Snit's "sockpuppet" exposed.
Steve Mackay
make...
On March 25th, I had emailed Snit about his lies pertaining to his denial
of exif data on a jpeg he had on his site. So he replied back to me, below
is the email.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jGzIauMeT5T7TGXSVLCu4dQ Received: from
mail.cableone.net ([24.116.0.121]) by mc11-f28.hotmail.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824);
Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:02:49 -0800
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (unverified [24.117.214.36])
by smail1.cableone.net (SurgeMail 1.5d2) with ESMTP id 11164614 for
<steve_...@hotmail.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:57:11 -0700
Return-Path: <sn...@cableone.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To:
<BAY15-DAV15bW...@hotmail.com> References:
<BAY15-DAV15bW...@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id:
<0162E164-7E8F-11D8...@cableone.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Michael Glasser <sn...@cableone.net> Subject: Re: Why? Date: Thu, 25
Mar 2004 12:02:47 -0700 To: "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) X-Server: High Performance Mail Server -
http://surgemail.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2004 19:02:49.0737
(UTC) FILETIME=[C4648790:01C4129B]
Why e-mail me about this one alleged lie when you have claimed I have
made so many? What makes this claim any different from your other
claims? Why e-mail me at all? Why not keep it to csma? I truly am
curious.
As far as winning or losing an argument, to keep the question from
being at all important I have updated my comparisons. The question of
the old ones really does not matter to me. Recently I have even posted
a thread entitled "Pricing a computer". In it I describe some specific
needs and state what the price I can get a Mac for. I would love to
have you price a comparable Win system that would be cheaper than the
Mac - my customer would actually prefer it. This would allow you to
"win" by showing the cheaper Windows machine, and allow me to "win" by
learning and being able to help my customer better. Please feel free
to do this in csma - post it there for everyone to see. Show that a
comparable Windows system is cheaper and better - I would appreciate
it, even though it would be a "loss" if you want to look at it that
way.
On Mar 24, 2004, at 5:33 PM, Steve Mackay wrote:
> Why are you lying about the Exiff data? Do you desperately need to win
> an argument that bad?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See, the problem so far has been the Supernews doesn't post IP addresses.
But google does. If you look at the above headers, notice the IP address.
Now look below, and you'll see they are EXACTLY the same as his
NNTP-Posting-Host.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 2004 16:52:46 -0800
From: sig...@mad.scientist.com (sigmond)
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <ae317236.04040...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 00:52:47 +0000 (UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.117.214.36
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Path: twister.rdc-kc.rr.com!cyclone.kc.rr.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
References: <jpolaski-04E9BF...@netnews.comcast.net> <gmgravesnos-C2D0...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net> <Dofbc.8412$Np3.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> <fretwizz-F15C59...@netnews.comcast.net> <tBgbc.8475$Np3.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> <BC92E601.46B0B%sn...@nospam-cableone.net> <fretwizz-B823F4...@netnews.comcast.net> <BC92EC27.46B23%sn...@nospam-cableone.net> <fretwizz-D6BFC9...@netnews.comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Flame: Re: When the PC world tries to copy Apple.
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1080953567 13459 127.0.0.1 (3 Apr 2004 00:52:47 GMT)
Xref: cyclone.kc.rr.com comp.sys.mac.advocacy:539890
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message news:<fretwizz-D6BFC9...@netnews.comcast.net>...
> In article <BC92EC27.46B23%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> > fretwizz-B823F4...@netnews.comcast.net on 4/2/04 10:06 AM:
> >
> > > In article <BC92E601.46B0B%sn...@nospam-cableone.net>,
> > > Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Nash*ton" <Na...@nash.com> wrote in
> > >> tBgbc.8475$Np3.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 4/2/04 9:33 AM:
> > >>
> > >>>> Hey lil' Nic... why are you so obsessed with someone you know has kf'd
> > >>>> you?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Steve
> > >>>
> > >>> Still obsessed with me Caroll? Would you be stalking me?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Have you been reading my little flame war with him?
> > >>
> > >> He keeps digging himself deeper and deeper. He claims he wanted to meet
> > >> with me for some reason other than to discuss 2+2=4. He also keeps
> > >> perpetuating his lie about my sexually harassing someone.
> > >>
> > >> Ask him for links to support either claim. Links with quotes from me.
> > >>
> > >> Watch him squirm.
> > >>
> > >> It is really quite funny.
> > >
> > > Yeah, watch me squirm:)
> >
> > Notice: no support based on quotes from me for your claims.
> >
> > Why did you want to meet?
>
> Go to google. I have no need to keep posting the same thing over and
> over so you can merely deny its existence.
>
> > Any quote of me committing sexual harassment?
>
> Try google.
>
> > Come on, Steve, you made the claims... back them up!
>
> Other posters made the claims. Burns your ass, doesn't it? Like I said,
> you reap what you sow, 'teacher'...
>
> Steve
you have nothing not even a brain. the more you fear the questions
the worst you look.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, isn't that just a coincidence?
So, cut the shit, Snit. Your gig is up.
I predict he will deny everything. But the truth is above.
Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
LOL! Did you read what he wrote when first confronted over siggy? He
said:
"Wrong again - I have no idea who Sigmond is. Maybe someone who snuck
into my house."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22+into+my+house%22+group:comp.sys.ma
c.advocacy+author:Snit&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=BC20B927.3972D%25
snit%40nospam-cableone.net&rnum=1
He gives a whole new meaning to the word delusional:)
Steve
Snit
--------
From: "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com>
Date: March 24, 2004 3:33:18 PM MST
Subject: Why?
X-Originating-Ip: [67.52.17.206]
X-Originating-Email: [steve_...@hotmail.com]
X-Sender: steve_...@hotmail.com
X-Pstn-Addresses: from <steve_...@hotmail.com> [54/2]
Return-Path: steve_...@hotmail.com
Not only am I lying about the Exiff data, but I will continue to lie about
you whenever I can just to try to make you look bad.
Oh yes, I smell bad. You might want to know that.
--------
[1] Of course I made much of the above up... but two can play at the game, I
suppose.
What I did not make up was his IP, which leads to this web site:
or
or the home site of Wisconsin Mold Builders, apparently, Steve's place of
employment.
I wonder if it is OK to be using his work computer to spread lies via
Usenet?
Hmmmmm.... I wonder who would get the e-mail if I sent it to
mailto:fr...@wismold.com
hey.... I could try st...@wismold.com or steve_...@wismold.com
---------
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
pan.2004.04.03....@hotmail.com on 4/2/04 6:43 PM:
Tim Smith
> http://www.wismold.com/mackay
>
> or the home site of Wisconsin Mold Builders, apparently, Steve's place of
> employment.
>
> I wonder if it is OK to be using his work computer to spread lies via
> Usenet?
I'd guess from the face that he owns the wismold.com domain that he can
probably do whatever he wants with company computers.
--
--Tim Smith
Snit
Dqqbc.9124$yN6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net on 4/2/04 8:44 PM:
Oh, I guess I was fooled into thinking it was a real company. D'oh!
Elizabot
> What about the "real" email from you... I see you snipped it [1]
[snip]
More evidence for my claim that you are an internet stalker. Harassing
Steve Mackay at work is a bad move on your part.
Gee, you never explained the quote about Sandman from another newsgroup
that you had either. I'm not surprised.
Sandman
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
Heeeey, that's weird!
That's a discussion I had with C'pi in rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc quite a while
ago - why would Snit use one of those comments against mr ed?
To keep this on topic for the thread - it's quite obvious that sigmund and snit
is the same. Pretty lame.
--
Sandman[.net]
Elizabot
> In article <406e3c8d$0$202$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>What about the "real" email from you... I see you snipped it [1]
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>More evidence for my claim that you are an internet stalker. Harassing
>>Steve Mackay at work is a bad move on your part.
>>
>>Gee, you never explained the quote about Sandman from another newsgroup
>>that you had either. I'm not surprised.
>>
>>http://www.google.com/groups?q=insubject:sandman+author:elizabot&hl=en&lr=&ie=
>>UTF-8&safe=off&selm=40578d4b%240%24194%2475868355%40news.frii.net&rnum=1
>
>
> Heeeey, that's weird!
>
> That's a discussion I had with C'pi in rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc quite a while
> ago - why would Snit use one of those comments against mr ed?
Actually, he was using the quote in a flame against Steve Carroll:
Steve and I were wondering whether or not Snit has some sort of
"evidence file" of negative opinions against certain posters here:
Snit has refused to explain why he has that quote. He has played
avoidance games with me when I have asked him. Perhaps *you* should
directly ask him why he has that old quote from another newsgroup about you.
> To keep this on topic for the thread - it's quite obvious that sigmund and snit
> is the same. Pretty lame.
Agreed.
Sandman
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
> > Heeeey, that's weird!
> >
> > That's a discussion I had with C'pi in rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc quite a
> > while
> > ago - why would Snit use one of those comments against mr ed?
>
> Actually, he was using the quote in a flame against Steve Carroll:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=BC7BEC75.43926%2
> 5snit%40nospam-cableone.net
I read that as a response to Mr Ed, but I might miss the context.
> Steve and I were wondering whether or not Snit has some sort of
> "evidence file" of negative opinions against certain posters here:
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=40578a8e%240%241
> 94%2475868355%40news.frii.net
>
> Snit has refused to explain why he has that quote. He has played
> avoidance games with me when I have asked him. Perhaps *you* should
> directly ask him why he has that old quote from another newsgroup about you.
Yeah, it's odd for sure. I'm sure he could find more "valid" quotes from csma
from people saying negative things about me. C'Pi really isn't the kind of
person whose comments a lot of people take seriously.
So, Snit - what's up with this? It's quite obvious that playing games on usenet
is your thing, I don't have a problem with that, but why drag me into it? What
did I ever do to you but tell you when you crossed the line?
> > To keep this on topic for the thread - it's quite obvious that sigmund and
> > snit is the same. Pretty lame.
>
> Agreed.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Snit didn't cross the line... just ask him:)
Steve
Steve Mackay
But Snit claims that email to me was fabricated. Which he can claim all he
likes. I pasted it EXACTLY as it came in to my hotmail account. I'd be
more than willing to give a neutral person my hotmail password to back up
my claim.
Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No need. C'mon... do you honestly think anyone would question your word
over Snit's?
Steve
Sandman
> >> > To keep this on topic for the thread - it's quite obvious that sigmund
> >> > and
> >> > snit is the same. Pretty lame.
> >>
> >> Agreed.
>
> But Snit claims that email to me was fabricated. Which he can claim all he
> likes. I pasted it EXACTLY as it came in to my hotmail account. I'd be
> more than willing to give a neutral person my hotmail password to back up
> my claim.
Sure, give it to me and I'll verify.
I'll do this since Snit hasn't answered my question.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-7E4A4C.17...@news.fu-berlin.de on 4/5/04 8:09 AM:
Why not open the account to all? Change the password, let us all see it for
a day or two, and then change it back? Easy solution.
Steve Mackay
Yeah, that's it, I'll hand out a password to an email account I use quite
regularly. So *ANYONE* could take complete control of my account, by
just changing the password? Your idiocy amazes me sometimes Snit.
I will give a temporary password to Sandman. He seems to not have any beef
with you, or me, and is a trusted member IMHO of CSMA.
Steve Mackay
It just adds to my credibility, and subtracts(if that's possible at this
point)from Snit's.
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Do you really need such an answer to prove to yourself that Snit is
whacked:) Snit provided the post with your name, from an entirely
different NG I have never been to, as proof to show what a bad guy I am.
It was included in a list of 15 pieces of 'evidence' that all purported
this same thing. It was pretty hilarious stuff IMO. Check it out. It's
pretty long so if you want to bypass the usual horsecrap, hit apple-f
and type in the words 'bullshit evidence' and start reading from there:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=fretwizz
-BB4EB4.08570016032004%40netnews.comcast.net&rnum=15
The height of Snit's disingenuous behavior can be seen where Snit
actually inserted my name into a quote of Flip's(Joe Ragosta):
"It's hard to believe that there are people as stupid as him [Steve]
around"
The best part here is that Joe was talking TO me... about someone else.
No. I'm not kidding:) In Snit's subsequent reply, at the end, where he
snipped away all the text of me exposing his 'evidence' for what it was,
he stated:
"Rest of your BS snipped.... the only point you seem to make worth
noting is that some of the quotes I quickly grabbed from Google may not
have been accurate... it is possible, I only did a quick search. Fine.
Say only half were accurate. So? Even if I made mistakes on half of
them, who cares? It still makes the point."
And to that I'll reply: A quick grabbing from google, you say? This
includes adding your own text to the quotes of others for your own
purposes? Accuracy in quoting, you say? LOL! Snit's intent was to show
that *I* was a bad guy;-)
Gee... somehow, he misses the irony of it all:)
Steve
Steve Carroll
LOL!
Steve
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Why not answer my question?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
> > > But Snit claims that email to me was fabricated. Which he can claim all
> > > he
> > > likes. I pasted it EXACTLY as it came in to my hotmail account. I'd be
> > > more than willing to give a neutral person my hotmail password to back up
> > > my claim.
> >
> > Sure, give it to me and I'll verify.
> >
> > I'll do this since Snit hasn't answered my question.
>
> Do you really need such an answer to prove to yourself that Snit is
> whacked:)
I'm not out to prove anything. Steve asked for someones help and I said I'd do
it. I'll do it because I think it's bad form of Snit not to answer my question.
> Snit provided the post with your name, from an entirely
> different NG I have never been to, as proof to show what a bad guy I am.
That's what I want explained.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
Well, I doubt he has a good explanation for that. He says he quickly
used google to create his 'evidence' against me but I have never seen
google do what would have to have happened to produce this kind of
result. Maybe Elizabot's right... IOW, he's this NG's version of J.Edgar
Hoover:)
Steve
p.s.
I'm curious and must ask: Snit, misattributing a post from you...
purportedly about me, is worse (in your eyes) than him inserting text
into what he claims is a quote? I only ask because this is something
that would raise the eyebrows of most, yet, you made no comment on that
at all.
Steve
Sandman
Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>>>>> But Snit claims that email to me was fabricated. Which he can
>>>>> claim all he likes. I pasted it EXACTLY as it came in to my
>>>>> hotmail account. I'd be more than willing to give a neutral person
>>>>> my hotmail password to back up my claim.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, give it to me and I'll verify.
>>>>
>>>> I'll do this since Snit hasn't answered my question.
>>>
>>> Do you really need such an answer to prove to yourself that Snit is
>>> whacked:)
>>
>> I'm not out to prove anything. Steve asked for someones help and I
>> said I'd do it. I'll do it because I think it's bad form of Snit not
>> to answer my question.
>>>
>>> Snit provided the post with your name, from an entirely different NG
>>> I have never been to, as proof to show what a bad guy I am.
>>
>> That's what I want explained.
>
> Well, I doubt he has a good explanation for that. He says he quickly
> used google to create his 'evidence' against me but I have never seen
> google do what would have to have happened to produce this kind of
> result. Maybe Elizabot's right... IOW, he's this NG's version of
> J.Edgar Hoover:)
Yeah, but why me? What did I ever do to warrant that? Hmmm... It's increasingly
odd that he refuses to answer my posts.
> I'm curious and must ask: Snit, misattributing a post from you...
> purportedly about me, is worse (in your eyes) than him inserting text
> into what he claims is a quote? I only ask because this is something
> that would raise the eyebrows of most, yet, you made no comment on
> that at all.
I figured that was between you two. As I see it, he googled up some quotes,
copied them and inserted clarification in brackets. This is pretty normal. At
least, it's this addition I thought you were talking about, perhaps I
misunderstood or didn't read carefully enough.
But yeah, to me the googling of that C'Pi quote is far more...odd. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-44106C.19...@news.fu-berlin.de on 4/5/04 10:23 AM:
To be honest, I have not been following the that particular flame against
me... I am testing the idea that if I ignore the trolls they will go away...
I believe this attack has something to do with me doing a bad Google search
and pulling up a quote that was not relevant.
Um... OK. My explanation is that I probably did a bad Google search and
pulled up a quote that was not relevant. I do not even know what quote is
being referenced, but if you want to bring it to my attention I will happily
retract something if it I did make such an error.
Of course, just the mere mentioning of this by me is likely to ignite the
flames of the trolls... but so be it.
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
I see your point but I don't consider it normal to insert a
clarification in the middle of a quote, even if done inside of brackets,
without pointing out this is what you've done because there is still the
potential to assume that the original author made the bracketed
inclusion. As the reader, you won't know unless you go look... and who
does that with Snit's crap anymore?? He posts SO much bullshit you'd be
at google endlessly. Snit didn't even point to where the altered text
originally came from. As far as 'clarification' goes, what he inserted
didn't clarify jack shit with respect to reality, it mislead the reader
to a condition that never existed. Being that he wrote the post to a guy
in here named MR_ED_of_Course, I think that takes it out of the realm of
being just between Snit and myself. Anyway, Snit constantly calls these
things his 'mistakes' but he does this crap on a regular basis. Look at
what he just tried to do with Steve Mackay. He has more 'mistakes' than
any 20 posters I can name. And I mean all 20 together!
> But yeah, to me the googling of that C'Pi quote is far more...odd. :)
Why? Because it had YOUR name in it?
Steve
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Translation:
I'm not sure I even know how to be honest but I have not been following
that particular truth against me... I am testing the idea that if I
ignore those who -can- recognize the truth, my lies will all go away...
I believe this truth has something to do with me doing a bad Google
search and pulling up a quote that was not relevant while I was
attempting to show another poster how Steve Carroll is a bad guy. It
didn't occur to me that this was my chance (for once, I actually had an
audience to whine to) and I'd better make it a good one.
Um... OK. My explanation is that I probably did a bad Google search and
pulled up a quote that was not relevant. Even though google doesn't work
this way, I expect you to believe this because I think I am
intellectually superior to you (as I do everyone) and pulling this wool
over your eyes shouldn't be different than any other. I've spewed SO
much bullshit that I do not even know what quote is being referenced,
but if you want to bring it to my attention I will happily retract
something if I did make such an error. It doesn't matter that the
retraction is actually due Steve Carroll, I will issue it to you because
he is one of the people that have spotted me for the lying,
disingenuous, pile of shit that I am so I steer clear of him because he
continually proves this fact.
Of course, just the mere mentioning of this by me is likely to ignite the
flames of the truth by those that know better... but I simply can't stop
myself from stepping in their path.
Steve
Steve Mackay
Would that be Sigmond's, or Snit's translation? :)
E
The truth is that you have refused to answer the questions about that
quote and that you have acknowleged you know about the quote and that
you now telling lies.
Here are your posts where you refuse to answer questions about the post.
These two are "Snit babble" posts
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=BC7CE8BB.43F54%25snit%40nospam-cableone.net
Here is one of my posts which you've ignored where I asked if you had
made a simple mistake:
> Of course, just the mere mentioning of this by me is likely to ignite the
> flames of the trolls... but so be it.
Only if you consider the truth to be a flame....
I can only think of one reason why you would have a quote of someone
flaming Sandman in an unrelated newsgroup from a year and a half ago.
You were googling him looking for negative quotes about him.
Admit it. There is no other explanation.
(Are you going to ignore this post too?)
Elizabot
> In article <40703724$0$197$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Heeeey, that's weird!
>>>
>>>That's a discussion I had with C'pi in rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc quite a
>>>while
>>>ago - why would Snit use one of those comments against mr ed?
>>
>>Actually, he was using the quote in a flame against Steve Carroll:
>>
>>http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=BC7BEC75.43926%2
>>5snit%40nospam-cableone.net
>
>
> I read that as a response to Mr Ed, but I might miss the context.
>
>
>>Steve and I were wondering whether or not Snit has some sort of
>>"evidence file" of negative opinions against certain posters here:
>>
>>http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=40578a8e%240%241
>>94%2475868355%40news.frii.net
>>
>>Snit has refused to explain why he has that quote. He has played
>>avoidance games with me when I have asked him. Perhaps *you* should
>>directly ask him why he has that old quote from another newsgroup about you.
>
>
> Yeah, it's odd for sure. I'm sure he could find more "valid" quotes from csma
> from people saying negative things about me. C'Pi really isn't the kind of
> person whose comments a lot of people take seriously.
As with the quotes Snit used against me at one time (Tholen, Josh, Pikey...)
> So, Snit - what's up with this? It's quite obvious that playing games on usenet
> is your thing, I don't have a problem with that, but why drag me into it? What
> did I ever do to you but tell you when you crossed the line?
He will dance around the issue as he has with me.
[snip]
Sandman
> > Why not answer my question?
>
> To be honest, I have not been following the that particular flame against
> me... I am testing the idea that if I ignore the trolls they will go away...
> I believe this attack has something to do with me doing a bad Google search
> and pulling up a quote that was not relevant.
>
> Um... OK. My explanation is that I probably did a bad Google search and
> pulled up a quote that was not relevant. I do not even know what quote is
> being referenced, but if you want to bring it to my attention I will happily
> retract something if it I did make such an error.
Apparently you have been questioned about this particular quote before.
In a lengthy post (http://tinyurl.com/297gf) full of google quotes that were
meant to show people talking bad about Steve, you had this quote:
C'Pi
"Why are you always arguing with people and I am not? Why is that?"
That's from C'Pi in this post: http://tinyurl.com/27dah
That's a post made by C'Pi and is a reply to me and it is in the group
rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with either Steve or
csma. I can't begin to understand how this quote ended up in your post and how
you googled in order to end up with that as a result.
It has been suggested that you've spent your free time trying to dig up
negative quotes about all regulars "just in case" which would be the only
logical explanation for this quote to be anywhere near you.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
wrote:
> > Of course, just the mere mentioning of this by me is likely to ignite the
> > flames of the trolls... but so be it.
>
> Only if you consider the truth to be a flame....
>
> I can only think of one reason why you would have a quote of someone
> flaming Sandman in an unrelated newsgroup from a year and a half ago.
>
> You were googling him looking for negative quotes about him.
But there must be THOUSANDS of those from this group! Why go to rassm? I don't
get it.
And how DO you google for negative quotes? I mean, what kind of google would
find that quote? C'Pi isn't even saying anything particularly negative, he is
asking why I always end up in arguments and he does not (which he does by the
way, but that's irrelevant).
"m...@sandman.net arguing" is the only relevant search I can think of, and the
quote in question is number five on that list, with far "better" quotes ranked
higher.
I just can't understand the logic.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, it's odd for sure. I'm sure he could find more "valid" quotes
>> from csma from people saying negative things about me. C'Pi really
>> isn't the kind of person whose comments a lot of people take
>> seriously.
>
> As with the quotes Snit used against me at one time (Tholen, Josh,
> Pikey...)
Ah, but you have to cut him some slack - he didn't know Tholen and actually
tried to -talk- to Tholen. That sure bit him in the ass. I'm sure he won't
offer Tholen quotes again. :)
>> So, Snit - what's up with this? It's quite obvious that playing games
>> on usenet is your thing, I don't have a problem with that, but why
>> drag me into it? What did I ever do to you but tell you when you
>> crossed the line?
>
> He will dance around the issue as he has with me.
We'll see...
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
> > > I'm curious and must ask: Snit, misattributing a post from you...
> > > purportedly about me, is worse (in your eyes) than him inserting text
> > > into what he claims is a quote? I only ask because this is something
> > > that would raise the eyebrows of most, yet, you made no comment on
> > > that at all.
> >
> > I figured that was between you two. As I see it, he googled up some quotes,
> > copied them and inserted clarification in brackets. This is pretty normal.
> > At
> > least, it's this addition I thought you were talking about, perhaps I
> > misunderstood or didn't read carefully enough.
>
> I see your point but I don't consider it normal to insert a
> clarification in the middle of a quote, even if done inside of brackets,
> without pointing out this is what you've done because there is still the
> potential to assume that the original author made the bracketed
> inclusion.
I suppose - but it is commonly used. Some quotes don't make any sense without
it, such as this (made up, on the spot, quote):
"It's the most fantastic thing since sliced bread"
- Steve Jobs
As opposed to this:
"[the Macintosh is] the most fantastic thing since sliced bread"
- Steve Jobs
The original quote might be the last sentence in a long quote about the Mac but
doesn't explicitly say it's about the mac, so you have to add that, and that's
often done through brackets.
> Snit didn't even point to where the altered text
> originally came from.
This is alot more important - that the source is sent along. In usenet it's
siumple, use send along a tinyurl or a message-id.
> As far as 'clarification' goes, what he inserted
> didn't clarify jack shit with respect to reality, it mislead the reader
> to a condition that never existed.
Yes, big mistake on his part. But he didn't seem to be purposefully lying about
it, just honestly mistaken about it.
> Being that he wrote the post to a guy
> in here named MR_ED_of_Course, I think that takes it out of the realm of
> being just between Snit and myself. Anyway, Snit constantly calls these
> things his 'mistakes' but he does this crap on a regular basis. Look at
> what he just tried to do with Steve Mackay. He has more 'mistakes' than
> any 20 posters I can name. And I mean all 20 together!
I agree.
> > But yeah, to me the googling of that C'Pi quote is far more...odd. :)
>
> Why? Because it had YOUR name in it?
Yeah. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-D113A9.21...@news.fu-berlin.de on 4/5/04 12:44 PM:
I hesitate to answer here - seems since I am ignoring Steve he is trying to
pull others in.
In any case, I do not remember where that quote came from - I have had
people e-mailing me quotes about Steve that were indicative of his
character. Seems that one was not accurate. Either I did a bad Google
search or someone sent me something that I did not verify well. In either
case, my mistake. The quote is clearly not about Steve, and should not have
been included in the list. As I said above: "I probably did a bad Google
search and pulled up a quote that was not relevant."
Here is a more current list of quotes about Steve. Most with links to the
original, but I have not gotten to them all. If you find any errors, please
let me know and I will correct the error. If Steve tells you of another
error, please let me know - as I do not read many of his posts any more.
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/troll/#others
My guess is he is harping on this one quote because it is one of the few he
can point to that is in error, but I would not be surprised to find a few
more. He is understandably upset that I have have a website pointing out
his character and claims... but is based mostly on his own words. At least
when I sink to making childish accusations of the type he does against
someone I support them well. :)
In any case... back to ignoring the flame wars for a while.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
Gee... I guess I missed your apology to me on this...
> As I said above: "I probably did a bad Google
> search and pulled up a quote that was not relevant."
>
> Here is a more current list of quotes about Steve. Most with links to the
> original, but I have not gotten to them all. If you find any errors, please
> let me know and I will correct the error. If Steve tells you of another
> error, please let me know - as I do not read many of his posts any more.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/troll/#others
>
> My guess is he is harping on this one quote because it is one of the few he
> can point to that is in error, but I would not be surprised to find a few
> more. He is understandably upset that I have have a website pointing out
> his character and claims... but is based mostly on his own words.
Yeah... I'm just all broken up over it:)
> At least
> when I sink to making childish accusations of the type he does against
> someone I support them well. :)
Oh... believe me, he knows. Sandman just got to see some of your
excellent support. The price of crack just dropped in your neighborhood
again, didn't it?
> In any case... back to ignoring the flame wars for a while.
Yeah, there IS always that... but only for a while ;-)
steve
Stephen Manchester
"Snit" <sn...@nospam-cableone.net> wrote in message
news:BC973236.471F7%sn...@nospam-cableone.net...
Steve Carroll
"Stephen Manchester" <NOSPAM....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> People have way to much time to waste on entertainment.
Careful... the spelling is a little off but you're close enough so that
Snit will assimilate you into the 'Steve collective' along with Steve
Mackay and myself:)
Steve
Elizabot
Wrong answer.
Try again, Stalker-Boy.
Elizabot
> In article <4071aec4$0$199$7586...@news.frii.net>, E <nu...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Of course, just the mere mentioning of this by me is likely to ignite the
>>>flames of the trolls... but so be it.
>>
>>Only if you consider the truth to be a flame....
>>
>>I can only think of one reason why you would have a quote of someone
>>flaming Sandman in an unrelated newsgroup from a year and a half ago.
>>
>>You were googling him looking for negative quotes about him.
>
>
> But there must be THOUSANDS of those from this group! Why go to rassm? I don't
> get it.
He's stalking you. He's collecting quotes to make you look hated in
every group that you've visited.
His only mistake was to put that quote in the wrong "evidence file."
> And how DO you google for negative quotes? I mean, what kind of google would
> find that quote? C'Pi isn't even saying anything particularly negative, he is
> asking why I always end up in arguments and he does not (which he does by the
> way, but that's irrelevant).
He's looking for quotes to prove that you are argumentative. Perhaps he
is considering dedicating a web page to you as he has done for Steve,
and as he has "threatened" to do for me. (And Snit claims I am obsessed
with him! LOL)
"Hey, maybe that is not fair. Maybe I should focus on your history
instead of his?"
> "m...@sandman.net arguing" is the only relevant search I can think of, and the
> quote in question is number five on that list, with far "better" quotes ranked
> higher.
I'll take your word for it!
> I just can't understand the logic.
I have suggested that Snit is an internet stalker, and that C'Pi quote
is solid proof of my assertion.
Elizabot
> In article <4071b0ef$0$199$7586...@news.frii.net>, Elizabot
> <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Yeah, it's odd for sure. I'm sure he could find more "valid" quotes
>>>from csma from people saying negative things about me. C'Pi really
>>>isn't the kind of person whose comments a lot of people take
>>>seriously.
>>
>>As with the quotes Snit used against me at one time (Tholen, Josh,
>>Pikey...)
>
>
> Ah, but you have to cut him some slack - he didn't know Tholen and actually
> tried to -talk- to Tholen. That sure bit him in the ass. I'm sure he won't
> offer Tholen quotes again. :)
That was hilarious! Perhaps Snit should google Tholen! (That ought to
keep him busy for a weekend.)
>>>So, Snit - what's up with this? It's quite obvious that playing games
>>>on usenet is your thing, I don't have a problem with that, but why
>>>drag me into it? What did I ever do to you but tell you when you
>>>crossed the line?
>>
>>He will dance around the issue as he has with me.
>
>
> We'll see...
Perhaps he'll ignore it, which means he thinks of you as a troll. He has
stated he won't be replying to trolls for the time being.
(p.s. Snit, go fuck yourself!)
Sandman
What kind of google search WOULD yield that quote?
> Here is a more current list of quotes about Steve.
I don't care about that. I care about you including a comment about me, posted
in an entirely different newsgroup.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
> > Ah, but you have to cut him some slack - he didn't know Tholen and actually
> > tried to -talk- to Tholen. That sure bit him in the ass. I'm sure he won't
> > offer Tholen quotes again. :)
>
> That was hilarious! Perhaps Snit should google Tholen! (That ought to
> keep him busy for a weekend.)
You misspelled "the rest of his natural life". :)
> >>>So, Snit - what's up with this? It's quite obvious that playing games
> >>>on usenet is your thing, I don't have a problem with that, but why
> >>>drag me into it? What did I ever do to you but tell you when you
> >>>crossed the line?
> >>
> >>He will dance around the issue as he has with me.
> >
> >
> > We'll see...
>
> Perhaps he'll ignore it, which means he thinks of you as a troll. He has
> stated he won't be replying to trolls for the time being.
Sandman, the csma troll. Yeah, that sounds right. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
> > I just can't understand the logic.
>
> I have suggested that Snit is an internet stalker, and that C'Pi quote
> is solid proof of my assertion.
Could be. Odd.
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
COULD be? You haven't read enough of Snit's posts:)
Steve
Sandman
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
I.e. he could be stalking me. I see no reason why he would do that, so I am
giving him the benefit of a doubt. :P
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <fretwizz-9AEFF8...@netnews.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <mr-C8F69B.14...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <4072631f$0$195$7586...@news.frii.net>,
> > > Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I just can't understand the logic.
> > > >
> > > > I have suggested that Snit is an internet stalker, and that C'Pi quote
> > > > is solid proof of my assertion.
> > >
> > > Could be. Odd.
> >
> > COULD be? You haven't read enough of Snit's posts:)
>
> I.e. he could be stalking me. I see no reason why he would do that, so I am
> giving him the benefit of a doubt. :P
Well... you just aided in proving him a liar,(gee, and we were all
shocked over it:) Snit doesn't take kindly to such actions. LOL! Of
course, there's always the question of which one of you is lying...
Steve
Steve Mackay
But notice his lack of an appology for accusing ME of being dishonest? Or
any comments whatsoever in respect to that email that Sandman backed
me up on? What a friggin' suprise there too...
Or what about an appology to Elizabot for the disgusting email he posted
under his "Sigmond" sockpuppet?
Steve Carroll
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bizarre, isn't it? Shit, he even apologized to Sandy for something he
did to me... go figure. But I have an even better one! Just recently,
Snit tried to pretend, in several threads, that I said homosexuals were
parasitic on society. Only one problem, he stuffed those words into my
mouth... or I should say, he TRIED to:) Amazingly, as in *amazingly
STUPID*, he did this misattribution from a post where I subsequently
clarified why the potential exists for an adopting couple of ANY sexual
orientation to be considered parasitic by the original parents.
Snit wrote:
_____________________________________________________________________
"I started out giving you the benefit of the doubt. Seems I was wrong
to do so. I see you once again snipped the explanation why your term
"parasite" is not only inaccurate, but easily seen as offensive.
Homosexuals are in no way parasites on society - not biologically, not
metaphorically, not by analogy. "
_____________________________________________________________________
Not that you'd waste your time to look but here's the link that includes
how I answered him (turns out I needed it recently:) Of particular
interest is the fact that I did NOT single out homosexuals when
explaining why I considered such a *possibility* exists, as Snit's
misattribution OF HIS OWN WORDS suggests. LOL! I'm tellin' ya... that
boy is delusional:)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=parasitic+group:comp.sys.mac.advocacy+a
uthor:Steve+author:carroll&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=fret
wizz-D9F82B.20555704032004%40netnews.comcast.net&rnum=1
What e-mail to Elizabot?
Steve
Steve Mackay
Didn't mean email, meant the "Elizabot Can't get enough" post(Sue me,
it's still early :) ). And then went on to say how he didn't approve of
his own post.
So Snit, how do you explain that one? And how about an appology to
Elizabot for orignally posting that rubbish?
Elizabot
The post also demonstrates that Snit allows his sockpuppet to be bigoted
against gays, while Snit himself pretends to be unbigoted.