Stuff from Snit's site about me...
Steve Carroll
Hmmm... it just may meet the criteria of "annoying" under the new law.
Here is the URL (as of today)
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/troll/
Snit writes:
In comp.sys.mac.advocacy (csma) there is a particular troll who I enjoy
messing with.
I call him my "Spin N' Speak". You see, I love to yank his chain,
usually by quoting his own words back at him, and then watch him spin
and spin and spin and speak. Generally he says nothing more important
than "moo" or whatever other animal noises a real Spin N' Speak might
say.
I plan on chronicling some of Spin N' Speak's lovely comments so they
can be made available for the amusement of all. Since I am sure Spin N'
Speak does what he does simply for the attention, I cannot see where he
would mind my helping his cause. Then again, he has worked against his
self interests before, so you can never know what he will or will not
like. Such is the case with Usenet trolls.
I will split the page into different sections, mostly based on actual
quotes from the Spin N' Speak, and then my commentary.
Spin N' Speak's quotes are in yellow
Other's quotes are in blue.
Click here to find out where
Spin N' Speak stops!
Updated:
02-Sep-2005
Spin N' Speak' s character (or lack thereof)
Spin N' Speak' s Bigotry
Concepts Spin N' Speak has confused or lumped together
What others say about Spin N' Speak
Spin N' Speak's Flip-Flops
Questions Spin N' Speak can not answer
Ways to Handle Spin N' Speak
Character (or lack thereof)
While others will be quoted later with their views of Spin N' Speak, I
base his character off of his own words about himself. While rare, he
does have moments where he admits to who and what he is.
Spin N' Speak admits that his word means nothing:
Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna give a shit about breaking
my word to a deviant like yourself... [link]
He has since argued that this only applies to people he sees as being
"deviants", but since he can make this determination in any way that he
likes, it is clear he can use circular logic here and say that anyone he
lies to is a deviant. I guess that means everyone is a deviant in his
world, since he lies so often.
He also realizes that he is a moron:
Only a moron would waste ANY time in a NG like this [csma]. [link]
So we now know that he admits to being a lying moron.
What else has he said about his own character?
I'm not denying I'm an asshole. What of it? [link]
Here he seemed to accept that he is, in deed, an asshole. Ok. Fits what
we know of him; anyone who is a lying moronic troll in a Usenet group
can pretty easily be classified as an "asshole".
I'm not a complete asshole. [link]
Here he seems to be denying it. Sigh.. OK.. well, we already knew that
his word meant nothing. Maybe he thinks he is half an asshole?
Then again, maybe he is a moron *and* an asshole, as he claims here
everyone that regularly posts here is a moron and an asshole in some
respect, myself included. That's why we come here, to seek our own kind.
[link]
thank you anonymous contributor for pointing to this quote
Then there is this snippet of a conversation:
For example, I once assumed [Spin N' Speak was] sincere and honest. Time
has shown me to be wrong [about that assumption].
All too true...[link]
Later Spin N' Speak claimed my wording was not fair. Why I bothered to
listen to someone who clearly states and shows they lie to me is perhaps
a weakness, but I did allow his own re-wording
For example, I once assumed [Spin N' Speak was] sincere and honest but
time has shown me to be wrong.
All too true... [link]
Spin N' Speak even knows what it is that prevents him from winning
arguments in csma
Refute what? That Bush IS legally guilty of breaking the laws that Snit
claims? Sorry... reality prevents me from doing so. [link]
LOL. Funny that even he realized that it was reality that prevented him
from winning this debate I had with him. I suppose he has not fully
admitted reality is what stops him from winning other debates, but it is
hard to argue against that idea. After all, someone who admits to lying
is not following reality (by definition).
Some more fun Spin N' Speak quotes that help to show his character
I TRIED to lie again but that guy is just too smart for me... [link]
Perhaps the strangest of all, however, is the following quote where Spin
N' Speak complains that he is being beaten up by himself. Even stranger,
he tries to place this concept on someone else. Is he really that
delusional, or just being the self proclaimed asshole he has stated he
is?
Steve is kicking the shit outta me again and I can't take it. Wah.....
[link]
The following quotes are all from Spin N' Speak... they help to make the
point:
I'm not sure I even know how to be honest but I have not been following
that particular truth against me... I am testing the idea that if I
ignore those who -can- recognize the truth, my lies will all go away...
[link]
But Sandman, you obviously don't understand how it works. See, you can
say anything you want in here because it's not reality. You can say
things even if they contradict what you've said in the past and that
contradicts what you've said prior to that... ad infinitum. [link]
Knowing Spin N' Speak the way I do, I can guess that he will claim that
some of these quotes were in an effort to mock me or something of that
nature - which leads to two conclusions: one, if that is the case, he
is, well, openly mocking people. Two, no matter who he wants to place
these ideas on, they are his ideas; they represent how he thinks...
there really is no way around that.
Conclusion: Spin N' Speak is a lying moronic asshole who is neither
sincere nor honest, and knows that reality prevents him from winning
some, if not all, arguments.
[top]
Spin N' Speak's Bigotry
Bad character can be explained away by just messing around on Usenet.
Spin N' Speak does more than that, even for Usenet, he takes offensive
comments to an extreme that is simply not acceptable. He has shown
bigotry against gays, against people with health problems, and has lied
about people sexually harassing others, a charge that is not strictly
"bigoted", but to make such a claim is equally dangerous and offensive.
Here are some quotes where Spin N' Speak claims that homosexuals must be
parasitic on heterosexual couples if they wish to raise children.
I'm sorry... but this is a fact. They cannot reproduce at all and they
cannot rear without being parasitic on a heterosexual couple. Don't
blame me, blame nature. [link]
For the state, this issue isn't about equality at all and for a special
interest group to come at it this way is illogical. The special interest
group of heterosexual marriages has shown a genuine societal benefit
justifying their entitlement *from the state's viewpoint*. A homosexual
marriage has no way of producing this benefit without being parasitic
[link]
It was pointed out to Spin N' Speak several times by multiple people
that it is not a parasitic relationship, but more of a symbiotic one
Can you define the way you are using the word "parasitic". It is
generally used with negative connotations. In your partial definition,
above, you seem to be using the term metaphorically and connected to the
more strict scientific / biological term which does not have to have a
negative connotation. Even then, parasites often harm the "host" and do
not, by definition, help the host. In this case the "parasite" (the gay
couple) may be helping society do some very important jobs including
raise children, build societal stability, etc. A better metaphor might
be a symbiotic relationship, where a relationship between two organisms
(or groups) benefits both parties. That seems to fit the situation
better, but I would be curious to know how you are using your terms.
[link]
I started out giving you the benefit of the doubt. Seems I was wrong to
do so. I see you once again snipped the explanation why your term
"parasite" is not only inaccurate, but easily seen as offensive.
Homosexuals are in no way parasites on society - not biologically, not
metaphorically, not by analogy. If anything, they are more in a
(metaphorical) symbiotic relationship with heterosexuals, at least as it
pertains to their raising of children (who could be seen as parasites in
an analogy, really). [link]
IMO homosexual couples can be a benefit to society because they are much
better equipped to raise orphaned children (or children removed from
abusive parents) than any institution I've ever heard of. That's not
parasitic - it's symbiotic. [link]
Later, Spin N' Speak tries to claim he is not bigoted, almost begging to
not be seen as a bigot. Notice that he never states that he would take
back his use of the word "parasite", a word clearly used in an offensive
and bigoted way. To the contrary, he continues the usage of the word.
I wanted to address this in its own posts so you would understand why
*I* consider the donor/adoption relationship between ANY two couples to
be of a parasitic nature.
...
In any event, I meant no offense by the use of the term and I really
don't give a shit if you believe that or not.
SpeaK N' Spin found out that I have an bad heart valve and other health
problems that lead to anxiety attacks and other symptoms. Not hard to
find out, I have a web site that openly talks about my challenges.
[link]
Spin N' Speak reacts by claiming to have some sort of inside knowledge
about my health problems that the doctors who have worked with me do not
have
I don't care how ill his mental health is, that's not an excuse for me
at this point... [link]
At least he realizes someone else is not an excuse for him. :)
Where you are pretending you don't have any mental health problems.
[link]
I'm sorry for your mental health problems but it's pretty obvious you
should have your dosage re-adjusted or check into a new medication or
something [link]
Either way, probably due to his severe anxiety disorders and the mental
anguish likely surrounding them, it's obvious he has pent up
frustrations he's taking out on certain posters. [link]
As far as Spin N' Speak's allegations against others (me) about sexual
harassment, he makes the claim repeatedly, but never shows any support.
Here is a link to a Google search that shows his claims. Note the
complete lack of support - there can be not support for what does not
exist. Truly a cowardly, despicable thing to do. [link]
Lastly, Spin N' Speak even entiteled a thread "I should be ashamed of my
own bigotry". He tried to attribute the claim to someone else, but there
is no evidence of that.
I SHOULD be ashamed of my own bigotry [link]
And in another rare moment of honesty, Spin N' Speak admitted
I expect you to believe this because I think I am intellectually
superior to you (as I do everyone) and pulling this wool over your eyes
shouldn't be different than any other. I've spewed SO much bullshit that
I do not even know what quote is being referenced, but if you want to
bring it to my attention I will happily retract something if I did make
such an error.
Conclusion: Spin N' Speak is a more than a general troll. He will stop
at nothing, even open bigotry (against gays and people with health
problems) and extremely offensive allegations against others, just to
win a point or attack someone on Usenet.
[top]
Concepts Spin N' Speak has confused or lumped together
As have talked to Spin N' Speak, he has often tried to play semantic
games; games where he tries to use different meanings for the same words
or just define them in disingenuous ways. I started documenting the the
words he did this with, and have compiled quite a list. Granted, many of
the concepts overlap in the following pairs. Still, want to see him
squirm? Simply ask him to differentiate any set of words in these pairs.
He will *never* do so, even though, for most of the sets, the answer is
obvious to anyone not playing absurd semantic games.
an argument AND a statement [link]
After a long debate about an argument, Spin N' Speak points to the
statement that lead to the argument and claims it is the argument
an argument AND a proof [link]
Spin N' Speak claims an argument that supports the assertion that Bush
broke laws should be treated as a mathematical proof
what an argument is AND what an argument is about [link]
Spin N' Speak is again unable to figure out what argument he is even
arguing about
a judgment AND a adjudication [link]
Spin N' Speak shows belief that all arguments that deal with the law are
about adjudication of the law, and should be treated as court cases
a defendant AND a defender [link]
Spin N' Speak refers to a Bush as a "defendant" even though there is no
court case involving Bush, real or theoretical
proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable
doubt (as in a trial) [link]
Spin N' Speak does not understand that the word "proof" can have more
than one meaning and more than one standard dependant on usage
an argument AND evidence supporting an argument [link]
Spin N' Speak again shows that he does not know what argument he is even
attempting to refute
a legal system AND a judicial system[link]
Spin N' Speak keeps confusing the idea of the law with the way it is
adjudicated
an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an
argument that can only be categorized as a legal argument [link]
Spin N' Speak shows his belief that if an argument is a legal argument
then it can not be seen any other way, such as an argument being based
on reason
defense of an argument AND an argument [link]
Spin N' Speak shows he believes he has committed some sort of trick to
hurt the defense of my argument, and therefore feels he has refuted it.
Two problems: ONE - even if he had pulled off some trick, that would not
refute the argument, only hurt my support, and TWO - his trick was based
on *him* not understanding the meaning of the word "proof" in context
evidence someone broke a law AND a trial [link]
Spin N' Speak shows his belief that a Usenet debate about someone
breaking the law is some sort of trial
Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond) [link] [link] [link]
Spin N' Speak either implies or states that I am multiple people, both
Josh and Sigmond. The funniest part is there is some support for the
idea that Steve may also post as Sigmond [link]
an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
[link]
Spin N' Speak shows that he does not understand how someone can be
guilty of breaking a law but not have been convicted or even changed.
a lack of proof AND a disproof [link]
Spin N' Speak makes this mistake a lot. It might be tied to his not
understanding the different meanings of the word "proof" in different
contexts.
evidence AND proof [link]
Spin N' Speak again shows that he has no understanding of what the word
"proof" means, this time in relationship to "evidence"
an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a
judicial system [link]
Spin N' Speak shows that he can not differentiate the idea of an
argument being based on laws and one being based on a legal system
guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law [link]
Spin N' Speak does not understand how someone can be guilty of breaking
the law but not have been found so in a court of law
order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an
argument [link]
Spin N' Speak does not understand the idea of an argument supporting a
previously made statement. This is really one of his biggest logical
mistakes
Conclusion: Spin N' Speak has a very poor understanding of the English
language. Words like "proof", "evidence", "argument", "guilt", and
"defense" confuse him. He also cannot differentiate simple concepts that
the average person would have no trouble understanding.
[top]
Spin N' Speak's Flip Flops
How consistent are Spin N' Speak's words in different posts?
About Snit's sites on Spin N' Speak
Clearly he does not like it:
If you can ignore someone who goes about posting lies and bullshit about
you, and putting the same crap on a website, you are a better man than
I. [link]
Since I have been ignoring him in csma, I suppose that means he
acknowledges I am a better man than he is!
Take a look at his site (which I have previously mentioned to you). It's
got a bunch of out of context bullshit in an attempt to publicly
ridicule or defame me. He suggested to posters they should go there with
THAT as his stated goal. [link]
Face it... this MR_ED_of_Course guy doesn't give a shit about Snit's
actions. He doesn't have a website with his name associated with a bunch
of lies and bullshit like I do [link]
Or does he?
The real comedy is that he thinks he is yanking MY chain. It doesn't
occur to him who is doing the real yanking here:) He's just not bright
enough to understand when he's been played. Recently I complained to
some guy named Mr Ed that I found Snit's other webpage offensive. I had
a pretty good idea of the result I'd get for my effort because ol' Snit
has produced like this before... but seriously... this time he did it in
spades. I NEVER expected my own site. LOL!! [link]
How is the breaking of the law to be determined
By logic and rationality:
See, rational people realize that perjury can be committed regardless of
whether one is charged or convicted of it. [link]
Note that the original seems to have been pulled from Google. I wonder
why...
Only by a court of law:
The breaking of a law is to be decided in a legal fashion [link]
YOUR argument was a Legal argument. In this country(the U.S.) those are
to be decided in a courtroom. [link]
To call Bush a war criminal based on the breaking of such laws will have
to wait until he is legally convicted. [link]
Was Spin N' Speak defending Bush?
Yes:
My argument is based on the most basic rule of law you laid out when you
called your argument a LEGAL argument... the presumption of innocence
until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You CREATED reasonable
doubt when you stated your own evidence didn't prove ANYTHING. IOW, you
admitted you offered NO PROOF. In any juror's mind... [link]
Additional Note: What jurors, Spin N' Speak? There are no jurers in
Usenet!
The Bush defense is based on presumption of innonence until proven
guilty. [link]
Also, he asked for refutations to his 'argument'(and I use that word
loosely)... I'm just obliging him :) [link]
Because it was the reason I even entered the thread, I'm not going to
discuss anything else with you until you publicly admit that your
original 'legal context' argument has been refuted. [link]
Additional Note: Spin N' Speak has not held to his word on this either.
He still discusses many things with me.
No:
I wasn't determined to defend Bush at all. It only seemed that way to
you. [link]
I don't recall anyone defending Bush [link]
Is Spin N' Speak's argument based on lack of 100% proof
Yes:
IOW, if there is anything to argue over, it is the evidence(the PROOF).
This is what you asked us to refute, the evidence(the PROOF)."the
concept known as 'evidence' DIRECTLY EQUATES TO PROOF from the viewpoint
that the evidence he is presenting is PROOF of his argument. For all
intents and purposes, from such a person's viewpoint, it is his
contention that his presented evidence EQUALS PROOF with respect to
PROVING his argument. [link]
What good is evidence if not offered as proof of your argument? [link]
If your evidence doesn't prove your argument, that only leaves one other
condition. Your evidence did NOT prove your argument. Your evidence
either proves your argument or it doesn't. [link]
No:
Some people think the word evidence is synonymous with the word proof,
this isn't necessarily so. [link]
Spin N' Speak has even taken to thinking that any reference to proof (or
the lack thereof) must be a reference to him, as shown in this post
[link].
Are evidence and proof the same?
Yes:
Seems you are arguing that since I agreed there is not 100% proof for my
claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then that in itself
constitutes a valid refutation? Is that what you have been trying to
say? If not, where and how is my characterization wrong?
Seems I am arguing? I HAVE BEEN arguing this... for about a month now.
[link]
No:
your argument can be fairly worded as: since I agreed there is not 100%
proof for my claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then
that in itself constitutes a valid refutation
Of course I don't agree, that's just another strawman Reality shows you
didn't merely agree there is not 100% proof. [link]
How does Spin N' Speak handle people he consideres trolls (in this case,
all quotes are about me)
By ignoring them:
This is hilarious to say the least. I actually kill-filed him because he
is extremely disingenuous and a flat out liar. So, if it appears I am
not responding to him, it's correct.
That's basically why I kill-filed him. I don't like doing that as a rule
because it bothers me... he was the exception:)
LOL! I kf'd all the Snit entities so I would never have seen this if you
didn't post this damn funny response.
By facing them head on and attacking them
If people don't police it to some extent themselves, it stays the
shithole that it is. [link]
If you can ignore someone who goes about posting lies and bullshit about
you, and putting the same crap on a website, you are a better man than I.
You are accusing me of your stock in trade? LOL! Don't worry, though, I
promise I won't ignore you:)
Conclusion: Don't like what Spin N' Speak has said? No big deal, just
wait a bit and it will often change. He lacks consistency in his
thoughts and in his words.
[top]
Questions Spin N' Speak can not answer
Other sections overlap with this one, but these questions really make
Spin N' Speak squirm!
These two links support the asking of the following questions [link]
[link]
How can someone be guilty of breaking a law, but not in a legal
way?
Why did you act against your own best interests?
Why did you lie about your free flights?
Why did you lie about not trusting Snit?
Why did you want to meet Snit. The only reason ever stated was for
Snit to tell you 2+2=4.
? He did try to answer this, first by saying he wanted to meet with
me to exacerbate my health problems (though he shows a horrid
misunderstanding of what anxiety disorders are)
Take my word for it, you were smart to back out... I'd have you into a
full blown anxiety attack without laying a finger on you:)
? And later by claiming
If you'd like the opportunity to tell me I'm full of shit to my face I
can provide it for you. To be clear, I'm not threatening you, just
giving you an opportunity to display some of the class and integrity you
seem to feel you have that I don't.
Please note that in this quote he claims there is no threat, while in
the other he states exactly what threat he is making. For that matter,
all he has done is offer to let me tell him that I think he is full of
shit. Ok, Spin N' Speak, you are full of shit AND 2+2=4. Why you would
want me to tell you that in person is anyone's guess. Both facts are
quite clear.
Spin N' Speak has claimed that he has fully answered these questions,
when asked to point to a link to them, though, all he could point to was
google.com. [link]
What is due process and how does it apply to someone having an
opinion, even a well research opinion?
There are also these questions from another post [link]
Do you believe my lack of Proof is equal to (or necessarily leads
to) your doubt?
Do you believe your doubt is equal to a refutation?
Do you believe my lack of proof is *not* equal to (or does not
necessarily lead to) a refutation?
Spin N' Speak did not even try to claim he could answer these posts...
instead he claimed he simply would not talk to me.
Conclusion: Spin N' Speak has himself so twisted up in his own lies that
he can not answer simple questions based on his own words. He claims
that he has done so, but when asked, he points to links that do not
support his claim.
[top]
Ways to Handle Spin N' Speak
For now, I am Spin N' Speak's main target of his venom. This will
eventually change. I wanted to list some ideas on how to handle him if
and when he decides to target you.
Be prepared to handle attacks from Elizabot and, perhaps, a few
others. Spin N' Speak uses Elizabot often to do his research when he is
looking for material. Like most bullies, he tries to form "gangs" when
he is being shown to be wrong - which is most of the time.
Watch for Spin N' Speak to ask to meet you in person and in
private. He seems almost obsessed with the idea of meeting people - men
only it seems - that he has "met" on Usenet. He backs down from any such
agreed apon meeting if it is going to be in a public place.
While not particularly PC, ask him what he does for a living. He
tries to avoid the topic, but it has come out that he is a stay at home
dad. Let me be very clear on this - this is an admirable thing to do,
and for a man to be willing to do that despite societal pressures
against doing so is excellent. For Spin N' Speak, however, it is an area
of shame. He tries to deny that he is doing something outside of the
norm, and goes into a frenzy of attacks against people for being bigoted
when this is brought up.
Spin N' Speak may use other names on Usenet, and then try to blame
others for posting. There is reason to believe he posts as "Sigmond"
when he wants to attack himself in bizarre ways - he then blames
Sigmond's words on others.
Of course, perhaps the best way to handle ol' Spin N' Speak is the
same way you handle all trolls - ignore them. Eventually he will grow
bored and seek another target. Even he tells people the best way of
dealing with him is to simply killfile him. He clearly knows how
offensive he can be.
Killfile me... solves your problem:) [link]
If this bothers you there is a simple solution... killfile me. [link]
So just killfile me and no one else. It'll cut down on the noise factor
to a great extent according to everyone here, right? Makes sense to
me... [link]
I agree, I suggest you now killfile me [link]
I suggested he solve the problem and killfile me. [link]
Spin N' Speak is easy to set off. While it is sometimes fun, be prepared
to deal with his obsession need of his to get revenge at those who are
not willing to be his victim. Amazingly enough, when his victoms stand
up against him, he claims that they are taking the "victim role",
showing a complete misunderstanding of the term!
Conclusion: If you want to have some fun with a troll, Spin N' Speak is
easy to get going. Just be prepared for his obsessive and self
destructive reaction. He does not care how much he must humiliate
himself in order to make any attack in csma.
[top]
Note: the links that are shown throughout this page have been found
fairly quickly. There may be some errors, and I am sure some of the
links do not show the BEST example, just AN example of the point. I am
sure there will be changes and additions to help make this page more
informative.
--
"The question is not about my behavior: the question is about your
admission about not being able to carry on a reasoned conversation."
Steve Carroll
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
And let's not forget part two, as of today, still located at:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/troll/quotes_about.html
Snit writes:
What others say about Steve Carroll
None of these quotes are from me, Snit.
Steve has a "friend" who posts under the name "CSMA Moderator" - a
"friend" only Steve seems to care about and a "friend" Steve, ahem,
accidentally let post under his name. (Wink wink - let us pretend, as
Steve does, that this is merely one of his "friends"). Steve's "friend"
likes to pretend that a list of derogatory quotes about someone is proof
- as Steve has repeatedly explained. Steve, however, does not place the
same weight on these quotes about him. What a hypocrite Steve is. As is
his *cough* *cough* "friend".
In a way I feel sorry for you, because even when things are spelled out
so clearly you still manage to miss the point entirely. You either have
some kind of severe mental illness or you are involved in some sort of
juvenile internet psych experiment, aren't you? You've got to be because
nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is this stupid. :)
(Hint: This is the part where you run away while declaring victory.)
While I do not consider anyone on usenet to be a "pal," I would welcome
the end of hostilities between us provided that you can stop lying and
using so many sockpuppets. Otherwise, I will hold open the option to
respond.
Poor Steve -- do you still not realize that your posts serve only as
entertainment to the rest of the group?
There it is again. No rational discussion, just name calling.
Snipping and running already? Not very entertaining, but very
predictable coming from you.
But then again, a lot of things seem to be different in your world,
Steve. 8)
Don't you ever tire of lying?
Ah the ever so predictable Steve. You need help Steve. To let strangers
on a computer advocacy newsgroup consume you as much as it has is not
healthy.
The problem is that your version of reality seems to be lacking in
certain key qualities such as honesty, integrity, and facts.
Nice of you to finally admit that you are here only to troll. This is
an extremely rare moment of honesty for you.
What's childish is how you behave. You're not acting like a child
because you disagree with what I have to say. You're acting like a
child because you cannot respond in a rational way because you disagree
with what I have to say. Calling people lairs, altering what they've
written, and being pedantic over the words written instead of the
meaning are what makes your behavior childish.
The joke's on you, Steve. I'e never once used sockpuppetry. But do keep
up the paranoid rants. That's where the comedy actually lives. 8)
What is your obsession with me Steve? It seems that I can't make a post
without you stalking me with a follow up. It's unhealthy and I think
that you should seek help about it.
LOL! Is this the best you can do? A trailer joke? Comeon Steve! That's
old and boring. Don't you have any new material? Reach down deep into
that giant bag of immaturity that you tote everywhere with you and see
if you can pull up something new!
Still, it is very revealing that you do not consider teaching to be a
"real" job. Your cavalier attitude towards education may explain some
of your posts.
I thought it was funny because he was implying your children must also
be retarded..... Get it now. It's hysterical... unless it's true. Could
this
be why you are being overly sensitive? You menopausing?
Actually the behavior that you've spent thi post accusing me of is the
Steve Carroll MO. The funny thing is that its not hard at all to wind
you up and watch you teeter into the wall where you remain, banging
away at it until your winder feels like not winding you anymore. You
usually declare this to be 'victory' much to your winder's amusement.
The best part is that even though the situation has been explained to
you, you'll still go on,slamming into the wall, until I decide to stop
twisting your key around.
'Attacking'? LOL! You are a thin-skinned one, aren't you? I gave you a
little twit at the beginning of this thread and you've come roaring
after me.
LOL! Everybody's out of step but you again, eh? 8)
Carroll. you're a sick little puppy. Are you sure you're fit to take
care of those kids? I doubt it! Time to get over your obsession with
Snit.
See Steve. Steve Snit Smash Steve. See Steve Run.
Stop lying. Your hatred drips from your every word. You hate him. You
despise him. You have already stated you do not care how much you trash
your reputation to get revenge on him.
Still lying, Steve?
You're the kind of guy who will argue that someone didn't make a turn
because they didn't use their turn signal. The turn is obvious to
everyone but you because you're too pedantic in your requirement about
how things are communicated to you. I fully expect that you'll miss what
I'm saying here too as I probably didn't word it correctly for you.
Since you've already confessed that your version of reality has nothing
to do with most other people's version I'm proud to announce that, yes
I do ignore your self-contained version of reality.
Why do you need to hide behind a sock puppet to post that stuff?
And if that were really the case then you wouldn't have felt the need to
remove the part that demonstrated that what you consider to be reality
in fact isn't reality.
Excuse me if I'm not concerned about the opinion of someone who prefers
to sacrifice their integrity (you) for a computing platform.
Grow up Steve. Selective quoting does not help your case.
Why do you feel the need to make something out of nothing? You've
developed some serious hatred for me. Why is that? You really need to
let it go. Try to step away from your obsession with me. It's not
healthy.
Why are you obsessing about our genitalia in the first place?
Steve has been irrational for many years. Damn, what the hell is wrong
with this guy?
And now everyone in usenet is Snit's sock puppet. Just ask Steve.
Seems you're willing to dish it out but not receive. Not surprising.
In other words as I have stated repeatedly: You're not interested in
carrying on a mature discussion. You're only interested in immature,
childish behavior. You must be so proud of yourself Steve.
Its scary how easily predictable you are.
Then wouldn't it just be better for you to leave us alone? Seriously I
am puzzled by your obsession with the two of us. This is a computer
advocacy newsgroup but you act as if we've killed your first born.
Your pride in your ability to post as others has you so proud. Goodie.
My credibility is just fine with any reasonable person. Which leaves you
out. All you're capable of is childish insults. Which is why I rarely
respond to you. You can't rationally debate with a child.
Get a new line Steve. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar
doesn't make it so. It's a computing platform for christ sake.
What a surprise. Once again Steve responds with the boiler plate
dishonesty claim.
Steve has nymshifted to evil john, sigmond, CSMA_Moderator, yobo_obyo,
cig-man, fretwizz, plus many, many, more.
To play one of your Carrolesque games: Can you provide support that he
did not do this?
You mean your version of reality. You know the dishonest, put words in
other people's mouths and vehemently insist that they said them Steve
Carroll version which led you to make similar types of accusation about
me over the summer and which ultimately led to this apology of yours:
"I'll now apologize to you and say that you didn't specifically make a
claim that there was only one reason, as I said you did. However, in my
opinion, you did unquestionably imply this."
You'd have made a good Soviet psychatrist, Steve.
This is exactly the childish behavior I mention. Not sure why you'd
rather act like a child than carry on a mature discussion. But if
you're only interested in name calling, belittling responses I don't
want any part of it. I have better things to do than listen to a brat
call me names.
Where do you find the time to post so much inane drivel? Do you even
have a job or anything?
LOL! You inject the word 'is' into the conversation and then declare me
confused because....? Well that's not really clear. But it is the
same old Steve tricks that we've all come to know and love. 8)
I won't be wasting any more of my time responding to you on this issue
since you're choosing to ignore the provided proof.
There you go again crying wolf.
And who exactly believes you, Carroll? Aside from the occasional word
of encouragement from the Cretin Crew, who do you see agreeing with
your delusions? (Please note that CSMA_Moderator and other imaginary
people do not count.)
LOL! So its your contention that in order to conceal my identity I
changed email addresses but used the same handle? That sounds like a
Steve thing to me.
I'm wise to your antics Steve. That's why I stop having "discussions"
with you. I can only attempt to hold a rational discussion with you for
so long before I realize that you're not interested in one.
And this is why I spit on carroll.
That's the thing. You guys call everyone a liar, so it's not a
credibility problem. You guys said it worked on your browsers. Now there
are screen shots from THREE different people SHOWING YOU LIED.
HELLO!?!?!?!
Typical behavior of yours. Make statements without knowing or
understanding what you're opponent is saying. I'm surprised that you
haven't yet started to attack him based on your classlessness. Oh wait:
"Gee, funny how it's always the guys that spew the most bullshit that
are found whining about their credibility problems."
All I've seen from you is stupid, childish things like what you just
did.
And what facts would those be, carroll?
You told a teacher he didn't have a real job. How else could your
comment possibly be interpreted?
So learn to live with the reality.
Steve Carroll was already busted red handed lying. Now he's playing the
"I didn't know" card.
Why are you obsessed with Snit and why do you foul COLA with your
obsession?
steve, you're being retarded. i've always stated that sometimes laws
are made w/out moral considerations. that was a basis of my argument all
along to those claimed the two are always related and inseparable. i'm
not sure why you think i've conceded something, or why it's some sort of
point to be made, but if you can't follow along better than that, don't
bother responding.
Is this your idea of what constitutes a mature discussion?
Shut up moron
oh yah, and please go back and respond to the rest of the post you
snipped (you know, the part about marriage, where you asked questions,
and insinuated i wouldn't respond, but then snipped and didn't respond
to). and please, for future reference, when you snip something,
indicate it somehow so responders can tell that you're leaving out part
of the quote and they can refer to it for further context, etc.
you're extrapolating way too much, and the logic doesn't even begin to
follow.
steve, you're a retard. i "won't answer" because i've EXPLICITLY stated
my position MULTIPLE TIMES. going round and round with a retard is no
fun. and i've already told you this, and i won't again (see the retard
comment).
no, steve, you're really being retarded.
The reality is that some people, such as yourself, behave like children
and respond with childish posts. I refuse to deal with such immature
behavior and snip it away. You may think that arguing a childish
response of "I know you are but what am I" is constructive. But I don't.
*sigh*. i'm not arguing something different, i'm addressing a different
point.
Quite simply: I'm guessing your kids have picked up on your patterns of
how you deal with conflict here: your failure to face the issues. The
strong likelihood that you attempted to deceive the other participants
in the newsgroup by posting with a sock-puppet.
The ad hominem. The last refuge of the vanquished.
Actually, Steve, I said that it was obvious that it was weighing on your
mind. Your constant harping on the issue and your demands that everyone
recognize your twisting of the language showed that quite nicely.
Steve authored a comment and attributed it to you
that's only because someone too dumb to answer would need to ask a
question like that- i had already *explicitly* stated my position on
such (multiple times), so the fact that you needed additional explicit
confirmation of such suggested it wasn't worth talking to you about it
anymore.
I noticed he re-named the thread. No big deal. From the evidence he
provided, it seems as if it's likely that you're also posting as "John"
here. Now: could you please anser the questions I asked you about that?
Thank you very much!
instead of laying awake nights trying to counter somones arguements -
try to get a good nights sleep - nobody gives a shit about your cute
response - what did it take - 2 weeks of sleepless nights??
No, you are just mildly autistic or something.
Maybe you could write in a more coherent manner - most of us don't have
a clue as to what you are pontificating about.
Steve: be careful. Using the same words and concepts in your public ID
and your "John" ID in the same day is a Tell.
That was my point! So the question remains: why did you try to assign
any significance whatsoever to the fact that both you and "John" use
potty language? Why did you think that because you both use potty
language that that somehow discredits Snit?
evidently - you are one of the Cretin Crew, Steve.
It's really a different question, Steve: what sort of self-respect do
you have? Can you exercise enough control to maintain the dignity of
yourself and your family in these public discussions?
It's because you cannot provide a well thought out, mature explanation.
Instead you opt for childish insults which I pretty much ignore.
You constantly switched betwen declaring yourself married and shacking
up.
For the record: Steve failed to answer my questions. Again.
You're greasy, when it comes to arguing a point. ... Your disingenuous
tactic of trying to put words in the mouth of a poster that didn't utter
them, by means of reading between the lines and stating what you
*thought* was implied is a pitiful attempt in trying to win at all
costs. ..
If they [your children] haven't seen your posting history here, God help
you on the day that they discover the Usenet archives. That bomb is
ticking.
But whether or not your children have seen your postings here, they've
picked up the pattern. They see your failure to be accountable for your
words.
Hopefully, you will see the cost to your children -- sooner rather than
later.
The sock puppet Slaveen responded for Steve. That in itself is all the
answer we need.
You think your children would be impressed by your circular evasive
style of posting here? Your failure to answer simple yes-or-no
questions? Your potty language? Your ad homimem attacks? Do you think
those are respectful ways for an adult to participate in a discussion?
Did you realize that you still haven't answered my yes-or-no questions?
Are you posting to USENET with any anonymous IDs?
Are you posting to this newsgroup with the anonymous "John" handle?
As I said: I have no history with either your or Snit.
I ask you a simple question. You fail to answer it -- repeatedly.
Rather than answer the simple yes-or-no question, you launch into a
bunch of evasion. You first tell me you've answered it elsewhere. You
then tell me you owe me no answers. If you wanted to answer the
question, you would. But you don't. As asn aside: do you have any
communication issues with your children?
Not surprisingly Steve misses the point. I'm surprised you're able to
function in life Steve.
So far I haven't been returning your insults because I saw you as a guy
who's just not too smart and who's frustrated by his lack of debating
skills and limited knowledge. You're really just a bad ass who's looking
for a fight. Computers don't interest you anymore than they do Robert
Fovell. They're just what you use for a chip on your shoulder. [link]
Why, because you'd spread lies and slander if he did? [link]
Thanks for once again proving my point, Steve. It took you awhile, but
sure enough -- if something gets reposted enough times, you WILL reply
with your usual rants. You are so predictable.
classic Fretwizz -' you are so stupid you can't even begin to talk with
me on the same level. Everyone is laughing at you'. Pretty typical of
what I've seen from him [link]
You need to recalibrate your sarcasm detector. [link]
It must be really annoying for you to see all those FOOLS who hold a
different opinion to your own, refusing to admit how stupid and wrong
they are. Such a cross for you to bear. No wonder you're always VERY
VERY ANGRY. [link]
How you can honestly take what I've written and transform it in to these
words -- "cannot possibly exist" -- is not exactly beyond me. You've
again and again proven yourself to be an extremist binary thinker. [link]
This is the best you can muster? A strawman?
So if you wish to obfuscate the issue with loads of technical data in an
attempt to show the superiority of the Mac or your advanced
technicalknowledge, please have at it.
Your comments are made solely to offend. [link]
The evidence [of Steve posting as "John"] was compelling. And you've
provided no evidence to the contrary. You've spent over 150x the amount
of time tap-dancing around the issue than it would have taken to provide
any contrary information.
Then you need to go back and re-read the material for what's actually
written and without inserting your agenda.
I am sure you sniff glue - and sox too - but maybe like a dog, you
sniff what they do.
Caroll, shut up, once and for all. take your nonsense to private email,
in fact, take all your internet communications to private email. [link]
Assuming that's true, SO WHAT?
Note the altered text??? Now how do you suppose that happened? [link]
You are so full of shite, it's coming out of your ears. [link]
Because you are terminally stupid? That'd be my first guess. ;) [link]
I've repeatedly asked you if his claims are valid. And rather than
answering my simple yes-or-no questions, you launch into long rambles
that never answer.
What's clear here is that you're trying to cover your mistake. I am not
now making any different arguments than before your realized your
mistake.
Just as I thought...you didn't have a point. Maybe next time you will.
I bet you just can't tell truth from delusion.
The real question behind the question: why are you out of control in
your emotions in this discussion?
And the sad question: what confidence is there that you keep in control
of your emotions in other areas of your life?
Why do you make an ass out of yourself so much. Snit has beaten you so
badly here. I do not think I have seen anyone beaten as badly as you.
YOu lose. deal with it. [link]
Then you are completely incompetent.
are you incapable of noticing what you're doing?
Steve, what will you do when Snit leaves the newsgroup? Your life will
be over.
You have still failed to tell us, Steve: what does your wife think about
the raunchy language you use in this public newsgroup?
Have you even been reading this thread? Do you have any idea what we're
talking about here? [link]
So.... did I say that??..... Or are you going to claim I said or implied
that?
Another meaningless attack from steve. useless. afraid. why do you fear
snit so much. he has you by the balls. why not answer his questions you
freak. [link]
The BS indicator is going off right now.
Was that your motivation for responding, Carroll, just to have fun? I
see that you didn't really answer the question the first time I asked
it. [link]
Steve, I could never be the equivalent of any of your sockpuppet
personas that you've used to entertain yourself with. [link]
Nice attempt at a strawman.
That's nice. I really care. Now be a good chap and get together with
Ebot and go arrass Snit.
You have no point. If you did you'd answer my question.
Right. I no longer have any respect for you at all. You're on the same
low level as the faux mayor and edwin. Shoe scrapings, iow. [link]
Once again Steve misses the point. ... BTW - Why your obsession with me?
I'v heard that they take Kool Aid enemas together.
Steve, let me say at once that I think you are indefatigable, and have
an infinite amount of time to argue this stuff. I am not, and I don't. I
will not enter into an infinite debate with you on this. [link]
you have nothing not even a brain. the more you fear the questions the
worst you look. [link]
Steve, besides being an ignorant asswipe, what qualifications do you
have for criticizing anyone else? I guess the fact you rave like a loony
makes you think someone should take what you say seriously? [link]
Oh Dear, the usual Fretwizz tactics of insult . As ever, I'm not going
to act as a scapegoat for your 'issues'. [link]
No surprise there as you had no point.
I'm not agreeing that you have a point. You don't have a point. You can
try and spin your strawman into a point but it never will be.
Let it go, Carroll, let it go. Take a deep breath and let it go.
> I'm sure... lots of reality surprises you.
For what you call reality, yes. What everyone considers reality, no.
Which is completely irrelevant to the question that I asked. Do try and
keep up Steve.
You've never been good at this. I'm surprised you're capable of
functioning in the real world.
I'm asking you if you actually did what he asked. I'm asking for just
the facts. And you fail to answer the simplest of questions.
If you're just going to be an asshole, I don't see any real reason to
prove it to you, since taking you to my desk probably wouldn't even
convince you. [link]
Strange you are the one who needs to backpedal - I just won my point ;)
Oh that's right you're only a troll here for the comedy. [link]
Gee, when you do things like that, you start reinforcing Snit's claims...
He asked a nice, direct question about software, and you jump in with
that sort of junior-high insult. [link]
Its harldy suprising to me that you had to jump into this thread though,
you seem to take every chance you can get to take a dig. Don't you even
have the smarts to pick a subject where you can argue about concrete
points vs making personal attacks? From all the evidence I see, you just
like to bawl and yell at people as opposed to coming up with any
substantive points. [link]
Let it go Steve, let it go. [link]
And hence the problem I have with many Mac advocates. They focus to much
on the words used to convey a thought that they completely miss the
intent. And when you try to explain to them what you really meant they
continue to focus on the words. Steve is the king at this game.
Man you're long winded.
Repeating your conjecture over and over is not the same as presenting
actual objective evidence.
I'm wondering why you don't just address the issue.
In another thread Steve Carroll made an ass of himself when he suggested
that setting up a network server is as easy as configuring and FTP
server!!! HEHE. What a dumbass. [link]
No surprise that you missed this too. Are you able to function in the
real world? When someone makes a left turn without using a turn signal
how do you cope?
sorry Fretwizz, you were showing how badly your personality handles any
kind of jibe. I was criticising your habit of playing dumb when faced
with easily comprehendable English ( that typically happened to contain
points which you obviously couldn't address) [link]
Why would I recognize something that doesn't exist? You had no point.
And yet here you are with your dissertations. What does that say about
you?
Poor Steve;) You're pityful, really;) [link]
What? Are you now a game show host? Go ask Vanna if you can by a clue.
[link]
But why am I surprised you'll do anything to discredit me? Seriously,
I'm sorry your miserable life is so boring. If believing that I don't
know anything about Macs or that I'm fibbing makes you get through your
boring days, I'm glad to have been of some use to you. [link]
Your entire post contained insinuations that the poster was lying. You
also repeatedly demanded proof from me that he wasn't - whilst providing
absolutely no proof yourself that he was. Other than relentless
insinuations of course. [link]
LOL! Even Elizabot is surprised when Steve actually uses a direct quote
and doesn't just make shit up. That's a classic!
How would somebody like you know anything about reality? [link]
Did I claim that they didn't? Nope. Strike two for Steve. Care to try
for three?
Steve: do you also post to newsgroups using anonymous IDs? Have you been
posting using the name "John" on this newsgroup? If not, what is your
explanation for the patterns of posting that Snit has exposed?
Really? So you're saying that when you yank someone's chain they'll
always feel bad? Wow...
Ooooh, Fretwizz decides to add the force of his intellectual powers of
debate to the argument. Great contribution, Fretwizz, but somewhat
lacking in terms of volume of gratuitous brazen insults compared to your
usual attempts to 'debate'. [link]
whats funny is the thought that you might understand character. all you
do is attack people. [link]
You are just as big a Dunce, as Jimmy Lee.
Wipe your chin - your foaming at the mouth again - rabid mutt. [link]
so enjoy it while you can and stop being such a nit picker.
Steve, I could never be the equivalent of any of your sockpuppet
personas that you've used to entertain yourself with. [link]
You can be Patriarch and still piss people off.
Dude go kill your son before he reproduces. He's already stupid and
probably autistic like you. [link]
Taking a line out of a paragraph takes it out of context. The fact that
you can't see that says a lot about you.
How pathetic you are. How old are you? You're acting like a child. You
made a mistake. You recognized it, admitted to it, and apologized for
it. I fail to see why you continue to drag yourself through the mud.
Because you keep chasing me around the group.
You're erroneously presupposing some reading comprehension problem on
my part, Carroll. [link]
I can almost see you fuming at your keyboard, blood pressure rising, red
mist descending, logic going out the window...... (Figure of speech
there Fretty, before you start ranting that logic can't go through a
window). [link]
Stop playing idiotic semantic games. [link]
Keep on responding to my posts, Stevie. Yer looking like more of the
fool the I. [link]
But why am I surprised you'll do anything to discredit me? Seriously,
I'm sorry your miserable life is so boring. If believing that I don't
know anything about Macs or that I'm fibbing makes you get through your
boring days, I'm glad to have been of some use to you. [link]
Your lie, spread it any way you want.
You should really get some professional help. Your conduct goes way
beyond 'getting the last word' in, it's just fanatical. [link]
Don't you ever get tired of being a raving idiot? [link]
There is no challenge to see who can do the most research on other
people. What made you think there was?
I can almost see you fuming at your keyboard, blood pressure rising, red
mist descending, logic going out the window...... (Figure of speech
there Fretty, before you start ranting that logic can't go through a
window).
I've noticed that the majority of your arguments lack substance if you
eliminate your insistence on pedantic nitpicking.
Who cares about your assinine and ignorant views? [link]
your too dumb to know projection is it seems [link]
Yes, the kooky replies by nuts like you to indeed make my threads
ridiculous. That's your intent. [link]
My prediction on this response: "John"/Steve will again fail to address
any questions about the identities that they use to post under.
You are really really stupid. [link]
Run Steve! Run! Those mean little facts are scaring the shit out of you.
All your glue sniffing has caught up with you and you have fried your
brain. Now you are proudly lying there in soiled pants. Congratulations
you self admitting asshole.
Or maybe you're swimming in a deep sea of delusion;) [link]
You're erroneously presupposing that you smacked me around, Carroll.
[link]
Tell that to yourself sometime when you make another binary extremist
argument. [link]
As for trolls being overlooked, it doesn't take much bait to get a lot
of people riled up in here, I mean, look at you;) [link]
Steve, you're out of your league.
Then you should be able to explain: why should any behavior on Snit's
part render you incapable of answering my simple yes-or-no questions?
now Fretwizz slips back into his typical habits of ranting, insulting
the other person and self-aggrandising. I've included a few snippets for
fun [link]
what you think you understand half of what is said in here? you dont
[link]
"Lumpit logic" is actually what you practice, you're only projecting it
into me.
You tried to lump headless iMacs, Gateway, and MS all together. You
used lumpit logic (tm). [link]
Condescending as ever I notice. [link]
Ok... Steve Carroll has officially surpassed Joe Ragu for being the
dumbest bastard in CSMA [link]
Steve, "little reason" is not "NO reason" even if a self-admitted
asshole such as yourself says so.
The fact that you're still pushing your strawman clearly shows you're
not interested in rational discussion.
The most bizarre shite of it all is somebody who is in your shoes and
doesn't even realise he has a problem. [link]
Wow! You sure proved Josh wrong about your maturity level! *eyeroll*
You really, really, need to get over your personality problems and read
whats being said. I'm completely consistent in this matter. [link]
We will either get total mush or absolutely nothing from "John"/Steve.
They will fail to engage in he questions.
Do you have some kind of mental block which precludes you from digesting
unnaceptable facts or statements? [link]
If you already know what my argument is, then you might as well forego
all this discussion folderol and tell us all what my conclusion is.
Aside from the minor detail that you would be wrong, it would spare us a
lot of time. [link]
I see. So if I reply then 'I must care', and if I don't reply then you
can claim that you've 'won' the arguement. Got it.
Hello, and you're full of shit, too. Such a nice day for it. Have you
considered a high colonic? Very refreshing in times like these. [link]
Sorry Fretwizz, you were showing how badly your personality handles any
kind of jibe. I was criticising your habit of playing dumb when faced
with easily comprehendable English ( that typically happened to contain
points which you obviously couldn't address) [link]
(Non-mac related discussion deleted) Boring.....
If not they I would have to conclude that you're intentionally being
dense as I don't think that you're stupid enough not to understand.
[link]
No, there just exists 'Fretwizz world' where you live, where the laws of
logic go out the window in favour of 'Fretwizz winning at all costs'.
[link]
I'll take this post as another example of what a sad, angry, little man
you are. [link]
Dude. What history? I see why you focus so much on glue now. Are you in
crack, too. And I have no desire to have my pants down around you. No
telling what you would do. [link]
Well Steve, I did find the recent trawling and reposting of Snit's
anxiety and health related information to be over the top.
What a pathetic person you are.
What commentary do you have about this, Steve? Do you understand that
your criticism here of Snit is completely unfounded? The fact that both
you and "John" use potty language doesn't mean that "John" isn't your
sock-puppet.
I've given up reading every single line of your same old same old. I
didn't read it because I didn't expect it to say anything new.
The sockpuppets belong to a poster by the name of Steve Carroll. He
likes to start these long, pedantic threads (commonly referred to as the
Steve Circus) so that he can drag as many people as possible into
debates he is having with Snit.
Steve's sockpuppets include cig-man, CSMA_Moderator, evil john,
fretwizz, sigmond, UprightCitizen, yobo, yobo-obyo, plus many, many,
more.
Which of your thousands of mistakes do you mean? Your every post is a
mistake. Your every lie is a mistake. You are a mistake. Funny how you
see me as a sock puppet. That is a tell.
Still obsessed with me Caroll? Would you be stalking me? [link]
That would be a really stupid idea, Steve. The questions have nothing to
do with your children; they have to do with *your* behavior. A far
better thing to do is to drop the potty language, the insults,
and the raunch. And, while you're at it, apologize for ever speaking
that way in the first place.
Well, with Snit - he usually has a valid point - but the Maccies still
get all wound up. ... So, I guess, the truth really bugs them [Steve
Carroll and others].
A shock that you think you can win victory by self-proclamation? That's
no shock, you pull that crap all the time. [link]
Still obsessed with Snit? [link]
Your characterization of my argument is ridiculous. [link]
Do you think theres a pattern between you disliking people and
perceiving them as being stupid and unable to communicate with you?
[link]
Interesting - you seem to insinuate I lack maturity because I respond to
you in kind. It's like someone pointing out how stupid their foe is
because they actually bother to engage them.
In that sense, I have to agree. Perhaps I'm not that mature after all.
You have to give me something to work with here; if one rolls around
with pigs in a pen, any declarations of their supposed nobility will go
unnoticed - they'll still look like a pig. [link]
Coming from a sockpuppet, that's quite a compliment.
Yes, you know that I'm just pointing out once again that you're
completely clueless.
You're doing a pretty good job of undermining your competency without
any help from me.
I see, you dodged to help Google out. You snipped the facts and lied
because you're just a helpful guy. :-P [link]
Here's a thought. When I want your opinion on something, how about I
give it to you. Until then, how about you concentrate on what you do
best and stalk snit.
The Unfair, Unbalanced and Unreasoning
Steve Carroll - PARINOID - Someone is STALKING him.
Its harldy suprising to me that you had to jump into this thread though,
you seem to take every chance you can get to take a dig. Don't you even
have the smarts to pick a subject where you can argue about concrete
points vs making personal attacks? From all the evidence I see, you just
like to bawl and yell at people as opposed to coming up with any
substantive points. [link]
Yet another person who doesn't grasp the concept of "preference".
Did this guy piss in your Wheaties or something?
ROTFLMAO! You're just so much turd in the toilet to me, just waiting for
someone to flush it down. I don't have to "combat" you any more than I
would have to "combat" a lump of dog shit lying on the sidewalk. [link]
But hey...don't let reality change your mind.
Looking in Google I cannot find where Snit ever said what you attribute
to him. Likely you are lying, or at best taking something so heavily out
of context as to be dishonest anyway.
You're not getting it. Majority doesn't matter.
No surprise there. You often fail to see a lot of things.
You critize my intelligence and then proceed to say something as
fundamentally stupid as the above. You really fit the stereotypical US
American; fat supid ignorant cowboy with no cultural background at all.
[link]
Leave it to Steve to miss the forest for the trees.
Drop it Steve. I have no interest in discussing this with you.
He's the kind that are all bark and no bite, or is that bleat... [link]
Steve you claim anyone who points out your trolling is Snit. I have
never seen Snit or anyone sink to the levels that you have in recent
days with your posts about him. You are exactly what Snit says you are.
That's a pretty silly argument.
And you're a blinkered zealot whos completely out of touch with reality.
[link]
> So... has salmonella enteritidis turned you into a sexy beast, Rick?
A person infected with the Salmonella enteritidis bacterium usually has
fever, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea beginning 12 to 72 hours after
consuming a contaminated food or beverage. The illness usually lasts 4
to 7 days, and most persons recover without antibiotic treatment.
However, the diarrhea can be severe, and the person may be ill enough to
require hospitalization.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/salment_g.htm
I hope that isn't what turns you on, Steve.
Once again Steve demonstrates his inability to comprehend things
If you can't figure this out then you're probably purposefully being
dense. [link]
Don't know what kind of chord Snit hit with you guys, but I'm glad he
exposed you for the bullying, ultra-zealot Mac dickheads you are. Keep
up the good work, Snit;) [link]
I guess you should THINK before you post, eh Fretwizz? [link]
I repeat the question that you snipped: Why the obsession over me?
You are a lying asshole. Even you have admitted that.
Woa Caroll, you're getting pretty desperate there. Are you suggesting
you would actually like to see Snit fired, or facilitate his termination
over this nonsense? You are *one* sick puppy, man! [link]
I notice that every time you ask, I answer, and you ignore my answer.
[link]
Keep spinning it any way you want, it doesn't apply so no dice lady.
In my book, you *are* a fly. The household, annoying type that you'd
love to swat. [link]
Are you playing a game to see how many accusations you can create? Why
not support them?
The guy has serious problems.
excuse this cross posting troll ....
Why the selective snipping Steve? Have you something to hide?
Your only contribution to CSMA is flaming and trolling. CSMA and the
world would be better off without you.
You're caught again, and you respond by becoming wacko, as usual. [link]
[top]
Snit
noone-FF1C49....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/9/06 2:46 PM:
> In article <noone-4725C5....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@owhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm... it just may meet the criteria of "annoying under the new law.
>>
>> Here is the URL (as of today)
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/troll/
>>
>> Snit writes:
>>
>> In comp.sys.mac.advocacy (csma) there is a particular troll who I enjoy
>> messing with
>>
>> I call him my "Spin N' Speak". You see, I love to yank his chain,>> usually by quoting his own words back at him, and then watch him spin
>and spin and spin and speak. Generally he says nothing more important
>> than "moo" or whatever other animal noises a real Spin N' Speak might
>> say.
>>
>> I plan on chronicling some of Spin N' Speak's lovely comments so they
>> can be made available for the amusement o all. Since I am sure Spin N'
>> Speak does what he does simply for the ttention, I cannot see where he
>> would mind my helping his cause. Then again, he has worked against his
>> self interests before, so you can never know what he will or will not
>> lie. Such is the case with Usenet trolls.
>>
>> I will split the page into different sections, mostly based on actual
>> quotes from the Spin N' Speak, and thenmy commentary.
>> Spin N' Speak's quotes are in yellow
>> Other's quote are in blue.
>>
>> Click here to find out where
>> Spin N' Speak stop!
>> Updated:
>> 02-Sep-2005
>> Spin N' Speak' s character (or lackthereof)
>> Spin N' Speak' s Bigotry
>> Concepts Spin N' Speak has confusedor lumped together
>> What thers say about Spin N' Speak
>> Spin N' Speak's Flip-Flops>> Questions Spin N' Speak can not answer
>> Ways to Handle Spin N' Speak
>>
>> Character (or lack thereof)
>>
>> While others will be quoted later with their views of Spin N' Speak,
>> base his character off of his own words about himself. While rare, he
>> does have mments where he admits to who and what he is.
>>
>> Spin N' Speak admits hat his word means nothing:
>> Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna give a shit about breakng
>> my word to a deviant like yourself... [link]
>>
>> He has since argued that this only applies to people he sees as being
>> "deviants", but since he can make this determination in any way tht he
>> likes, it is clear he can use circular logic here and say that anyoe he
>> lies to is a deviant. I guess that means everyone is a deviant in his
>> world, since he lies so often.
>>
>> He also realies that he is a moron:
>> Only a moron would waste ANY time in a NG like this [csma]. [link]
>>
>> So we now know that he admits to being a lying moro.
>>
>> What else has he said about his own character?
>> I'm not denying I'm an asshole. What it? [link]
>>
>> Here he seemed to accept that he is, in deed, an asshole. Ok. Fits what
>> we know of him; anyone who is a lying moronic troll in a Usenet group
>> can pretty easily be classified as an "asshole".
>> I'm no a complete asshole. [link]
>>
>> Here he seems to be denying it. Sigh.. OK.. well, we already knew that
>> his word meant nothing. Maybe he thinks he is half an asshole?
>>
>> Then again, maybe he is a moon *and* an asshole, as he claims here
If the reality about you annoys you, Steve, you should work toward altering
your actions - not blaming others.
By the way, is there *anything* you quoted that you find inaccurate? LOL!
Probably not.
--
"I am not a number, I am a free year!" - '06
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
William R. Walsh
I've got too much time on my own hands.
And I thought it was called a "See and Say".
William
Snit
post ZADwf.694438$_o.168854@attbi_s71 on 1/9/06 5:54 PM:
> Wow. Nearly 97 kilobytes of posting...just astounding. Just when I think
> I've got too much time on my own hands.
>
> And I thought it was called a "See and Say".
Well, Steve very much spins and spins and spins... and lies. Heck, here are
just a few of the relatively recent accusations he has blamed me of (all the
"you"s refer to Steve, I just snipped this from another post:
-----
You accused me of admitting to forging your CSMA Moderator ID
You accused me of saying I wanted USB 2.0 to replace Firewire
You accused me of being dishonest when I told you the *fact*
someone can actually be guilty of committing a crime but
be neither tried nor convicted.
(Hint: http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/colb/20031022.html)
You have repeatedly accused me of using illegal drugs
You have accused me of "parroting" the Bush argument you have
been running from for years
You have accused me of not being a teacher even though you have
been told I am
You have accused me of making inappropriate sexual advances
And, of course, you accused me of e-mailing your unmarried "wife"
a person who may or may not even exist!
And my new favorite, you quoted me saying:
I just checked my IP, that is not it, though mine does begin
with 24.117.
And then accuse me with your BS of:
Notice the last line where Snit says his IP doesn't begin
with 24.117?
-----
I am happy to show where Steve made such accusations. Steve, for some
reason, runs every time I ask him to support his accusations. Someday, I
hope, Steve will stop lying.
The sad thing is Steve follows me around lying based on a debate we had
years ago. I made an argument about Bush and Steve got mad that he could
not refute it. He started spewing all sorts of obfuscating BS where he
showed he did not get the easy concept that someone who might never be
tried, convicted, or even charged with a crime they commit (the guilty do
sometimes avoid consequences!).
Here is the argument that got Steve all riled up, if you care:
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bush/>
or, in the original wording (with the one acceptation noted on the page):
<http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/bushcase/>.
Steve Carroll
"William R. Walsh" <newsg...@nojunquemail.walshcomptech.com> wrote:
> Wow. Nearly 97 kilobytes of posting...just astounding. Just when I think
> I've got too much time on my own hands.
LOL! I'm not the only person Snit has created such webpages over.
> And I thought it was called a "See and Say".
>
> William
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "William R. Walsh" <newsg...@nojunquemail.walshcomptech.com> stated in
> post ZADwf.694438$_o.168854@attbi_s71 on 1/9/06 5:54 PM:
>
> > Wow. Nearly 97 kilobytes of posting...just astounding. Just when I think
> > I've got too much time on my own hands.
> >
> > And I thought it was called a "See and Say".
>
> Well, Steve very much
... remains at the center of most of your obsessions? Yes, Snit... I
believe he caught that part of it.
Snit
BFE858FB.40D3E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 1/9/06 6:16 PM:
And, as if just dying to prove me right, Steve responded by quoting - get
this - only the first *four* words of my above post. Steve did not:
* support his accusations
* deny he made such silly accusations
* point to any post where he offered a valid refutation of the argument that
got him so riled up in the first place
Steve will *never* do these things. He is a lying idiot who has backed
himself so far into a corner all he can do is snip and run. And then spin
and speak. :)
In any case I am happy to know that my web pages about Steve annoy him. :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Snit... do you know why I started this thread?
Snit
Easy: you are a stupid, trolling hypocrite.
Do you need me to point to posts where you whine about my putting your name
in subject lines? LOL!
Now, Steve, why don't you explain why you *never* have been able to support
the above accusations against me? Maybe you can explain why you get so
emotionally out of control you spew such bogus attacks. Or maybe you are
too busy thinking of your 79 mile road trips, the ones you never tell your
unmarried "wife" about (assuming she even exists!).
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
No, try again... and see if you can guess why I'm glad you have answered
them the way you have.
Snit
>> Do you need me to point to posts where you whine about my putting your name
>> in subject lines? LOL!
>>
>> Now, Steve, why don't you explain why you *never* have been able to support
>> the above accusations against me? Maybe you can explain why you get so
>> emotionally out of control you spew such bogus attacks. Or maybe you are too
>> busy thinking of your 79 mile road trips, the ones you never tell your
>> unmarried "wife" about (assuming she even exists!).
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/lfk1
>
> No, try again... and see if you can guess why I'm glad you have answered
> them the way you have.
Easy: you are happy to get *any* response from me. You live for my
attention. You do not care how much you have to lie, threaten, troll,
flame, or otherwise embarrass yourself. You care far more about impressing
your online girlfriend and feeding your deep hatred of me.
And with that, knowing you will just continue to snip and run and never
actually back up your BS accusations, I think I have given you enough
attention in this thread. You will have to demean and degrade yourself in
some new and inventive way to continue to get my attention.
Oh, and this thread proves, again, what a liar you are. You have repeatedly
denied visiting my web site. Then again, my logs and your open hatred
filled obsession made it clear you were lying about that anyway. Do you
*ever* tell the truth?
[Steve freaks out in 3... 2... 1...] LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Not quite, in fact, you're not even close yet.
William R. Walsh
> ... remains at the center of most of your obsessions? Yes, Snit... I
> believe he caught that part of it.
No, I don't really care all that much, at least not now. I just found the
sheer size of the postings to be...flabbergasting.
I mean, really. There are people I don't like on Usenet...as with any sort
of group, it happens. That's why your newsreader application comes with this
dandy little feature called a "killfile". :-)
William
Elizabeth
LOL!
Should I post his web page devoted to me as well?
--
"I would prefer if the silly debates would just go away." -Snit
Steve Carroll
"William R. Walsh" <newsg...@nojunquemail.walshcomptech.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > ... remains at the center of most of your obsessions? Yes, Snit... I
> > believe he caught that part of it.
>
> No, I don't really care all that much, at least not now. I just found the
> sheer size of the postings to be...flabbergasting.
A drop in the bucket for Snit.
> I mean, really. There are people I don't like on Usenet...as with any sort
> of group, it happens. That's why your newsreader application comes with this
> dandy little feature called a "killfile". :-)
Generally, I don't like to use kf's. By his own admission, Snit takes
medication that leaves him feeling drugged, has massive panic attacks at
the mere site of certain triggers and has been housebound (maybe still
is). When a guy like this screams for some interaction that isn't a
shrink or his teddy bear named 'Toasty', I figure he should get some.
Steve Carroll
Elizabeth <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote:
(snip)
> LOL!
>
> Should I post his web page devoted to me as well?
I believe you should.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
(snip)
> And, as if just dying to prove me right, Steve responded by quoting - get
> this - only the first *four* words of my above post.
Do you always need to see the constant reminders of your obsessive lists
of grievances, webpages and other foolishness on each and every post? Do
they function as some sort of security blanket for you? I know you're
used to using/taking things you haven't earned or deserve but we really
should save some bandwidth for other posters.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
(snip)
> >> busy thinking of your 79 mile road trips, the ones you never tell your
> >> unmarried "wife" about (assuming she even exists!).
> >>
> >> http://snipurl.com/lfk1
> >
> > No, try again... and see if you can guess why I'm glad you have answered
> > them the way you have.
>
> Easy: you are happy to get *any* response from me. You live for my
> attention. You do not care how much you have to lie,
In this thread I posted what you wrote about me, Snit. Are you saying
your webpages about me are lies? Anyway... you're still wrong as to the
reason.
Robert F
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-FF1C49....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/9/06 2:46 PM:
> > Computers don't interest you anymore than they do Robert
> > Fovell. They're just what you use for a chip on your shoulder. [link]
Since only an egregiously stupid and/or patently insincere fool would
make such a claim, owing to the enormous evidence to the contrary
available to any reasonably savvy person, I fail to see how one's case
is made by asserting or propagating a canard like this. But, if that's
what's left of this place, knock yourselves out, boys.
Still, consider this is why CSMA has become The Waste Land, populated
only by Hollow Men. "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang
but a whimper."
--
"[Politics] asks for the highest type of men, and there's nothing in it
to attract the highest type of men. So we have to work with what we get -
and we get things like this." -- Raymond Chandler, "The Lady in the Lake"
Steve Carroll
<parody805-4E8FE...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Robert F <paro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <BFE8331D.40D11%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> > noone-FF1C49....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/9/06 2:46 PM:
>
> > > Computers don't interest you anymore than they do Robert
> > > Fovell. They're just what you use for a chip on your shoulder. [link]
>
> Since only an egregiously stupid and/or patently insincere fool would
> make such a claim, owing to the enormous evidence to the contrary
> available to any reasonably savvy person, I fail to see how one's case
> is made by asserting or propagating a canard like this. But, if that's
> what's left of this place, knock yourselves out, boys.
>
> Still, consider this is why CSMA has become The Waste Land, populated
> only by Hollow Men. "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang
> but a whimper."
Bob, this is just Snit, doing what he does best;) As google will show, I
didn't write this quote, Edwin did:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/bd0132588b87baf0
?dmode=source&hl=en
Snit
parody805-4E8FE...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net on 1/10/06
11:17 PM:
> In article <BFE8331D.40D11%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-FF1C49....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/9/06 2:46 PM:
>
>>> Computers don't interest you anymore than they do Robert
>>> Fovell. They're just what you use for a chip on your shoulder. [link]
>
> Since only an egregiously stupid and/or patently insincere fool would
> make such a claim, owing to the enormous evidence to the contrary
> available to any reasonably savvy person, I fail to see how one's case
> is made by asserting or propagating a canard like this. But, if that's
> what's left of this place, knock yourselves out, boys.
>
> Still, consider this is why CSMA has become The Waste Land, populated
> only by Hollow Men. "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang
> but a whimper."
LOL!
Did you see Steve Carroll's response to your comment? He stated:
-----
Bob, this is just Snit, doing what he does best;) As google will show, I
didn't write this quote, Edwin did:
-----
Funny. Absolutely hilarious. Steve argues that since I state this is a
quote *about* Steve this implies - to Steve - that he must have written it.
Er? How the heck did Steve come to *that* conclusion? Steve has a very
hard time understanding what he reads. It is really quite amusing.
Here is the original: <http://snipurl.com/lh9z>. I have no stance on the
comments about you that Edwin made. If you have any questions about those,
Edwin would be the one to go to. I was merely pointing out that Edwin, who
clearly does not (or did not) respect you placed Steve below you.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Robert F" <paro...@gmail.com> stated in post
> parody805-4E8FE...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net on 1/10/06
> 11:17 PM:
>
> > In article <BFE8331D.40D11%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
^^^^^^
> >> noone-FF1C49....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/9/06 2:46 PM:
> >
> >>> Computers don't interest you anymore than they do Robert
> >>> Fovell. They're just what you use for a chip on your shoulder. [link]
> >
> > Since only an egregiously stupid and/or patently insincere fool would
> > make such a claim, owing to the enormous evidence to the contrary
> > available to any reasonably savvy person, I fail to see how one's case
> > is made by asserting or propagating a canard like this. But, if that's
> > what's left of this place, knock yourselves out, boys.
> >
> > Still, consider this is why CSMA has become The Waste Land, populated
> > only by Hollow Men. "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang
> > but a whimper."
>
> LOL!
>
> Did you see Steve Carroll's response to your comment? He stated:
>
> -----
> Bob, this is just Snit, doing what he does best;) As google will show, I
> didn't write this quote, Edwin did:
> -----
>
> Funny. Absolutely hilarious. Steve argues that since I state this is a
> quote *about* Steve this implies - to Steve - that he must have written it.
> Er? How the heck did Steve come to *that* conclusion?
Simple... your name was in the thread and you are known for purposefully
misattributing quotes to people. Do you really think anyone would
believe it was out of the realm of possibility? I suspect even you are
smarter than that;)
Snit
>>> Since only an egregiously stupid and/or patently insincere fool would
>>> make such a claim, owing to the enormous evidence to the contrary
>>> available to any reasonably savvy person, I fail to see how one's case
>>> is made by asserting or propagating a canard like this. But, if that's
>>> what's left of this place, knock yourselves out, boys.
>>>
>>> Still, consider this is why CSMA has become The Waste Land, populated
>>> only by Hollow Men. "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang
>>> but a whimper."
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Did you see Steve Carroll's response to your comment? He stated:
>>
>> -----
>> Bob, this is just Snit, doing what he does best;) As google will show, I
>> didn't write this quote, Edwin did:
>> -----
>>
>> Funny. Absolutely hilarious. Steve argues that since I state this is a
>> quote *about* Steve this implies - to Steve - that he must have written it.
>> Er? How the heck did Steve come to *that* conclusion?
>
> Simple...
Sure it is simple. Heck, you even snipped the explanation:
Steve has a very hard time understanding what he reads.
It is really quite amusing.
Funny how you "accidentally" snipped the explanation you wish would go away.
:)
> your name was in the thread and you are known for purposefully
> misattributing quotes to people. Do you really think anyone would
> believe it was out of the realm of possibility? I suspect even you are
> smarter than that;)
LOL! Wow! That was desperate even for you!
Face it, Steve: you, again, did not understand what was written. You have
recently failed to understand what was written here:
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/colb/20031022.html
And when I said "I just checked my IP, that is not it, though mine does
begin with 24.117." you claimed:
Notice the last line where Snit says his IP doesn't begin
with 24.117?
Really, Steve: take a reading comprehension class. Please. You seem to be
understanding less and less these days, if that is possible. :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-845D53....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/11/06 9:35 AM:
>
> >>> Since only an egregiously stupid and/or patently insincere fool would
> >>> make such a claim, owing to the enormous evidence to the contrary
> >>> available to any reasonably savvy person, I fail to see how one's case
> >>> is made by asserting or propagating a canard like this. But, if that's
> >>> what's left of this place, knock yourselves out, boys.
> >>>
> >>> Still, consider this is why CSMA has become The Waste Land, populated
> >>> only by Hollow Men. "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang
> >>> but a whimper."
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >>
> >> Did you see Steve Carroll's response to your comment? He stated:
> >>
> >> -----
> >> Bob, this is just Snit, doing what he does best;) As google will show, I
> >> didn't write this quote, Edwin did:
> >> -----
> >>
> >> Funny. Absolutely hilarious. Steve argues that since I state this is a
> >> quote *about* Steve this implies - to Steve - that he must have written it.
> >> Er? How the heck did Steve come to *that* conclusion?
> >
> > Simple...
>
> Sure it is simple.
Yeah, that's what I said:
"Simple... your name was in the thread and you are known for
purposefully
misattributing quotes to people. Do you really think anyone would
believe it was out of the realm of possibility? I suspect even you are
smarter than that;)"
--
Snit
And in your response you snipped it *again*. LOL! Poor Steve, all you want
to do is run, run, run. The you repeated the below as though repeating it
would make you become less desperite. Too damned funny!
>> your name was in the thread and you are known for purposefully
>> misattributing quotes to people. Do you really think anyone would
>> believe it was out of the realm of possibility? I suspect even you are
>> smarter than that;)
>
> LOL! Wow! That was desperate even for you!
>
> Face it, Steve: you, again, did not understand what was written. You have
> recently failed to understand what was written here:
>
> http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/colb/20031022.html
>
> And when I said "I just checked my IP, that is not it, though mine does
> begin with 24.117." you claimed:
>
> Notice the last line where Snit says his IP doesn't begin
> with 24.117?
>
> Really, Steve: take a reading comprehension class. Please. You seem to be
> understanding less and less these days, if that is possible. :)
Gee, you snipped all that, too. LOL! Run, Steve, run!
"Reality can simply be snipped away" - Steve Carroll
Clearly you *still* believe that.
Snit
What an *amazingly* weak excuse for your inability to understand what you
read. Really, Steve, even for you that is weak.
Comes down to you copied a quote *about* you and then thought that meant it
was claimed to be *by* you. You misunderstood what you read, as you have
done so often. You keep snipping the recent examples I provided, but here
they are again. You will just keep running like the cowardly little troll
you are. Do not hold your breath for my response:
Snit
> Comes down to you copied a quote *about* you and then thought that meant it
> was claimed to be *by* you.
What makes this even more funny is the name of the thread - a name *you*
gave it. You knew, when you wrote the subject line, that it was "about"
you, but you forgot later. You really are an idiot, you know. :)
> You misunderstood what you read, as you have done so often. You keep snipping
> the recent examples I provided, but here they are again. You will just keep
> running like the cowardly little troll you are. Do not hold your breath for
> my response:
>
> http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/colb/20031022.html
>
> And when I said "I just checked my IP, that is not it, though mine does
> begin with 24.117." you claimed:
>
> Notice the last line where Snit says his IP doesn't begin
> with 24.117?
>
> Really, Steve: take a reading comprehension class. Please. You seem to be
> understanding less and less these days, if that is possible. :)
Steve will snip and run from the above. At least he has the sense to be
embarrassed by his inability to comprehend. :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Get real;) Who *wouldn't* believe that you'd misattribute a quote, Snit?
LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> stated in post
> BFEAA0CF.41118%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 1/11/06 11:47 AM:
>
> > Comes down to you copied a quote *about* you and then thought that meant it
> > was claimed to be *by* you.
>
> What makes this even more funny is the name of the thread - a name *you*
> gave it. You knew, when you wrote the subject line, that it was "about"
> you,
Yeah... and some of it written and/or misattributed by you and your sock
puppet army. Nothing complicated about it;)
Robert F
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Robert F" <paro...@gmail.com> stated in post
> parody805-4E8FE...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net on 1/10/06
> 11:17 PM:
>
> > In article <BFE8331D.40D11%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-FF1C49....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 1/9/06 2:46 PM:
> >
> >>> Computers don't interest you anymore than they do Robert
> >>> Fovell. They're just what you use for a chip on your shoulder. [link]
> >
> > Since only an egregiously stupid and/or patently insincere fool would
> > make such a claim, owing to the enormous evidence to the contrary
> > available to any reasonably savvy person, I fail to see how one's case
> > is made by asserting or propagating a canard like this. But, if that's
> > what's left of this place, knock yourselves out, boys.
> >
> > Still, consider this is why CSMA has become The Waste Land, populated
> > only by Hollow Men. "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang
> > but a whimper."
>
<s>
>
> Here is the original: <http://snipurl.com/lh9z>. I have no stance on the
> comments about you that Edwin made. If you have any questions about those,
> Edwin would be the one to go to. I was merely pointing out that Edwin, who
> clearly does not (or did not) respect you placed Steve below you.
Um, perhaps you misunderstand. I don't care if you quote Mayor McCheese
claiming the Earth is a flat plate perched on the shell of a tortoise, I
was merely pointing out that you run the risk of looking ridiculous when
you quote something patently stupid. If that's your goal, you're on the
right track, and more power to you.
Snit
9:42 PM:
I am not claiming those quotes have any particular deep meaning, only
pointing them out to show how ridiculous Steve's Carroll's (*cough* *cough*)
friend is when he posts his quotes about me. In neither case do the quotes
really mean much. I am honest and admit to this. Steve quotes his (*cough*
*cough*) friend and claims it is proof of something. Anything. Heck, Steve
will say *anything* in his flaming and trolling of me.
If the quote offends you, though, I am happy to remove it. There are plenty
more quotes. :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
You should do something about that cough... maybe lay off things that
might tend to irritate your throat for awhile;) As to the moderator
being my "friend"... never met the person. By the way, how are you so
sure the moderator is a guy? It could be your wife posting it... perhaps
she was hoping to discourage you from spending as much time as you do on
the computer because she sees what it's doing to you.