Sandman... going to have to object to this...
Steve Carroll
"Sheesh. I clean-out the kill-file, and up pops Steve Carroll, the
worst troll-feeder since Kier.
It's people like you, Carroll, who are to blame for the success of
asshole trolls like Shit".
This clearly says I am a "troll feeder"... not a troll. If anything, this should
have been a score against Snit as he is the person called a troll here.
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Written by ChrisV...
>
> "Sheesh. I clean-out the kill-file, and up pops Steve Carroll, the
> worst troll-feeder since Kier.
>
> It's people like you, Carroll, who are to blame for the success of
> asshole trolls like Shit".
>
> This clearly says I am a "troll feeder"... not a troll. If anything, this
> should
> have been a score against Snit as he is the person called a troll here.
So submit it :)
By the way, I wouldn't be very proud of that quote myself :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <noone-D316AB....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > Written by ChrisV...
> >
> > "Sheesh. I clean-out the kill-file, and up pops Steve Carroll, the
> > worst troll-feeder since Kier.
> >
> > It's people like you, Carroll, who are to blame for the success of
> > asshole trolls like Shit".
> >
> > This clearly says I am a "troll feeder"... not a troll. If anything, this
> > should
> > have been a score against Snit as he is the person called a troll here.
>
> So submit it :)
I'd prefer that you removed the erroneous submission that someone made on me. I
have yet to make a submission... as you know. Despite his having submitted many
things trying to inflate my score, I don't want to give Snit *any* reason to
create a delusion that I am in any way involved in the realities that people
have written about him.
> By the way, I wouldn't be very proud of that quote myself :)
Being that Snit is basically the only troll I have fed for the last few years
I'm not terribly worried about ChrisV's impaired assessment. Like Snit, he is
free to write whatever he believes reality is. Unlike Snit, he claims to have
me k'd so he won't see me challenge his version as I have done here.
John
"Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:noone-D316AB....@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> Written by ChrisV...
>
> "Sheesh. I clean-out the kill-file, and up pops Steve Carroll, the
> worst troll-feeder since Kier.
>
> It's people like you, Carroll, who are to blame for the success of
> asshole trolls like Shit".
>
> This clearly says I am a "troll feeder"... not a troll. If anything, this
> should
> have been a score against Snit as he is the person called a troll here.
>
>
ANYBODY who TAKES THE TIME to CAREFULLY read KNOWS you are the troll Steve.
Just look at the meltdown you suffered on this group a few months ago when
Snit ignored you!!!
Snit
vPidnQNG36gz4jLb...@netlojix.com on 7/31/07 11:29 AM:
If he does not make his BS a bit more entertaining I may very well do so
again... he has sunk to mostly just fabricating stories about me that are so
of the wall no reasonable person would believe him... such as when he
dishonestly claimed to have taught me things as about as obvious as 2+2=4.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > ANYBODY who TAKES THE TIME to CAREFULLY read KNOWS you are the troll Steve.
> > Just look at the meltdown you suffered on this group a few months ago when
> > Snit ignored you!!!
> >
> If he does not make his BS a bit more entertaining I may very well do so
> again...
I encourage you to do so.
--
Sandman[.net]
Elizabot v2.0.3
Oh, puh-leeze. Same ole song and dance routine. Will you ever learn?
Sandman
"Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NOspySPAMmac.com> wrote:
> >> If he does not make his BS a bit more entertaining I may very well do so
> >> again...
> >
> > I encourage you to do so.
>
> Oh, puh-leeze. Same ole song and dance routine.
I hope not.
> Will you ever learn?
Learn what? That Snit has signed a code of honesty since last time? I
think he has managed pretty good. I think I have too.
--
Sandman[.net]
Elizabot v2.0.3
lol. What you think is irrelevant.
Have another peanut butter and potato chip sandwich. Mmmm mmm good.
Sandman
"Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the email change. Please add me to your k/f if you're so inclined.
I dont' have you in my killfile. Why would I?
> Sandman wrote:
> > In article <13b09ti...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NOspySPAMmac.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> If he does not make his BS a bit more entertaining I may very well do so
> >>>> again...
> >>> I encourage you to do so.
> >> Oh, puh-leeze. Same ole song and dance routine.
> >
> > I hope not.
> >
> >> Will you ever learn?
> >
> > Learn what? That Snit has signed a code of honesty since last time? I
> > think he has managed pretty good. I think I have too.
>
> lol. What you think is irrelevant.
>
> Have another peanut butter and potato chip sandwich. Mmmm mmm good.
I think you're being rude to me for no reason, Elizabot. That's not
like you. Is this an imposter?
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
"Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NOspySPAMmac.com> wrote:
Really;)
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
He hasn't done all that well. Even you have already pointed to times he has
broken it. No matter... FWIW... you, holding this agreement over Snit's head
like he's a little kid who has his movie money held over his head is funny as
hell to me... I can't figure out which of us is torturing him more;)
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
You might be right... but so is whoever posted this. What you think is
irrelevant if Snit has done things to break the agreement, at least, from the
viewpoint of a person looking in. Of course, the agreement is between you two,
so you are free to ignore any evidence to the contrary that you wish.
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > Have another peanut butter and potato chip sandwich. Mmmm mmm good.
> >
> > I think you're being rude to me for no reason, Elizabot. That's not
> > like you. Is this an imposter?
>
> You might be right... but so is whoever posted this. What you think is
> irrelevant if Snit has done things to break the agreement, at least, from the
> viewpoint of a person looking in. Of course, the agreement is between you
> two, so you are free to ignore any evidence to the contrary that you wish.
I'm not ignoring anything. I have reminded him repeatedly about the
agreement and how he should act in accordance with it. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > Learn what? That Snit has signed a code of honesty since last time? I
> > think he has managed pretty good. I think I have too.
>
> He hasn't done all that well. Even you have already pointed to times he has
> broken it.
Of course.
> No matter... FWIW... you, holding this agreement over Snit's head
> like he's a little kid who has his movie money held over his head is funny as
> hell to me... I can't figure out which of us is torturing him more;)
Actually, it's a two-way agreement. I have to act in accordance to the
agreement as well, you know. :)
Things I have seen change since the agreement is that Snit has not -
as far as I have seen - posted a single antagonizing thread since. He
has said things like "You act in a way that is identical to being
*insert insult here*" which has been a way to sidestep the rules. I
haven't called him on it yet, but I will soon enough. He'll probably
stop doing it now that I brought it up.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
noone-3F983B....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 8/1/07 7:58 AM:
> In article <mr-3ED4A7.09...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <13b09ti...@news.supernews.com>,
>> "Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NOspySPAMmac.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> If he does not make his BS a bit more entertaining I may very well do so
>>>>> again...
>>>>
>>>> I encourage you to do so.
>>>
>>> Oh, puh-leeze. Same ole song and dance routine.
>>
>> I hope not.
>>
>>> Will you ever learn?
>>
>> Learn what? That Snit has signed a code of honesty since last time? I
>> think he has managed pretty good. I think I have too.
>
> He hasn't done all that well. Even you have already pointed to times he has
> broken it. No matter... FWIW... you, holding this agreement over Snit's head
> like he's a little kid who has his movie money held over his head is funny as
> hell to me... I can't figure out which of us is torturing him more;)
Do you *really* think your fabrications are "torturing" me? If so, how?
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
mr-9BDD67.17...@News.Individual.NET on 8/1/07 8:07 AM:
We have each helped remind the other... and for the most part I believe we
have both lived by it well. Are we perfect? Of course not! Nor have we
had perfect agreement on who has been right or wrong about what... but
neither of us has made a big deal of that. Why would we? Heck, I know that
any mistake of mine - real or fabricated - will be pointed out very quickly
even if you never responded to a single post of mine. :)
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Snit
Steve does act in a way that is completely consistent with what I have said:
being obsessive, unable to control himself, and overcome by his anger. He
can claim he is none of those things but I suspect he will never give a
reasonable alternative for his actions. I am noting his actions here
without specifics, but note that whenever I have noted them in the past I
have done so with very specific examples.
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
I realize you have pointed to instances here and there... but by "ignore" I
mean you have ignored it with respect to ending the agreement when you
rightfully could have (via the fact that Snit had already broken it). Hmm...
Snit's say he always takes full responsibility for his actions... I wonder if
he'd cop to having broken your agreement with him?
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-9BDD67.17...@News.Individual.NET on 8/1/07 8:07 AM:
>
> > In article <noone-29E28C....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Have another peanut butter and potato chip sandwich. Mmmm mmm good.
> >>>
> >>> I think you're being rude to me for no reason, Elizabot. That's not
> >>> like you. Is this an imposter?
> >>
> >> You might be right... but so is whoever posted this. What you think is
> >> irrelevant if Snit has done things to break the agreement, at least, from
> >> the
> >> viewpoint of a person looking in. Of course, the agreement is between you
> >> two, so you are free to ignore any evidence to the contrary that you
> >> wish.
> >
> > I'm not ignoring anything. I have reminded him repeatedly about the
> > agreement and how he should act in accordance with it. :)
> >
> We have each helped remind the other... and for the most part I believe we
> have both lived by it well. Are we perfect? Of course not! Nor have we
> had perfect agreement on who has been right or wrong about what... but
> neither of us has made a big deal of that. Why would we? Heck, I know that
> any mistake of mine - real or fabricated - will be pointed out very quickly
> even if you never responded to a single post of mine. :)
I'm now left wondering if this is the same agreement you initially authored...
or is it a new agreement you guys made.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-3F983B....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 8/1/07 7:58 AM:
>
> > In article <mr-3ED4A7.09...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <13b09ti...@news.supernews.com>,
> >> "Elizabot v2.0.3" <Eliz...@NOspySPAMmac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> If he does not make his BS a bit more entertaining I may very well do
> >>>>> so
> >>>>> again...
> >>>>
> >>>> I encourage you to do so.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, puh-leeze. Same ole song and dance routine.
> >>
> >> I hope not.
> >>
> >>> Will you ever learn?
> >>
> >> Learn what? That Snit has signed a code of honesty since last time? I
> >> think he has managed pretty good. I think I have too.
> >
> > He hasn't done all that well. Even you have already pointed to times he has
> > broken it. No matter... FWIW... you, holding this agreement over Snit's
> > head
> > like he's a little kid who has his movie money held over his head is funny
> > as
> > hell to me... I can't figure out which of us is torturing him more;)
>
> Do you *really* think your fabrications are "torturing" me? If so, how?
You often have an aversion to reality... I 'torture' you with realities you
obviously preferred didn't exist. It's interesting that you didn't comment on
the agreement you have with Sandman as a form of torture... but knowing you as I
do... it certainly must be;)
Snit
I would agree.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Snit
A this point it seems to me Steve has pretty much given up on making "real"
arguments and is now trying to get attention by making personal attacks and
fabricating stories about my life. As such, I likely will just ignore him
soon - frankly he is becoming boring again.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Snit
It is the agreement I authored with some additions by Sandman. I would love
to see you agree to it as well, Steve. Will you?
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Hmmm, this is the agreement:
Code of Honesty:
1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is
bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially
in a forum like this.
2) Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
3) Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with
problems as they arise.
4) Agree to let the past go...
Dishonesty examples:
- Creative snipping
- Deliberate misinterpretation
- Diversion
- Having an agenda
- Lying
- Role Reversal
- Insults
- Forging posts and material
- Thread hijacking
- Projection
- Unsubstantiated accusations
- Antagonizing through other media
- Antagonizing threads
- Ignoring evidence
- Obfuscation
It should be clear that this agreement is valid for all posts made by
the signers, not merely those between the signers. Agreeing to this
displays ones commitment to "end the BS" (as worded by one possible
signer) and end ongoing and past disputes to embrace common
understanding, patience and tolerance.
After signing, the signers should refrain from entering discussions
that are, and opt-out of discussion that are becoming, offensive or
destructive, regardless of who is the instigator. This unless the
signer feels confident that he or she can continue participation
without engaging in the elevated level of argumentation.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > I'm not ignoring anything. I have reminded him repeatedly about the
> > agreement and how he should act in accordance with it. :)
>
> I realize you have pointed to instances here and there... but by "ignore" I
> mean you have ignored it with respect to ending the agreement when you
> rightfully could have (via the fact that Snit had already broken it). Hmm...
> Snit's say he always takes full responsibility for his actions... I wonder if
> he'd cop to having broken your agreement with him?
I don't think he would. But I don't see this agreement as a boolean
thing. It's not like I will end the agreement for the first thing I
see that isn't in accordance with it. I warn him when he's going out
of line. I think it's only fair.
I know you've been working hard to make him break it, and I really
think he should killfile you. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I find it hard to understand the mentality of trying to get someone else to
make some slight slip up no matter how bad you have to act to do it...
completely foreign to my way of thinking.
Snit
I would like to see Carroll agree to this as well. I think all of CSMA
would benefit from it if he were to do so and even strive to mostly live by
it (well, post by it... )
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> No matter... FWIW... you, holding this agreement over Snit's head
> >> like he's a little kid who has his movie money held over his head is funny
> >> as
> >> hell to me... I can't figure out which of us is torturing him more;)
> >
> > Actually, it's a two-way agreement. I have to act in accordance to the
> > agreement as well, you know. :)
> >
> > Things I have seen change since the agreement is that Snit has not -
> > as far as I have seen - posted a single antagonizing thread since. He
> > has said things like "You act in a way that is identical to being
> > *insert insult here*" which has been a way to sidestep the rules. I
> > haven't called him on it yet, but I will soon enough. He'll probably
> > stop doing it now that I brought it up.
>
> Steve does act in a way that is completely consistent with what I have said:
> being obsessive, unable to control himself, and overcome by his anger.
But by stating that he "acts in a way that is consistent with X" is
just another way of saying "He's X" (especially given the fact that
you've just changed the wording of these claims). That is in violation
of the agreement.
It would be the same as if I said that Edwin acted in a way consistent
with a lying troll, which I won't - since that's as much of an insult
as saying he's a lying troll, even if it somewhat gives him the
benefit of a doubt.
> He can claim he is none of those things but I suspect he will never
> give a reasonable alternative for his actions. I am noting his
> actions here without specifics, but note that whenever I have noted
> them in the past I have done so with very specific examples.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-D4FFF9.19...@News.Individual.NET on 8/1/07 10:00 AM:
>
> > In article <noone-E52E3F....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm not ignoring anything. I have reminded him repeatedly about the
> >>> agreement and how he should act in accordance with it. :)
> >>
> >> I realize you have pointed to instances here and there... but by "ignore"
> >> I
> >> mean you have ignored it with respect to ending the agreement when you
> >> rightfully could have (via the fact that Snit had already broken it).
> >> Hmm...
> >> Snit's say he always takes full responsibility for his actions... I wonder
> >> if
> >> he'd cop to having broken your agreement with him?
> >
> > I don't think he would. But I don't see this agreement as a boolean
> > thing. It's not like I will end the agreement for the first thing I
> > see that isn't in accordance with it. I warn him when he's going out
> > of line. I think it's only fair.
> >
> > I know you've been working hard to make him break it, and I really
> > think he should killfile you. :)
>
> I find it hard to understand the mentality of trying to get someone else to
> make some slight slip up no matter how bad you have to act to do it...
> completely foreign to my way of thinking.
You say that, yet, that is the very mentality you came into this ng with and
have exhibited for years... before the sigmond crap to present. You completely
ignore all sorts of reality and 'act bad' by doing so. I realize you don't want
to swallow it... but ignoring reality is 'acting bad' to "most people".
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You're saying you'd like to see me enter an agreement that you admit you failed
to "live by". Undoubtedly, your comeback to this will be that you are trying to
live up to it... to which I would say... you aren't trying very hard. You still
run away from reality as much as you ever did.
> I think all of CSMA
> would benefit from it if he were to do so and even strive to mostly live by
> it (well, post by it... )
As you don't "mostly live by it" now... it makes complete sense for a hypocrite
like yourself to have written what you did up above.
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Actually, I'm not doing anything differently with Snit than I've done for years.
FWIW... other than you, I don't see anyone saying how Snit has had any kind of
drastic turnaround... I think you're seeing what you want to see (or you're
doing it for Snit's benefit). I can point to numerous things on the list in your
agreement that Snit has broken many times. The 'Devil made me do it' doesn't
wash because much of what I pointed out when he's broken agreement rules is just
basic reality that he refuses to acknowledge the existence of.
Snit
> In article <C2D5FA04.89CE0%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>> No matter... FWIW... you, holding this agreement over Snit's head
>>>> like he's a little kid who has his movie money held over his head is funny
>>>> as
>>>> hell to me... I can't figure out which of us is torturing him more;)
>>>
>>> Actually, it's a two-way agreement. I have to act in accordance to the
>>> agreement as well, you know. :)
>>>
>>> Things I have seen change since the agreement is that Snit has not -
>>> as far as I have seen - posted a single antagonizing thread since. He
>>> has said things like "You act in a way that is identical to being
>>> *insert insult here*" which has been a way to sidestep the rules. I
>>> haven't called him on it yet, but I will soon enough. He'll probably
>>> stop doing it now that I brought it up.
>>
>> Steve does act in a way that is completely consistent with what I have said:
>> being obsessive, unable to control himself, and overcome by his anger.
>
> But by stating that he "acts in a way that is consistent with X" is
> just another way of saying "He's X" (especially given the fact that
> you've just changed the wording of these claims). That is in violation
> of the agreement.
>
> It would be the same as if I said that Edwin acted in a way consistent
> with a lying troll, which I won't - since that's as much of an insult
> as saying he's a lying troll, even if it somewhat gives him the
> benefit of a doubt.
I do not think there is anything wrong with noting likely motivations for
behavior, at least when done in direct response to behavior - as you did
when you noted Steve is trying to get me to act against our agreement.
>> He can claim he is none of those things but I suspect he will never
>> give a reasonable alternative for his actions. I am noting his
>> actions here without specifics, but note that whenever I have noted
>> them in the past I have done so with very specific examples.
--
Snit
Incorrect.
Snit
Steve, I am saying I would like to see you agree to be honest and honorable.
Will you?
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Snit
> In article <mr-D4FFF9.19...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <noone-E52E3F....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
>> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm not ignoring anything. I have reminded him repeatedly about the
>>>> agreement and how he should act in accordance with it. :)
>>>>
>>> I realize you have pointed to instances here and there... but by "ignore" I
>>> mean you have ignored it with respect to ending the agreement when you
>>> rightfully could have (via the fact that Snit had already broken it). Hmm...
>>> Snit's say he always takes full responsibility for his actions... I wonder
>>> if he'd cop to having broken your agreement with him?
>>>
>> I don't think he would. But I don't see this agreement as a boolean thing.
>> It's not like I will end the agreement for the first thing I see that isn't
>> in accordance with it. I warn him when he's going out of line. I think it's
>> only fair.
>>
>> I know you've been working hard to make him break it, and I really think he
>> should killfile you. :)
>>
> Actually, I'm not doing anything differently with Snit than I've done for
> years.
>
For the most part I agree. And that is not a compliment to you. :)
> FWIW... other than you, I don't see anyone saying how Snit has had any kind of
> drastic turnaround...
I have not. My behavior has not changed much at all.
> I think you're seeing what you want to see (or you're doing it for Snit's
> benefit). I can point to numerous things on the list in your agreement that
> Snit has broken many times. The 'Devil made me do it' doesn't wash because
> much of what I pointed out when he's broken agreement rules is just basic
> reality that he refuses to acknowledge the existence of.
Will you agree to be honest and honorable, Steve?
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > It would be the same as if I said that Edwin acted in a way consistent
> > with a lying troll, which I won't - since that's as much of an insult
> > as saying he's a lying troll, even if it somewhat gives him the
> > benefit of a doubt.
>
> I do not think there is anything wrong with noting likely motivations for
> behavior, at least when done in direct response to behavior - as you did
> when you noted Steve is trying to get me to act against our agreement.
Which may have been an incorrect observation at worst. Your
sidestep-insults are variations of insults, really.
It is a well known fact that you THINK he is obsessive and whatnot.
Stop using that to label him in posts to csma, because when you do,
you insult him.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> I don't think he would. But I don't see this agreement as a boolean
>> thing. It's not like I will end the agreement for the first thing I
>> see that isn't in accordance with it. I warn him when he's going
>> out of line. I think it's only fair.
>>
>> I know you've been working hard to make him break it, and I really
>> think he should killfile you. :)
>
> Actually, I'm not doing anything differently with Snit than I've
> done for years.
Yeah, I know :)
> FWIW... other than you, I don't see anyone saying
> how Snit has had any kind of drastic turnaround...
Niether do I. But I think it takes way more time than just a month or
so. I think you've said it yourself, it takes years to be seen as a
good guy when people has seen you as a bad guy for years. You need to
turnaround completely and work hard on it.
What I *do* think is that csma really has benefitted from it. There
are no "trolling threads" started by Snit any longer, no re-posts of
old threads/post. By sheer volume it seems to be a lot better.
Obviously also due to me taking less part in these threads as well.
> I think you're seeing what you want to see (or you're doing it for
> Snit's benefit).
I'd say it's a combination :)
> I can point to numerous things on the list in your
> agreement that Snit has broken many times.
As can I.
> The 'Devil made me do it' doesn't wash because much of what I
> pointed out when he's broken agreement rules is just basic reality
> that he refuses to acknowledge the existence of.
I rather not comment on that. I hope you understand. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> FWIW... other than you, I don't see anyone saying how Snit has had
>> any kind of drastic turnaround...
>
> I have not. My behavior has not changed much at all.
I think it has changed a lot.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I have no problem with us disagreeing on that.
Snit
> In article <C2D629B2.89D30%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> It would be the same as if I said that Edwin acted in a way consistent
>>> with a lying troll, which I won't - since that's as much of an insult
>>> as saying he's a lying troll, even if it somewhat gives him the
>>> benefit of a doubt.
>>
>> I do not think there is anything wrong with noting likely motivations for
>> behavior, at least when done in direct response to behavior - as you did
>> when you noted Steve is trying to get me to act against our agreement.
>
> Which may have been an incorrect observation at worst. Your
> sidestep-insults are variations of insults, really.
While Steve may not find it flattering, I have been very specific with what
comments and posts of his have shown him to act in a way that is completely
consistent with him being overcome with his hatred. I word it carefully
like that because maybe Steve has a better explanation - but so far he has
not been willing to share.
> It is a well known fact that you THINK he is obsessive and whatnot.
His actions support that he is. Well, maybe not the "whatnot". I will look
for that. :)
As far as him being obsessive, look it up what an obsession is:
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=obsession>
a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often
unreasonable idea or feeling
Steve is *very* persistent in posting to me and about me... so much that he
quotes me in his .sig (and attributes others quotes to me). Steve
repeatedly, as I have noted, posts fabrications about me - I have pointed to
many examples from the last week or two - and that is a sign of his
unreasonable ideas or feelings toward me. At least as he portrays himself
publicly in Usenet, Steve holds an obsession with me and is unable to stop
himself from trolling me and fabricating stories about me.
I do not want to get into much more detail - to do so would be to openly
note things about Steve which are not in *direct* response to his displaying
those actions.
> Stop using that to label him in posts to csma, because when you do,
> you insult him.
I could just as easily say that when you note my comments to Steve I take
that as an insult... (I do not). Noting someone's poor behavior in direct
response to that behavior, and doing so in an honest, and accurate way, is
not wrong.
Personally, though, I would prefer to focus on *topics* and not
personalities - this whole he said / she said / they said / they meant / he
meant / he might mean in the future ... well, its all just BS and is a sign
that we are letting the terrorists win. :)
Snit
>>> He hasn't done all that well. Even you have already pointed to times he has
>>> broken it. No matter... FWIW... you, holding this agreement over Snit's head
>>> like he's a little kid who has his movie money held over his head is funny
>>> as hell to me... I can't figure out which of us is torturing him more;)
>>>
>> Do you *really* think your fabrications are "torturing" me? If so, how?
>>
> You often have an aversion to reality... I 'torture' you with realities you
> obviously preferred didn't exist. It's interesting that you didn't comment on
> the agreement you have with Sandman as a form of torture... but knowing you as
> I do... it certainly must be;)
Once again you are fabricating stores about me: there is nothing about my
agreement with Sandman I find to be "torture". Frankly I am enjoying it -
if I did not I would not be a part of it.
As far as your claims of "torturing" me, I would prefer to see you move away
even trying to "torture" people. Heck, Sandman recently said it was an
insult to note your behavior, but even you refer to it as that which you
think would "torture" others... and when asked what it is you do to
"torture" people you avoid the question and fabricate stories.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Steve Carroll
Or as I did... and many posters in this ng have done... when they had direct
responses noting your behavior? Of course not... the stuff you talk about never
applies to you... even if the entire ng has agreed you're fucked in the head.
See your problem YET, Mr. hypocrite?
Steve Carroll
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-D8F015.17...@News.Individual.NET on 8/1/07 8:12 AM:
>
> > In article <noone-3F983B....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> > Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Learn what? That Snit has signed a code of honesty since last time? I
> >>> think he has managed pretty good. I think I have too.
> >>
> >> He hasn't done all that well. Even you have already pointed to times he
> >> has
> >> broken it.
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> >> No matter... FWIW... you, holding this agreement over Snit's head
> >> like he's a little kid who has his movie money held over his head is funny
> >> as
> >> hell to me... I can't figure out which of us is torturing him more;)
> >
> > Actually, it's a two-way agreement. I have to act in accordance to the
> > agreement as well, you know. :)
> >
> > Things I have seen change since the agreement is that Snit has not -
> > as far as I have seen - posted a single antagonizing thread since. He
> > has said things like "You act in a way that is identical to being
> > *insert insult here*" which has been a way to sidestep the rules. I
> > haven't called him on it yet, but I will soon enough. He'll probably
> > stop doing it now that I brought it up.
>
> Steve does act in a way that is completely consistent with what I have said:
> being obsessive
As you answer me virtually post for post, it can be argued that you are every
bit as "obsessive" as you would *allege* I am.
>, unable to control himself,
As you answer me virtually post for post, it can be argued that you are "unable
to control" yourself... as you *allege* I am.
> and overcome by his anger.
You have yet to show one shred of evidence that I am doing anything I do in
"anger" or that I "hate" you... two things you consistently claim but never
support.
> He can claim he is none of those things
You can claim I am those things but you are doing so with nothing that resembles
support. Saying I am angry or that I hate you doesn't make either of those
things come true... no matter how necessary it is to your mistaken belief.
> but I suspect he will never give a reasonable alternative for his actions.
What actions?
> I am noting his actions here
> without specifics, but note that whenever I have noted them in the past I
> have done so with very specific examples.
The "examples" you've "noted" in the past have no more support than the support
you have given here. You can't show that I am angry or that I hate you. I'm well
aware that your position "needs" me to be one or both... but you can't support
either.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You're asking me to be something you admit you failed to be... and you're doing
so based on a belief you have that I am not being those things. Perhaps, in your
admitted failure to be honest and honorable yourself, you are overlooking the
potential that I may already be both of those things to a far greater degree
than you are. You might want to think about that...
Snit
You are fabricating more stories about me, Steve.
Snit
noone-789F77....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 8/1/07 5:19 PM:
> In article <C2D629B2.89D30%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
You are fabricating more stories about me, Steve.
Snit
And yet you avoid saying that when I note it in context - as opposed to this
meta-debate.
Not buying it, Steve. If you wanted to deny it you would do so as I point
it out... and you would offer a better explanation for your behavior. You
repeatedly fail to.
As far as your above claims - my *responding* to your actions is not the
same thing as your initiating them... nor are my responses filled with BS
fabricated stories about you.
I have no desire to bring up your actions from the past. Stop them and they
will not be brought up by me again.
>
>> He can claim he is none of those things
>
> You can claim I am those things but you are doing so with nothing that
> resembles support. Saying I am angry or that I hate you doesn't make either of
> those things come true... no matter how necessary it is to your mistaken
> belief.
>
>> but I suspect he will never give a reasonable alternative for his actions.
>
> What actions?
The ones that directly proceed my comments... look in the Google record even
over the last couple weeks. Or wait until your next example... hopefully
there is none and then this becomes a non-issue. I would welcome that.
>> I am noting his actions here
>> without specifics, but note that whenever I have noted them in the past I
>> have done so with very specific examples.
>
> The "examples" you've "noted" in the past have no more support than the
> support you have given here. You can't show that I am angry or that I hate
> you. I'm well aware that your position "needs" me to be one or both... but you
> can't support either.
Again, Steve, look at the examples in context... they are not in this
thread, I was merely responding to Sandman's comments.
--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
Snit
>> Steve, I am saying I would like to see you agree to be honest and honorable.
>> Will you?
>
> You're asking me to be something you admit you failed to be... and you're
> doing so based on a belief you have that I am not being those things. Perhaps,
> in your admitted failure to be honest and honorable yourself, you are
> overlooking the potential that I may already be both of those things to a far
> greater degree than you are. You might want to think about that...
A simply "no" would have done - you will not agree to be honest and
honorable... as I am.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
No, I'm not. This is just another reality you refuse to acknowledge exists...
<5georjF...@mid.individual.net>
So what's the story here... are *all* of these people trolls? What do you
suppose caused them to write the kinds of remarks they have written about you?
If you were *truly* honest and honorable you would address this.
Snit
Your quote scavenging is irrelevant to the point I am making, Steve.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I avoid saying what?
>
> Not buying it, Steve. If you wanted to deny it you would do so as I point
> it out... and you would offer a better explanation for your behavior. You
> repeatedly fail to.
>
> As far as your above claims - my *responding* to your actions is not the
> same thing as your initiating them... nor are my responses filled with BS
> fabricated stories about you.
>
> I have no desire to bring up your actions from the past. Stop them and they
> will not be brought up by me again.
i don't care what you 'buy' or what you bring up... I'm asking you to support
your allegations that I am 'angry' and that I "hate" you. I'm flatly telling you
that you can't support either.
> >> He can claim he is none of those things
> >
> > You can claim I am those things but you are doing so with nothing that
> > resembles support. Saying I am angry or that I hate you doesn't make either
> > of
> > those things come true... no matter how necessary it is to your mistaken
> > belief.
> >
> >> but I suspect he will never give a reasonable alternative for his actions.
> >
> > What actions?
>
> The ones that directly proceed my comments... look in the Google record even
> over the last couple weeks. Or wait until your next example... hopefully
> there is none and then this becomes a non-issue. I would welcome that.
You are breaking your code again...
1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is
bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially
in a forum like this.
> >> I am noting his actions here
> >> without specifics, but note that whenever I have noted them in the past I
> >> have done so with very specific examples.
> >
> > The "examples" you've "noted" in the past have no more support than the
> > support you have given here. You can't show that I am angry or that I hate
> > you. I'm well aware that your position "needs" me to be one or both... but
> > you
> > can't support either.
>
> Again, Steve, look at the examples in context... they are not in this
> thread, I was merely responding to Sandman's comments.
[Example #2]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
It's not my quote scavenging, Snit. Like I said, if you were truly honest and
honorable you would acknowledge what is *in* these quotes (regardless of who
collected them) as it pertains to my point here. I am the guy here with the
point (that I backed with support) ... you are trying to turn the tables by
pretending to have a supported point... I should add "Role Reversal" here but
I'm feeling generous.
* "Unsubstantiated accusations*
* "Ignoring evidence"
[Example #3]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-D5F437....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 8/1/07 5:55 PM:
>
> >> Steve, I am saying I would like to see you agree to be honest and
> >> honorable.
> >> Will you?
> >
> > You're asking me to be something you admit you failed to be... and you're
> > doing so based on a belief you have that I am not being those things.
> > Perhaps,
> > in your admitted failure to be honest and honorable yourself, you are
> > overlooking the potential that I may already be both of those things to a
> > far
> > greater degree than you are. You might want to think about that...
>
> A simply "no" would have done - you will not agree to be honest and
> honorable... as I am.
You have already admitted that you failed to live to the agreement.
* "Deliberate misinterpretation"
* "Lying"
* "Insults"
* "Projection"
[Example #4]
Snit
>> The ones that directly proceed my comments... look in the Google record even
>> over the last couple weeks. Or wait until your next example... hopefully
>> there is none and then this becomes a non-issue. I would welcome that.
>
> You are breaking your code again...
>
> 1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is
> bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially
> in a forum like this.
You asked specifically, so here is one example:
Your post: noone-3ED549....@newsgroups.comcast.net
I noted (completely correctly) that you:
* Kept creating and changing derogatory stories about me
* Tried to obfuscate the fact I commented on your failure
to show you understood my G4 800 runs OS X
* Claimed to "know" derogatory things about me that are
not true.
* Played silly games such as asking if "teaching on OS X"
meant standing on a copy of the CD and other silly
stories about my teaching
I correctly noted your behavior was "completely consistent with your being
overwhelmed by your hatred." And, of course, in every post you make, Steve,
you show signs of the same. Here is your .sig, with commentary:
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
Taken out of context as to obfuscate who I was speaking about.
"I do not KF people" - Snit
An attempt to make it seem like it was inconsistent for me to KF you.
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Quoting of a *obvious* typo that was quickly corrected.
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
A falsely attributed "quote" you use to try to excuse your fabrications
about me talking about teaching "IT classes".
Do you have any other explanation for why you - or anyone - would make up so
many derogatory stories about someone else and then post them to a public
forum?
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-9C6928....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 8/1/07 6:52 PM:
>
> >> The ones that directly proceed my comments... look in the Google record
> >> even
> >> over the last couple weeks. Or wait until your next example... hopefully
> >> there is none and then this becomes a non-issue. I would welcome that.
> >
> > You are breaking your code again...
> >
> > 1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is
> > bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially
> > in a forum like this.
>
> You asked specifically, so here is one example:
>
> Your post: noone-3ED549....@newsgroups.comcast.net
>
> I noted (completely correctly) that you:
> * Kept creating and changing derogatory stories about me
I don't see it in that post. Specific means for you to quote it.
> * Tried to obfuscate the fact I commented on your failure
Correction: My alleged failure.
> to show you understood my G4 800 runs OS X
> * Claimed to "know" derogatory things about me that are
> not true.
Correction: They are allegedly not true.
> * Played silly games such as asking if "teaching on OS X"
> meant standing on a copy of the CD and other silly
> stories about my teaching
I was making fun of you because you were avoiding the obvious and you were
doling out bits and pieces of info. As I see it, you had more than this coming.
> I correctly noted your behavior was "completely consistent with your being
> overwhelmed by your hatred."
My alleged hatred... that you have been unable to support exists.
> And, of course, in every post you make, Steve,
> you show signs of the same. Here is your .sig, with commentary:
>
> "None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
>
> Taken out of context as to obfuscate who I was speaking about.
As I am not making a claim that it says anything other than it does, I'll have
to disagree with you. (see how *real* logic works?).
> "I do not KF people" - Snit
>
> An attempt to make it seem like it was inconsistent for me to KF you.
There's only one way this works for you... if you can show that I am not a
member of the group known as "people". Being that you didn't define this group
beforehand I'd say you're pretty fucked (it's that *real* logic thing again).
>
> "Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
> I show evidence from the records".-Snit
>
> Quoting of a *obvious* typo that was quickly corrected.
You call it a typo... I call it a freudian slip. We've been over this. You
didn't seem to mind when you pulled this kind of crap. Of course, you pulled far
worse... as I have documented many times.
>
> "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
>
> A falsely attributed "quote" you use to try to excuse your fabrications
> about me talking about teaching "IT classes".
You can prove that I knew it was falsely attributed before you threw a shit fit?
When you throw a shit fit over a quote where I made a mistake and you happened
to call me a liar over it (shooting first and asking questions later... as you
are prone to do) I let the quote stand until you apologize. We've been over
this, too. I've seen no apologies from you for going off half cocked... you
didn't even give me a chance before you tried and convicted me. Had you
confronted me about a mistake I'd made you may have seen an apology from me (as
I have given you before... and you know it) but you never let that opportunity
arise here.
> Do you have any other explanation for why you - or anyone - would make up so
> many derogatory stories about someone else and then post them to a public
> forum?
Sorry, all I see here are a bunch of allegations by a stubborn hard head who
shoots first, asks questions later and then whines when the bullet fragments
come back and hit him.
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Snit
I am not interested in your excuses nor your denials, Steve. As far as
quoting you and offering more explanation, look at my post where I responded
to you!
The question that has been presented to you, Steve, is if you have another
*reasonable* explanation for your actions. Do you?
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I have already covered the "actions" you spoke about above... if you are
referring to the same actions I will have to cite you for ignoring evidence and
maybe one or two other things. Just because you allege something doesn't make it
true. Learn that one well.
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Snit
>> I am not interested in your excuses nor your denials, Steve. As far as
>> quoting you and offering more explanation, look at my post where I responded
>> to you!
>>
>> The question that has been presented to you, Steve, is if you have another
>> *reasonable* explanation for your actions. Do you?
>
> I have already covered the "actions" you spoke about above... if you are
> referring to the same actions I will have to cite you for ignoring evidence
> and maybe one or two other things. Just because you allege something doesn't
> make it true. Learn that one well.
I noted (completely correctly) that you:
* Kept creating and changing derogatory stories about me
* Tried to obfuscate the fact I commented on your failure
to show you understood my G4 800 runs OS X
* Claimed to "know" derogatory things about me that are
not true.
* Played silly games such as asking if "teaching on OS X"
meant standing on a copy of the CD and other silly
stories about my teaching
I correctly noted your behavior was "completely consistent with your being
overwhelmed by your hatred." And, of course, in every post you make, Steve,
you show signs of the same with your .sig.
Your claimed attempts at reasonable explanations:
* denial of your actions
* claims you were "making fun of me"
* logical fallacies (your comments about the KF quote)
* A claim that unless I apologize it is OK for you to repeatedly lie.
No, Steve, none of your attempts at an explanation are at all reasonable.
Unless you (or someone else) can give a alternative reasonable explanation
for your behavior the best explanation will remain that are overwhelmed by
hatred and unable to control yourself.
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Continually repeating the same material is obsessive... just thought you might
want to know. I wasn't going to do it... but I'm afraid I'll now have to cite
you for stockpiling and not letting go of the past. I gave you chances here to
make good on your code agreement.
[Example #19]
Snit
LOL! Your lack of ability to offer a reasoned explanation is noted.
Pathetic, Steve, how you are trying to equate your obsessive actions I noted
where you follow me around fabricating stories and nit picking my every word
with my *noting* your actions and asking you for an explanation.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
* " Ignoring evidence" (repeatedly)
[Example #22]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Which may have been an incorrect observation at worst. Your
> > sidestep-insults are variations of insults, really.
>
> While Steve may not find it flattering, I have been very specific with what
> comments and posts of his have shown him to act in a way that is completely
> consistent with him being overcome with his hatred. I word it carefully
> like that because maybe Steve has a better explanation - but so far he has
> not been willing to share.
He does not have to share anything really. He has, as far as I am
aware, denied your label and conclusion. Whether he can come up with a
"better explanation" is irrelevant. You calling him obsessive and
"filled with hatred" is in direct violation with the code. You should
not be calling him anything derogatory or anything that could be
interpreted as derogatory.
Heck, even me saying "Coming from you, that's a compliment" to Edwin
is out of line (which I realised after I had posted it).
> > It is a well known fact that you THINK he is obsessive and whatnot.
>
> His actions support that he is.
For you. That does not give you a free pass to call him anything.
> As far as him being obsessive, look it up what an obsession is:
>
> <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=obsession>
> a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often
> unreasonable idea or feeling
>
> Steve is *very* persistent in posting to me and about me...
You know very well that you post to *each other*. I don't want to dig
any deeper in this other than to say that calling him obsessive is a
derogatory comment and you should refrain from it, regardless of
whatever reason you think justifies that conclusion. Keep the
conclusion to yourself.
> > Stop using that to label him in posts to csma, because when you do,
> > you insult him.
>
> I could just as easily say that when you note my comments to Steve I take
> that as an insult... (I do not). Noting someone's poor behavior in direct
> response to that behavior, and doing so in an honest, and accurate way, is
> not wrong.
Actually, it is. Calling someone stupid because you think they're
stupid means that you are insulting them, regardless if you think
you're doing so in an "honest and accurate way".
> Personally, though, I would prefer to focus on *topics* and not
> personalities - this whole he said / she said / they said / they meant / he
> meant / he might mean in the future ... well, its all just BS and is a sign
> that we are letting the terrorists win. :)
And now you just called him a terrorist.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C2D63E62.89D69%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Which may have been an incorrect observation at worst. Your
>>> sidestep-insults are variations of insults, really.
>>
>> While Steve may not find it flattering, I have been very specific with what
>> comments and posts of his have shown him to act in a way that is completely
>> consistent with him being overcome with his hatred. I word it carefully
>> like that because maybe Steve has a better explanation - but so far he has
>> not been willing to share.
>
> He does not have to share anything really. He has, as far as I am
> aware, denied your label and conclusion. Whether he can come up with a
> "better explanation" is irrelevant. You calling him obsessive and
> "filled with hatred" is in direct violation with the code. You should
> not be calling him anything derogatory or anything that could be
> interpreted as derogatory.
>
> Heck, even me saying "Coming from you, that's a compliment" to Edwin
> is out of line (which I realised after I had posted it).
Hmmm, we may be getting caught in a technicality... looking up the word
"insult" I find things such as:
* to say or do something rude or insensitive that offends somebody
Well, *anything* you say can offend *somebody*, so hopefully we do not go
with *that* definition... would pretty much kill all ability to post.
* to say or do something that suggests a low opinion of
somebody or something
Again, I see nothing dishonest or dishonorable about suggesting a low
opinion of someone... as long as you can explain why in specific terms and
you do so in context.
* A deliberately offensive act
Here you have to show that you are trying to offend. While I do not expect
Steve to be flattered by my comments and I except that he *might* be
offended, the goal is to help him see what he is doing by pointing out
specific examples.
* Gross abuse offered to another
I do not think it is a form of *abuse* to inform Steve when he is acting
poorly and to note the only offered reasonable reason for those actions
When I read the word "insult" I think in terms of a direct and obvious
insult such as to call someone an "a-hole" or to fabricate an offensive
story about them (so and so rapes chickens for fun!).
I am not sure the "code" is clear enough to set a solid "rule" here.
>>> It is a well known fact that you THINK he is obsessive and whatnot.
>>
>> His actions support that he is.
>
> For you. That does not give you a free pass to call him anything.
>
>> As far as him being obsessive, look it up what an obsession is:
>>
>> <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=obsession>
>> a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often
>> unreasonable idea or feeling
>>
>> Steve is *very* persistent in posting to me and about me...
>
> You know very well that you post to *each other*.
There is a difference in my posting in *response* to his comments about me
and his posting *about* me in almost *all* of his posts ... and in his .sig.
> I don't want to dig any deeper in this other than to say that calling him
> obsessive is a derogatory comment and you should refrain from it, regardless
> of whatever reason you think justifies that conclusion. Keep the conclusion to
> yourself.
>
>>> Stop using that to label him in posts to csma, because when you do,
>>> you insult him.
>>
>> I could just as easily say that when you note my comments to Steve I take
>> that as an insult... (I do not). Noting someone's poor behavior in direct
>> response to that behavior, and doing so in an honest, and accurate way, is
>> not wrong.
>
> Actually, it is. Calling someone stupid because you think they're
> stupid means that you are insulting them, regardless if you think
> you're doing so in an "honest and accurate way".
>
>> Personally, though, I would prefer to focus on *topics* and not
>> personalities - this whole he said / she said / they said / they meant / he
>> meant / he might mean in the future ... well, its all just BS and is a sign
>> that we are letting the terrorists win. :)
>
> And now you just called him a terrorist.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Wally
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Hmmm, this is the agreement:
>
> Code of Honesty:
>
> 1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is
> bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially
> in a forum like this.
I am sure your opinion will differ but in my opinion the quote from you that
follows my comments here hardly conforms to #1), IMO you should have
mentioned your observations to Snit directly and promptly in the spirit of
the agreement that you two have made rather than assuming that he will alter
his behavior after reading your comments to a third party ...a party that
forms no part of said agreement.
"He has said things like "You act in a way that is identical to being
*insert insult here*" which has been a way to sidestep the rules. I
haven't called him on it yet, but I will soon enough. He'll probably
stop doing it now that I brought it up."-Sandman
> 2) Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
> generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
As would stating your observations to a third party before giving Snit the
initial right of reply.
> 3) Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
> counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
> problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with
> problems as they arise.
IMO "I haven't called him on it yet, but I will soon enough." does appear
to be stockpiling.
Wally
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <noone-E52E3F....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>> I'm not ignoring anything. I have reminded him repeatedly about the
>>> agreement and how he should act in accordance with it. :)
>>
>> I realize you have pointed to instances here and there... but by "ignore" I
>> mean you have ignored it with respect to ending the agreement when you
>> rightfully could have (via the fact that Snit had already broken it). Hmm...
>> Snit's say he always takes full responsibility for his actions... I wonder if
>> he'd cop to having broken your agreement with him?
>
> I don't think he would. But I don't see this agreement as a boolean
> thing. It's not like I will end the agreement for the first thing I
> see that isn't in accordance with it. I warn him when he's going out
> of line. I think it's only fair.
I agree it would be! which added to my surprise to see you mention your
observations to a third party as to how Snit had circumvented the agreement
before mentioning it to Snit!
I accept that it may well be your view that bypassing the agreement is in
accordance with it....but if it is what then is the point of it?
> I know you've been working hard to make him break it, and I really
> think he should killfile you. :)
Why? :)
Wally
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Not really! assuming that you have read and understood it!..."to say or do
something rude or insensitive" is that not clear enough to form an adequate
guideline?
> * to say or do something that suggests a low opinion of
> somebody or something
>
> Again, I see nothing dishonest or dishonorable about suggesting a low
> opinion of someone... as long as you can explain why in specific terms and
> you do so in context.
And yet I have seen you react in a way where you claim such comments simply
*must* be a product of hatred!
> * A deliberately offensive act
>
> Here you have to show that you are trying to offend. While I do not expect
> Steve to be flattered by my comments and I except that he *might* be
> offended, the goal is to help him see what he is doing by pointing out
> specific examples.
Interesting that you consider an honorable person cannot distinguish between
what will and what *might* offend another, personally I believe it possible
to ensure no offence is given if that is my wish. (notice 'given' not taken)
> * Gross abuse offered to another
>
> I do not think it is a form of *abuse* to inform Steve when he is acting
> poorly and to note the only offered reasonable reason for those actions
Even when this so called 'reasonable reason' is labeled as hatred by
yourself Snit? which in the absence of any proof can only be considered as
simply your opinion an opinion I might add that has been denied many times
by those you have accused and yet you continue to do so.
>
> When I read the word "insult" I think in terms of a direct and obvious
> insult such as to call someone an "a-hole" or to fabricate an offensive
> story about them (so and so rapes chickens for fun!).
Which is one very good reason IMO why your idea of honor and honorable has
been questioned in the past Snit there are clearly aspects of acting in such
a way that you simply do not understand!
> I am not sure the "code" is clear enough to set a solid "rule" here.
Ahhhhh! if only being honest and honorable were simply a matter of adhering
to solid rules!
>>>> It is a well known fact that you THINK he is obsessive and whatnot.
>>>
>>> His actions support that he is.
>>
>> For you. That does not give you a free pass to call him anything.
>>
>>> As far as him being obsessive, look it up what an obsession is:
>>>
>>> <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=obsession>
>>> a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often
>>> unreasonable idea or feeling
>>>
>>> Steve is *very* persistent in posting to me and about me...
>>
>> You know very well that you post to *each other*.
>
> There is a difference in my posting in *response* to his comments about me
> and his posting *about* me in almost *all* of his posts ... and in his .sig.
Which does not make Sandmans point any less true!
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Heck, even me saying "Coming from you, that's a compliment" to Edwin
> > is out of line (which I realised after I had posted it).
>
> Hmmm, we may be getting caught in a technicality... looking up the word
> "insult" I find things such as:
>
> * to say or do something rude or insensitive that offends somebody
>
> Well, *anything* you say can offend *somebody*, so hopefully we do not go
> with *that* definition... would pretty much kill all ability to post.
No, the definitions say something that offends someone, not something
that CAN offend someone. If someone is offended by a label, it's by
definition an insult, even if not intended as such.
Likewise, if someone is not offended by the label, but it was intended
to offend, it's also an insult.
A grey area might be if it wasn't intended to offend, no one was
offended, but it was derogatory. Like, say, a black man calling
another black man "nigger".
> * to say or do something that suggests a low opinion of
> somebody or something
>
> Again, I see nothing dishonest or dishonorable about suggesting a low
> opinion of someone... as long as you can explain why in specific terms and
> you do so in context.
But insult someone is in violation with the code, even if it is by
expressing a low opinion of someone. No one questioned the honesty of
your remarks. :)
> * A deliberately offensive act
>
> Here you have to show that you are trying to offend. While I do not expect
> Steve to be flattered by my comments and I except that he *might* be
> offended, the goal is to help him see what he is doing by pointing out
> specific examples.
Your goal with the comment is irrelevant. If he is offended by it,
then it's an insult and warrants an apology from you regardless of
your initial motives.
> When I read the word "insult" I think in terms of a direct and obvious
> insult such as to call someone an "a-hole" or to fabricate an offensive
> story about them (so and so rapes chickens for fun!).
>
> I am not sure the "code" is clear enough to set a solid "rule" here.
Calling someone obsessive most certainly is derogatory and an insult.
Regardless of how much you *think* (emphasize on think here) that you
have supported it as an observation.
> >> <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=obsession>
> >> a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often
> >> unreasonable idea or feeling
> >>
> >> Steve is *very* persistent in posting to me and about me...
> >
> > You know very well that you post to *each other*.
>
> There is a difference in my posting in *response* to his comments about me
> and his posting *about* me in almost *all* of his posts ... and in his .sig.
I wouldn't drag up any signature here, when yours is full of comments
derived from past discussions you've had both with him and others. One
could easily make a case that you're being obsessive, and that's
without even commenting on the fact that it constitutes bringing up
past issues, which also is in violation with the code. I won't,
however.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
>
> A falsely attributed "quote" you use to try to excuse your fabrications
> about me talking about teaching "IT classes".
Hmmm?
Isn't that quote from here:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/85bb11fb10f76
d4c>
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Here are the real facts...
1 - The source you show above is where I got it from.
2 - Snit's claiming he didn't write it... but I don't *know* that.
3 - I've explained item 2 to him before.
4 - Snit is *still* calling me a liar (he also claimed I forged him with this).
5 - Forgery and lying about this quote are two things he never supported.
6 - I did not forge him... ever.
7 - I did not falsely attribute (lie), as far as I knew, when I quoted this...
in fact, I still don't *know* it now, I only have Snit's word to take for it.
I told Snit that when he shoots first and asks questions later that a quote he
*claims* he didn't write will stand until he apologizes for his actions. He
knows what he needs to do. Were he truly honorable, he'd have done it long ago.
I think this example perfectly underscores which party the "hatred" is coming
from. From my viewpoint he is disingenuous so often that I have every reason to
believe that he wrote the quote he is claiming he didn't write... just so he
could do what he is doing now (in the event that I used it - which I did).
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Steve Carroll
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
Good points.
Where have you been, Wally? I haven't seen you around in a while.
You still working on bass?
Sandman
>> Continually repeating the same material is obsessive... just
>> thought you might want to know. I wasn't going to do it... but I'm
>> afraid I'll now have to cite you for stockpiling and not letting go
>> of the past. I gave you chances here to make good on your code
>> agreement.
>
> LOL! Your lack of ability to offer a reasoned explanation is noted.
You mean his "lack of an explanation I find reasonable", I'm sure.
Commenting on his ability is misleading since lack of something
doesn't necessarily constitue a lack of the ability to produce that
something.
> Pathetic
This is an insult.
>, Steve, how you are trying to equate your obsessive actions I noted
Calling someone obsessive is insulting.
> where you follow me around fabricating stories and nit picking my every word
> with my *noting* your actions and asking you for an explanation.
I think I have been *very good* at living up to my end of the code,
Michael. I think you have done very well too, but I think you're
sidestepping it too many times now in the recent days...
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C2D6D30A.89E61%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Heck, even me saying "Coming from you, that's a compliment" to Edwin
>>> is out of line (which I realised after I had posted it).
>>
>> Hmmm, we may be getting caught in a technicality... looking up the word
>> "insult" I find things such as:
>>
>> * to say or do something rude or insensitive that offends somebody
>>
>> Well, *anything* you say can offend *somebody*, so hopefully we do not go
>> with *that* definition... would pretty much kill all ability to post.
>
> No, the definitions say something that offends someone, not something
> that CAN offend someone. If someone is offended by a label, it's by
> definition an insult, even if not intended as such.
>
> Likewise, if someone is not offended by the label, but it was intended
> to offend, it's also an insult.
>
> A grey area might be if it wasn't intended to offend, no one was
> offended, but it was derogatory. Like, say, a black man calling
> another black man "nigger".
Just about anything you say can be claimed - by someone - to be insensitive
to their needs or views and to offend them.
>> * to say or do something that suggests a low opinion of
>> somebody or something
>>
>> Again, I see nothing dishonest or dishonorable about suggesting a low
>> opinion of someone... as long as you can explain why in specific terms and
>> you do so in context.
>
> But insult someone is in violation with the code, even if it is by
> expressing a low opinion of someone. No one questioned the honesty of
> your remarks. :)
>
>> * A deliberately offensive act
>>
>> Here you have to show that you are trying to offend. While I do not expect
>> Steve to be flattered by my comments and I except that he *might* be
>> offended, the goal is to help him see what he is doing by pointing out
>> specific examples.
>
> Your goal with the comment is irrelevant. If he is offended by it,
> then it's an insult and warrants an apology from you regardless of
> your initial motives.
I would have to offer an apology for noting that I and most people do not
think of McDonald's a "good food". My noting that sent Steve off... I will
simply not apologize for such innocuous comments, even if Carroll finds them
offensive (or acts in a way that indicates offense).
>> When I read the word "insult" I think in terms of a direct and obvious
>> insult such as to call someone an "a-hole" or to fabricate an offensive
>> story about them (so and so rapes chickens for fun!).
>>
>> I am not sure the "code" is clear enough to set a solid "rule" here.
>
> Calling someone obsessive most certainly is derogatory and an insult.
> Regardless of how much you *think* (emphasize on think here) that you
> have supported it as an observation.
How would you describe Carroll's behavior?
>>>> <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=obsession>
>>>> a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often
>>>> unreasonable idea or feeling
>>>>
>>>> Steve is *very* persistent in posting to me and about me...
>>>
>>> You know very well that you post to *each other*.
>>
>> There is a difference in my posting in *response* to his comments about me
>> and his posting *about* me in almost *all* of his posts ... and in his .sig.
>
> I wouldn't drag up any signature here, when yours is full of comments
> derived from past discussions you've had both with him and others. One
> could easily make a case that you're being obsessive, and that's
> without even commenting on the fact that it constitutes bringing up
> past issues, which also is in violation with the code. I won't,
> however.
I do not see noting simple non-derogatory facts as bringing up an "issue".
I can see where the one which quotes someone's mistake could be seen as that
and I shall remove it.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Snit
Yes. A forged post - as Steve has been told.
Snit
> In article <C2D6B85A.89E42%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Continually repeating the same material is obsessive... just
>>> thought you might want to know. I wasn't going to do it... but I'm
>>> afraid I'll now have to cite you for stockpiling and not letting go
>>> of the past. I gave you chances here to make good on your code
>>> agreement.
>>
>> LOL! Your lack of ability to offer a reasoned explanation is noted.
>
> You mean his "lack of an explanation I find reasonable", I'm sure.
No. To show why his denials and other comments are simply not based on
reason would take going over the evidence again - and I really have no
desire to do that.
Frankly this whole meta-debate is something that is not of much interest to
me.
> Commenting on his ability is misleading since lack of something
> doesn't necessarily constitue a lack of the ability to produce that
> something.
A bit of a nit, but I can accept that.
>> Pathetic
>
> This is an insult.
Fair enough.
>
>> , Steve, how you are trying to equate your obsessive actions I noted
>
> Calling someone obsessive is insulting.
>
>> where you follow me around fabricating stories and nit picking my every word
>> with my *noting* your actions and asking you for an explanation.
>
> I think I have been *very good* at living up to my end of the code,
> Michael. I think you have done very well too, but I think you're
> sidestepping it too many times now in the recent days...
I can see where noting Steve's actions could be seen as offensive... and I
will try to watch my wording.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-9D3526.15...@News.Individual.NET on 8/2/07 6:32 AM:
>
> > In article <C2D6A41C.89E0E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
> >>
> >> A falsely attributed "quote" you use to try to excuse your fabrications
> >> about me talking about teaching "IT classes".
> >
> > Hmmm?
> >
> > Isn't that quote from here:
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/85bb11fb10f76
> > d4c>
> >
> Yes. A forged post - as Steve has been told.
An alleged forged post. You have "told" me lots of things... much of it not
true. I don't know that the post even is a forgery and I told you this but it
didn't stop you from calling me a liar over it... it didn't even stop you from
claiming that I was the guy who forged it. You claimed I forged this post and I
was forging posts as Jesus... two outright lies:
"Busted again, Steve. Maveric isn't claiming that someone is forging my name, he
is claiming that Derek forged jesus' posts, not mine. You can't even keep your
own lies straight! Too funny! It's so easy to expose your forgeries that it's
not even funny any more!
Maveric is wrong, of course, but I don't take responsibility for that. I know
you forged jesus' posts and I have the proof here. I won't tell you yet though,
I like to see you sweat like this, trying to figure out what blew your cover".
<C47522H7.02578%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>
Other then the forger, I am the only person with knowledge of whether or not I
lied or I forged this quote. Being that you have persisted in claiming that it's
me who forged it from the outset, I am left with the belief that you are either
simply lying due to your admitted "hatred" of me or you are the forger (or
both). Despite what I know to be true (at least one of those things is
definitely true, you are either a liar or a forger who is pretending to have his
name used in forgery, possibly both) I'm still open to you apologizing for your
unsupported, erroneous accusations.
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Snit
> In article <C2D7423B.89E9F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
>> mr-9D3526.15...@News.Individual.NET on 8/2/07 6:32 AM:
>>
>>> In article <C2D6A41C.89E0E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
>>>>
>>>> A falsely attributed "quote" you use to try to excuse your fabrications
>>>> about me talking about teaching "IT classes".
>>>
>>> Hmmm?
>>>
>>> Isn't that quote from here:
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/85bb11fb10f76
>>> d4c>
>>>
>> Yes. A forged post - as Steve has been told.
>
> An alleged forged post.
It is forged. Period. You have been told this and yet continue to falsely
attribute those comments to me.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Snit
> you are either
> simply lying due to your admitted "hatred" of me
Quote? Support?
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-96CD58....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 8/2/07 10:09 AM:
>
> > In article <C2D7423B.89E9F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> >> mr-9D3526.15...@News.Individual.NET on 8/2/07 6:32 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <C2D6A41C.89E0E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> >>> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
> >>>>
> >>>> A falsely attributed "quote" you use to try to excuse your fabrications
> >>>> about me talking about teaching "IT classes".
> >>>
> >>> Hmmm?
> >>>
> >>> Isn't that quote from here:
> >>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/85bb11fb10f76
> >>> d4c>
> >>>
> >> Yes. A forged post - as Steve has been told.
> >
> > An alleged forged post.
>
> It is forged. Period. You have been told this and yet continue to falsely
> attribute those comments to me.
Again, you saying something does not make it so. The fact is... you could be the
forger. As things stand right now it is allegedly forged.
- Ignoring evidence
- Unsubstantiated accusations
[Example #25]
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-401D55.16...@News.Individual.NET on 8/2/07 7:54 AM:
>
> > In article <C2D6B85A.89E42%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Continually repeating the same material is obsessive... just
> >>> thought you might want to know. I wasn't going to do it... but I'm
> >>> afraid I'll now have to cite you for stockpiling and not letting go
> >>> of the past. I gave you chances here to make good on your code
> >>> agreement.
> >>
> >> LOL! Your lack of ability to offer a reasoned explanation is noted.
> >
> > You mean his "lack of an explanation I find reasonable", I'm sure.
>
> No. To show why his denials and other comments are simply not based on
> reason would take going over the evidence again - and I really have no
> desire to do that.
Of course you don't... because you know where it leads. In any event, you missed
it... he's clearly teaching you that *you* are calling this unreasonable... this
doesn't mean that it *is* unreasonable... it only means that *you* believe it's
unreasonable.
> Frankly this whole meta-debate is something that is not of much interest to
> me.
I am fully aware that the nuances of reality are often not of much interest to
you.
> > Commenting on his ability is misleading since lack of something
> > doesn't necessarily constitue a lack of the ability to produce that
> > something.
>
> A bit of a nit, but I can accept that.
LOL! Good idea, Snit... it's the exact same idea that you've pushed with your
"Bush is guilty" argument;) Of course, the difference there is that you were
talking about a person who, by all rights, should be presumed innocent until
etc. - (this part is not applicable here). Funny how you call it a "nit" when
someone else uses it.
> >> Pathetic
> >
> > This is an insult.
>
> Fair enough.
> >
> >> , Steve, how you are trying to equate your obsessive actions I noted
> >
> > Calling someone obsessive is insulting.
> >
> >> where you follow me around fabricating stories and nit picking my every
> >> word
> >> with my *noting* your actions and asking you for an explanation.
> >
> > I think I have been *very good* at living up to my end of the code,
> > Michael. I think you have done very well too, but I think you're
> > sidestepping it too many times now in the recent days...
>
> I can see where noting Steve's actions could be seen as offensive... and I
> will try to watch my wording.
In my opinion you aren't even close to living up to your end of the bargain...
I'd say it's a total sham for you to pretend otherwise.
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-96CD58....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 8/2/07 10:09 AM:
>
> > you are either
> > simply lying due to your admitted "hatred" of me
>
> Quote? Support?
Support for what?
Sandman
Wally <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>>>> I'm not ignoring anything. I have reminded him repeatedly about
>>>> the agreement and how he should act in accordance with it. :)
>>>
>>> I realize you have pointed to instances here and there... but by
>>> "ignore" I mean you have ignored it with respect to ending the
>>> agreement when you rightfully could have (via the fact that Snit
>>> had already broken it). Hmm... Snit's say he always takes full
>>> responsibility for his actions... I wonder if he'd cop to having
>>> broken your agreement with him?
>>
>> I don't think he would. But I don't see this agreement as a boolean
>> thing. It's not like I will end the agreement for the first thing I
>> see that isn't in accordance with it. I warn him when he's going
>> out of line. I think it's only fair.
>
> I agree it would be! which added to my surprise to see you mention your
> observations to a third party as to how Snit had circumvented the agreement
> before mentioning it to Snit!
Hmmm, what did you have in mind?
> I accept that it may well be your view that bypassing the agreement is in
> accordance with it...
It isn't. :)
> > I know you've been working hard to make him break it, and I really
> > think he should killfile you. :)
>
> Why? :)
For the best of csma, of course. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> > 1) Be specific. Use the specific example of what it is you that is
> > bothering you. Vague complaints are hard to agree on, especially
> > in a forum like this.
>
> I am sure your opinion will differ but in my opinion the quote from you that
> follows my comments here hardly conforms to #1), IMO you should have
> mentioned your observations to Snit directly and promptly in the spirit of
> the agreement that you two have made rather than assuming that he will alter
> his behavior after reading your comments to a third party ...a party that
> forms no part of said agreement.
I'm not sure what comment you're in reference to.
> "He has said things like "You act in a way that is identical to being
> *insert insult here*" which has been a way to sidestep the rules. I
> haven't called him on it yet, but I will soon enough. He'll probably
> stop doing it now that I brought it up."-Sandman
Aaaah. Now I get it. You think I should have said that to Snit first,
and not as a response to Steve?
Well, I agree. I should have.
> > 2) Don't generalize. Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such
> > generalizations are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
>
> As would stating your observations to a third party before giving Snit the
> initial right of reply.
Correct.
> > 3) Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
> > counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
> > problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with
> > problems as they arise.
>
> IMO "I haven't called him on it yet, but I will soon enough." does appear
> to be stockpiling.
No, it's called patience. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-9D3526.15...@News.Individual.NET on 8/2/07 6:32 AM:
>
> > In article <C2D6A41C.89E0E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
> >>
> >> A falsely attributed "quote" you use to try to excuse your fabrications
> >> about me talking about teaching "IT classes".
> >
> > Hmmm?
> >
> > Isn't that quote from here:
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/85bb11fb10f76
> > d4c>
> >
> Yes. A forged post - as Steve has been told.
Hmmm, ok. I didn't know.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> > An alleged forged post.
>
> It is forged. Period. You have been told this and yet continue to falsely
> attribute those comments to me.
I agree with you here. You are the one that would know if you wrote
something (apart from merely forgetting something). If you say you
didn't write it, then you didn't. Steve might require something other
than your word for it, but all things being equal, you'd be the sure
to go on for the authenticity of a post allegedly from you.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <mr-9D3526.15...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <C2D6A41C.89E0E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
> > >
> > > A falsely attributed "quote" you use to try to excuse your fabrications
> > > about me talking about teaching "IT classes".
> >
> > Hmmm?
> >
> > Isn't that quote from here:
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/85bb11fb10f76
> > d4c>
>
> Here are the real facts...
>
> 1 - The source you show above is where I got it from.
Check.
> 2 - Snit's claiming he didn't write it... but I don't *know* that.
Only ha can know it. But for the record - I have no reason NOT to
believe him. Why would he claim only one of the quotes were a forgery
and not all? Seems illogical.
> 3 - I've explained item 2 to him before.
>
> 4 - Snit is *still* calling me a liar (he also claimed I forged him with
> this).
Calling you a liar when you have told no lie is in violation with the
code, yes.
> 5 - Forgery and lying about this quote are two things he never supported.
Which of course also would be in violation of the code.
Actually, all of this is in the past, so it's all in violation with
the code when I come to think of it.
> 6 - I did not forge him... ever.
I have no problem taking your word for that.
> 7 - I did not falsely attribute (lie), as far as I knew, when I quoted
> this...
> in fact, I still don't *know* it now, I only have Snit's word to take for it.
I think, if he just stopped calling you a liar about including the
quote and explained that he never wrote it and perhaps apologized for
calling you a liar about it, you'd have no problem removing it? I'm
assuming you don't want hard evidence (i.e. IP logs or whatnot) that
*prove* he didn't write, all you want is his assurance and and honest
apology for what he has said about it - which of course could result
in you removing the quote and apologizing that you included it - just
as a gesture as a gentleman.
Am I right?
> I told Snit that when he shoots first and asks questions later that
> a quote he *claims* he didn't write will stand until he apologizes
> for his actions. He knows what he needs to do. Were he truly
> honorable, he'd have done it long ago. I think this example
> perfectly underscores which party the "hatred" is coming from. From
> my viewpoint he is disingenuous so often that I have every reason to
> believe that he wrote the quote he is claiming he didn't write...
> just so he could do what he is doing now (in the event that I used
> it - which I did).
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Interesting... now you're telling this lie to Sandman. I don't understand why
you would do this... but I have already proven this lie numerous times. I
specifically said that my issue was with your appeal to the authority of "most
people"... the topic of "good food" is totally irrelevant. I pointed out that
"most people" don't buy Macs. Notably, here... you have highlighted the words
"good food" and not the words "most people". You are deliberately misleading
Sandman with what I have made clear is not the truth.
- Lying
- Deliberate misinterpretation
- Ignoring evidence
- Unsubstantiated accusations
- Obfuscation
- Having an agenda
> >> When I read the word "insult" I think in terms of a direct and obvious
> >> insult such as to call someone an "a-hole" or to fabricate an offensive
> >> story about them (so and so rapes chickens for fun!).
> >>
> >> I am not sure the "code" is clear enough to set a solid "rule" here.
> >
> > Calling someone obsessive most certainly is derogatory and an insult.
> > Regardless of how much you *think* (emphasize on think here) that you
> > have supported it as an observation.
>
> How would you describe Carroll's behavior?
I'd like to see how he describes what you just did up above.
[Example #26]
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Sandman
> >> Well, *anything* you say can offend *somebody*, so hopefully we do not go
> >> with *that* definition... would pretty much kill all ability to post.
> >
> > No, the definitions say something that offends someone, not something
> > that CAN offend someone. If someone is offended by a label, it's by
> > definition an insult, even if not intended as such.
> >
> > Likewise, if someone is not offended by the label, but it was intended
> > to offend, it's also an insult.
> >
> > A grey area might be if it wasn't intended to offend, no one was
> > offended, but it was derogatory. Like, say, a black man calling
> > another black man "nigger".
>
> Just about anything you say can be claimed - by someone - to be insensitive
> to their needs or views and to offend them.
Exactly, and when that happens, one apologizes and see to it that it
doesn't happen again.
>>> Here you have to show that you are trying to offend. While I do
>>> not expect Steve to be flattered by my comments and I except that
>>> he *might* be offended, the goal is to help him see what he is
>>> doing by pointing out specific examples.
>>
>> Your goal with the comment is irrelevant. If he is offended by it,
>> then it's an insult and warrants an apology from you regardless of
>> your initial motives.
>
> I would have to offer an apology for noting that I and most people do not
> think of McDonald's a "good food".
Why? Who took offence at it?
> My noting that sent Steve off... I will simply not apologize for
> such innocuous comments, even if Carroll finds them offensive (or
> acts in a way that indicates offense).
I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that he finds the
offensive. He may not agree with you, or think that you exaggerate,
but be offended by it? No, I don't think so.
> >> When I read the word "insult" I think in terms of a direct and obvious
> >> insult such as to call someone an "a-hole" or to fabricate an offensive
> >> story about them (so and so rapes chickens for fun!).
> >>
> >> I am not sure the "code" is clear enough to set a solid "rule" here.
> >
> > Calling someone obsessive most certainly is derogatory and an insult.
> > Regardless of how much you *think* (emphasize on think here) that you
> > have supported it as an observation.
>
> How would you describe Carroll's behavior?
I rather not label him at all. I know he, and you, can be provoking.
As can I. This is - after all - an advocacy group. Nothing strange
about that. Nothing "obsessive" about it either.
> > I wouldn't drag up any signature here, when yours is full of comments
> > derived from past discussions you've had both with him and others. One
> > could easily make a case that you're being obsessive, and that's
> > without even commenting on the fact that it constitutes bringing up
> > past issues, which also is in violation with the code. I won't,
> > however.
>
> I do not see noting simple non-derogatory facts as bringing up an "issue".
But it is. If they were simple non-derogatory facts that didn't tie in
with past issues (like, stating in your signature that bumble-bees
does not break the laws of physics), then I wouldn't say anything.
Most (or all) of your signature lines are in direct relation to past
discussions.
> I can see where the one which quotes someone's mistake could be seen as that
> and I shall remove it.
Good form. By the way, wouldn't that be all of them - aren't all
"simple facts" you state as to highlight what you see as mistakes
others have made?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> >> where you follow me around fabricating stories and nit picking my every
> >> word
> >> with my *noting* your actions and asking you for an explanation.
> >
> > I think I have been *very good* at living up to my end of the code,
> > Michael. I think you have done very well too, but I think you're
> > sidestepping it too many times now in the recent days...
>
> I can see where noting Steve's actions could be seen as offensive... and I
> will try to watch my wording.
Good form. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
For what it is worth, I took no offense nor saw it as stockpiling. That
would be if you had a whole litany of different complaints. I do not
believe you did.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
Snit
>> 4 - Snit is *still* calling me a liar (he also claimed I forged him with
>> this).
>
> Calling you a liar when you have told no lie is in violation with the
> code, yes.
But it is also something I have not recently done. When Steve says I am
"*still*" calling him a liar over it he is incorrect.
For that matter, this whole line of discussion as to *who* the forger was is
irrelevant to the fact that I was forged, Steve has been told, and yet he is
*still* attributing that quote to me.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> 4 - Snit is *still* calling me a liar (he also claimed I forged him with
> >> this).
> >
> > Calling you a liar when you have told no lie is in violation with the
> > code, yes.
>
> But it is also something I have not recently done. When Steve says I am
> "*still*" calling him a liar over it he is incorrect.
Ok, I didn't know that.
> For that matter, this whole line of discussion as to *who* the forger was is
> irrelevant to the fact that I was forged, Steve has been told, and yet he is
> *still* attributing that quote to me.
But he has stated that he expects an apology from you for calling him
a liar when he has told no lie. Seems like a reasonable request to me.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Nopes. But I agree with wally that it was bad form from me to mention
a complaint about your actions the first time in a response to someone
other than you. You should have been given the first and foremost
chance to comment on your actions.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <noone-2E4130....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <mr-9D3526.15...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <C2D6A41C.89E0E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
> > > >
> > > > A falsely attributed "quote" you use to try to excuse your fabrications
> > > > about me talking about teaching "IT classes".
> > >
> > > Hmmm?
> > >
> > > Isn't that quote from here:
> > > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/85bb11fb10f76
> > > d4c>
> >
> > Here are the real facts...
> >
> > 1 - The source you show above is where I got it from.
>
> Check.
>
> > 2 - Snit's claiming he didn't write it... but I don't *know* that.
>
> Only ha can know it. But for the record - I have no reason NOT to
> believe him.
Incorrect. You have lots of reason not to believe Snit... all you have to do is
look at how he is still acting. I've cited numerous examples just since last
night alone (I didn't even cite every example I came across).
> Why would he claim only one of the quotes were a forgery
> and not all? Seems illogical.
>
> > 3 - I've explained item 2 to him before.
> >
> > 4 - Snit is *still* calling me a liar (he also claimed I forged him with
> > this).
>
> Calling you a liar when you have told no lie is in violation with the
> code, yes.
I think it's pretty obvious that Snit doesn't care a whole lot about the code.
He may have lasted longer with you than he did with ed but he is what he is... a
deal breaker.
> > 5 - Forgery and lying about this quote are two things he never supported.
>
> Which of course also would be in violation of the code.
>
> Actually, all of this is in the past, so it's all in violation with
> the code when I come to think of it.
>
> > 6 - I did not forge him... ever.
>
> I have no problem taking your word for that.
I'm not even asking you to do that... the point is, Snit can't show any evidence
for these claims. The guy who is always whining about "support" can't support
his own claims... it's classic projection on his part.
> > 7 - I did not falsely attribute (lie), as far as I knew, when I quoted
> > this...
> > in fact, I still don't *know* it now, I only have Snit's word to take for
> > it.
>
> I think, if he just stopped calling you a liar about including the
> quote and explained that he never wrote it and perhaps apologized for
> calling you a liar about it, you'd have no problem removing it?
Snit it well aware of this... his pretending otherwise is total bullshit.
> I'm
> assuming you don't want hard evidence (i.e. IP logs or whatnot) that
> *prove* he didn't write, all you want is his assurance and and honest
> apology for what he has said about it - which of course could result
> in you removing the quote and apologizing that you included it - just
> as a gesture as a gentleman.
>
> Am I right?
It could result in that, in fact, there is every reason to believe that it will
result in that... I have removed stuff in the past when he's been reasonable.
There's no need for you to play moderator, Snit's a big boy... he knows what's
required here.
> > I told Snit that when he shoots first and asks questions later that
> > a quote he *claims* he didn't write will stand until he apologizes
> > for his actions. He knows what he needs to do. Were he truly
> > honorable, he'd have done it long ago. I think this example
> > perfectly underscores which party the "hatred" is coming from. From
> > my viewpoint he is disingenuous so often that I have every reason to
> > believe that he wrote the quote he is claiming he didn't write...
> > just so he could do what he is doing now (in the event that I used
> > it - which I did).
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
To what end? You finally dump a bunch of shit on him? I think Wally has it
right;)
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> 2 - Snit's claiming he didn't write it... but I don't *know* that.
>>
>> Only ha can know it. But for the record - I have no reason NOT to
>> believe him.
>
> Incorrect. You have lots of reason not to believe Snit... all you
> have to do is look at how he is still acting. I've cited numerous
> examples just since last night alone (I didn't even cite every
> example I came across).
Not of him ling about being forged. I see no reason for him to claim
that only that post was forged. If he was lying about it, why not say
all were forged?
>> Calling you a liar when you have told no lie is in violation with
>> the code, yes.
>
> I think it's pretty obvious that Snit doesn't care a whole lot about
> the code. He may have lasted longer with you than he did with ed but
> he is what he is... a deal breaker.
I still have hope. I agree that he has been off the path now and then,
but I also see that he is really trying, as am I.
>> I'm assuming you don't want hard evidence (i.e. IP logs or whatnot)
>> that *prove* he didn't write, all you want is his assurance and and
>> honest apology for what he has said about it - which of course
>> could result in you removing the quote and apologizing that you
>> included it - just as a gesture as a gentleman.
>>
>> Am I right?
>
> It could result in that, in fact, there is every reason to believe
> that it will result in that... I have removed stuff in the past when
> he's been reasonable. There's no need for you to play moderator,
> Snit's a big boy... he knows what's required here.
I'm not playing a moderator (or rather, that wasn't my intention), I
was actually trying to get a hang of your stance here. As it is, I
don't see any issue. He should apologize, you would then remove it.
there really is no problem here.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > > 3) Don't stockpile. Storing up lots of grievances over time is
> > > > counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old
> > > > problems for which interpretations may differ. Try to deal with
> > > > problems as they arise.
> > >
> > > IMO "I haven't called him on it yet, but I will soon enough." does appear
> > > to be stockpiling.
> >
> > No, it's called patience. :)
>
> To what end? You finally dump a bunch of shit on him?
Well, "calling him on it" would - in my view - only be mentioning it.
I have now and he has agreed. I also agreed with Wally that I was in
error to take it up with you first instead of Snit. As it turned out,
Snit didn't take issue with that.
BUt upon re-reading what I wrote, I see how my remark could be read as
me waiting to get enough meat on the bones to do a full-scale attack.
I assure you that that wasn't my intention, just bad wording on my
part. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <C2D75E6A.89EC0%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > An alleged forged post.
> >
> > It is forged. Period. You have been told this and yet continue to falsely
> > attribute those comments to me.
>
> I agree with you here. You are the one that would know if you wrote
> something (apart from merely forgetting something). If you say you
> didn't write it, then you didn't.
An untrue statement if there ever was one.
> Steve might require something other
> than your word for it, but all things being equal, you'd be the sure
> to go on for the authenticity of a post allegedly from you.
I couldn't disagree more. Snit has clearly demonstrated, time and again, that he
is willing to be **completely** dishonest (Snit *has* forged posts). Snit saying
he didn't do something carries absolutely no weight at all... as it shouldn't.
--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> I agree with you here. You are the one that would know if you wrote
>> something (apart from merely forgetting something). If you say you
>> didn't write it, then you didn't.
>
> An untrue statement if there ever was one.
>>
>> Steve might require something other than your word for it, but all
>> things being equal, you'd be the sure to go on for the authenticity
>> of a post allegedly from you.
>
> I couldn't disagree more. Snit has clearly demonstrated, time and
> again, that he is willing to be **completely** dishonest (Snit *has*
> forged posts). Snit saying he didn't do something carries absolutely
> no weight at all... as it shouldn't.
Unless he had agreed to be honest and honorable. You should have noted
that my opinion of him and what he says has changed drastically since
then.
I won't - as long as I feel he is actively trying to live by the
agreement (even if he fail it at times, as you have pointed out) -
assume anything about his motives, or base any conclusions of his
actions about me feelings about him prior to the agreement.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I do not know if Steve used the word "offense" but he does say he have an
"issue" with it. Specifically, when I asked him what comments of mine he
has an issue with, he quoted this:
As far as McDonald's, frankly it is pretty darn clear even
to someone who does not eat at that particular fast food
joint that it is a, well, fast food joint that does not
serve what most people would call "good food"
Now having an "issue" does not mean one is specifically offended - but it
does appear to me that Steve takes offense at my saying that. He certainly
has posted a lot about it and called me names and stated insults in relation
to that - actions that reasonably can be said to show being offended.
Let's see if we can get this clarified:
Steve: are you offended by my above, indented, comments?
>> My noting that sent Steve off... I will simply not apologize for
>> such innocuous comments, even if Carroll finds them offensive (or
>> acts in a way that indicates offense).
>
> I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that he finds the
> offensive. He may not agree with you, or think that you exaggerate,
> but be offended by it? No, I don't think so.
>
>>>> When I read the word "insult" I think in terms of a direct and obvious
>>>> insult such as to call someone an "a-hole" or to fabricate an offensive
>>>> story about them (so and so rapes chickens for fun!).
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure the "code" is clear enough to set a solid "rule" here.
>>>
>>> Calling someone obsessive most certainly is derogatory and an insult.
>>> Regardless of how much you *think* (emphasize on think here) that you
>>> have supported it as an observation.
>>
>> How would you describe Carroll's behavior?
>
> I rather not label him at all. I know he, and you, can be provoking.
> As can I. This is - after all - an advocacy group. Nothing strange
> about that. Nothing "obsessive" about it either.
There is a huge difference in posting something that is targeted at a group
or even an individual and having a consistent focus of targeting one person.
Steve has openly admitted he targets me with his actions, though even if he
did not it would be clear he focuses the vast majority of his attention in
CSMA at me. To be "forced" to ignore this fact is not right... but to note
it can be seen as being offensive to Carroll.
>>> I wouldn't drag up any signature here, when yours is full of comments
>>> derived from past discussions you've had both with him and others. One
>>> could easily make a case that you're being obsessive, and that's
>>> without even commenting on the fact that it constitutes bringing up
>>> past issues, which also is in violation with the code. I won't,
>>> however.
>>
>> I do not see noting simple non-derogatory facts as bringing up an "issue".
>
> But it is. If they were simple non-derogatory facts that didn't tie in
> with past issues (like, stating in your signature that bumble-bees
> does not break the laws of physics), then I wouldn't say anything.
> Most (or all) of your signature lines are in direct relation to past
> discussions.
Then so is any FAQ list.
>> I can see where the one which quotes someone's mistake could be seen as that
>> and I shall remove it.
>
> Good form. By the way, wouldn't that be all of them - aren't all
> "simple facts" you state as to highlight what you see as mistakes
> others have made?
They highlight questions that have been asked...
By the way, I have not yet updated my .sigs, but I will soon.