How many groups does A Baker troll?

[james]

Lots. Just look at the first three pages.

3570 OPs in the last 12 months. This doesn't include responses.

A real sick puppy. The loser should get a job instead of sponging off
family and friends.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?safe=off&q=alan+baker+author%3AAlan+author%3ABaker&btnG=Search&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2011&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=2012&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=

[hannahf...@gmail.com]

At first, I thought maybe this was just another troll, but after seeing THIS and many others like it....

I, Alan Baker of Vancouver, British Columbia, believe that the world
would be better off if you, Scott Barak Abraham of Seattle, Washington
were dead.

Oh wow, oh wow

[Alan Baker]

In article
<16257865.148.1329691795345.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngj4>,

And I stand by it.

Have you read Mr. Abraham's history?

Have you read where he threatened by life?

Have you read where he has threatened multiple people for more than a
decade?

"Scott Abraham ­ skiing enthusiast banned by court order in 1999 from
posting on the Usenet discussion group "rec.skiing.alpine", after
engaging in a flame war with other online posters. The heated exchanges
lasted for months, eventually escalating into death threats, until a
police detective from Seattle posted a request for all involved to calm
down. All involved did except Abraham, which ultimately led to a court
order being filed against him. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and
other civil liberties groups commented that this violated free speech,
but did not deny that Abraham's aggressive behavior exceeded the
boundaries of normal newsgroup civility.[7]"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_celebrity>

And from "[7]":

"A detective from the Seattle PD, Leanne Shirey, posted a message on the
RSA board urging everyone to calm down.

"We politely asked them to desist, and all but one did," said Shirey.
That one was Abraham. His intransigence ultimately led to the court
order against him, she said.

Shirey defends the decision to bar Abraham from posting on Usenet,
claiming it was the only way to end the battle before it became a blood
and bones affair."

<http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/11/32550>

So, yes: although I defend his right to life, I think we'd be better off
without Mr. Abraham.

--
"The iPhone doesn't have...
...well, since Edwin seems to have finally crawled away for good,
I guess I'll let him off the hook

[MuahMan]

On Feb 19, 6:38 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <16257865.148.1329691795345.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngj4>,

Wow. You're an asshole of epic proportions.

[Oxford]

"james" <jamess...@aol.com> wrote:

> Lots. Just look at the first three pages.

Alan has a solid... smart track record, so why are you complaining?

oxford

[TripleA]

>wrote in message
>news:16257865.148.1329691795345.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngj4...

Baker seems to be well loved.


http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=15&gs_id=36&xhr=t&q=Scott+Abraham+%2B+alan+baker&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&pbx=1&oq=Scott+Abraham+%2B+alan+baker&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=6144dfdb3b8a557a&biw=1280&bih=579&bs=1

[TripleA]

>"Oxford" wrote in message
>news:apony-7D2544....@news.qwest.net...

>"james" <jamess...@aol.com> wrote:

> Lots. Just look at the first three pages.

>Alan has a solid... smart track record, so why are you complaining?

the "smart" part seems to be a long stretch. As for the "solid" part,
over 12,000 posts in twelve months speaks volumes.

[Mayor Of R'lyeh]

Why does it not surprise me to find out that Alan 'too many times to
count' Baker was involved in this?

[james]

"Mayor Of R'lyeh" wrote in message
news:2222d7b0-23fb-4559...@j8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

I don't think he has a job. Between this group and rec.sport.golf, he
has probably posted sixty times today alone. He's a Loser without a
job, a car, money, a GF and family. They have all distanced
themselves from him.

[Alan Baker]

In article
<2222d7b0-23fb-4559...@j8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

I wasn't involved it, Clyde. It was all before my time in RSA.

[Mayor Of R'lyeh]

On Feb 23, 9:08 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article

> <2222d7b0-23fb-4559-9413-6e200d836...@j8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

You claim he threatened your life. That sounds like you were involved
to me.

[Alan Baker]

In article
<e7382cda-01fd-4874...@w5g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

That was long, long after the events I described.

Scott is perhaps Usenet's foremost whack job, Clyde.

[james]

"Mayor Of R'lyeh" wrote in message

news:e7382cda-01fd-4874...@w5g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

You might ask Baker if he was involved in calling the employers and
cost those people their livelihood. He will try to dance away from
that one fast.

[Alan Baker]

In article <ji6t8f$jer$1...@dont-email.me>, "james" <jamess...@aol.com>
wrote:

No, Michael. I'll happily answer that issue.

I've never done anything of the kind.

[Walter Myer]

WOW!!! You were even fucked-up then!!!!

And you were also talking to your imaginary friend "michael", even then.

[Edward Stansfield]

Snit has been stalking people, calling their places of employment, their
wife/girlfriend etc for years.

Search on snit+elizabot.
It's pretty well known that Alan Baker is a snit sock puppet.

[Edward Stansfield]

BTW Edwin has surfaced over in comp.os.linux.advocacy and posts as
"nobody".
He's the same moron over there as he was in CSMA.

[Alan Baker]

No, actually. That's not known.

It may be believed by some...

...but it's also not true.

:-)

[Snit]

On 11/6/15, 9:38 PM, in article _ef%x.446$M%.283@fx20.iad, "Alan Baker"

<alang...@telus.net> wrote:

>>>> "The iPhone doesn't have...
>>>> ...well, since Edwin seems to have finally crawled away for good,
>>>> I guess I'll let him off the hook
>>>
>>> WOW!!! You were even fucked-up then!!!!
>>>
>>> And you were also talking to your imaginary friend "michael", even then.
>>
>> Snit has been stalking people, calling their places of employment, their
>> wife/girlfriend etc for years.
>>
>> Search on snit+elizabot.
>> It's pretty well known that Alan Baker is a snit sock puppet.
>>
>
> No, actually. That's not known.
>
> It may be believed by some...
>
> ...but it's also not true.
>
>
> :-)

In COLA there is an idiotic ongoing gag that "everyone is Snit", even though
I have never posted there with any name other than Snit. It is all about
avoiding the topic of technology... and some of the idiots there follow me
around with THEIR socks spreading the gag to other groups.

It just shows they are insecure.


--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[Edward Stansfield]

On Fri, 06 Nov 2015 22:01:53 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 11/6/15, 9:38 PM, in article _ef%x.446$M%.283@fx20.iad, "Alan Baker"
> <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> "The iPhone doesn't have...
>>>>> ...well, since Edwin seems to have finally crawled away for good,
>>>>> I guess I'll let him off the hook
>>>>
>>>> WOW!!! You were even fucked-up then!!!!
>>>>
>>>> And you were also talking to your imaginary friend "michael", even then.
>>>
>>> Snit has been stalking people, calling their places of employment, their
>>> wife/girlfriend etc for years.
>>>
>>> Search on snit+elizabot.
>>> It's pretty well known that Alan Baker is a snit sock puppet.
>>>
>>
>> No, actually. That's not known.
>>
>> It may be believed by some...
>>
>> ...but it's also not true.
>>
>>
>> :-)
>
> In COLA there is an idiotic ongoing gag that "everyone is Snit", even though
> I have never posted there with any name other than Snit. It is all about
> avoiding the topic of technology... and some of the idiots there follow me
> around with THEIR socks spreading the gag to other groups.
>
> It just shows they are insecure.

Sure: Onion Knight, Brock McNuggets, Rhino Plastee, Drew P. Bawls and about
a 100 other nyms and sock puppets.
BTW nobody is saying "everyone" is snit, that's your narcissistic, twisted
mind at work.

[Alan Baker]

I can't speak for anyone but myself.

My name is Alan Baker and I have never posted as "Snit" or any of the
other sobriquets you mentioned.

[Snit]

On 11/6/15, 10:28 PM, in article 6_f%x.681$qL....@fx15.iad, "Alan Baker"

<alang...@telus.net> wrote:

>>> In COLA there is an idiotic ongoing gag that "everyone is Snit", even though
>>> I have never posted there with any name other than Snit. It is all about
>>> avoiding the topic of technology... and some of the idiots there follow me
>>> around with THEIR socks spreading the gag to other groups.
>>>
>>> It just shows they are insecure.
>>
>> Sure: Onion Knight, Brock McNuggets, Rhino Plastee, Drew P. Bawls and about
>> a 100 other nyms and sock puppets.
>> BTW nobody is saying "everyone" is snit, that's your narcissistic, twisted
>> mind at work.
>>
> I can't speak for anyone but myself.
>
> My name is Alan Baker and I have never posted as "Snit" or any of the
> other sobriquets you mentioned.

I posted in CSMA as Brock McNuggets as a joke in 2004 or 2005 or something
like that. Never used any of the other names - but Edwin / Nobody has.

[Sandman]

In article <n1k1f6$t6m$1...@dont-email.me>, Edward Stansfield wrote:

> > > > > > Alan Baker:

> > > > > > "The iPhone doesn't have... ...well, since Edwin seems to
> > > > > > have finally crawled away for good, I guess I'll let him
> > > > > > off the hook
> > > > >

> > > > > Walter Myer:

> > > > > WOW!!! You were even fucked-up then!!!!
> > > >
> > > > > And you were also talking to your imaginary friend
> > > > > "michael", even then.
> > > >

> > > > Edward Stansfield:

> > > > Snit has been stalking people, calling their places of
> > > > employment, their wife/girlfriend etc for years.
> > >
> > > > Search on snit+elizabot. It's pretty well known that Alan
> > > > Baker is a snit sock puppet.
> > >

> > > Alan Baker:

> > > No, actually. That's not known.
> >
> > > It may be believed by some...
> >
> > > ...but it's also not true.
> >
> > > :-)
> >

> > Snit:

> > In COLA there is an idiotic ongoing gag that "everyone is Snit",
> > even though I have never posted there with any name other than
> > Snit. It is all about avoiding the topic of technology... and some
> > of the idiots there follow me around with THEIR socks spreading
> > the gag to other groups.
>
> > It just shows they are insecure.
>
> Sure: Onion Knight, Brock McNuggets, Rhino Plastee, Drew P. Bawls
> and about a 100 other nyms and sock puppets. BTW nobody is saying
> "everyone" is snit, that's your narcissistic, twisted mind at work.

I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still think people are being
fooled by his sock puppets.

--
Sandman

[Walter Myer]

But it's a known that you have posted under socks.

[Walter Myer]

How many socks the DLS uses is unknown. But it's a given they exist.

But what is known is, IT posts 24/7.

What is also known, 103,000 posts under the Baker nym. And those are only the ones we know about!

A fucking world record!!!

Well, everyone has a talent, and that is IT'S talent. The only one.

[Edward Stansfield]

Mentally ill narcissists are wired that way. They believe they are superior
to others and that no matter how transparent their scams are, people aren't
intelligent enough to figure them out.

Someone over in COLA posted some screen grabs from one of snit's videos and
it clearly shows a TOR Browser icon in the dock. Snit claims he doesn't use
TOR.
Snit's been busted once again.

[Walter Myer]

And the DLS has grown to ba an even bigger asshole.

[Walter Myer]

On Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 6:38:25 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article
> <16257865.148.1329691795345.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngj4>,
> hannahf...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > At first, I thought maybe this was just another troll, but after seeing THIS
> > and many others like it....
> >
> > I, Alan Baker of Vancouver, British Columbia, believe that the world
> > would be better off if you, Scott Barak Abraham of Seattle, Washington
> > were dead.
> >
> > Oh wow, oh wow
>
> And I stand by it.
>
> Have you read Mr. Abraham's history?
>
> Have you read where he threatened by life?

Why not post a link, Liar?

[Snit]

On 11/7/15, 3:08 AM, in article
sandman-e6c0513d92f2...@individual.net, "Sandman"

<m...@sandman.net> wrote:

>>> Snit:
>>> In COLA there is an idiotic ongoing gag that "everyone is Snit",
>>> even though I have never posted there with any name other than
>>> Snit. It is all about avoiding the topic of technology... and some
>>> of the idiots there follow me around with THEIR socks spreading
>>> the gag to other groups.
>>
>>> It just shows they are insecure.
>>
>> Sure: Onion Knight, Brock McNuggets, Rhino Plastee, Drew P. Bawls
>> and about a 100 other nyms and sock puppets. BTW nobody is saying
>> "everyone" is snit, that's your narcissistic, twisted mind at work.
>
> I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still think people are being
> fooled by his sock puppets.

I find it weird that Sandman, eleven years later, is still telling the same
"everyone is Snit" gag and has not matured enough to figure out it is not
funny.

[Alan Baker]

LOL

2012!

Michael and Liar-boy are getting desperate!

[Alan Baker]

LOL

[Walter Myer]

Looks like one doesn't exist, you low life liar.
>
> 2012!

Awwww....you are now a changed DLS?

>
> Michael and Liar-boy are getting desperate!

ROTFLMAO.

Luser.

[Walter Myer]

Tacit admission.

ROTFLMAO

Luser

[Alan Baker]

On 11/7/15 11:33 AM, Walter Myer wrote:
> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 1:39:02 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 11/7/15 8:10 AM, Walter Myer wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 6:38:25 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <16257865.148.1329691795345.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngj4>,
>>>> hannahf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At first, I thought maybe this was just another troll, but after seeing THIS
>>>>> and many others like it....
>>>>>
>>>>> I, Alan Baker of Vancouver, British Columbia, believe that the world
>>>>> would be better off if you, Scott Barak Abraham of Seattle, Washington
>>>>> were dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh wow, oh wow
>>>>
>>>> And I stand by it.
>>>>
>>>> Have you read Mr. Abraham's history?
>>>>
>>>> Have you read where he threatened by life?
>>>
>>> Why not post a link, Liar?
>>>
>>
>> LOL
>
> Looks like one doesn't exist, you low life liar.

LOL

Does it?

Care to lay a small wager on that?

[Alan Baker]

LOL

[Walter Myer]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 2:38:48 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 11/7/15 11:33 AM, Walter Myer wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 1:39:02 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 11/7/15 8:10 AM, Walter Myer wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 6:38:25 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <16257865.148.1329691795345.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngj4>,
> >>>> hannahf...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> At first, I thought maybe this was just another troll, but after seeing THIS
> >>>>> and many others like it....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I, Alan Baker of Vancouver, British Columbia, believe that the world
> >>>>> would be better off if you, Scott Barak Abraham of Seattle, Washington
> >>>>> were dead.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh wow, oh wow
> >>>>
> >>>> And I stand by it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Have you read Mr. Abraham's history?
> >>>>
> >>>> Have you read where he threatened by life?
> >>>
> >>> Why not post a link, Liar?
> >>>
> >>
> >> LOL
> >
> > Looks like one doesn't exist, you low life liar.
>
> LOL
>
> Does it?
>
> Care to lay a small wager on that?

BWAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

The DLS's loophole.

We've been down that road before, Douche.

You will insure it never happens, Luzer.

[Alan Baker]

Indeed we have..

...and you always crawl away.

:-)

>
> You will insure it never happens, Luzer.

I'd love for it to happen, Michael...

...provided the money makes it worth my time to search the Google Groups
interface.

:-)

[Walter Myer]

To put it simply, Snit, you're full of shit. You don't seem to have any problem pulling up old, obscure posts when it suits you.

Anything else?

I have a bunch of your old trolls to go through.

Now run along and fuck off. You're a natural born Luzer. Just like your father thought.

[Alan Baker]

To put it simply, Michael: I'm not Snit, nor have I ever posted as
"Snit", nor any of the other sockpuppets associated with Snit.

And if I pull up an old post, I do so with a lot more thought to context.

:-)

>
> Anything else?
>
> I have a bunch of your old trolls to go through.

Shut-ins do need something to keep them busy.

Glad I can help.

>
> Now run along and fuck off. You're a natural born Luzer. Just like
> your father thought.

LOL

So this is you crawling away from your claim...

...as usual.

:-)

[Walter Myer]

As I said, you're full of shit.

[Alan Baker]

And you yet you crawled away...

[Thomas E.]

LOL = layers of lies

[Tim]

In article <D2638637.63087%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit

<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 11/7/15, 3:08 AM, in article
> sandman-e6c0513d92f2...@individual.net, "Sandman"
> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Snit:
> >>> In COLA there is an idiotic ongoing gag that "everyone is Snit",
> >>> even though I have never posted there with any name other than
> >>> Snit. It is all about avoiding the topic of technology... and some
> >>> of the idiots there follow me around with THEIR socks spreading
> >>> the gag to other groups.
> >>
> >>> It just shows they are insecure.
> >>
> >> Sure: Onion Knight, Brock McNuggets, Rhino Plastee, Drew P. Bawls
> >> and about a 100 other nyms and sock puppets. BTW nobody is saying
> >> "everyone" is snit, that's your narcissistic, twisted mind at work.
> >
> > I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still think people are being
> > fooled by his sock puppets.
>
> I find it weird that Sandman, eleven years later, is still telling the same
> "everyone is Snit" gag and has not matured enough to figure out it is not
> funny.

and here is yet another example of a snit lie. nowhere in Sandman's
post did he claim "everyone is Snit" but then, snit has admitted to
dozens of socks then claims he's 'never used any' just like a typical
troll.

[Snit]

On 11/7/15, 8:30 PM, in article
071120152230513311%teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net, "Tim"

<teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>>> Sure: Onion Knight, Brock McNuggets, Rhino Plastee, Drew P. Bawls
>>>> and about a 100 other nyms and sock puppets. BTW nobody is saying
>>>> "everyone" is snit, that's your narcissistic, twisted mind at work.
>>>
>>> I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still think people are being
>>> fooled by his sock puppets.
>>
>> I find it weird that Sandman, eleven years later, is still telling the same
>> "everyone is Snit" gag and has not matured enough to figure out it is not
>> funny.
>
> and here is yet another example of a snit lie. nowhere in Sandman's
> post did he claim "everyone is Snit" but then, snit has admitted to
> dozens of socks then claims he's 'never used any' just like a typical
> troll.

He is referring to my non-existent sock puppets. It is a reference to the
"everyone is Snit" gag.

[Sandman]

In article <n1l1fs$tfq$1...@dont-email.me>, Edward Stansfield wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still think people
> > are being fooled by his sock puppets.
>
> Mentally ill narcissists are wired that way. They believe they are
> superior to others and that no matter how transparent their scams
> are, people aren't intelligent enough to figure them out.

Right, but it's been eleven years. He may have been an ignorant teenager when he
started his MO here on usenet, but he should have grown up since then.

> Someone over in COLA posted some screen grabs from one of snit's
> videos and it clearly shows a TOR Browser icon in the dock. Snit
> claims he doesn't use TOR. Snit's been busted once again.

Uh, I proved that he used TOR ten years ago. In end - what Snit "claims" is of
not relevancy to reality. :)

--
Sandman

[Sandman]

In article <071120152230513311%teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net>, Tim wrote:

> > > > > In COLA there is an idiotic ongoing gag that "everyone
> > > > > is Snit", even though I have never posted there with any
> > > > > name other than Snit. It is all about avoiding the topic of
> > > > > technology... and some of the idiots there follow me around
> > > > > with THEIR socks spreading the gag to other groups.
> > > >
> > > > > It just shows they are insecure.
> > > >

> > > > Edward Stansfield:

> > > > Sure: Onion Knight, Brock McNuggets, Rhino Plastee, Drew P.
> > > > Bawls and about a 100 other nyms and sock puppets. BTW nobody
> > > > is saying "everyone" is snit, that's your narcissistic,
> > > > twisted mind at work.
> > >

> > > Sandman:

> > > I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still think
> > > people are being fooled by his sock puppets.
> >

> > Snit:

> > I find it weird that Sandman, eleven years later, is still telling
> > the same "everyone is Snit" gag and has not matured enough to
> > figure out it is not funny.
>
> and here is yet another example of a snit lie. nowhere in Sandman's
> post did he claim "everyone is Snit" but then, snit has admitted to
> dozens of socks then claims he's 'never used any' just like a
> typical troll.

It's in the objective troll criteria under the headline "misinterpretation". A
common tactic even for newbie trolls. Snit can do a lot better than that though.
Maybe well se an edited PDF soon? :)

--
Sandman

[Walter Myer]

Another babbling rant from Dim, the Idiot internet stalker.

Rave on, Idiot.

Perhaps you should kick your dog.

[Edward Stansfield]

On 8 Nov 2015 12:41:42 GMT, Sandman wrote:

> In article <n1l1fs$tfq$1...@dont-email.me>, Edward Stansfield wrote:
>
>>> Sandman:
>>> I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still think people
>>> are being fooled by his sock puppets.
>>
>> Mentally ill narcissists are wired that way. They believe they are
>> superior to others and that no matter how transparent their scams
>> are, people aren't intelligent enough to figure them out.
>
> Right, but it's been eleven years. He may have been an ignorant teenager when he
> started his MO here on usenet, but he should have grown up since then.

He has no life. His wife posted on a local blog about how she does all the
housework, cleaning, dishes and such meanwhile snit is trolling 24x7.
I feel sorry for her. I really do.

>> Someone over in COLA posted some screen grabs from one of snit's
>> videos and it clearly shows a TOR Browser icon in the dock. Snit
>> claims he doesn't use TOR. Snit's been busted once again.
>
> Uh, I proved that he used TOR ten years ago. In end - what Snit "claims" is of
> not relevancy to reality. :)

I remember that.
It was entertaining watching him try and wriggle out of it again because
this time the dock clearly showed a TOR browser icon. He has honed his
trolling skills since the days of comp.sys.mac.advocacy but when you peel
back the onion it's still the same snit.

[Sandman]

In article <n1nj3f$7h1$1...@dont-email.me>, Edward Stansfield wrote:

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still
> > > > think people are being fooled by his sock puppets.
> > >

> > > Edward Stansfield:

> > > Mentally ill narcissists are wired that way. They believe they
> > > are superior to others and that no matter how transparent their
> > > scams are, people aren't intelligent enough to figure them out.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Right, but it's been eleven years. He may have been an ignorant
> > teenager when he started his MO here on usenet, but he should
> > have grown up since then.
>
> He has no life. His wife posted on a local blog about how she does
> all the housework, cleaning, dishes and such meanwhile snit is
> trolling 24x7. I feel sorry for her. I really do.

Yeah, I saw that. And he tried to pretend it could have been someone else posting
as Anne Glasser from Prescott on Facebook with a husband named Michael. :)

> > > Edward Stansfield:

> > > Someone over in COLA posted some screen grabs from one of snit's
> > > videos and it clearly shows a TOR Browser icon in the dock. Snit
> > > claims he doesn't use TOR. Snit's been busted once again.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > Uh, I proved that he used TOR ten years ago. In end - what Snit
> > "claims" is of not relevancy to reality. :)
>
> I remember that. It was entertaining watching him try and wriggle
> out of it again because this time the dock clearly showed a TOR
> browser icon. He has honed his trolling skills since the days of
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy but when you peel back the onion it's still
> the same snit.

--
Sandman

[Alan Baker]

LOL

[Snit]

On 11/8/15, 5:41 AM, in article
sandman-fa830ca9ad7d...@individual.net, "Sandman"

Your "proof" is tied to your delusions... and keep in mind why you even
started trying to "prove" me wrong... because you felt humiliated, for some
stupid reason, that I pointed out (gasp!) that the CSS on your website was
not validating. You went ape-shit crazy over this, denying it and going on
and on and on.

I then showed it not only failed to validate, but that in EVERY archived
copy from the WayBackMachine that had CSS it had failed to validate (as did
the HTML).

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

All 100+ archived copies failed. No big conspiracy theory needed... no
twisted stories or biased claims... none of the crap your BS accusations
which are often self-refuting contain. Just pure, solid, simple proof. :)

Now, Sandman, it has been many years since then. Have you grown up enough to
admit your CSS was not valid? I mean, really, it is not like that is even
something that shows you are incompetent or evil or whatever... as I have
noted many times through the years you seem very talented and intelligent,
you simply cannot stand to be proved wrong or imperfect. So why not show you
have grown up and just admit you lied and lied and lied about something so
inconsequential?

[Snit]

On 11/8/15, 6:12 AM, in article
a7d153af-6f7d-457b...@googlegroups.com, "Walter Myer"

Sandman trolls me because many years ago, almost a decade ago, I noted
(gasp!) his CSS and HTML were not validating. He denied it... and started
spewing idiotic lies about me. So I looked at the WayBackMachine archive of
his site and proved every single example failed... and there were over 100
of them at the time. Here, simple proof:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

You would think he would be able to admit, all these years later, that well,
sure, his CSS failed to validate. So what? Nobody claimed he was evil or
incompetent or whatever. Heck, I openly speak about how he does seem
intelligent and knowledgeable, but he cannot stand to be proved wrong.

[Snit]

On 11/8/15, 8:49 AM, in article
sandman-806adb75ac23...@individual.net, "Sandman"

<m...@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <n1nj3f$7h1$1...@dont-email.me>, Edward Stansfield wrote:
>
>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>> I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still
>>>>> think people are being fooled by his sock puppets.
>>>>
>>>> Edward Stansfield:
>>>> Mentally ill narcissists are wired that way. They believe they
>>>> are superior to others and that no matter how transparent their
>>>> scams are, people aren't intelligent enough to figure them out.
>>>
>>> Sandman:
>>> Right, but it's been eleven years. He may have been an ignorant
>>> teenager when he started his MO here on usenet, but he should
>>> have grown up since then.
>>
>> He has no life. His wife posted on a local blog about how she does
>> all the housework, cleaning, dishes and such meanwhile snit is
>> trolling 24x7. I feel sorry for her. I really do.
>
> Yeah, I saw that. And he tried to pretend it could have been someone else
> posting
> as Anne Glasser from Prescott on Facebook with a husband named Michael. :)

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

That is proof... and what got you so bent out of shape you went ape-shit
crazy with your trolling of me.

You BS claims are, well, BS claims. Not interested.

[Snit]

On 11/8/15, 5:57 AM, in article
sandman-d8e7f72b6ddc...@individual.net, "Sandman"

Your "objective troll criteria" is rubbish. You hand pick people to NOT
include, then have others speak of them so they CANNOT be included, then
include them as trolls. And it is based on if many people troll one person
THAT person is deemed a troll.

Even worse, when it as pointed out how dishonest and absurd your system was,
you lied and said *I* asked you to spew such lies.

But it comes down to you need to come up with convoluted nonsense stories to
try to defend your attacks. I need point to ONE file to prove you lied about
your CSS:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

It is that simple. Your CSS never validated before I noted its problems and
you lied about it. No convoluted nonsense to try to make you look bad, just
look at your own work and remind you of your lie.

[Alan Baker]

Is this another forged PDF from you, Snit?

Since I know you forged one, I'm just going to assume this is more of
the same...

[Snit]

On 11/8/15, 2:19 PM, in article k%O%x.30023$1J....@fx31.iad, "Alan Baker"

<alang...@telus.net> wrote:

>>> It's in the objective troll criteria under the headline "misinterpretation".
>>> A
>>> common tactic even for newbie trolls. Snit can do a lot better than that
>>> though.
>>> Maybe well se an edited PDF soon? :)
>>
>> Your "objective troll criteria" is rubbish. You hand pick people to NOT
>> include, then have others speak of them so they CANNOT be included, then
>> include them as trolls. And it is based on if many people troll one person
>> THAT person is deemed a troll.
>>
>> Even worse, when it as pointed out how dishonest and absurd your system was,
>> you lied and said *I* asked you to spew such lies.
>>
>> But it comes down to you need to come up with convoluted nonsense stories to
>> try to defend your attacks. I need point to ONE file to prove you lied about
>> your CSS:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
>>
>> It is that simple. Your CSS never validated before I noted its problems and
>> you lied about it. No convoluted nonsense to try to make you look bad, just
>> look at your own work and remind you of your lie.
>
> Is this another forged PDF from you, Snit?
>
> Since I know you forged one, I'm just going to assume this is more of
> the same...

One: not interested in stories of forgeries.

Two: You can double check anything you want on those pages. Links to the
WayBackArchive are listed and active, then you can run them through the
validation services or just look at the code and see that the reports are
accurate.

Comes down to the evidence against Sandman is 100% solid. He lied. No big
stories to tell or convoluted nonsense needed to try to make him look bad -
just note how his CSS is proved to not validate and remind him how he lied.

Done and done.

[Alan Baker]

They're not stories. It is a fact that you forged a PDF.

>
> Two: You can double check anything you want on those pages. Links to the
> WayBackArchive are listed and active, then you can run them through the
> validation services or just look at the code and see that the reports are
> accurate.
>
> Comes down to the evidence against Sandman is 100% solid. He lied. No big
> stories to tell or convoluted nonsense needed to try to make him look bad -
> just note how his CSS is proved to not validate and remind him how he lied.
>
> Done and done.

Indeed. You were done long ago.

[-hh]

Essentially yes, because Michael is knowingly using pages which he knows
had been altered from the original.

Years ago when this came up, Glaser was told that the documentation on
the Wayback Machine's website states that they alter pages that they archive.

Yet nevertheless, he insists on using known-altered copies.

> Since I know you forged one, I'm just going to assume this is more of
> the same...

It doesn't have to be in the sense that you mean, because even if it was a
'valid' PDF, it was generated from an invalid source.


-hh

[Snit]

On 11/8/15, 2:28 PM, in article a8P%x.11127$qL....@fx15.iad, "Alan Baker"

<alang...@telus.net> wrote:

>>>> But it comes down to you need to come up with convoluted nonsense stories
>>>> to try to defend your attacks. I need point to ONE file to prove you lied
>>>> about your CSS:
>>>>
>>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> It is that simple. Your CSS never validated before I noted its problems and
>>>> you lied about it. No convoluted nonsense to try to make you look bad, just
>>>> look at your own work and remind you of your lie.
>>>
>>> Is this another forged PDF from you, Snit?
>>>
>>> Since I know you forged one, I'm just going to assume this is more of
>>> the same...
>>
>> One: not interested in stories of forgeries.
>
> They're not stories. It is a fact that you forged a PDF.

Again: not even slightly interested in such nonsense claims. I have no clue
what PDF you mean and do not care.

>> Two: You can double check anything you want on those pages. Links to the
>> WayBackArchive are listed and active, then you can run them through the
>> validation services or just look at the code and see that the reports are
>> accurate.
>>
>> Comes down to the evidence against Sandman is 100% solid. He lied. No big
>> stories to tell or convoluted nonsense needed to try to make him look bad -
>> just note how his CSS is proved to not validate and remind him how he lied.
>>
>> Done and done.
>
> Indeed. You were done long ago.

I have been done with any battle Sandman is pushing for years. He just
cannot let go. And it comes down to this:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

He just cannot stand that I was absolutely, provably, correct about his CSS
(and HTML) not validating. Why this because such a big issue for him that
years later he is STILL trolling me and STILL has page after page of lies
about me on his site is just weird.

Let the past be the past. I respond to HIS trolling by simply reminding him
how pathetic his reasons for trolling me even are. :)

[-hh]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 4:45:26 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:
>
> I have been done with any battle Sandman is pushing for years. He just
> cannot let go.

Time for some simple fact checking on CSMA posts. The basic question
is if Sandman has "not let go", or if that's been Michael Glasser. Thus,
a simple search on the two terms, Sandman and CSS, in just CSMA.

This query is the starting point; shift it into 'Sort by Date':

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/sandman$20css%7Csort:date>

The next step is to cut out those that were cross-posted and then count how many
threads had the CSS validation nonsense instigated by Snit and by Sandman.

Now since it is your claim, it is your responsibility to document it. The minimum
requirement is to post a chronological list, properly cited, of the instigating post
for each CSMA-only threads for the past five years. The readership will then
decide for themselves if the claim was truthful ... or not.

You have 48 hours to provide the cites, else the claim is assumed false. Supposedly
"accidental" omissions will also invalidate the claim.


-hh

[Snit]

On 11/8/15, 2:44 PM, in article
8215ec17-323b-4492...@googlegroups.com, "-hh"

<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>>> Your "objective troll criteria" is rubbish. You hand pick people to NOT
>>> include, then have others speak of them so they CANNOT be included, then
>>> include them as trolls. And it is based on if many people troll one person
>>> THAT person is deemed a troll.
>>>
>>> Even worse, when it as pointed out how dishonest and absurd your system was,
>>> you lied and said *I* asked you to spew such lies.
>>>
>>> But it comes down to you need to come up with convoluted nonsense stories to
>>> try to defend your attacks. I need point to ONE file to prove you lied about
>>> your CSS:
>>>
>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
>>>
>>> It is that simple. Your CSS never validated before I noted its problems and
>>> you lied about it. No convoluted nonsense to try to make you look bad, just
>>> look at your own work and remind you of your lie.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Is this another forged PDF from you, Snit?
>
> Essentially yes, because Michael is knowingly using pages which he knows
> had been altered from the original.
>
> Years ago when this came up, Glaser was told that the documentation on
> the Wayback Machine's website states that they alter pages that they archive.
>
> Yet nevertheless, he insists on using known-altered copies.

They add a commented header. They did not add the code that is referenced.

>> Since I know you forged one, I'm just going to assume this is more of
>> the same...
>
> It doesn't have to be in the sense that you mean, because even if it was a
> 'valid' PDF, it was generated from an invalid source.
>
>
> -hh

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

No matter how much you guys troll me, everything in that PDF is 100% true.
NO forgery.

Funny how those who troll HATE to see facts. :)

[Edward Stansfield]

It's even simpler than that. The real question regarding snit is what is
more likely than not. And one need only go to the various websites where
snit's antics are documented and where MANY, MANY different people, from
different groups and blogs are all mostly saying the same things about
snit.
And that is, snit is a liar.
Snit is dishonest.
Snit's website harvests IP addresses that snit uses later to harass people.
etc.

So what is the likelihood of all these other people being liars vs snit
actually being the type of person they are claiming he is.

I think the answer is rather obvious.

BTW, when snit is cornered with facts his usual reaction is to say: "I'm
done with this" or "boring" and then he either runs away or tries another
lame attempt at spinning the discussion his way.

It's all rather predictable.

[Snit]

On 11/8/15, 3:00 PM, in article
c8a6bfdb-9955-402f...@googlegroups.com, "-hh"

WTF? Sandman keeps trolling me in Usenet and lying about me on his site. Do
a search for "Snit" on his site for proof. And why does he do this? Easy! He
is STILL stuck on his humiliation from when he was busted lying about his
CSS:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

That is ALL there is to it. Nothing else is needed. None of your games or
trolling or other BS matters in the slightest and I could not care less
about it.

[Edward Stansfield]

Here is 163 other people who are saying the same thing Sandman and hh are
saying about you.

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

So are all these people lying about you as well, snit?

Get medical help snit. You truly need it.

[-hh]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 5:01:04 PM UTC-5, Snit wrote:

> -hh wrote:
>
> >>> Your "objective troll criteria" is rubbish. You hand pick people to NOT
> >>> include, then have others speak of them so they CANNOT be included, then
> >>> include them as trolls. And it is based on if many people troll one person
> >>> THAT person is deemed a troll.
> >>>
> >>> Even worse, when it as pointed out how dishonest and absurd your system was,
> >>> you lied and said *I* asked you to spew such lies.
> >>>
> >>> But it comes down to you need to come up with convoluted nonsense stories to
> >>> try to defend your attacks. I need point to ONE file to prove you lied about
> >>> your CSS:
> >>>
> >>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
> >>>
> >>> It is that simple. Your CSS never validated before I noted its problems and
> >>> you lied about it. No convoluted nonsense to try to make you look bad, just
> >>> look at your own work and remind you of your lie.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is this another forged PDF from you, Snit?
> >
> > Essentially yes, because Michael is knowingly using pages which he knows
> > had been altered from the original.
> >
> > Years ago when this came up, Glaser was told that the documentation on
> > the Wayback Machine's website states that they alter pages that they archive.
> >
> > Yet nevertheless, he insists on using known-altered copies.
>
> They add a commented header.

That's still an alternation.

> They did not add the code that is referenced.

Except that they added a commented header, as you just pointed
out: a self-nuke.

Plus, "add" is merely an attempt by you to redefine the goal posts, as
code can also be removed. Plus if memory serves, their added comment
header explicitly states that they do remove code from what they archive.

> >> Since I know you forged one, I'm just going to assume this is more of
> >> the same...
> >
> > It doesn't have to be in the sense that you mean, because even if it was a
> > 'valid' PDF, it was generated from an invalid source.
>
>

> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
>
> No matter how much you guys troll me, everything in that PDF is 100% true.
> NO forgery.

Whereas the facts here are that you knowingly are misrepresenting by quite
deliberatively using known-altered code.

> Funny how those who troll HATE to see facts. :)

Which is precisely why you dodge & evade on this one.



-hh

[Snit]

On 11/8/15, 6:58 PM, in article
a96bd02d-b3f2-497b...@googlegroups.com, "-hh"
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

...

>> They add a commented header.
>
> That's still an alternation.

Wow! All those people who insisted that a commented header is not an
alteration of any sort are gonna be crying in their soup tonight!

I mean, bam! Five words and you shot those ignorant fools down.

But, wait, who are they? Um. Oh.

NOBODY.

You are making non-points to people who do not exit.

Not interested one tiny bit in the nonsense circus games you are playing.
Remember, this is simple. Sandman, years ago, lied about his CSS validating
when it did not. I found it easy to prove him wrong and did so in a way that
is 100% verifiable:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

Sandman got so butthurt over it he has been trolling me every since, at
least off and on.

You can try to make it more complex than that but it is not.

...

>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
>>
>> No matter how much you guys troll me, everything in that PDF is 100% true.
>> NO forgery.
>
> Whereas the facts here are that you knowingly are misrepresenting by quite
> deliberatively using known-altered code.

You have me confused with someone who made a claim I did not.

>> Funny how those who troll HATE to see facts. :)
>
> Which is precisely why you dodge & evade on this one.

Go cry to your mother that mean ol' Snit is not playing your trolling games.
Meanwhile I happily show the proof Sandman lied.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

Now go take your circus elsewhere.

[Sandman]

In article <c8a6bfdb-9955-402f...@googlegroups.com>, -hh wrote:

> > Snit:

Here's a list of posts from Snit where it was mentioned in the last three
years:

How many groups d... 2015-11-09 <D2652B7A.63283%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
How many groups d... 2015-11-09 <D26551DC.632CD%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
How many groups d... 2015-11-08 <D264E6A1.63217%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
How many groups d... 2015-11-08 <D264E73D.63219%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
How many groups d... 2015-11-08 <D2650BAB.63245%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
How many groups d... 2015-11-08 <D265107F.6324B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
How many groups d... 2015-11-08 <D26509EB.63240%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Samsung: "It's re... 2015-04-19 <D1596C02.4A7B8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Seems the smart m... 2014-02-10 <CF1E4667.2DAB0%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Not all hard disk... 2014-01-24 <CF07F27A.2C418%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Not all hard disk... 2014-01-24 <CF07F31E.2C41A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
The Beauties of I... 2014-01-23 <CF06C9C6.2C268%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
The Beauties of I... 2014-01-22 <CF053F50.2C02F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
The Beauties of I... 2014-01-22 <CF055BA7.2C0B5%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
The Beauties of I... 2014-01-21 <CF030782.2BD66%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
The Beauties of I... 2014-01-21 <CF03EAE3.2BDC5%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
The Beauties of I... 2014-01-21 <CF03FC71.2BDFD%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
The Beauties of I... 2014-01-21 <CF0414FA.2BE28%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Congratulations o... 2013-10-20 <CE885BCE.23ACB%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Congratulations o... 2013-10-18 <CE85D91E.23952%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Good old Essentio.. 2013-10-18 <CE85DB7D.2395F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Congratulations o... 2013-10-17 <CE8564EE.238A9%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Congratulations o... 2013-10-17 <CE85946C.23911%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
What did Sandman do? 2013-10-09 <CE7ABD18.22F31%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Apple Users Willi... 2013-09-22 <CE63B8FC.21BE2%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Sammsung AND Appl... 2013-08-23 <CE3CCF23.2008F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Cintiq Companion 2013-08-23 <CE3D020E.200D1%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Apple, not that i... 2013-08-18 <CE3567FA.1FC5D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Apple, not that i... 2013-08-18 <CE3642BF.1FC94%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Appile loosing al... 2013-07-26 <CE173E25.1E75A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Now THAT's an awe... 2013-06-26 <CDF08A42.1D1DA%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Sandman convicted... 2013-03-21 <CD6F9E33.170CC%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Sandman convicted... 2013-03-20 <CD6F3729.17052%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Record Profits 2013-02-07 <CD3844C6.145CA%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>

--
Sandman

[Sandman]

In article <a96bd02d-b3f2-497b...@googlegroups.com>, -hh wrote:

> > Snit:

> > They did not add the code that is referenced.
>
> Except that they added a commented header, as you just pointed out:
> a self-nuke.

> Plus, "add" is merely an attempt by you to redefine the goal posts,
> as code can also be removed. Plus if memory serves, their added
> comment header explicitly states that they do remove code from what
> they archive.

The fun part is that Snit lied about this in 05/31/2006, that's over nine years
ago, and he's still here trying to push it. I just can't understand how such ob
session can live on for so long when I haven't "fed" it since I've had him kill
filed for years

--
Sandman

[Walter Myer]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 4:43:14 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 11/7/15 1:39 PM, Walter Myer wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 3:15:17 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 11/7/15 12:00 PM, Walter Myer wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 2:53:55 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>> On 11/7/15 11:45 AM, Walter Myer wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 2:38:48 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/7/15 11:33 AM, Walter Myer wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 1:39:02 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/7/15 8:10 AM, Walter Myer wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 19, 2012 at 6:38:25 PM UTC-5, Alan
> >>>>>>>>> Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>> <16257865.148.1329691795345.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngj4>,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> hannahf...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> At first, I thought maybe this was just another
> >>>>>>>>>>> troll, but after seeing THIS and many others like
> >>>>>>>>>>> it....
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I, Alan Baker of Vancouver, British Columbia, believe
> >>>>>>>>>>> that the world would be better off if you, Scott
> >>>>>>>>>>> Barak Abraham of Seattle, Washington were dead.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Oh wow, oh wow
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And I stand by it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Have you read Mr. Abraham's history?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Have you read where he threatened by life?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why not post a link, Liar?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> LOL
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Looks like one doesn't exist, you low life liar.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> LOL
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Care to lay a small wager on that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BWAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The DLS's loophole.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We've been down that road before, Douche.
> >>>>
> >>>> Indeed we have..
> >>>>
> >>>> ...and you always crawl away.
> >>>>
> >>>> :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You will insure it never happens, Luzer.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd love for it to happen, Michael...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...provided the money makes it worth my time to search the Google
> >>>> Groups interface.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To put it simply, Snit, you're full of shit. You don't seem to have
> >>> any problem pulling up old, obscure posts when it suits you.
> >>
> >> To put it simply, Michael: I'm not Snit, nor have I ever posted as
> >> "Snit", nor any of the other sockpuppets associated with Snit.
> >>
> >> And if I pull up an old post, I do so with a lot more thought to context.
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Anything else?
> >>>
> >>> I have a bunch of your old trolls to go through.
> >>
> >> Shut-ins do need something to keep them busy.
> >>
> >> Glad I can help.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Now run along and fuck off. You're a natural born Luzer. Just like
> >>> your father thought.
> >>
> >> LOL
> >>
> >> So this is you crawling away from your claim...
> >>
> >> ...as usual.
> >>
> >> :-)
> >
> > As I said, you're full of shit.
> >
>
> And you yet you crawled away...


Is that the excuse you're sticking to, Luzer?

Your typical MO; lie, refuse to provide a cite, get on your bicycle,redirect, blow smoke, proffer a bet, etc......but never come up with the proof.

Such a sad, DLS lowlife, liar.

So happy acting like an asshole.

[Walter Myer]

On Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 10:17:48 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <ji6t8f$jer$1...@dont-email.me>, "james" <jamess...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Mayor Of R'lyeh" wrote in message
> > news:e7382cda-01fd-4874...@w5g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Feb 23, 9:08 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <2222d7b0-23fb-4559-9413-6e200d836...@j8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Mayor Of R'lyeh" <mayor.of.rl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Feb 19, 7:48 pm, MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Feb 19, 6:38 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <16257865.148.1329691795345.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngj4>,
> > >
> > > > > > hannahfontan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > At first, I thought maybe this was just another troll, but
> > > > > > > after seeing
> > > > > > > THIS
> > > > > > > and many others like it....
> > >
> > > > > > > I, Alan Baker of Vancouver, British Columbia, believe that
> > > > > > > the world
> > > > > > > would be better off if you, Scott Barak Abraham of Seattle,
> > > > > > > Washington
> > > > > > > were dead.
> > >
> > > > > > > Oh wow, oh wow
> > >
> > > > > > And I stand by it.
> > >
> > > > > > Have you read Mr. Abraham's history?
> > >
> > > > > > Have you read where he threatened by life?
> > >

> > > > > > Have you read where he has threatened multiple people for more
> > > > > > than a
> > > > > > decade?
> > >
> > > > > > "Scott Abraham ­ skiing enthusiast banned by court order in
> > > > > > 1999 from
> > > > > > posting on the Usenet discussion group "rec.skiing.alpine",
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > engaging in a flame war with other online posters. The heated
> > > > > > exchanges
> > > > > > lasted for months, eventually escalating into death threats,
> > > > > > until a
> > > > > > police detective from Seattle posted a request for all
> > > > > > involved to calm
> > > > > > down. All involved did except Abraham, which ultimately led to
> > > > > > a court
> > > > > > order being filed against him. The Electronic Frontier
> > > > > > Foundation and
> > > > > > other civil liberties groups commented that this violated free
> > > > > > speech,
> > > > > > but did not deny that Abraham's aggressive behavior exceeded
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > boundaries of normal newsgroup civility.[7]"
> > >
> > > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_celebrity>
> > >
> > > > > > And from "[7]":
> > >
> > > > > > "A detective from the Seattle PD, Leanne Shirey, posted a
> > > > > > message on the
> > > > > > RSA board urging everyone to calm down.
> > >
> > > > > > "We politely asked them to desist, and all but one did," said
> > > > > > Shirey.
> > > > > > That one was Abraham. His intransigence ultimately led to the
> > > > > > court
> > > > > > order against him, she said.
> > >
> > > > > > Shirey defends the decision to bar Abraham from posting on
> > > > > > Usenet,
> > > > > > claiming it was the only way to end the battle before it
> > > > > > became a blood
> > > > > > and bones affair."
> > >
> > > > > > <http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/11/32550>
> > >
> > > > > > So, yes: although I defend his right to life, I think we'd be
> > > > > > better off
> > > > > > without Mr. Abraham.
> > >
> > > > > > --

> > > > > > "The iPhone doesn't have...
> > > > > > ...well, since Edwin seems to have finally crawled away for
> > > > > > good,
> > > > > > I guess I'll let him off the hook
> > >

> > > > > Wow. You're an asshole of epic proportions.
> > >
> > > > Why does it not surprise me to find out that Alan 'too many times
> > > > to
> > > > count' Baker was involved in this?
> > >
> > > I wasn't involved it, Clyde. It was all before my time in RSA.
> >
> > >You claim he threatened your life. That sounds like you were involved
> > >to me.
> >
> > You might ask Baker if he was involved in calling the employers and
> > cost those people their livelihood. He will try to dance away from
> > that one fast.
>
> No, Michael. I'll happily answer that issue.
>
> I've never done anything of the kind.

NO?

"I haven't hurt anyone's business except perhaps one person who was being
deceitful and dishonest with a supplier."-----Alan Baker

---Everyone is attacking Alan Baker --rec.sport golf---8/13/13

You were and are, a lowlife liar.

[isq...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 6:45:08 AM UTC+3, Edward Stansfield wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 22:41:00 -0500, Edward Stansfield wrote:

> >> WOW!!! You were even fucked-up then!!!!
> >>
> >> And you were also talking to your imaginary friend "michael", even then.
> >
> > Snit has been stalking people, calling their places of employment, their
> > wife/girlfriend etc for years.
> >
> > Search on snit+elizabot.
> > It's pretty well known that Alan Baker is a snit sock puppet.
>

> BTW Edwin has surfaced over in comp.os.linux.advocacy and posts as
> "nobody".
> He's the same moron over there as he was in CSMA.

nobody did not strike me as an idiot on cola
maybe I was out of the loop for a while

[Snit]

On 11/9/15, 2:45 AM, in article
sandman-3797b24aa2e6...@individual.net, "Sandman"

Ah, so people can go back and look at each of those posts, then see what
trolling you were doing of me at the time. You pretend when you do not
mention your lie specifically but troll me over it anyway that somehow you
win.

Comes down to you have page after page after page of lies about me on your
site.

And why? Because I proved you lied about your CSS and you have been crying
about it for many years. Boo hoo. You lied and were busted. Now move the
hell on. Stop trolling me and lying about me. Stop pushing your idiotic
circus.

[Snit]

On 11/9/15, 3:18 AM, in article
sandman-4ec6471db5a4...@individual.net, "Sandman"

You claim I lied... yet you are the one who went on and on and on about how
your CSS did not fail to validate and have trolled me for years over it
because you are a child, where I, meanwhile, simply show the proof you lied:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

It really is that simple. Meanwhile, your "proof" I lied is nowhere.

[Alan Baker]

So you think it's alright for people to cheat their suppliers?

[Alan Baker]

It's the truth, so... ...yeah!

>
> Your typical MO; lie, refuse to provide a cite, get on your
> bicycle,redirect, blow smoke, proffer a bet, etc......but never come
> up with the proof.

Why would I come up with the proof before you accept that wager, Michael?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 11/9/15 8:14 AM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/9/15, 3:18 AM, in article
> sandman-4ec6471db5a4...@individual.net, "Sandman"
> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <a96bd02d-b3f2-497b...@googlegroups.com>, -hh wrote:
>>
>>>> Snit:
>>>> They did not add the code that is referenced.
>>>
>>> Except that they added a commented header, as you just pointed out: a
>>> self-nuke.
>>>
>>> Plus, "add" is merely an attempt by you to redefine the goal posts, as code
>>> can also be removed. Plus if memory serves, their added comment header
>>> explicitly states that they do remove code from what they archive.
>>>
>> The fun part is that Snit lied about this in 05/31/2006, that's over nine
>> years ago, and he's still here trying to push it. I just can't understand how
>> such ob session can live on for so long when I haven't "fed" it since I've had
>> him kill filed for years
>
> You claim I lied... yet you are the one who went on and on and on about how
> your CSS did not fail to validate and have trolled me for years over it
> because you are a child, where I, meanwhile, simply show the proof you lied:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
>
> It really is that simple. Meanwhile, your "proof" I lied is nowhere.
>
>

No. That is no proof that anyone lied, Snit...

...except proof that you did, because you push it despite knowing that
archive.org alters web pages.

[Sandman]

In article <tc50y.15859$2K....@fx09.iad>, Alan Baker wrote:

> > Snit:

> > You claim I lied... yet you are the one who went on and on and on
> > about how your CSS did not fail to validate and have trolled me
> > for years over it because you are a child, where I, meanwhile,
> > simply show the proof you lied:
>
> > <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
>
> > It really is that simple. Meanwhile, your "proof" I lied is
> > nowhere.
>
> No. That is no proof that anyone lied, Snit...

> ...except proof that you did, because you push it despite knowing
> that archive.org alters web pages.

I just looked at that PDF. Want to know the fun part - he made the lie about my
CSS not validating on 05/31/2006, guess what date this PDF doesn't cover (among
others)? Yeah, you guessed it - 05/31/2006.

That's just hilarious. He spent all that time scripting screenshots to a PDF and
missed the only date that could have helped him. I'm actually laughing out loud
right now.

--
Sandman

[Snit]

On 11/9/15, 1:10 PM, in article
sandman-d2e1f4284bf6...@individual.net, "Sandman"

<m...@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <tc50y.15859$2K....@fx09.iad>, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> Snit:
>>> You claim I lied... yet you are the one who went on and on and on
>>> about how your CSS did not fail to validate and have trolled me
>>> for years over it because you are a child, where I, meanwhile,
>>> simply show the proof you lied:
>>
>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
>>
>>> It really is that simple. Meanwhile, your "proof" I lied is
>>> nowhere.
>>
>> No. That is no proof that anyone lied, Snit...
>
>> ...except proof that you did, because you push it despite knowing
>> that archive.org alters web pages.
>
> I just looked at that PDF. Want to know the fun part - he made the lie about
> my CSS not validating on 05/31/2006, guess what date this PDF doesn't cover
> (among others)? Yeah, you guessed it - 05/31/2006.

No WayBackMachine of that date existed at the time. Still does not.

> That's just hilarious. He spent all that time scripting screenshots to a PDF
> and missed the only date that could have helped him. I'm actually laughing out
> loud right now.

<http://web.archive.org/web/20060519191417*/http://www.sandman.net/>

You are whining I did not include a date from the archive that is not even
in the archive! Let me guess your story: it failed in all 100+ archived
versions, I noted it did not, but magically it did ON THAT DAY. Bullshit.

You lied, Sandman. And as you show above you are still butthurt over it.

[Walter Myer]

Hmmmmmmm....talking to yourself, Dick?

[Alan Baker]

Nope, sorry.

I do not and never have posted using the name "Snit".

But you go on believing whatever helps you.

:-)

[Snit]

On 11/9/15, 4:15 PM, in article zO90y.40576$eJ3....@fx10.iad, "Alan Baker"

<alang...@telus.net> wrote:

>>>> You claim I lied... yet you are the one who went on and on and on about how
>>>> your CSS did not fail to validate and have trolled me for years over it
>>>> because you are a child, where I, meanwhile, simply show the proof you
>>>> lied:
>>>>
>>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> It really is that simple. Meanwhile, your "proof" I lied is nowhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. That is no proof that anyone lied, Snit...
>>>
>>> ...except proof that you did, because you push it despite knowing that
>>> archive.org alters web pages.
>>
>> Hmmmmmmm....talking to yourself, Dick?
>>
>
> Nope, sorry.
>
> I do not and never have posted using the name "Snit".
>
> But you go on believing whatever helps you.
>
> :-)

When you join in on the gag that everyone is Snit you become one of my
"socks" as well. Welcome to the club. :)

[Walter Myer]

riiight. Dick.

olo

[Alan Baker]

Whatever helps you get through the day...

[Walter Myer]

Actually, Asshole, you're the one who needs help getting through the day. It seems like it's a full time job for you to fill all those empty hours by trolling.

[Walter Myer]

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 1:02:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:

How to make friends without trying.

You are an epic asshole, a true Dick, who is universally despised. You definitely have some deep mental issues.

[Alan Baker]

LOL

[Walter Myer]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 7:41:44 AM UTC-5, Sandman wrote:
> In article <n1l1fs$tfq$1...@dont-email.me>, Edward Stansfield wrote:
>
> > > Sandman:
> > > I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still think people
> > > are being fooled by his sock puppets.
> >
> > Mentally ill narcissists are wired that way. They believe they are
> > superior to others and that no matter how transparent their scams
> > are, people aren't intelligent enough to figure them out.
>
> Right, but it's been eleven years. He may have been an ignorant teenager when he
> started his MO here on usenet, but he should have grown up since then.
>
> > Someone over in COLA posted some screen grabs from one of snit's
> > videos and it clearly shows a TOR Browser icon in the dock. Snit
> > claims he doesn't use TOR. Snit's been busted once again.
>
> Uh, I proved that he used TOR ten years ago.

And you were an Asshole even then.


> In end - what Snit "claims" is of
> not relevancy to reality since I live in a dream world. :)
>
> --
> Sandman

Sandman, another jobless Luzer.

[Walter Myer]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 7:57:43 AM UTC-5, Sandman wrote:
> In article <071120152230513311%teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net>, Tim wrote:
>
> > > > > > In COLA there is an idiotic ongoing gag that "everyone
> > > > > > is Snit", even though I have never posted there with any
> > > > > > name other than Snit. It is all about avoiding the topic of
> > > > > > technology... and some of the idiots there follow me around
> > > > > > with THEIR socks spreading the gag to other groups.
> > > > >
> > > > > > It just shows they are insecure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Edward Stansfield:
> > > > > Sure: Onion Knight, Brock McNuggets, Rhino Plastee, Drew P.
> > > > > Bawls and about a 100 other nyms and sock puppets. BTW nobody
> > > > > is saying "everyone" is snit, that's your narcissistic,
> > > > > twisted mind at work.

> > > >
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still think
> > > > people are being fooled by his sock puppets.
> > >

> > > Snit:
> > > I find it weird that Sandman, eleven years later, is still telling
> > > the same "everyone is Snit" gag and has not matured enough to
> > > figure out it is not funny.
> >
> > and here is yet another example of a snit lie. nowhere in Sandman's
> > post did he claim "everyone is Snit" but then, snit has admitted to
> > dozens of socks then claims he's 'never used any' just like a
> > typical troll.
>
> It's in the objective troll criteria under the headline "misinterpretation". A
> common tactic even for newbie trolls.

>I follow that line every time I can.

>Snit can do a lot better than me though.


> Maybe well se an edited PDF soon? :)

Yeah, as soon as you learn English, hobo.
>
> --
> Sandman the Asshole

Absolutly

[Snit]

On 11/10/15, 12:03 PM, in article
c4284b26-8671-47bc...@googlegroups.com, "Walter Myer"

<awool...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 7:41:44 AM UTC-5, Sandman wrote:
>> In article <n1l1fs$tfq$1...@dont-email.me>, Edward Stansfield wrote:
>>
>>>> Sandman:
>>>> I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still think people
>>>> are being fooled by his sock puppets.
>>>
>>> Mentally ill narcissists are wired that way. They believe they are
>>> superior to others and that no matter how transparent their scams
>>> are, people aren't intelligent enough to figure them out.
>>
>> Right, but it's been eleven years. He may have been an ignorant teenager when
>> he
>> started his MO here on usenet, but he should have grown up since then.
>>
>>> Someone over in COLA posted some screen grabs from one of snit's
>>> videos and it clearly shows a TOR Browser icon in the dock. Snit
>>> claims he doesn't use TOR. Snit's been busted once again.
>>
>> Uh, I proved that he used TOR ten years ago.
>
> And you were an Asshole even then.

Keep in mind Sandman uses the word "proof" to mean he made accusations tied
to some trolling on his site. If he REALLY had proved it he would, well,
explain what the proof was!

>> In end - what Snit "claims" is of
>> not relevancy to reality since I live in a dream world. :)
>>
>> --
>> Sandman
>
> Sandman, another jobless Luzer.

Sandman actually seems to be quite knowledgeable, but not nearly as so as he
THINKS he is and he cannot stand to be wrong. My merely noting his CSS was
not valid (and in some ways poorly done) was enough to get him to freak out.
For years he has not been able to get over it. Meanwhile the proof his CSS
did not validate is trivial to show:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

Not ONE example from the WayBackMachine archive from the date we talked or
before where his CSS validates. Not one. And yesterday he played his normal
BS games and said it was invalid because the WayBackMachine did not happen
to archive the date I looked at his site! Heck, I wish it had archived the
next day... his CSS actually validated fine! LOL!

He really self-nuked badly by having it validate the next day. Shows he
found my comments important enough to edit his site... and then was too
embarrassed to admit he had done so.

He and his co-trolls have accused me of doing the same, but somehow I "also"
edit the archived copies. :)

[Snit]

On 11/10/15, 12:05 PM, in article
9f06ca5a-1382-403a...@googlegroups.com, "Walter Myer"

<awool...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Snit:
>>>> I find it weird that Sandman, eleven years later, is still telling
>>>> the same "everyone is Snit" gag and has not matured enough to
>>>> figure out it is not funny.
>>>
>>> and here is yet another example of a snit lie. nowhere in Sandman's
>>> post did he claim "everyone is Snit" but then, snit has admitted to
>>> dozens of socks then claims he's 'never used any' just like a
>>> typical troll.
>>
>> It's in the objective troll criteria under the headline "misinterpretation".
>> >> A common tactic even for newbie trolls.
>>
>> I follow that line every time I can.
>>
>> Snit can do a lot better than me though.
>>
>> Maybe well se an edited PDF soon? :)
>>
> Yeah, as soon as you learn English, hobo.
>>
>> --
>> Sandman the Asshole
>
> Absolutly

OS X makes it easy to edit PDFs if that is what Sandman wants. Markup is
available in Preview and Mail and elsewhere, and Adobe provides free tools
as do others. As far as his accusations of me dishonestly editing any PDF,
well, just not he has no support for any such accusation.

[Tim]

In article <k%O%x.30023$1J....@fx31.iad>, Alan Baker
<alang...@telus.net> wrote:

> On 11/8/15 1:17 PM, Snit wrote:
> > On 11/8/15, 5:57 AM, in article
> > sandman-d8e7f72b6ddc...@individual.net, "Sandman"

> > <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <071120152230513311%teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net>, Tim wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> In COLA there is an idiotic ongoing gag that "everyone
> >>>>>>> is Snit", even though I have never posted there with any
> >>>>>>> name other than Snit. It is all about avoiding the topic of
> >>>>>>> technology... and some of the idiots there follow me around
> >>>>>>> with THEIR socks spreading the gag to other groups.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It just shows they are insecure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Edward Stansfield:
> >>>>>> Sure: Onion Knight, Brock McNuggets, Rhino Plastee, Drew P.
> >>>>>> Bawls and about a 100 other nyms and sock puppets. BTW nobody
> >>>>>> is saying "everyone" is snit, that's your narcissistic,
> >>>>>> twisted mind at work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sandman:

> >>>>> I find it weird that Snit, eleven years later, still think
> >>>>> people are being fooled by his sock puppets.
> >>>>

> >>>> Snit:
> >>>> I find it weird that Sandman, eleven years later, is still telling
> >>>> the same "everyone is Snit" gag and has not matured enough to
> >>>> figure out it is not funny.
> >>>
> >>> and here is yet another example of a snit lie. nowhere in Sandman's
> >>> post did he claim "everyone is Snit" but then, snit has admitted to
> >>> dozens of socks then claims he's 'never used any' just like a
> >>> typical troll.
> >>
> >> It's in the objective troll criteria under the headline
> >> "misinterpretation". A

> >> common tactic even for newbie trolls. Snit can do a lot better than that

> >> though.
> >> Maybe well se an edited PDF soon? :)
> >

> > Your "objective troll criteria" is rubbish. You hand pick people to NOT
> > include, then have others speak of them so they CANNOT be included, then
> > include them as trolls. And it is based on if many people troll one person
> > THAT person is deemed a troll.
> >
> > Even worse, when it as pointed out how dishonest and absurd your system was,
> > you lied and said *I* asked you to spew such lies.
> >
> > But it comes down to you need to come up with convoluted nonsense stories to
> > try to defend your attacks. I need point to ONE file to prove you lied about
> > your CSS:
> >
> > <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
> >
> > It is that simple. Your CSS never validated before I noted its problems and
> > you lied about it. No convoluted nonsense to try to make you look bad, just
> > look at your own work and remind you of your lie.
> >
> >
>
> Is this another forged PDF from you, Snit?
>
> Since I know you forged one, I'm just going to assume this is more of
> the same...

it likely is since, at the time he claimed that Sandman's site didn't
validate, it did validate for me and I noted it at that time.

[Snit]

On 11/10/15, 1:21 PM, in article
101120151521284599%teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net, "Tim"

<teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>> Your "objective troll criteria" is rubbish. You hand pick people to NOT
>>> include, then have others speak of them so they CANNOT be included, then
>>> include them as trolls. And it is based on if many people troll one person
>>> THAT person is deemed a troll.
>>>
>>> Even worse, when it as pointed out how dishonest and absurd your system was,
>>> you lied and said *I* asked you to spew such lies.
>>>
>>> But it comes down to you need to come up with convoluted nonsense stories to
>>> try to defend your attacks. I need point to ONE file to prove you lied about
>>> your CSS:
>>>
>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
>>>
>>> It is that simple. Your CSS never validated before I noted its problems and
>>> you lied about it. No convoluted nonsense to try to make you look bad, just
>>> look at your own work and remind you of your lie.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Is this another forged PDF from you, Snit?
>>
>> Since I know you forged one, I'm just going to assume this is more of
>> the same...
>
> it likely is since, at the time he claimed that Sandman's site didn't
> validate, it did validate for me and I noted it at that time.

I noted it did not validate... Sandman fixed it, and then you verified that
it was working. Sure. At the time the Google archive of it, from the day or
two before, showed it not working. And EVERY archived copy at the
WayBackMachine - over 100 of them - showed the errors, too.

So you helped to prove that, yes, on my noting Sandman's CSS errors he
quickly jumped in and worked to correct them. But the fact it failed to
validate before I noted his problems is not even in question:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

It is denied by some who lie, but that is not a sign it is in question. They
know they are lying.

[Tim]

In article <D266147A.633E2%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit

<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 11/9/15, 3:18 AM, in article
> sandman-4ec6471db5a4...@individual.net, "Sandman"
> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <a96bd02d-b3f2-497b...@googlegroups.com>, -hh
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> Snit:
> >>> They did not add the code that is referenced.
> >>
> >> Except that they added a commented header, as you just pointed out: a
> >> self-nuke.
> >>
> >> Plus, "add" is merely an attempt by you to redefine the goal posts, as code
> >> can also be removed. Plus if memory serves, their added comment header
> >> explicitly states that they do remove code from what they archive.
> >>
> > The fun part is that Snit lied about this in 05/31/2006, that's over nine
> > years ago, and he's still here trying to push it. I just can't understand
> > how
> > such ob session can live on for so long when I haven't "fed" it since I've
> > had
> > him kill filed for years
>
> You claim I lied... yet you are the one who went on and on and on about how
> your CSS did not fail to validate

It validated just fine for me and I pointed it out to you at that time
but you totally ignored that simple FACT and have continued to claim it
didn't for YEARS ever since.

[Snit]

On 11/10/15, 1:27 PM, in article
101120151527155446%teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net, "Tim"

<teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> In article <D266147A.633E2%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/15, 3:18 AM, in article
>> sandman-4ec6471db5a4...@individual.net, "Sandman"
>> <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <a96bd02d-b3f2-497b...@googlegroups.com>, -hh
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Snit:
>>>>> They did not add the code that is referenced.
>>>>
>>>> Except that they added a commented header, as you just pointed out: a
>>>> self-nuke.
>>>>
>>>> Plus, "add" is merely an attempt by you to redefine the goal posts, as code
>>>> can also be removed. Plus if memory serves, their added comment header
>>>> explicitly states that they do remove code from what they archive.
>>>>
>>> The fun part is that Snit lied about this in 05/31/2006, that's over nine
>>> years ago, and he's still here trying to push it. I just can't understand
>>> how such ob session can live on for so long when I haven't "fed" it since
>>> I've had him kill filed for years
>>>
>> You claim I lied... yet you are the one who went on and on and on about how
>> your CSS did not fail to validate
>
> It validated just fine for me and I pointed it out to you at that time
> but you totally ignored that simple FACT and have continued to claim it
> didn't for YEARS ever since.

It has never been in question that it validated shortly AFTER the time I
noted to Sandman his errors... and you verified that it did so. This is one
of the things that pissed Sandman off - he wanted to pretend he had not
altered it based on what I said, but the WayBackMachine and the Google
archives proved it failed validation until I noted it did not, and then you
noted it passed validation shortly after I posted my noting it did not.

So you helped to prove me correct, even as you tried to help troll for
Sandman. It was quite funny. Then again, you also claimed that sex and
incest were "identical" to you and that the tilde means "the hard drive
only", so you are not the brightest bulb. :)

>> and have trolled me for years over it
>> because you are a child, where I, meanwhile, simply show the proof you lied:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>
>>
>> It really is that simple. Meanwhile, your "proof" I lied is nowhere.

[Alan Baker]

I do.

Back a number of years, you provided a PDF which you purported said one
thing...

...but upon closer examination showed where it had been edited to
replace some of what it said with something else.

[Snit]

On 11/10/15, 1:44 PM, in article AGs0y.33199$rM.1...@fx16.iad, "Alan Baker"

<alang...@telus.net> wrote:

>>> Yeah, as soon as you learn English, hobo.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sandman the Asshole
>>>
>>> Absolutly
>>
>> OS X makes it easy to edit PDFs if that is what Sandman wants. Markup is
>> available in Preview and Mail and elsewhere, and Adobe provides free tools
>> as do others. As far as his accusations of me dishonestly editing any PDF,
>> well, just not he has no support for any such accusation.
>>
>
> I do.
>
> Back a number of years, you provided a PDF which you purported said one
> thing...
>
> ...but upon closer examination showed where it had been edited to
> replace some of what it said with something else.

Maybe you mean my edits to recipes: <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>?

Nothing even slightly dishonest about editing PDFs. If you had a REAL issue
you would have said what already. Nope. Not playing or begging you to
actually make a point.

[Alan Baker]

On 11/10/15 12:51 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/10/15, 1:44 PM, in article AGs0y.33199$rM.1...@fx16.iad, "Alan Baker"
> <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Yeah, as soon as you learn English, hobo.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sandman the Asshole
>>>>
>>>> Absolutly
>>>
>>> OS X makes it easy to edit PDFs if that is what Sandman wants. Markup is
>>> available in Preview and Mail and elsewhere, and Adobe provides free tools
>>> as do others. As far as his accusations of me dishonestly editing any PDF,
>>> well, just not he has no support for any such accusation.
>>>
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> Back a number of years, you provided a PDF which you purported said one
>> thing...
>>
>> ...but upon closer examination showed where it had been edited to
>> replace some of what it said with something else.
>
> Maybe you mean my edits to recipes: <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>?

Nope. I mean a PDF where you attempted to "prove" someone wrong.

>
> Nothing even slightly dishonest about editing PDFs. If you had a REAL issue
> you would have said what already. Nope. Not playing or begging you to
> actually make a point.

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/authorname$3Aalan$20snit$20pdf$20forgery/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/HtZlemmHcbs/BymMXZTccnoJ>

[Sandman]

In article <eht0y.28182$ij2....@fx08.iad>, Alan Baker wrote:

> > > Alan Baker:

> > > I do.
> >
> > > Back a number of years, you provided a PDF which you purported
> > > said one thing...
> >
> > > ...but upon closer examination showed where it had been edited
> > > to replace some of what it said with something else.
> >

> > Snit:

> > Maybe you mean my edits to recipes:
> > <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>?
>
> Nope. I mean a PDF where you attempted to "prove" someone wrong.

Here's the whole story:

<http://usenet.sandman.net/pages/digests/2004-08-12/PDFforgery>

--
Sandman

[Big Fish in a Small Crotch]

Classic snit.
He takes the parts he is interested in, twists them around, ignores the
parts that counter his argument and creates an entirely new circus based
upon those parts that he has twisted.

A real slimy person that snit is.

He's currently running loose in COLA.
God help them.

--
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[Snit]

On 11/10/15, 2:25 PM, in article eht0y.28182$ij2....@fx08.iad, "Alan

Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote:

> On 11/10/15 12:51 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 11/10/15, 1:44 PM, in article AGs0y.33199$rM.1...@fx16.iad, "Alan Baker"
>> <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yeah, as soon as you learn English, hobo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sandman the Asshole
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutly
>>>>
>>>> OS X makes it easy to edit PDFs if that is what Sandman wants. Markup is
>>>> available in Preview and Mail and elsewhere, and Adobe provides free tools
>>>> as do others. As far as his accusations of me dishonestly editing any PDF,
>>>> well, just not he has no support for any such accusation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do.
>>>
>>> Back a number of years, you provided a PDF which you purported said one
>>> thing...
>>>
>>> ...but upon closer examination showed where it had been edited to
>>> replace some of what it said with something else.
>>
>> Maybe you mean my edits to recipes: <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>?
>
> Nope. I mean a PDF where you attempted to "prove" someone wrong.

You do not say and I do not care whom.

>> Nothing even slightly dishonest about editing PDFs. If you had a REAL issue
>> you would have said what already. Nope. Not playing or begging you to
>> actually make a point.
>
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/authorname$3
> Aalan$20snit$20pdf$20forgery/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/HtZlemmHcbs/BymMXZTccnoJ>

Clicked and links are dead and I do not care about the debate from 2004. Do
not even remember what it was about... I know Sandman had claims about a PDF
where he lies repeatedly and even refutes himself on his page. Maybe this is
tied to his lies? Whatever. Again: don't care.