goes away!
> > >>>> It is funny how Steve repeatedly declared my claims about Bush to be
> > >>>> wrong
> > >>>> but has not been able - in *years* of trying - to offer a reasoned
> > >>>> refutation or defense.
> > >>> Yeah... right;) Who *hasn't* offered a reasoned refutation to the half
> > >>> baked argument you parroted to csma?
> > >>>
> > >> Who could ever offer a reasoned explanation of the high crimes and
> > >> treason of Bush?
> > >
> > > So then you agree with Snit that Bush is a criminal for the reasons that
> > > Snit has stated?
> > >
> >
> > I agree that Bush is a criminal. It is so apparent that I don't even
> > have to hear Snits reasons.
>
>
> What changed your mind?
(crickets chirping)
Steve Carroll
John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
You obviously didn't read about what Iraq was supposed to do, John... or
if you did, you most certainly didn't comprehend what you read. So what
changed your mind about Bush being a criminal?
Snit
on 4/4/07 2:25 PM:
>>> Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure I follow you. Are you
>>> saying you believe Bush invaded Iraq to make a statement about the
>>> U.N.?
>>
>> In part, yes.
>>
>>> Also, hadn't Iraq been cooperating with the U.N. before the war
>>> started in regards to inspections, etc.?
>>
>> No... Iraq had a decade+ history of breaking U.N. resolutions and they
>> were given a "final opportunity" in U.N. resolution 1441 to comply by a
>> certain date... Iraq failed to do so.
>>
>
> And why didn't they comply Steve? Because they HAD NO WMD to give up.
The US accused Iraq of going against the UN. This was such a miserable
thing that the US felt they had to overthrow the Iraqi government... even if
that meant going against the UN.
The irony of this is just amazing.
> Here is a REAL fact to keep in mind. Watch Steve run from it!
>
>
> FACT: Steve goes away for a week and 95% of the BS off topic trolling
> goes away.
Steve is currently back in my KF and I can *still* predict he will run from
that question. He will, likely, whine it is off topic in the threads you
post it to... which implies that you should post it to its own thread. If
you do he will whine you are starting threads to troll him... and Sandman
will jump in whining about how threads cannot be started in response to
something (or if they can be then all must be... equally idiotic).
And their games will go on and on...
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
John
John
Iraq was supposed to allow weapons inspectors to keep looking for what
didn't exist.
Alan Baker
John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>> Also, hadn't Iraq been cooperating with the U.N. before the war
> >>>> started in regards to inspections, etc.?
> >>> No... Iraq had a decade+ history of breaking U.N. resolutions and they
> >>> were given a "final opportunity" in U.N. resolution 1441 to comply by a
> >>> certain date... Iraq failed to do so.
> >>>
> >> And why didn't they comply Steve? Because they HAD NO WMD to give up.
> >
> > You obviously didn't read about what Iraq was supposed to do, John... or
> > if you did, you most certainly didn't comprehend what you read. So what
> > changed your mind about Bush being a criminal?
> >
>
>
> Iraq was supposed to allow weapons inspectors to keep looking for what
> didn't exist.
You bet!
If Iraq does allow the weapons inspectors to look until the weapons
inspectors are satisfied, then how can we be certain that Iraq doesn't
have the weapons?
Put it another way, if Country A and Country B are both being inspected
and one has WMDs and the other doesn't, then how does one distinguish
which one you should deal with based on their refusal to allow
inspections to continue? If both refuse, then both look guilty, don't
they?
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
Snit
on 4/4/07 2:34 PM:
>>> And why didn't they comply Steve? Because they HAD NO WMD to give up.
>>
>> You obviously didn't read about what Iraq was supposed to do, John... or
>> if you did, you most certainly didn't comprehend what you read. So what
>> changed your mind about Bush being a criminal?
>>
>
>
> Iraq was supposed to allow weapons inspectors to keep looking for what
> didn't exist.
Do not forget that Iraq had the audacity to blame the US of having some of
the inspectors act as *spys*... something that would have shown the US was
going against the UN.
Oh. Turned out Iraq was right.
So again: The US pretended to have some moral high ground based on Iraq
going against the UN... even though at least part of the reason Iraq was
going against the UN was because of the US doing things against Iraq...
*and* the UN.
Then the US decides that because Iraq went against the UN... in part as a
*response* to the US going against the UN (which the US at the time
denied)... that the US has the right to go against the UN and overthrow
Iraq.
The mind boggles at how amazingly stupid one would have to be to accept what
the Bush administration spews!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "John" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post 13185u3...@news.supernews.com
> on 4/4/07 2:25 PM:
>
> >>> Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure I follow you. Are you
> >>> saying you believe Bush invaded Iraq to make a statement about the
> >>> U.N.?
> >>
> >> In part, yes.
> >>
> >>> Also, hadn't Iraq been cooperating with the U.N. before the war
> >>> started in regards to inspections, etc.?
> >>
> >> No... Iraq had a decade+ history of breaking U.N. resolutions and they
> >> were given a "final opportunity" in U.N. resolution 1441 to comply by a
> >> certain date... Iraq failed to do so.
> >>
> >
> > And why didn't they comply Steve? Because they HAD NO WMD to give up.
>
> The US accused Iraq of going against the UN.
No, Snit.. the U.N. accused Iraq of going against the U.N. - 17
times... and they have the broken resolutions to back it up.
> This was such a miserable
> thing that the US felt they had to overthrow the Iraqi government... even if
> that meant going against the UN.
And your documentation for this is?
Fact: The U.S. is in Iraq under U.N. sanction.
Look, we've been through this part of your lesson already:
--
Question: Why does there exist U.N. resolution language that follows
1441 which insist that it be the United States that report on behalf of
the **U.N. authorized** "multinational force"? For example, paragraph 25
of U.N resolution 1511 specifically states:
"Requests that the United States, on behalf of the multinational force
as outlined in paragraph 13 above, report to the Security Council on the
efforts and progress of this force as appropriate and not less than
every six months;"
Now let's look at paragraph 13...
"Determines that the provision of security and stability is essential to
the successful completion of the political process as outlined in
paragraph 7 above and to the ability of the United Nations to contribute
effectively to that process and the implementation of resolution 1483
(2003), and authorizes a multinational force under unified command to
take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security
and stability in Iraq, including for the purpose of ensuring necessary
conditions for the implementation of the timetable and program as well
as to contribute to the security of the United Nations Assistance
Mission for Iraq, the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions
of the Iraqi interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic
infrastructure;"
Interesting...between these two paragraphs the U.N. not only "authorizes
a multinational force" and grants them the power "to take all necessary
measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in
Iraq...", it leaves the reporting to the very nation you are necessarily
saying the U.N. would call the perpetrator of an "illegal war".
Notably, this resolution *still* contains language that the U.N.
recognizes that Iraq is a "threat":
"Determining that the situation in Iraq, although improved, continues to
constitute a threat to international peace and security"
--
noone-B7DCD3....@newsgroups.comcast.net
>
> The irony of this is just amazing.
Of your stupidity and willingness to ignore reality? I agree.
>
> > Here is a REAL fact to keep in mind. Watch Steve run from it!
> >
> >
> > FACT: Steve goes away for a week and 95% of the BS off topic trolling
> > goes away.
>
> Steve is currently back in my KF and I can *still* predict he will run from
> that question.
What question?
> He will, likely, whine it is off topic in the threads you
> post it to... which implies that you should post it to its own thread. If
> you do he will whine you are starting threads to troll him... and Sandman
> will jump in whining about how threads cannot be started in response to
> something (or if they can be then all must be... equally idiotic).
>
> And their games will go on and on...
And the real facts will go on and on...
Fact: Snit has put up more posts in a 2-3 year period than the top 2 or
3 *ALL TIME* posters in csma... "the VAST MAJORITY of Snit's posts"
during this time period have NOTHING to do with Mac advocacy.
Fact: Snit has forged ID's of other posters and has admitted to it
(*after* he was busted).
Fact: Snit has used numerous sock puppets and has admitted to some...
gotten busted over others (by his own stupidity).
Fact: Snit has created too many trolling threads to count
Fact: Snit has nymhifted numerous times to avoid killfilters
Fact: Snit has been caught tampering with documents while trying to
point the finger at others for doing so.
Fact: Snit has written a perverse sexual harassment statement to a
female participant of this ng... and many sexually harassing posts.
Fact: Snit has been labeled a liar, troll or worse by virtually every
poster in csma and many in cola.
Fact: Snit repeatedly lies on this ng and gets caught at it... often.
Fact: Snit disingenuously tries to pretend that he is innocent of all of
the above... but reality shows he is the worst troll to ever hit this ng.
--
Steve Carroll
John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
Iraq was supposed to show that they properly disposed of a bunch of
proscribed material. Iraq not only blocked weapons inspections, they
provided no reason to believe they were not moving proscribed material
out of the country (like they had done in the past with certain parts of
their military arsenal). As for WMD ever existing in Iraq, we know they
did because, at the behest of the U.N., Iraq included a 12,000 page
report listing it all. It's ridiculous to say they never had WMD, John.
The question is... where'd the stuff go? Had Saddam been more
forthcoming in doing what he was supposed to do, there'd have been no
invasion and he'd still be alive and kicking... murdering and robbing
the Iraqi citizens of their wealth with the help of our dishonest U.N.
partners.
Snit
alangbaker-A1FEC...@news.telus.net on 4/4/07 2:44 PM:
> In article <13186g2...@news.supernews.com>,
> John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Also, hadn't Iraq been cooperating with the U.N. before the war
>>>>>> started in regards to inspections, etc.?
>>>>> No... Iraq had a decade+ history of breaking U.N. resolutions and they
>>>>> were given a "final opportunity" in U.N. resolution 1441 to comply by a
>>>>> certain date... Iraq failed to do so.
>>>>>
>>>> And why didn't they comply Steve? Because they HAD NO WMD to give up.
>>>
>>> You obviously didn't read about what Iraq was supposed to do, John... or
>>> if you did, you most certainly didn't comprehend what you read. So what
>>> changed your mind about Bush being a criminal?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Iraq was supposed to allow weapons inspectors to keep looking for what
>> didn't exist.
>
> You bet!
>
> If Iraq does allow the weapons inspectors to look until the weapons
> inspectors are satisfied, then how can we be certain that Iraq doesn't
> have the weapons?
>
> Put it another way, if Country A and Country B are both being inspected
> and one has WMDs and the other doesn't, then how does one distinguish
> which one you should deal with based on their refusal to allow
> inspections to continue? If both refuse, then both look guilty, don't
> they?
Part of the reason that Iraq did not work with the inspectors is because the
inspectors were acting out of accordance to the agreements... something the
US later admitted to.
We are still at the fact that the US decided that because Iraq went against
the UN... in part as a *response* to the US going against the UN (which the
US at the time denied)... that the US has the right to go against the UN and
overthrow Iraq.
Are people really so stupid as to accept what Bush and crew claim is
"reasonable"?
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
John
> In article <13186g2...@news.supernews.com>,
> John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Also, hadn't Iraq been cooperating with the U.N. before the war
>>>>>> started in regards to inspections, etc.?
>>>>> No... Iraq had a decade+ history of breaking U.N. resolutions and they
>>>>> were given a "final opportunity" in U.N. resolution 1441 to comply by a
>>>>> certain date... Iraq failed to do so.
>>>>>
>>>> And why didn't they comply Steve? Because they HAD NO WMD to give up.
>>> You obviously didn't read about what Iraq was supposed to do, John... or
>>> if you did, you most certainly didn't comprehend what you read. So what
>>> changed your mind about Bush being a criminal?
>>>
>>
>> Iraq was supposed to allow weapons inspectors to keep looking for what
>> didn't exist.
>
> You bet!
>
> If Iraq does allow the weapons inspectors to look until the weapons
> inspectors are satisfied, then how can we be certain that Iraq doesn't
> have the weapons?
>
> Put it another way, if Country A and Country B are both being inspected
> and one has WMDs and the other doesn't, then how does one distinguish
> which one you should deal with based on their refusal to allow
> inspections to continue? If both refuse, then both look guilty, don't
> they?
>
At that time Bush and Cheney had ALREADY made up their minds to attack
Iraq even if the inspectors found nothing.
John
It has been conclusively established that Iraq HAD ZERO WMD after around
1991-92 Steve.
John
Alan Baker and Steve are just that stupid Snit!!
Alan Baker
wrote:
And now you're a mind-reader!
Snit
on 4/4/07 3:17 PM:
>>> If Iraq does allow the weapons inspectors to look until the weapons
>>> inspectors are satisfied, then how can we be certain that Iraq doesn't
>>> have the weapons?
>>>
>>> Put it another way, if Country A and Country B are both being inspected
>>> and one has WMDs and the other doesn't, then how does one distinguish
>>> which one you should deal with based on their refusal to allow
>>> inspections to continue? If both refuse, then both look guilty, don't
>>> they?
>>
>> Part of the reason that Iraq did not work with the inspectors is because the
>> inspectors were acting out of accordance to the agreements... something the
>> US later admitted to.
>>
>> We are still at the fact that the US decided that because Iraq went against
>> the UN... in part as a *response* to the US going against the UN (which the
>> US at the time denied)... that the US has the right to go against the UN and
>> overthrow Iraq.
>>
>> Are people really so stupid as to accept what Bush and crew claim is
>> "reasonable"?
>>
>>
>
> Alan Baker and Steve are just that stupid Snit!!
Steve uses similar logic in CSMA: he whines that I respond to his trolling
(and hence post things that are not on topic) and thus that is a reason for
him to troll me. Idiotic.
Snit
on 4/4/07 3:16 PM:
>>> Iraq was supposed to allow weapons inspectors to keep looking for what
>>> didn't exist.
>>
>> Iraq was supposed to show that they properly disposed of a bunch of
>> proscribed material. Iraq not only blocked weapons inspections, they
>> provided no reason to believe they were not moving proscribed material
>> out of the country (like they had done in the past with certain parts of
>> their military arsenal). As for WMD ever existing in Iraq, we know they
>> did because, at the behest of the U.N., Iraq included a 12,000 page
>> report listing it all. It's ridiculous to say they never had WMD, John.
>> The question is... where'd the stuff go? Had Saddam been more
>> forthcoming in doing what he was supposed to do, there'd have been no
>> invasion and he'd still be alive and kicking... murdering and robbing
>> the Iraqi citizens of their wealth with the help of our dishonest U.N.
>> partners.
>>
>
>
> It has been conclusively established that Iraq HAD ZERO WMD after around
> 1991-92 Steve.
Do not forget, John, that some people bought into Bush's lies to the
contrary, so when they supported him they are - according to some - just as
much at fault as Bush was for lying in the first place.
Sort of like when I accepted Steve's plea to not be seen as a bigot he still
points back to that error of mine even after he later proved he was just as
big of a bigot as I thought he was before his plea.
Snit
Do you disagree: do you think that Bush did not already know he wanted to
attack Iraq? Really?
Steve Carroll
John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
If that was truly the case (and only Iraqi leaders would know for sure)
it was mighty stupid of Saddam to not let inspectors in to verify it
then, huh?
"Bush is not a criminal. He is however an idiot. That is proved by his
choice of computer - Mac." - John
Want to talk about what changed your mind yet, John?
John
Go back and read some recent history. Woodward books, Newsweek etc.
Bush MADE UP HIS MIND to attack Iraq DURING HIS FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE.
John
My mind changed about Bush's criminality after the idiot had served a
few more months in office. And broken a couple of hundred more laws!
Steve Carroll
John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
It was approximately 9 more months.
> And broken a couple of hundred more laws!
Fine... but you do realize you made this statement 3/4 of a year *after*
Iraq was invaded, right? In other words, your idea that Bush is a
criminal cannot be based on the reasons Snit has stated in 'his'
argument... therefore, you necessarily disagree with Snit that Bush is a
criminal for having gone into Iraq.
John
So what? Snits contention that Bush is a crimninal is an accurate one.
John
And yes Bush IS a thug for going into Iraq!!
Snit
on 4/4/07 3:30 PM:
>>> It has been conclusively established that Iraq HAD ZERO WMD after around
>>> 1991-92 Steve.
>>
>> If that was truly the case (and only Iraqi leaders would know for sure)
>> it was mighty stupid of Saddam to not let inspectors in to verify it
>> then, huh?
Even if the US was using the inspectors for other activities such as
spying... which, incidentally, the US was.
>> "Bush is not a criminal. He is however an idiot. That is proved by his
>> choice of computer - Mac." - John
>>
>> Want to talk about what changed your mind yet, John?
>
> My mind changed about Bush's criminality after the idiot had served a
> few more months in office. And broken a couple of hundred more laws!
You mean you changed your mind as you learned more *and* as time went on and
you saw strong evidence of illegal activity. Wow... that is just horrid....
LOL!
Well, it is from the perspective of someone who does just as I described
Steve doing a few minutes ago:
Sort of like when I accepted Steve's plea to not be seen as
a bigot he still points back to that error of mine even
after he later proved he was just as big of a bigot as I
thought he was before his plea.
Does Steve purposely go out of his way to prove me right about him or can he
really not stop himself from repeating his same mistakes over and over.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Snit
on 4/4/07 3:51 PM:
>>> My mind changed about Bush's criminality after the idiot had served a
>>> few more months in office.
>>
>> It was approximately 9 more months.
>>
>>> And broken a couple of hundred more laws!
>>
>> Fine... but you do realize you made this statement 3/4 of a year *after*
>> Iraq was invaded, right? In other words, your idea that Bush is a
>> criminal cannot be based on the reasons Snit has stated in 'his'
>> argument... therefore, you necessarily disagree with Snit that Bush is a
>> criminal for having gone into Iraq.
>>
>
> So what? Snits contention that Bush is a crimninal is an accurate one.
From a recent post:
Do not forget, John, that some people bought into Bush's
lies to the contrary, so when they supported him they are -
according to some - just as much at fault as Bush was for
lying in the first place.
Steve really cannot help himself from showing how stupid he is. :)
Steve Carroll
John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
But you're not saying this for the reasons in Snit's Iraq argument.
Apparently, you see U.S. presence in Iraq (sanctioned by the U.N.) as
the reality that 'post 1441' U.N. resolutions prove it to be. This is a
reality Snit blindly ignores. It's noteworthy, to me, that even you, a
guy I believe to be totally anti-Bush, (I'm guessing here) believes that
Snit's argument is unconvincing to the point where you disagree with him
that Bush is a criminal because of it.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "John" <no...@nospam.com> stated in post 13189nm...@news.supernews.com
> on 4/4/07 3:30 PM:
>
> >>> It has been conclusively established that Iraq HAD ZERO WMD after around
> >>> 1991-92 Steve.
> >>
> >> If that was truly the case (and only Iraqi leaders would know for sure)
> >> it was mighty stupid of Saddam to not let inspectors in to verify it
> >> then, huh?
>
> Even if the US was using the inspectors for other activities such as
> spying... which, incidentally, the US was.
>
> >> "Bush is not a criminal. He is however an idiot. That is proved by his
> >> choice of computer - Mac." - John
> >>
> >> Want to talk about what changed your mind yet, John?
> >
> > My mind changed about Bush's criminality after the idiot had served a
> > few more months in office. And broken a couple of hundred more laws!
>
> You mean you changed your mind as you learned more *and* as time went on and
> you saw strong evidence of illegal activity. Wow... that is just horrid....
> LOL!
This also 'means' that he disagrees with your argument, a thing I find
amazing given how he seems to feel about Bush. I suppose that didn't
occur to you.
(snip crap trolling)
Steve Carroll
John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
You are now being inconsistent.
John
I may disagree with Snit on various points but his contention that Bushs
Iraq record is criminal is an accurate one.
Snit
BPydnfyb1KOQo4nb...@netlojix.com on 4/4/07 5:08 PM:
>>>> Fine... but you do realize you made this statement 3/4 of a year *after*
>>>> Iraq was invaded, right? In other words, your idea that Bush is a
>>>> criminal cannot be based on the reasons Snit has stated in 'his'
>>>> argument... therefore, you necessarily disagree with Snit that Bush is a
>>>> criminal for having gone into Iraq.
>>>>
>>> So what? Snits contention that Bush is a crimninal is an accurate one.
>>
>> But you're not saying this for the reasons in Snit's Iraq argument.
>> Apparently, you see U.S. presence in Iraq (sanctioned by the U.N.) as
>> the reality that 'post 1441' U.N. resolutions prove it to be. This is a
>> reality Snit blindly ignores. It's noteworthy, to me, that even you, a
>> guy I believe to be totally anti-Bush, (I'm guessing here) believes that
>> Snit's argument is unconvincing to the point where you disagree with him
>> that Bush is a criminal because of it.
>>
>
>
> I may disagree with Snit on various points but his contention that Bushs
> Iraq record is criminal is an accurate one.
Gee, now see if we can find where Steve and Tim Adams, for example, will say
they disagree with each other.
The fact that you and I do not agree 100% on everything is, in Steve's mind,
a weakness he will try to exploit. The reality is it is a strength... for
example, if I were to make an idiotic comment such as saying the tilde meant
"the hard drive only" it is very unlikely you would back me... nor should
you. You should stay true to what *you* believe.
This is something Steve and his co-trolls simply do not understand...
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Jesus
*snip*
> "Bush is not a criminal. He is however an idiot. That is proved by his
> choice of computer - Mac." - John
>
> Want to talk about what changed your mind yet, John?
Oh shit... are you serious? "John" is even posting from a Mac now.
Plus he doesn't know how to use Vista. The scent of fresh forging
just got a bit thicker...
Jesus
You have yet to prove you disagree on _anything_ recently, you shit-
for-brains lap dog.
John
"Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175733754....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
You're a technically incompetent clueless fuckup.
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ooh, wow, two big words! I'm really impressed, John!
Oh, and thank you. ;-)
Snit
1175733754....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/4/07 5:42 PM:
>>>> So what? Snits contention that Bush is a crimninal is an accurate one.
>>
>>> But you're not saying this for the reasons in Snit's Iraq argument.
>>> Apparently, you see U.S. presence in Iraq (sanctioned by the U.N.) as
>>> the reality that 'post 1441' U.N. resolutions prove it to be. This is a
>>> reality Snit blindly ignores. It's noteworthy, to me, that even you, a
>>> guy I believe to be totally anti-Bush, (I'm guessing here) believes that
>>> Snit's argument is unconvincing to the point where you disagree with him
>>> that Bush is a criminal because of it.
>>
>> I may disagree with Snit on various points but his contention that Bushs
>> Iraq record is criminal is an accurate one.
>
> You have yet to prove you disagree on _anything_ recently, you shit-
> for-brains lap dog.
So when Steve says otherwise is he merely mistaken or outright lying?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Jesus" <rustybu...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1175733754....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/4/07 5:42 PM:
>
> >>>> So what? Snits contention that Bush is a crimninal is an accurate one.
> >>
> >>> But you're not saying this for the reasons in Snit's Iraq argument.
> >>> Apparently, you see U.S. presence in Iraq (sanctioned by the U.N.) as
> >>> the reality that 'post 1441' U.N. resolutions prove it to be. This is a
> >>> reality Snit blindly ignores. It's noteworthy, to me, that even you, a
> >>> guy I believe to be totally anti-Bush, (I'm guessing here) believes that
> >>> Snit's argument is unconvincing to the point where you disagree with him
> >>> that Bush is a criminal because of it.
> >>
> >> I may disagree with Snit on various points but his contention that Bushs
> >> Iraq record is criminal is an accurate one.
> >
> > You have yet to prove you disagree on _anything_ recently, you shit-
> > for-brains lap dog.
>
> So when Steve says otherwise is he merely mistaken or outright lying?
Your misrepresentation and/or delusional belief of what you think I said
or didn't say doesn't matter... what matters is what John has said...
and I've shown his inconsistency via google. Funny how "actual" reality
works, huh?
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1175733754.226772.13...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/4/07 5:42 PM:
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I meant John (the current one who
hates Windows, loves MacOS and is clueless about PCs) doesn't disagree
with you about stuff. When has Steve said otherwise?
Snit
> On Apr 4, 11:58 pm, Snit <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
>> 1175733754.226772.13...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com on 4/4/07 5:42 PM:
>>
>>>>>> So what? Snits contention that Bush is a crimninal is an accurate one.
>>
>>>>> But you're not saying this for the reasons in Snit's Iraq argument.
>>>>> Apparently, you see U.S. presence in Iraq (sanctioned by the U.N.) as
>>>>> the reality that 'post 1441' U.N. resolutions prove it to be. This is a
>>>>> reality Snit blindly ignores. It's noteworthy, to me, that even you, a
>>>>> guy I believe to be totally anti-Bush, (I'm guessing here) believes that
>>>>> Snit's argument is unconvincing to the point where you disagree with him
>>>>> that Bush is a criminal because of it.
>>
>>>> I may disagree with Snit on various points but his contention that Bushs
>>>> Iraq record is criminal is an accurate one.
>>
>>> You have yet to prove you disagree on _anything_ recently, you shit-
>>> for-brains lap dog.
>>
>> So when Steve says otherwise is he merely mistaken or outright lying?
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I meant John (the current one who
> hates Windows, loves MacOS and is clueless about PCs) doesn't disagree
> with you about stuff. When has Steve said otherwise?
Steve has recently been talking about how John and I disagree about my
arguments against Bush.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
John
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message
news:C23A6B62.7C945%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
The difference between Steve and me is that I am not going to troll you
because we disagree.
Jesus
> "Snit" <S...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message
>
> news:C23A6B62.7C945%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
>
>
>
> > "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> > 1175786807.855336.127...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com on 4/5/07 8:26 AM:
Sure you won't.
Snit
>>>> So when Steve says otherwise is he merely mistaken or outright lying?
>>>
>>> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I meant John (the current one who
>>> hates Windows, loves MacOS and is clueless about PCs) doesn't disagree
>>> with you about stuff. When has Steve said otherwise?
>>
>> Steve has recently been talking about how John and I disagree about my
>> arguments against Bush.
>>
>>
>
> The difference between Steve and me is that I am not going to troll you
> because we disagree.
Another difference is that even though you and I do agree on many things
and, from Steve's perspective, it may look like we "team up" against him, we
*also* are willing to disagree with each other. When was the last time
Steve had any real disagreement with, say, Adams or Wally? Very, very
rarely... if ever. They support each other even when they know what one of
them says is beyond stupid.
Snit
>>>> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I meant John (the current one who
>>>> hates Windows, loves MacOS and is clueless about PCs) doesn't disagree
>>>> with you about stuff. When has Steve said otherwise?
>>
>>> Steve has recently been talking about how John and I disagree about my
>>> arguments against Bush.
>>
>> The difference between Steve and me is that I am not going to troll you
>> because we disagree.
>
> Sure you won't.
>
I so not know the details of your disagreement with John... but note how
John has not jumped up and down and tried to suck me into his disagreement
with you... nor has he trolled me for the places where we disagree. You,
too, have been generally fair and reasonable in your discussions with me,
though we have had some areas of disagreement (which is fine).
Walter Bushell
John <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Steve is a dumbass if he actually believes Bush is an honest guy!
I wacky-parsed that as "honest gay". Then I thought perhaps Peerless
Decider might be gay, but not admitting it to himself. That would
explain a lot about him.