Blocked from some Apple discussion forums!
hooterville
I started the thread but it was somewhat critical of Apple and now I
can't even get in to read the replies. Looks like another Apple
coverup job. Apparently I was reported as spamming by an Apple spy
when I only wanted to cross-post to gain more responses and available
help. QuickTime (and all its shortcomings) come with every Mac and
every version of the OS since it was coded. And it still doesn't work
as well as far simpler, free and low-cost programs.
Here are links to the original posts - maybe you can get in to read them.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4500929#4500929
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4501453#4501453
In case you can't get in here's the original post and some replies at
one discussion group.
Apple.com > Support > Discussions > QuickTime > QuickTime for Mac OS
Topic: QT problems with MIDI playback
There are new replies to your question.
• Mark question as still not answered.
• Mark question as answered.
• Use the "helpful" or "solved" buttons to award points to replies.
You are subscribed to this topic. To cancel your subscription to this
topic, click "Cancel Subscription" below. (Subscription Options)
Reply to this Topic
Cancel Subscription to this Topic
Back to Topic List
Replies: 2 - Pages: 1 - Last Post: May 2, 2007 5:41 PM by: QuickTimeKirk
hooterville
Posts: 35
From: USA
Registered: Feb 24, 2006
QT problems with MIDI playback
Posted: May 2, 2007 4:26 PM
Reply
Hopefully, the WWDC will lead to better software for the Mac, not only
from 3rd parties but from Apple itself. The announcement of new
computers with faster chips would help but after all these years it is
astounding that QuickTime still can't playback MIDI files that are
above a certain level of complexity - mainly with pedal, sustain and
rapid note events that pile up in the QT synthesizer and overload it
until it just stops. This has been endlessly discussed here, at Mac
Music and elsewhere. But, Apple has still not made QT a better product
in this regard. Or is the problem that the processing power of the Mac
still is not up to the PC?
The only way to make pro music on a Mac is with an intel Mac Pro that
has a pro soundcard and sufficient memory and shell out the cash for a
high-end software program like Finale, Sibelius or Logic Pro or to use
a lower end intel Mac with external USB playback hardware. Sad, but
true, that Windows software and low-end and lower cost PC's give the
user the capacity to create and playback pro music and do it much
better than low-end Macs. I know, I tried it. A G4 PPC eMac or G5 iMac
(and the laptops) are good for lightweight MIDI and it handles MP3 fine
- the same is true for low-end intel Macs. I just wish I'd known all
this about Macs and music before I shelled out for one of the first
intel iMacs - live and learn.
But download these .zip MIDI files (virus scanned OK but please always
scan downloaded files if you need to) and try to play them with your
Mac and truthfully post your results here. Preferably, if you use both
Mac and PCs - give it a try and see what happens. They playback fine on
any PC with a reasonable amount of processor power, most sound synths
(including QT that has been set in preferences to General MIDI and to
the PC sound card or other synth instead of Quick Time synth) a good
soundcard, or even onboard audio that has enough processor and memory
to handle it. At the CSMA archives, the last time this was posted,
every user had a different story - those who were honest said the files
stopped playing with QT on Macs.
This is not a free ad for my non-commercial website. But, since it is a
free site, if I just put up the remote links to the files, you will get
directed to an ad page for the server. So go to the home page
http://lamplightmus.topcities.com/
and page down to the downloads listed under Jazz and Blues MIDI files
left click on the links to
Pennies from Heaven (piano solo)
Stomp (Live Piano Improvisation)
or page down further to classical music MIDI
Echoes Return, Symphony No. 1 (orchestra), 2nd movement
Any of these files will demonstrate the problem.
I've been to Apple stores and resellers and tried these files out on
all the Macs and without a pro sound card you get the same results - QT
was not made for MIDI, at least not pro MIDI. It appears that QT is
designed for the average user and more for video and MP3/4 than
advanced MIDI. So, since I found some new software that I'd like to try
that only runs on PC, I'm back on my PC laptop at least for part of the
time. In Apple's favor, the new intel Macs are great improvements in
processing power and speed over older PPC machines and there is no
doubt that many, myself included, prefer Mac for video, photos and
graphics work. It does all the basic productivity software fine as well
- my big beef with Apple and Macs is the lack of low-end support for
high-end MIDI and music work. You have to pay the bucks for Mac Pro and
a lot of new hardware and software if you want to get it right.
Unfortunately, for the time being, with Windows and PC you can do it a
lot cheaper.
iMac intel core duo 20" Mac OS X (10.4.9) Finale Songwriter, MWPE Win
Colin Holgate
Posts: 1,084
From: Brooklyn, NYC
Registered: Jan 10, 2002
New!
Re: QT problems with MIDI playback
Posted: May 2, 2007 5:15 PM in response to: hooterville
Reply
That was interesting to try. Sure enough, in QuickTime Player the notes
dry up. I guess it's just a polyphony limitation of QuickTime Player.
In GarageBand all the notes seemed to carry on ok.
iMac G5 1.8 GHz Mac OS X (10.4.9)
QuickTimeKirk
Posts: 9,740
From: Kenedy, Texas
Registered: Apr 29, 2005
New!
Re: QT problems with MIDI playback
Posted: May 2, 2007 5:41 PM in response to: hooterville
Reply
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30491
The "basic" QuickTime install only includes the Roland features and it
hasn't been updated since the date of that article.
Those that do create more advanced MIDI files usually share them with
dedicated third party software and QuickTime Player isn't used.
But you're absolutely correct that QuickTime Player needs some new
licensing agreements to allow you to share your work as you've written
it.
It's 2007 and not 1998 and Apple should address your issues. But I
don't expect anything new on 25 year old technology.
Mac mini, iMac G3 400, and Sony laptop using XP Mac OS X (10.4.9)
10.3.9 OS 9.2
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
MuahMan
about Apple is considered heresey.
Sandman
hooterville <hoo...@ville.net> wrote:
> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4500839#4500839
>
> I started the thread but it was somewhat critical of Apple and now I
> can't even get in to read the replies. Looks like another Apple
> coverup job.
Yeah, Apple is covering up lack of support for complex MIDI files!
Hopefully the world will never know! Muahahaha! :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
OldCSMAer
> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4500839#4500839
>
> I started the thread but it was somewhat critical of Apple and now I
> can't even get in to read the replies. Looks like another Apple
> coverup job.
...Boring crap deleted....
Boo hoo.
Tim Murray
> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4500839#4500839
>
> I started the thread but it was somewhat critical of Apple and now I
> can't even get in to read the replies.
Bullshit. You can read them right now, including those that agree Apple needs
to upgrade its MIDI support, without even logging in. And not only did you
read replies, you answered them -- the latest about 8 this morning, probably
PST.
hol...@solved.org
wrote:
Duh! You followed the links to the active discussions - the error was
reported after the topic was deleted and blocked from several other
forums where it was posted. Considered off-topic or overkill by the
big brother monitors at the Apple discussion sites.
bj
wrote:
Boring to you - not to those who enjoy it and or do it for a living.
We need software and hardware that "just works."
Often, it's a PC and not a Mac.
bj
Lots of folks like you don't care and that's why Apple doesn't fix it.
Their too busy trying to make money with iPhone, iPod, iTunes store,
overpriced software like Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro - too busy to get
Leopard out on time as predicted.
Snit
on 5/3/07 9:38 PM:
What, again, is this supposed problem? My Mac played the files just fine.
Is it just an isolated incident or even false rumor that a Mac somewhere did
not play them?
--
€ 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.
Sandman
bj <b...@bj.net> wrote:
> >> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4500839#4500839
> >>
> >> I started the thread but it was somewhat critical of Apple and now I
> >> can't even get in to read the replies. Looks like another Apple
> >> coverup job.
> >
> >Yeah, Apple is covering up lack of support for complex MIDI files!
> >Hopefully the world will never know! Muahahaha! :-D
>
> Lots of folks like you don't care and that's why Apple doesn't fix it.
Sure, but it's more serious than that - they're covering it up!
> Their too busy trying to make money with iPhone, iPod, iTunes store,
A publically traded company trying to make money! Bastards!
> overpriced software like Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro - too busy to get
> Leopard out on time as predicted.
Yeah, we all hate them for that :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
nospamatall
posted here about this, and now you've posted the whole thing again in
another thread. A few things were pointed out to you, to which you
didn't respond.
On most systems where this was tried, the files worked. On one where it
did not, the user found that it did workin garageband, no problem. This
is enough of a pointer for you to at least modify you posting, but no,
you just keep blasting away as if nobody had taken any notice. Seems
like if anyone points out errors in what you are saying, they are in
your mind conspiring to shut you up or just lying.
What is the point in asking anyone anything with that attitude?
Andy
nospamatall
> What, again, is this supposed problem? My Mac played the files just fine.
> Is it just an isolated incident or even false rumor that a Mac somewhere did
> not play them?
>
Most likely thing is that quicktime player is primarily a movie player,
and on an older mac or maybe with an older version, it chokes on large
amounts of polyphony. It didn't on my machine but I can believe that it
can do. However, quicktime player is not a pro music app so the OP is
making something big out of not much at all. Someone here reported a
problem in QT player yet it played fine in garageband, so it is not a QT
problem, more, possibly, a minor QT player problem.
I think seeing as the OP even admits cross posting and multi-posting in
forums, this is likely an attempt to publicise his website. It certainly
doesn't sound like someone with a problem who just wants it solved, more
like a wintroll with no interest in the replies here or in the fora he
posted to. Here he can't get banned. That's probably why he is here.
Can't be much of a pro if he confuses QT player with Quicktime itself.
Andy
Snit
5/4/07 3:05 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> What, again, is this supposed problem? My Mac played the files just fine.
>> Is it just an isolated incident or even false rumor that a Mac somewhere did
>> not play them?
>>
>
> Most likely thing is that quicktime player is primarily a movie player,
> and on an older mac or maybe with an older version, it chokes on large
> amounts of polyphony.
Maybe older versions... but my Mac is hardly a new one: G4 800.
> It didn't on my machine but I can believe that it can do. However, quicktime
> player is not a pro music app so the OP is making something big out of not
> much at all. Someone here reported a problem in QT player yet it played fine
> in garageband, so it is not a QT problem, more, possibly, a minor QT player
> problem.
>
> I think seeing as the OP even admits cross posting and multi-posting in
> forums, this is likely an attempt to publicise his website. It certainly
> doesn't sound like someone with a problem who just wants it solved, more
> like a wintroll with no interest in the replies here or in the fora he
> posted to. Here he can't get banned. That's probably why he is here.
>
> Can't be much of a pro if he confuses QT player with Quicktime itself.
Makes sense... and, yes, does seem like he is promoting his own site as much
as anything.
--
€ 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:
> "nospamatall" <nospa...@iol.ie> stated in post f1gao6$orb$1...@aioe.org on
> 5/4/07 3:05 PM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >
> >> What, again, is this supposed problem? My Mac played the files just fine.
> >> Is it just an isolated incident or even false rumor that a Mac somewhere
> >> did
> >> not play them?
> >>
> >
> > Most likely thing is that quicktime player is primarily a movie player,
> > and on an older mac or maybe with an older version, it chokes on large
> > amounts of polyphony.
>
> Maybe older versions... but my Mac is hardly a new one: G4 800.
It's not limited too "older versions" (nor is it a polyphony problem). Pennies
from Heaven stopped on this MBP with the latest version of QT Pro at 29 seconds
in. I could go into more detail but Snit has already proven he doesn't
understand the topic (last time he said I obfuscated when I offered a detailed
explanation)... In any event, below, I have again pointed to a post in the
thread created the last time we went through this issue...
When I detailed the problem, a poster wrote:
"So if you wish to obfuscate the issue with loads of technical data in an
attempt to show the superiority of the Mac or your advanced technical
knowledge, please have at it".
Snit agreed with the poster that my explanation was 'obfuscating':
"LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games". - Snit
<BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
(Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
--
"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
Snit
noone-46AFB4....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/6/07 6:21 AM:
> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.I
NVALID>
-----
Not Found
The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
could not be found.
You can visit the main page.
-----
Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
LOL!
--
€ 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
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-46AFB4....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/6/07 6:21 AM:
>
> > <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> >
> > (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.I
> NVALID>
> -----
> Not Found
>
> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> could not be found.
>
> You can visit the main page.
> -----
>
> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
> LOL!
Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not all
searches are working on google right now. In any event, you failed to comment on
the statement itself... are you denying that you wrote it? Here it is again:
"LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games".
Snit? Hello? Snit? LOL! Go ahead... deny it, and when google is working properly
again reality will beat you up the way it always does.
My prediction: You're lacing up your track shoes as you read this;)
Snit
> In article <C2633D62.7F8A3%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-46AFB4....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/6/07 6:21 AM:
>>
>>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>
>>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.I
>> NVALID>
>> -----
>> Not Found
>>
>> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> could not be found.
>>
>> You can visit the main page.
>> -----
>>
>> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
>> LOL!
>
> Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not all
> searches are working on google right now.
Your doing - right? LOL! Or did you only do that on 07 May 2005. By the
way, the Google record allowed me to find *that* date just fine... the day
you claimed:
Subject: I just brought Google down
If I can do that, and I did, I can hack any of you. Now who
is the baddest one in CSMA!
Then later you claimed to have hacked Josh's computer... then you claimed
your posts were being forged... but you forget to post from your
individual.net account when you made your claims about Josh's computer!
So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
> In any event, you failed to comment on the statement itself... are you denying
> that you wrote it? Here it is again:
>
> "LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
> obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games".
>
> Snit? Hello? Snit? LOL! Go ahead... deny it, and when google is working
> properly again reality will beat you up the way it always does.
>
> My prediction: You're lacing up your track shoes as you read this;)
Do you deny you spew all sorts of obfuscations?
--
€ 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
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
(snip)
> > In any event, you failed to comment on the statement itself... are you
> > denying
> > that you wrote it? Here it is again:
> >
> > "LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
> > obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games".
> >
> > Snit? Hello? Snit? LOL! Go ahead... deny it, and when google is working
> > properly again reality will beat you up the way it always does.
> >
> > My prediction: You're lacing up your track shoes as you read this;)
>
> Do you deny you spew all sorts of obfuscations?
As predicted you ran;)
Snit
>>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>
>>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.I
>> NVALID>
>> -----
>> Not Found
>>
>> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> could not be found.
>>
>> You can visit the main page.
>> -----
>>
>> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
>> LOL!
>
> Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not all
> searches are working on google right now.
Your doing - right? LOL! Or did you only do that on 07 May 2005. By the
way, the Google record allowed me to find *that* date just fine... the day
you claimed:
Subject: I just brought Google down
If I can do that, and I did, I can hack any of you. Now who
is the baddest one in CSMA!
Then later you claimed to have hacked Josh's computer... then you claimed
your posts were being forged... but you forget to post from your
individual.net account when you made your claims about Josh's computer!
So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
> In any event, you failed to comment on the statement itself... are you denying
> that you wrote it? Here it is again:
>
> "LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
> obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games".
>
> Snit? Hello? Snit? LOL! Go ahead... deny it, and when google is working
> properly again reality will beat you up the way it always does.
>
> My prediction: You're lacing up your track shoes as you read this;)
Do you deny you spew all sorts of obfuscations?
--
€ 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
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
(snip irrelevant crap)
> > In any event, you failed to comment on the statement itself... are you
> > denying
> > that you wrote it? Here it is again:
> >
> > "LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
> > obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games".
> >
> > Snit? Hello? Snit? LOL! Go ahead... deny it, and when google is working
> > properly again reality will beat you up the way it always does.
> >
> > My prediction: You're lacing up your track shoes as you read this;)
>
> Do you deny you spew all sorts of obfuscations?
Glad to see you admit that you wrote that statement, Snit... so go ahead and
pretend you know all about MIDI files now, too;)
Snit
>>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>
>>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.I
>> NVALID>
>> -----
>> Not Found
>>
>> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> could not be found.
>>
>> You can visit the main page.
>> -----
>>
>> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
>> LOL!
>
> Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not all
> searches are working on google right now.
Your doing - right? LOL! Or did you only do that on 07 May 2005. By the
way, the Google record allowed me to find *that* date just fine... the day
you claimed:
Subject: I just brought Google down
If I can do that, and I did, I can hack any of you. Now who
is the baddest one in CSMA!
Then later you claimed to have hacked Josh's computer... then you claimed
your posts were being forged... but you forget to post from your
individual.net account when you made your claims about Josh's computer!
So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
> In any event, you failed to comment on the statement itself... are you denying
> that you wrote it? Here it is again:
>
> "LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
> obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games".
>
> Snit? Hello? Snit? LOL! Go ahead... deny it, and when google is working
> properly again reality will beat you up the way it always does.
>
> My prediction: You're lacing up your track shoes as you read this;)
Do you deny you spew all sorts of obfuscations?
--
€ 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
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-46AFB4....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/6/07 6:21 AM:
>
> > <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> >
> > (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.I
> NVALID>
> -----
> Not Found
>
> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> could not be found.
>
> You can visit the main page.
> -----
>
> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
> LOL!
Try it now...
As I said, what you have blamed on me was google's fault. I thought you were Mr.
IT teacher? Strange how I was able to quickly figure out it was google's fault
and you weren't, isn't it? <smirk>
Do you think you'll need help using a message ID;)
Snit
>>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>
>>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.I
>> NVALID>
>> -----
>> Not Found
>>
>> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> could not be found.
>>
>> You can visit the main page.
>> -----
>>
>> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
>> LOL!
>
> Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not all
> searches are working on google right now.
Your doing - right? LOL! Or did you only do that on 07 May 2005. By the
way, the Google record allowed me to find *that* date just fine... the day
you claimed:
Subject: I just brought Google down
If I can do that, and I did, I can hack any of you. Now who
is the baddest one in CSMA!
Then later you claimed to have hacked Josh's computer... then you claimed
your posts were being forged... but you forget to post from your
individual.net account when you made your claims about Josh's computer!
So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-8F9159....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/6/07 10:06 AM:
>
> >>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> >>>
> >>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
> >>
> >> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.
> >> I
> >> NVALID>
> >> -----
> >> Not Found
> >>
> >> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> >> could not be found.
> >>
> >> You can visit the main page.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
> >> LOL!
> >
> > Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not
> > all
> > searches are working on google right now.
>
> Your doing - right? LOL!
Works fine now. As I said, it was a google issue. Funny that an IT teacher like
you couldn't figure that out;)
Snit
>>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>
>>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.I
>> NVALID>
>> -----
>> Not Found
>>
>> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> could not be found.
>>
>> You can visit the main page.
>> -----
>>
>> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
>> LOL!
>
> Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not all
> searches are working on google right now.
Your doing - right? LOL! Or did you only do that on 07 May 2005. By the
way, the Google record allowed me to find *that* date just fine... the day
you claimed:
Subject: I just brought Google down
If I can do that, and I did, I can hack any of you. Now who
is the baddest one in CSMA!
Then later you claimed to have hacked Josh's computer... then you claimed
your posts were being forged... but you forget to post from your
individual.net account when you made your claims about Josh's computer!
So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
Snit
>>>>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>>>
>>>>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>>>>
>>>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.
>>>> I NVALID>
>>>> -----
>>>> Not Found
>>>>
>>>> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>>>> could not be found.
>>>>
>>>> You can visit the main page.
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
>>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not
>>> all searches are working on google right now.
>>
>> Your doing - right? LOL! Or did you only do that on 07 May 2005. By the
>> way, the Google record allowed me to find *that* date just fine... the day
>> you claimed:
>>
>> Subject: I just brought Google down
>> If I can do that, and I did, I can hack any of you. Now who
>> is the baddest one in CSMA!
>>
>> Then later you claimed to have hacked Josh's computer... then you claimed
>> your posts were being forged... but you forget to post from your
>> individual.net account when you made your claims about Josh's computer!
>>
>>So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
>
> Works fine now. As I said, it was a google issue. Funny that an IT teacher
> like you couldn't figure that out;)
You pulled a Sandman: you snipped much of the above and pretended it did not
exist. Please note, contrary to your lies, I did not say it was not a
Google issue - I was asking if you were going to take "credit" for a Google
issue. Being that you have claimed to hack Josh's computer and to even take
Google down I do not see why you would not take "credit" this time.
Also, Steve, being that I have never claimed to be an "IT teacher" your
attempt at humor falls flat. PS: your forgeries of my making that claim do
not count as *me* making that claim, even if you quote yourself in your
.sig!
--
€ 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
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-DC67E5....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/7/07 10:21 AM:
>
> >>>>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NE
> >>>> T.
> >>>> I NVALID>
> >>>> -----
> >>>> Not Found
> >>>>
> >>>> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> >>>> could not be found.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can visit the main page.
> >>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
> >>>> LOL!
It's notable that the great IT teacher Snit was unable to make the above message
ID work. Gee, I'm having no trouble at all with it. Take another shot at it:
<BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Maybe you should get some help this time, Mr. IT teacher.
> >>> Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not
> >>> all searches are working on google right now.
Hey, remember this? It's where I explained to you that it was a google
problem... but you continued to blame it on me... because your troubleshooting
skills are so "very, very" good. <smirk>
> >>So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
> >
> > Works fine now. As I said, it was a google issue. Funny that an IT teacher
> > like you couldn't figure that out;)
>
> You pulled a Sandman: you snipped much of the above and pretended it did not
> exist.
Oh it existed alright... but it was total bullshit... you were blaming me for a
google problem, one that had only you confused. I noticed that you *still*
haven't addressed the original point I made. Here it is again... you know, in
case you decide to grow a backbone... (yeah ... right;) Awhile back, when I
detailed the MIDI problem, a poster wrote:
"So if you wish to obfuscate the issue with loads of technical data in an
attempt to show the superiority of the Mac or your advanced technical
knowledge, please have at it".
You agreed with the poster that my explanation was 'obfuscating':
"LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games". - Snit
So, Snit... are you ready to detail how I was obfuscating "the issue with loads
of technical data" about MIDI? Or are you willing to admit you were talkin' out
of your ass again?
Snit runs in 3...2...1...
ROFL!
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Snit runs from the posts from Steve and re-posts irrelevant posts from
*TWO YEARS AGO* showing that he has no intention of following any of
the these two "honesty code" points:
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...
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> > Works fine now. As I said, it was a google issue. Funny that an IT teacher
> > like you couldn't figure that out;)
>
> You pulled a Sandman
Please stop baiting me, where you use my nick to characterize the
behaviour of another poster in an insulting manner.
Why do you keep baiting me?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C264B6F5.7FA33%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-DC67E5....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/7/07 10:21 AM:
>>
>>>>>>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NE
>>>>>> T.
>>>>>> I NVALID>
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> Not Found
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>>>>>> could not be found.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can visit the main page.
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
>>>>>> LOL!
>
> It's notable that the great IT teacher Snit was unable to make the above
> message ID work. Gee, I'm having no trouble at all with it. Take another shot
> at it:
>
> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> Maybe you should get some help this time, Mr. IT teacher.
Gee, Steve, but you already admitted that Google was having a problem.
Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original
post. Not all searches are working on google right now.
Yes, Steve, that is you... making the admission you are now pretending you
did not. In other word you are lying.
Also, Steve, why do you call me an IT Teacher when I have never claimed to
be such? Oh, that's right: you are lying again. Funny how after you
repeatedly told this lie someone forged my posts making that claim - and
they did so from an account you share with Sandman.
You also snipped and ran from this:
-----
By the way, the Google record allowed me to find *that* date just fine...
the day you claimed:
Subject: I just brought Google down
If I can do that, and I did, I can hack any of you. Now who
is the baddest one in CSMA!
Then later you claimed to have hacked Josh's computer... then you claimed
your posts were being forged... but you forget to post from your
individual.net account when you made your claims about Josh's computer!
So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
-----
And you will just keep on running and obfuscating and playing your asinine
games, as you do below.
>>>>> Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not
>>>>> all searches are working on google right now.
>
> Hey, remember this? It's where I explained to you that it was a google
> problem... but you continued to blame it on me... because your troubleshooting
> skills are so "very, very" good. <smirk>
Um, when do you think I blamed you, Steve? I mocked your past lies about
having Google and Josh's computer. I did not blame you for anything that
Google did.
Do you want to claim your false statement was based on you lying, you being
delusional, or you not understanding what you read? In the past you have
gotten quite bent out of shape when I have labeled your false statements in
a way you did not like!
>>>> So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
>>>
>>> Works fine now. As I said, it was a google issue. Funny that an IT teacher
>>> like you couldn't figure that out;)
>>
>> You pulled a Sandman: you snipped much of the above and pretended it did not
>> exist.
>
> Oh it existed alright... but it was total bullshit... you were blaming me for
> a google problem, one that had only you confused.
No, Steve. I was not. You are lying. Or being delusional. Or showing you
cannot understand what you read.
Which do *you* blame your false statement on, Steve?
> I noticed that you *still* haven't addressed the original point I made.
Your point is that you will *never* admit to why you make up so many
stories... you simply are a liar. Oh well.
> Here it is again... you know, in case you decide to grow a backbone... (yeah
> ... right;) Awhile back, when I detailed the MIDI problem, a poster wrote:
>
> "So if you wish to obfuscate the issue with loads of technical data in an
> attempt to show the superiority of the Mac or your advanced technical
> knowledge, please have at it".
>
> You agreed with the poster that my explanation was 'obfuscating':
>
> "LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
> obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games". - Snit
>
> So, Snit... are you ready to detail how I was obfuscating "the issue with
> loads of technical data" about MIDI? Or are you willing to admit you were
> talkin' out of your ass again?
>
> Snit runs in 3...2...1...
>
> ROFL!
Look at this thread for all sorts of examples of you obfuscating, Steve...
why do I need to look back in time for *more* examples? Seriously, all you
do is run and whine and lie... and now you are trying to re-focus on some
debate I do not even care about. Frankly I do not care much about MIDI...
hardly ever use it. Heck, you recently claimed you could not even get some
MIDI files to play on your system... files that played just fine on mine.
Snit
>>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>
>>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.I
>> NVALID>
>> -----
>> Not Found
>>
>> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> could not be found.
>>
>> You can visit the main page.
>> -----
>>
>> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
>> LOL!
>
> Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not all
> searches are working on google right now.
Your doing - right? LOL! Or did you only do that on 07 May 2005. By the
way, the Google record allowed me to find *that* date just fine... the day
you claimed:
Subject: I just brought Google down
If I can do that, and I did, I can hack any of you. Now who
is the baddest one in CSMA!
Then later you claimed to have hacked Josh's computer... then you claimed
your posts were being forged... but you forget to post from your
individual.net account when you made your claims about Josh's computer!
So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I "admitted that Google was having a problem"? No, Snit... I stated it... a
statement is not necessarily an admission. In any event, had I made any
'admissions' they would have nothing to do with your having blamed google's
problem on me. See, this is where you are confused again... you're the guy who
blamed something on me... you're the one who is in need of making an admission
here. I also noticed that you *still* haven't addressed the original point I
made. Here it is again... you know, in case you decide to grow a backbone...
(yeah ... right;) Awhile back, when I detailed the MIDI problem, a poster wrote:
"So if you wish to obfuscate the issue with loads of technical data in an
attempt to show the superiority of the Mac or your advanced technical
knowledge, please have at it".
You agreed with the poster that my explanation was 'obfuscating':
"LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games". - Snit
So, Snit... are you ready to detail how I was obfuscating "the issue with loads
of technical data" about MIDI? Or are you willing to admit you were talkin' out
of your ass again?
Snit runs in 3...2...1...
ROFL!
--
Steve Carroll
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-8F9159....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/6/07 10:06 AM:
>
> >>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> >>>
> >>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
> >>
> >> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.
> >> I
> >> NVALID>
> >> -----
> >> Not Found
> >>
> >> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> >> could not be found.
> >>
> >> You can visit the main page.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
> >> LOL!
> >
> > Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not
> > all
> > searches are working on google right now.
>
> Your doing - right? LOL!
No, Snit... despite your zeal to quickly pin a google problem on me, I have
shown that this had nothing to do with me. Elsewhere, I detail the "help" you
need to solve your little issue. You're "very, very" welcome;)
--
Ah what the heck... I'll even give you more help and put the info you need here:
Dear Mr. IT teacher,
Due to your recent involvement in a google search where you were unable to go to
a specific page of the Google archive by using a message ID, I've decided to
help you out. For folks that know how to use things like a message ID, they can
verify this event took place by using the following:
<C2633D62.7F8A3%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
For other folks, like this IT teacher I am addressing, put this in your URL (if
you know what a URL is).
I am now going to do what the IT teacher of csma has been talking about on this
newsgroup lately (helping people). I will detail the steps so that even he might
have a chance at success, though, he should be cautioned that a keyboard or
mouse misstep can affect the outcome.
Step 1: Put the following address into the address bar of your browser:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&
This will take you to a page on Google that will let you conduct a search.
Somewhere on the page (mine is on the bottom right side) there is a box with a
button next to it that reads "Lookup Message".
Step 2: Put the following text into that box:
BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID
Step 3: Click the button labeled "Lookup Message".
If you have done this correctly, you will see this text somewhere on the page:
"LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games".
By the way... if you recognize what the topic is here, feel free to explain how
I was obfuscating. There's no need to thank me for the help I've given you;)
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Like I would do for a wayward child, I, for one, am not going to let Snit's
behavior stop me from giving him the help he needs to do certain things he is
having trouble with. I don't blame you if you disagree... but think about the
old adage: It's better to give than receive.
I plan on 'giving' to Snit whenever possible;)
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > Snit runs from the posts from Steve and re-posts irrelevant posts from
> > *TWO YEARS AGO* showing that he has no intention of following any of
> > the these two "honesty code" points:
> >
> > 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...
>
> Like I would do for a wayward child, I, for one, am not going to let Snit's
> behavior stop me from giving him the help he needs to do certain things he is
> having trouble with. I don't blame you if you disagree...
Hmmm, I get the feeling you think that my post commented on your
behaviour. Sorry if what I wrote was unclear. It was in comment to
Snit breaking the rules to the code he claims to have signed, showing
that he has no intention to be "honest and honorable".
A fact we all know, of course.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> > Maybe you should get some help this time, Mr. IT teacher.
>
> Gee, Steve, but you already admitted that Google was having a problem.
Steve *pointed out* that Google was having a problem. He didn't
"admit" that Google had a problem. Use a dictionary once in a while,
Michael.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-F5EC9E.08...@News.Individual.NET on 5/7/07 11:36 PM:
> In article <C264C2FE.7FA47%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Maybe you should get some help this time, Mr. IT teacher.
>>
>> Gee, Steve, but you already admitted that Google was having a problem.
>
> Steve *pointed out* that Google was having a problem.
Agreed. He declared that to be true... which is an admission. Look it up.
> He didn't "admit" that Google had a problem.
You just contradicted yourself. I am not interested in his semantic games
or yours.
> Use a dictionary once in a while, Michael.
Sure!
Encarta:
acknowledge truth: to acknowledge that something is true
Gee, do you think Steve did not acknowledge the problems of Google to be
true?
Compact Oxford English Dictionary:
accept as valid
allow the possibility of
Do you deny that Steve accepted his statement was valid? Do you deny that
he allowed the possibility that he was actually correct for a change?
Bartleby.com:
To grant to be real, valid, or true
To make acknowledgment.
Do you think Steve thought his comments were real, valid, or true? Did he
even acknowledge what he claimed? How could he not?
So, Sandman, now that your little semantic game you are sharing with Steve
has been blown to pieces, why not answer a couple simple questions:
1) Do you support Steve calling me "Mr. IT teacher" even after I have
made it clear his label is incorrect and dishonest? I have never
claimed to be an IT teacher.
2) Do you mind the fact that Steve claimed to have "brought Google Down" and
to have hacked Josh's computer, and then claimed those comments of his
were forged - only to have it shoved in his face that he forget to use
his individual.net account on one of those claims (likely the same
account he and you were recently caught sharing!)
3) Do you mind the fact that Steve is out and out lying about me and
claiming that *I* said he had any effect on Google whatsoever?
And you will run from those questions, Sandman, because you are a miserable
and dishonest little troll.
Do you think *anyone* is stupid enough to not see through your BS? Anyone
at all?
--
€ 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
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> Maybe you should get some help this time, Mr. IT teacher.
> >>
> >> Gee, Steve, but you already admitted that Google was having a problem.
> >
> > Steve *pointed out* that Google was having a problem.
>
> Agreed. He declared that to be true... which is an admission. Look it up.
Go learn some English, Michael.
admit
confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance
You would look less silyy if you knew the meaning of the words you use.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I did not say it does not have *other* meanings as well, Sandman... but if
you look at the info you dishonestly snipped and ran from you would see that
the word does not mean *only* what your hand picked definition says.
Here is the deal: I used the word - *I* get to say how I was using it... not
you. You are not my spokesperson. Oh, and you ran from some simple
questions... here they are again:
----------
1) Do you support Steve calling me "Mr. IT teacher" even after I have
made it clear his label is incorrect and dishonest? I have never
claimed to be an IT teacher.
2) Do you mind the fact that Steve claimed to have "brought Google Down" and
to have hacked Josh's computer, and then claimed those comments of his
were forged - only to have it shoved in his face that he forget to use
his individual.net account on one of those claims (likely the same
account he and you were recently caught sharing!)
3) Do you mind the fact that Steve is out and out lying about me and
claiming that *I* said he had any effect on Google whatsoever?
And you will run from those questions, Sandman, because you are a miserable
and dishonest little troll.
----------
Note how my prediction was 100% correct. You simply snip and run and
pretend the information you snipped does not even exist. You are a liar and
an coward, Sandman... and I still am kind enough to teach you information
about web design, such as when I taught you the purpose of alt-text with
images and how to validate your CSS.
--
€ 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"
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Agreed. He declared that to be true... which is an admission. Look it up.
> >
> > Go learn some English, Michael.
> >
> > admit
> > confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance
> >
> > You would look less silyy if you knew the meaning of the words you use.
>
> I did not say it does not have *other* meanings as well, Sandman...
It does not have the meaning you want to attach to it. You would look
less silly if you actually learned the words you use.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-07DC79.09...@News.Individual.NET on 5/8/07 12:47 AM:
>
> > In article <C2656CE2.7FB3B%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Maybe you should get some help this time, Mr. IT teacher.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gee, Steve, but you already admitted that Google was having a problem.
> >>>
> >>> Steve *pointed out* that Google was having a problem.
> >>
> >> Agreed. He declared that to be true... which is an admission. Look it up.
> >
> > Go learn some English, Michael.
> >
> > admit
> > confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance
> >
> > You would look less silyy if you knew the meaning of the words you use.
> >
> I did not say it does not have *other* meanings as well, Sandman... but if
> you look at the info you dishonestly snipped and ran from you would see that
> the word does not mean *only* what your hand picked definition says.
>
> Here is the deal:
...you should have flunked out of grade school? Yes, we know.
Snit
>>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>
>>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.I
>> NVALID>
>> -----
>> Not Found
>>
>> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> could not be found.
>>
>> You can visit the main page.
>> -----
>>
>> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
>> LOL!
>
> Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not all
> searches are working on google right now.
Your doing - right? LOL! Or did you only do that on 07 May 2005. By the
way, the Google record allowed me to find *that* date just fine... the day
you claimed:
Subject: I just brought Google down
If I can do that, and I did, I can hack any of you. Now who
is the baddest one in CSMA!
Then later you claimed to have hacked Josh's computer... then you claimed
your posts were being forged... but you forget to post from your
individual.net account when you made your claims about Josh's computer!
So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
How many times have you posted this trolling now, Michael?
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-8F9159....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/6/07 10:06 AM:
>
> >>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> >>>
> >>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
> >>
> >> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.
> >> I
> >> NVALID>
> >> -----
> >> Not Found
> >>
> >> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
> >> could not be found.
> >>
> >> You can visit the main page.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
> >> LOL!
> >
> > Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not
> > all
> > searches are working on google right now.
>
> Your doing - right? LOL!
No, Snit... despite your zeal to quickly pin a google problem on me, I have
shown that this had nothing to do with me. Elsewhere, I detail the "help" you
need to solve your little issue. You're "very, very" welcome;)
BTW, here's a link (that you've claimed I "never" give) to prove it all:
--
And, once again... I'll even give you more help and put the info you need here:
Dear Mr. IT teacher,
<C2633D62.7F8A3%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&
BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID
--
p.s. I notice you are *still* running from the topic. I guess you've figured
you've obfuscated it sufficiently by now so as not to be noticed. Wrong;)
Snit
Several... and Carroll runs *every* time... either by snipping, by
responding with lies, or by posting irrelevant questions, as you do here. I
do the same thing with the comments you run from - you and he are not able
to hold up your ends of a conversation... all you can do is run when your
lies, trolling, and games are pointed out. The Google record and I are on
one side with you and Carroll on the other. How do you explain your claims
being so often contradictory to common sense and the Google record... and in
your case the w3.org and WayBackMachine sites? Doesn't it bother you that
you never have anything of value to back up your claims...
Heck, as you note I have posted the above several times - and I asked you
questions about it... such as if it bothered you that Steve out and out lied
and claimed I was blaming him for Google's problems. You run from that
question. You always will... you are a troll. See how easy this is to
prove?
> trolling now, Michael?
You are. Still.
--
€ 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
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
> >
> > How many times have you posted this
>
> Several... and Carroll runs *every* time...
Funny you should say that, since you've been running from what the
issue was ever since you started posting this non-related old post.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <noone-2540AB....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > > Snit runs from the posts from Steve and re-posts irrelevant posts from
> > > *TWO YEARS AGO* showing that he has no intention of following any of
> > > the these two "honesty code" points:
> > >
> > > 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...
> >
> > Like I would do for a wayward child, I, for one, am not going to let Snit's
> > behavior stop me from giving him the help he needs to do certain things he
> > is
> > having trouble with. I don't blame you if you disagree...
>
> Hmmm, I get the feeling you think that my post commented on your
> behaviour.
Not at all... I read it as you commenting on Snit's behavior. I was just
pointing out my reason for interacting with Snit the way I do.
> Sorry if what I wrote was unclear. It was in comment to
> Snit breaking the rules to the code he claims to have signed, showing
> that he has no intention to be "honest and honorable".
>
> A fact we all know, of course.
I think a lot of his dishonesty is based on what he perceives to be the truth...
even when reality shows it isn't the truth. It's not so much that he's always
being dishonest (though he does that, too) as he is delusional... I'm totally
serious. Think about it... no sane person can write the kinds of things he
writes and expect people to believe it... yet, he obviously does expect people
to believe him, even in the face of concrete proof to the contrary.
Snit
> I think a lot of his dishonesty is based on what he perceives to be the
> truth...
> even when reality shows it isn't the truth. It's not so much that he's always
> being dishonest (though he does that, too) as he is delusional... I'm totally
> serious. Think about it... no sane person can write the kinds of things he
> writes and expect people to believe it... yet, he obviously does expect people
> to believe him, even in the face of concrete proof to the contrary.
Please, Steve, humiliate me with examples. Quote me... but try to not to
play your normal game of taking things completely out context or attributing
quotes to me I did not write. This should be amazingly fun!
Oh, wait. You are just going to wet your pants and run. Oh well... at
least Sandman will stand by your puddle. :)
--
€ 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
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Hmmm, I get the feeling you think that my post commented on your
>> behaviour.
>
> Not at all... I read it as you commenting on Snit's behavior. I was
> just pointing out my reason for interacting with Snit the way I do.
Ok, sorry about the misunderstanding :)
>> Sorry if what I wrote was unclear. It was in comment to Snit
>> breaking the rules to the code he claims to have signed, showing
>> that he has no intention to be "honest and honorable".
>>
>> A fact we all know, of course.
>
> I think a lot of his dishonesty is based on what he perceives to be
> the truth... even when reality shows it isn't the truth. It's not so
> much that he's always being dishonest (though he does that, too) as
> he is delusional... I'm totally serious. Think about it... no sane
> person can write the kinds of things he writes and expect people to
> believe it... yet, he obviously does expect people to believe him,
> even in the face of concrete proof to the contrary.
Yeah, well, I do agree with that. But I also think it's been a
downward spiral for him. He is very argumentative, sure. I am that
too. But for him, it became more important that his "opponent" was
wrong than he being right. That's why every discussion soon changes
into a competition for him. :/
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-A400A7....@newsgroups.comcast.net on 5/9/07 2:15 PM:
>
> > I think a lot of his dishonesty is based on what he perceives to be the
> > truth...
> > even when reality shows it isn't the truth. It's not so much that he's
> > always
> > being dishonest (though he does that, too) as he is delusional... I'm
> > totally
> > serious. Think about it... no sane person can write the kinds of things he
> > writes and expect people to believe it... yet, he obviously does expect
> > people
> > to believe him, even in the face of concrete proof to the contrary.
>
> Please, Steve, humiliate me with examples. Quote me... but try to not to
> play your normal game of taking things completely out context or attributing
> quotes to me I did not write. This should be amazingly fun!
>
> Oh, wait. You are just going to wet your pants and run. Oh well... at
> least Sandman will stand by your puddle. :)
Please stop baiting me.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>> I think a lot of his dishonesty is based on what he perceives to be
>> the truth... even when reality shows it isn't the truth. It's not so
>> much that he's always being dishonest (though he does that, too) as
>> he is delusional... I'm totally serious. Think about it... no sane
>> person can write the kinds of things he writes and expect people to
>> believe it... yet, he obviously does expect people to believe him,
>> even in the face of concrete proof to the contrary.
>
> Yeah, well, I do agree with that. But I also think it's been a
> downward spiral for him. He is very argumentative, sure. I am that
> too. But for him, it became more important that his "opponent" was
> wrong than he being right. That's why every discussion soon changes
> into a competition for him. :/
You can try to be my spokesperson, Sandman, and show how little you
understand of me, but the fact is I just like to make sure the facts are
known. Here is a list of simple facts that you and your co-trolls have
denied or demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of:
Computer / industry facts:
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
€ It is OK to email yourself files and repeatedly access them there
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ OS X's Control+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Photoshop is an image editing application used in many industries
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
€ The term "screen name" is generally understood by users of IRC
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Other facts:
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Correctly and honestly quoting someone is not a form of "forgery"
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ It is dishonest to purposely misattribute quotes
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ One can be actually guilty of breaking the law but not be adjudicated
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
I welcome any *reasoned* responses.
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> I think a lot of his dishonesty is based on what he perceives to be
> >> the truth... even when reality shows it isn't the truth. It's not so
> >> much that he's always being dishonest (though he does that, too) as
> >> he is delusional... I'm totally serious. Think about it... no sane
> >> person can write the kinds of things he writes and expect people to
> >> believe it... yet, he obviously does expect people to believe him,
> >> even in the face of concrete proof to the contrary.
> >
> > Yeah, well, I do agree with that. But I also think it's been a
> > downward spiral for him. He is very argumentative, sure. I am that
> > too. But for him, it became more important that his "opponent" was
> > wrong than he being right. That's why every discussion soon changes
> > into a competition for him. :/
>
> You can try to be my spokesperson, Sandman
In what way do you think I tried to be this new buzzword of yours?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>> I think a lot of his dishonesty is based on what he perceives to be
>> the truth... even when reality shows it isn't the truth. It's not so
>> much that he's always being dishonest (though he does that, too) as
>> he is delusional... I'm totally serious. Think about it... no sane
>> person can write the kinds of things he writes and expect people to
>> believe it... yet, he obviously does expect people to believe him,
>> even in the face of concrete proof to the contrary.
>
> Yeah, well, I do agree with that. But I also think it's been a
> downward spiral for him. He is very argumentative, sure. I am that
> too. But for him, it became more important that his "opponent" was
> wrong than he being right. That's why every discussion soon changes
> into a competition for him. :/
You can try to be my spokesperson, Sandman, and show how little you
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, well, I do agree with that. But I also think it's been a
> > downward spiral for him. He is very argumentative, sure. I am that
> > too. But for him, it became more important that his "opponent" was
> > wrong than he being right. That's why every discussion soon changes
> > into a competition for him. :/
>
> You can try to be my spokesperson, Sandman
When did you think I was being your "spokesperson", Michael? Do you
ever just sit down and think about the meaning of the words you use?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
I gave you two chances to respond in an honest and honorable way. You
failed both times. Here is what you ran from:
----------
... and show how little you understand of me, but the fact is I just like to
----------
Nothing about those facts points out how you and your idiotic co-trolls are
wrong... you are the morons who do that!
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > When did you think I was being your "spokesperson", Michael? Do you
> > ever just sit down and think about the meaning of the words you use?
>
> I gave you two chances to respond in an honest and honorable way.
And you used none of those chances to reply in an honest and honorable
way. The question remains unanswered - when did you think I was being
your "spokesperson", Michael?
Why do you fear such simple questions, Michael?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Ah, the ol' run from simple questions by spewing stupid questions trick.
So you will not respond in an honest and honorable way to what I asked
*first* unless I humor your question you asked *second*.
You are an evasive ass, Sandman. You wet your pants and run whenever your
trolling pushes you into a corner.
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> When did you think I was being your "spokesperson", Michael? Do you
> >>> ever just sit down and think about the meaning of the words you use?
> >>
> >> I gave you two chances to respond in an honest and honorable way.
> >
> > And you used none of those chances to reply in an honest and honorable
> > way. The question remains unanswered - when did you think I was being
> > your "spokesperson", Michael?
> >
> > Why do you fear such simple questions, Michael?
> >
> Ah, the ol' run from simple questions by spewing stupid questions trick.
> So you will not respond in an honest and honorable way to what I asked
> *first* unless I humor your question you asked *second*.
I make this post, that wasn't in reply to you, where I speak about why
I think you behave like you do.
<mr-1BAB20.07...@News.Individual.NET>
You replied with this post:
<C26807D6.80328%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Where you started by explicitly claiming that I was trying to be your
"spokesperson" (in spite of me not making any claims on your behalf,
you know, the thing a spokesperson does) as if you're a huge company
or something like that. That post of yours did not contain a question,
only a huge list of totally unrelated trolling from you. In fact, your
entire post didn't contain a single question mark. You ended it with
"I welcome any *reasoned* responses", not answer, because your post
didn't pose any question.
I replied with this post:
<mr-CC35C3.09...@News.Individual.NET>
Where I ignore your huge list of unrelated trolling and question your
claim that I was "trying to be your spokesperson". This is the first
question to be posed between the two of us in this subthread.
<C268199B.8039B%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
You dishonestly ignored my question and re-pasted your huge list of
unrelated trolling.
And now you're dishonestly claiming that somehow you asked me a
question first, which of course you did not. The first question was
asked by me and remains unanswered. This has been yet another display
of your dishonesty.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Wow... you spew a lot of BS in your running. Now go change your pants...
you wet yourself again.
--
€ 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
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
Michael runs from yet another post. This is all you do. You make
explicit claims, and when they are exposed as being dishonest, you run
away from the thread.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
>> Wow... you spew a lot of BS in your running. Now go change your pants...
>> you wet yourself again.
>
> Michael runs from yet another post. This is all you do. You make
> explicit claims, and when they are exposed as being dishonest, you run
> away from the thread.
Gee, Sandman, let us not forget what you have wet your pants over and are
running from... and then openly lying about it:
----------
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-1BAB20.07...@News.Individual.NET on 5/9/07 10:57 PM:
>> I think a lot of his dishonesty is based on what he perceives to be
>> the truth... even when reality shows it isn't the truth. It's not so
>> much that he's always being dishonest (though he does that, too) as
>> he is delusional... I'm totally serious. Think about it... no sane
>> person can write the kinds of things he writes and expect people to
>> believe it... yet, he obviously does expect people to believe him,
>> even in the face of concrete proof to the contrary.
>
> Yeah, well, I do agree with that. But I also think it's been a
> downward spiral for him. He is very argumentative, sure. I am that
> too. But for him, it became more important that his "opponent" was
> wrong than he being right. That's why every discussion soon changes
> into a competition for him. :/
----------
Note: above Sandman tries to speak for me and state why I
point out his BS... he pretends it is for reasons of his
opinion... not mine. He is lying. I responded with the
below... and Sandman ran. Repeatedly.
-----------
You can try to be my spokesperson, Sandman, and show how little you
understand of me, but the fact is I just like to make sure the facts are
known. Here is a list of simple facts that you and your co-trolls have
denied or demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of:
Computer / industry facts:
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
€ It is OK to email yourself files and repeatedly access them there
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ OS X's Control+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Photoshop is an image editing application used in many industries
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
€ The term "screen name" is generally understood by users of IRC
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"
Other facts:
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Correctly and honestly quoting someone is not a form of "forgery"
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ It is dishonest to purposely misattribute quotes
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ One can be actually guilty of breaking the law but not be adjudicated
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
I welcome any *reasoned* responses.
----------
So, Sandman, will you ever get back in topic and admit that my stating and
defending of those facts (and others) is *not* was you claimed it was? Of
course not... you are too busy wetting yourself and running!
--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Wow... you spew a lot of BS in your running. Now go change your pants...
> >> you wet yourself again.
> >
> > Michael runs from yet another post. This is all you do. You make
> > explicit claims, and when they are exposed as being dishonest, you run
> > away from the thread.
>
> Gee, Sandman, let us not forget
That you keep running from this:
I made this post, that wasn't in reply to you, where I speak about why
I think you behave like you do.
<mr-1BAB20.07...@News.Individual.NET>
You replied with this post:
<C26807D6.80328%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Where you started by explicitly claiming that I was trying to be your
"spokesperson" (in spite of me not making any claims on your behalf,
you know, the thing a spokesperson does) as if you're a huge company
or something like that. That post of yours did not contain a question,
only a huge list of totally unrelated trolling from you. In fact, your
entire post didn't contain a single question mark. You ended it with
"I welcome any *reasoned* responses", not answer, because your post
didn't pose any question.
I replied with this post:
<mr-CC35C3.09...@News.Individual.NET>
Where I ignore your huge list of unrelated trolling and question your
claim that I was "trying to be your spokesperson". This is the first
question to be posed between the two of us in this subthread.
<C268199B.8039B%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
You dishonestly ignored my question and re-pasted your huge list of
unrelated trolling.
And now you're dishonestly claiming that somehow you asked me a
question first, which of course you did not. The first question was
asked by me and remains unanswered. This has been yet another display
of your dishonesty.
Keep running, Michael!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> In article <C268199B.8039B%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Why do you need to ask me why I noted you were being my spokesperson...
can't you tell me? LOL!
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> When did you think I was being your "spokesperson", Michael? Do you
> >>> ever just sit down and think about the meaning of the words you use?
> >>
> >> I gave you two chances to respond in an honest and honorable way.
> >
> > And you used none of those chances to reply in an honest and honorable
> > way. The question remains unanswered - when did you think I was being
> > your "spokesperson", Michael?
> >
> > Why do you fear such simple questions, Michael?
>
> Why do you need to ask me why I noted you were being my spokesperson...
> can't you tell me? LOL!
I haven't asked you "why you noted I was being your spokesperson". I
asked you when you think I was being your spokesperson?
The question remains unanswered.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Notice that he doesn't even pretend to go out of the house 'teaching' anymore
(of course, now that I've written this, he'll pretend to for awhile again...
it's happened often enough, you've probably seen it;) Anyone can see that he
posts all day and night... often into the wee hours of the following morning.
How could he do that if he were taking care of the business of life? He claims
to be watching over a little girl... what kind of care can he possibly be giving
her? What kind of relationship can he possibly have with his wife? Think about
this... notice how, after I mentioned how he never leaves the house, he started
a thread about going to the movies? You also may have noticed that I've been
playing him like a bass fiddle in this direction for over a year and have been
able to elicit extremely predictable responses from him.
Snit
You think you are my spokesperson: you answer it.
LOL!
Yes, Sandman, I am openly mocking you. :)
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
Snit
>> Yeah, well, I do agree with that. But I also think it's been a
>> downward spiral for him. He is very argumentative, sure. I am that
>> too. But for him, it became more important that his "opponent" was
>> wrong than he being right. That's why every discussion soon changes
>> into a competition for him. :/
>
> Notice that he doesn't even pretend to go out of the house 'teaching' anymore
> (of course, now that I've written this, he'll pretend to for awhile again...
> it's happened often enough, you've probably seen it;)
Gee, notice how Steve does not even pretend to be doing anything other than
beating his unmarried "wife" any more? Of course, now that I've written
this he'll pretend to stop beating her for a while... it's happened often
enough, you've probably seen it. :)
> Anyone can see that he posts all day and night... often into the wee hours of
> the following morning. How could he do that if he were taking care of the
> business of life? He claims to be watching over a little girl... what kind of
> care can he possibly be giving her? What kind of relationship can he possibly
> have with his wife? Think about this... notice how, after I mentioned how he
> never leaves the house, he started a thread about going to the movies? You
> also may have noticed that I've been playing him like a bass fiddle in this
> direction for over a year and have been able to elicit extremely predictable
> responses from him.
Gee, Steve, now that you and Sandman backed yourselves into corners with
your trolling you are both just making up stories about me as you wet
yourselves and run from the facts. Here, again, are the debates we have
recently had - and this, really, is what your BS, above, is all about. You
are running from the fact you have humiliated yourself so you lash out and
make personal attacks. Oh well, I am not getting distracted from keeping
things *not* personal - just pointing out the facts as seen in CSMA. It is
amazing how much you and Carroll run when the CSMA record is pointed out to
you:
Post: <C2628498.7F7F9%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/8f98e19823ef5e4a>
I quote Steve saying my memory is shot because I do not
recall something he later admits he did not tell me (the
answer to when he claims to have gotten married). He also
changes his story from telling me he does not want me to
know about his personal life to saying he made it clear when
he got married. To make matters worse he pretends I am
begging to know information I specifically told him he has
no obligation to share!
Post: <C2628482.7F7F6%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7ce7c4e66470bf70>
Post: <C2628493.7F7F8%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c6f033c34cb59116>
I quote Steve spewing accusations at John, "And yet, here
you are, blaming Sandman for the expiration." I asked
Steve to quote where he thinks John did this... but Steve
was not able to. Later he flip flopped and claim he
understood that John was not blaming Sandman for the very
thing Steve accused him of, but Steve offers no retraction
or apology.
Post: <C2628487.7F7F7%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/16dbf5c1ac984c43>
Post: <C2628477.7F7F4%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/1f8b73601b74a93a>
Steve repeatedly makes false claims about my history with
routers and when he is called on it he runs. Worse than
that, I point out specific quotes from him showing where:
* Steve jumped from the topic of going to a website to the
topic of working on someone's router - as if he thought
they were the same thing or closely related.
* I noted some digits from my IP address only to have Steve
respond and claim I had said those digits were *not* in my
IP address.
* A bunch of quotes from Steve whined about his Linksys router
and then a bunch more quotes from him (from *later*) where
he denied having had problems with a Linksys router or having
talked about having such problems.
Post: <C2628471.7F7F3%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3ae0f8cf12936219>
Steve joined a conversation where:
* Mayor was in a conversation where some of the PDF features
of OS X were discussed
* Mayor was asked if he agreed that Apple had a better PDF
solution
* Mayor acknowledges that OS X has PDF capabilities built on
and thus "probably" has more options for PDF creation
But since Mayor does not use PDFs much himself then he
(according to Steve) has no way to make such a simple
logical conclusion... such simple knowledge and basic
reasoning went over Steve's head.
Post: <C2628471.7F7F3%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/bcef79c3ab475718>
Steve shows he cannot figure out the purpose of a beta software
release.
Post: <C2627598.7F7BA%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Link:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/885d3e4157319502>
In a discussion about Steve's technical incompetence (and that
of his co-trolls) Steve shows he cannot pass a simple tech test
that the vast majority of CSMA regulars would, no doubt, be
able to pass easily. To make matters worse for Steve, in his
running *from* the simple test he ran *to* his lies about
routers. Again. He has no shame.
Notice the others in those debates have long since stopped feeding you. I
feed you... and yet you still whine. Oh well.
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-5CEDA8.18...@News.Individual.NET on 5/10/07 9:15 AM:
>
> > In article <C2688D3D.8079F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> When did you think I was being your "spokesperson", Michael? Do you
> >>>>> ever just sit down and think about the meaning of the words you use?
> >>>>
> >>>> I gave you two chances to respond in an honest and honorable way.
> >>>
> >>> And you used none of those chances to reply in an honest and honorable
> >>> way. The question remains unanswered - when did you think I was being
> >>> your "spokesperson", Michael?
> >>>
> >>> Why do you fear such simple questions, Michael?
> >>
> >> Why do you need to ask me why I noted you were being my spokesperson...
> >> can't you tell me? LOL!
> >
> > I haven't asked you "why you noted I was being your spokesperson". I
> > asked you when you think I was being your spokesperson?
> >
> > The question remains unanswered.
> >
> You think you are my spokesperson: you answer it.
>
> LOL!
>
> Yes, Sandman, I am openly mocking you. :)
Michael, still unable to answer a simple question. Keep running,
that's what you do best.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Yeah, well, I do agree with that. But I also think it's been a
>> downward spiral for him. He is very argumentative, sure. I am that
>> too. But for him, it became more important that his "opponent" was
>> wrong than he being right. That's why every discussion soon changes
>> into a competition for him. :/
>
> Notice that he doesn't even pretend to go out of the house
> 'teaching' anymore of course, now that I've written this, he'll
> pretend to for awhile again... it's happened often enough, you've
> probably seen it;) Anyone can see that he posts all day and night...
> often into the wee hours of the following morning. How could he do
> that if he were taking care of the business of life? He claims to be
> watching over a little girl... what kind of care can he possibly be
> giving her? What kind of relationship can he possibly have with his
> wife? Think about this... notice how, after I mentioned how he never
> leaves the house, he started a thread about going to the movies? You
> also may have noticed that I've been playing him like a bass fiddle
> in this direction for over a year and have been able to elicit
> extremely predictable responses from him.
Sure, but I don't know how much one can conclude from posting
statistics. According to Google [1] I am the all-time top poster in
csma. I have been here far longer than Snit and he's number two on the
list, so it's safe to say that he posts more frequently than I do, yet
if he hasn't got time to be with his family, one could conclude the
same with me.
And I assure you, apart from posting on csma, I have a full time work
where I am self-employed so I don't work normal 9-5 hours, often more.
I am also in the process of renovating my kitchen [2] and I often stay
home during daytime due to sick kids (it's that time of year), all
while having enough free time to watch entire seasons of 24 (you know,
the TV series) with my wife during evenings, painting, assembling my
new home cinema and a whole slew of other stuff.
I'm superhuman, of course, but still :-D
I don't feel I spend that much time on csma. When I wake up I drink my
morning coffee and check the RSS news and csma. Same before I go to
bed (sans the coffee). And during the day I usually check csma for a
couple of minutes when I take a break.
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/about
[2] http://sandman.net/texter/category/Webblog?keyword=renovering
(all in Swedish, naturally)
--
Sandman[.net]
Nashton
:In article <C2678A21.8022E%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Sandman begging his nemesis, Snit, to stop baiting him.
Priceless!
--
Nicolas
Sandman
Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> I wish I was big of a troll that Snit is.
>
> I'm working on it.
You'll get there soon enough, Nicolas.
--
Sandman[.net]
Jim Lee Jr.
> Sandman begging his nemesis, Snit, to stop baiting him.
>
> Priceless!
>
> Nicolas
Jealous?
--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.8
Snit
jtg8435b4rf89ehia...@4ax.com on 5/11/07 3:22 AM:
> :Please stop baiting me.
>
> Sandman begging his nemesis, Snit, to stop baiting him.
>
> Priceless!
Sandman begs for my attention continually, but runs from such simple
comments as:
So let's look at the other sources I list: Google, w3.org,
and the WayBackMachine. Those are *easy* to verify. Care
to look at that in relation to, say, your comments about CSS
and alt-text?
I bet not!
The mere mention of verifiable sources to show, conclusively, who is being
honest and who is being a liar makes Sandman wet his pants and run. Gee, I
wonder why?
LOL!
Snit
peejster01-6FB63...@unlimited.newshosting.com on 5/11/07 9:25
AM:
> In article <jtg8435b4rf89ehia...@4ax.com>,
> Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>> Sandman begging his nemesis, Snit, to stop baiting him.
>>
>> Priceless!
>>
>> Nicolas
>
> Jealous?
Nashton rarely trolls me or otherwise begs for my attention. There is no
sign he is jealous of Sandman in this area.
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Sandman begs for my attention continually, but runs from such simple
> comments as:
>
> So let's look at the other sources I list: Google, w3.org,
> and the WayBackMachine.
Eh? It's you that keep running from the fact that neither of the above
sources has ever supported any of your lies.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
Not one, Sandman. How do you explain that?
I stated it did not validate on 29 May 2006:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c762f549f18644b2>
-----
On a side note, I decided to look at Sandman.net: your
code is pretty damned bad. Do you really call yourself a
professional?
[HTML Validation Link] Close to 100 errors on *one* page!
That is pretty damned pathetic.
[CSS Validation Link] Again, multiple errors.
For someone who was belittling others about their web
skills you really should look at your own first.
-----
You even *admitted* to it then (29 May 2006):
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d7aa0680bc7c857a>
-----
Yeah, I know. It's not bad - but it doesn't
validate very good. That's because the system that
does the code consists of over 1 million rows of
code, so there are good and bad parts of it.
-----
And the WayBackMachine proves that less than 2 weeks before, on 19 May 2006
it did not validate:
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://web.archive.org/web
/20060519191417/http://www.sandman.net/&warning=0&profile=css21&usermedium=a
ll> OR <http://snipurl.com/16fpk>
On 2 June 2006 you softened your view and made it sound like it likely
validated but *maybe* did not:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6dec244207bfe35e>
-----
Plus, it's your claim that it didn't
validate, and we know you're a proven liar, so
chances are you've dug up some old, unrelated,
cached version that may have not validated for
other reasons, when it did at the time. I'm saying
that because you're a liar, but I also acknowledge
that it could be due to the way the stylesheets
are constructed.
-----
By 5 June 2006 you outright denied if failed CSS validation:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/aa2a0d2f18ee5de3>
-----
So why didn't I do the same with the HTML and
claim that it validates? Having non-validated CSS
is far less problematic than non-validating HTML
(even though, I agree, that the ways my HTML
wasn't validating were non-important). What pride
are you imagining I'm having in CSS but not in
HTML? :-D
-----
And by 9 June 2006 you were in complete denial mode:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c883faeb1c29c6a9>
-----
> Advice I gave you:
> * get your CSS to validate
Incorrect, since it was already validating.
-----
At first you admitted it did not validate, then you decided it might not
have, then you did a complete flip flop from your original admission and
claimed the CSS was already validating... and even claimed I dug up some old
version that did not (as though that would be hard). But now we know
*every* *single* cached version fails validation... both CSS and HTML.
Every single one, Sandman. Once I pointed out your lack of validation,
though, you started getting it to validate, as even Tim Adams noted.
How do you explain your flip flopping *and* the fact that before I told you
how to validate your code there is not a single example of it validating.
Not one, Sandman. CSS or HTML. LOL!
And Sandman shall run!
--
€ 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!)
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> Sandman begs for my attention continually, but runs from such simple
> >> comments as:
> >>
> >> So let's look at the other sources I list: Google, w3.org,
> >> and the WayBackMachine.
> >
> > Eh? It's you that keep running from the fact that neither of the above
> > sources has ever supported any of your lies.
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
>
> The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
The WayBackMachine has not a single example of substantiating your
claims. Ooops!
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
Not one, Sandman. How do you explain that?
Sandman
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > The WayBackMachine has not a single example of substantiating your
> > claims. Ooops!
Keep running, Michael :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
Not one, Sandman. How do you explain that?
On Jan 3, 2007 you lied that I somehow forged the data (even though it is
all *still* available from the original sources).
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50357e0b04c523a6>
-----
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Please stop posting forged PDF's, Michael.
> Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your
> site *ever* validating.
I have no intention of explaining your lies.
-----
You never did explain how you thought I "forged" the data from those
sources!
And before that you just flip flopped all over trying to figure out if you
thought your CSS validated or not.
And Sandman shall run!
--
bj
wrote:
>"So if you wish to obfuscate the issue with loads of technical data in an
>attempt to show the superiority of the Mac or your advanced technical
>knowledge, please have at it".
>
>Snit agreed with the poster that my explanation was 'obfuscating':
>
>"LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
>obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games". - Snit
Please, obfuscate all you want Steve - the more detailed the tech
explanation the best - but, please, just come clean and admit that you
are Snit and just having us on by arguing with yourself!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Snit
on 5/11/07 2:54 PM:
LOL! Steve has so many sock puppets that he likely cannot keep track of
them all... and, actually, some "Snit" posts have been from the
individual.net account he shares with Sandman.
Steve Carroll
> On Sun, 06 May 2007 07:21:38 -0600, Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"So if you wish to obfuscate the issue with loads of technical data in an
> >attempt to show the superiority of the Mac or your advanced technical
> >knowledge, please have at it".
> >
> >Snit agreed with the poster that my explanation was 'obfuscating':
> >
> >"LOL! I am not at all shocked that Steve Carroll has been caught trying to
> >obfuscate yet again... that is one of his favorite trolling games". - Snit
>
>
> Please, obfuscate all you want Steve
Another one of Snit's sock puppets gets into Snit's glue fumes...
Stay away from open flames;)
Snit
> In article <C269F209.80C01%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
Not one, Sandman. How do you explain that?
On Jan 3, 2007 you lied that I somehow forged the data (even though it is
all *still* available from the original sources).
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50357e0b04c523a6>
-----
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Please stop posting forged PDF's, Michael.
> Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your
> site *ever* validating.
I have no intention of explaining your lies.
-----
You never did explain how you thought I "forged" the data from those
sources!
And before that you just flip flopped all over trying to figure out if you
thought your CSS validated or not.
I stated it did not validate on 29 May 2006:
And Sandman shall run!
--
Snit
> In article <C269F209.80C01%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
Not one, Sandman. How do you explain that?
On Jan 3, 2007 you lied that I somehow forged the data (even though it is
all *still* available from the original sources).
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50357e0b04c523a6>
-----
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Please stop posting forged PDF's, Michael.
> Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your
> site *ever* validating.
I have no intention of explaining your lies.
-----
You never did explain how you thought I "forged" the data from those
sources!
And before that you just flip flopped all over trying to figure out if you
thought your CSS validated or not.
I stated it did not validate on 29 May 2006:
And Sandman shall run!
--
Snit
>>> <BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>
>>> (Cue up Snit denying what the google record clearly shows;)
>>
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BEE6B724.2071A%25SNIT%40CABLE0NE.NET.I
>> NVALID>
>> -----
>> Not Found
>>
>> The requested message, BEE6B724.2071A%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,
>> could not be found.
>>
>> You can visit the main page.
>> -----
>>
>> Wow... the Google record really just supports you well there, eh Steve?
>> LOL!
>
> Worked fine for me this morning when I got it from the original post. Not all
> searches are working on google right now.
Your doing - right? LOL! Or did you only do that on 07 May 2005. By the
way, the Google record allowed me to find *that* date just fine... the day
you claimed:
Subject: I just brought Google down
If I can do that, and I did, I can hack any of you. Now who
is the baddest one in CSMA!
Then later you claimed to have hacked Josh's computer... then you claimed
your posts were being forged... but you forget to post from your
individual.net account when you made your claims about Josh's computer!
So, Steve, are you the the one who is ruining Google's searches now? LOL!
Snit
> In article <C269F209.80C01%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
The WayBackMachine has not a single example of your site validating.
Not one, Sandman. How do you explain that?
On Jan 3, 2007 you lied that I somehow forged the data (even though it is
all *still* available from the original sources).
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/50357e0b04c523a6>
-----
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-html.pdf>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandmancheck-css.pdf>
Please stop posting forged PDF's, Michael.
> Please explain why the WayBackMachine holds no record of your
> site *ever* validating.
I have no intention of explaining your lies.
-----
You never did explain how you thought I "forged" the data from those
sources!
And before that you just flip flopped all over trying to figure out if you
thought your CSS validated or not.
I stated it did not validate on 29 May 2006:
And Sandman shall run!
--