Questions to be Answered... part II
Snit
have:
Steve Carroll has evaded every question
Elizabot has evaded all but one question
Sandman has ignored the questions
Steve Mackay has shows some honor in trying to answer the questions. I do
not agree with all of his answers, but he has at least shown some honor in
making the attempt.
I am guessing that we will get nothing more from Steve Carroll, Elizabot, or
Sandman. They will not even make reasonable efforts to answer the
questions. The reason why is easy to see: there are no reasonable answers
to explain their past claims. They have all been caught lying or otherwise
being dishonorable.
Seems I am under attack for the claims of these three. I wonder who will
show consistency and hold them to a high standard? I welcome being held to
a high standard... but I do prefer if there is equity in this silliness.
I would prefer if we could just all move forward in a mature and honorable
way... but I can not get any of them to agree to do so. A shame.
---------------
Sigh. I tried. I really tried to stop the fighting. I gave up on asking
people to explain their pasts. I stopped asking for apologies. I just was
looking to let it all go. The reality is I *still* am looking to let it all
go, but feel it is important for people to see all the questions that need
to be answered by others. Here goes:
Steve Carroll: Please answer these questions (you have to most to answer
for):
Do you believe my lack of Proof is equal to
(or necessarily leads to) your doubt?
Do you believe your doubt is equal to a refutation?
Do you believe my lack of proof is *not* equal to
(or does not necessarily lead to) a refutation?
Can you differentiate the following:
an argument AND a statement
an argument AND a proof
what an argument is AND what an argument is about
a judgment AND a adjudication
a defendant AND a defender
proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a
reasonable doubt (as in a trial)
an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
a legal system AND a judicial system
an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument
AND an argument that can only be categorized as
a legal argument
defense of an argument AND an argument
evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond)
an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
a lack of proof AND a disproof
evidence AND proof
an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based
on a judicial system
guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
order of presentation of an argument AND logical order
of an argument
How can someone be guilty of breaking a law, but not in a legal way?
Why did you act against your own best interests?
Why did you lie about your free flights?
Why did you lie about not trusting Snit?
Why did you want to meet Snit. The only reason ever agreed to was
for Snit to tell you 2+2=4.
Have you ever posted under the name Sigmond
[All questions shown to be relevant at
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/troll/]
Steve Mackay:
Why did you claim you went out of your way to examine files to find
"proof" of my lying, only to throw it away before showing anyone?
Why do you ignore my price comparisons that I updated to show you that
there was no fudging?
Have you ever posted as Sigmond?
Elizabot:
Why do you deny your obsession with me as shown by your posting
about me or to me 2/3 of the time?
Why did you threaten to call the police with false accusations?
Why do you post links to repulsive pictures of fecal matter so often?
Have you ever posted as Sigmond?
Sandman:
Why do you repeatedly deny your trolling, when you have shown
yourself to be doing so based on your own criteria?
And, to all, why will you not agree to act in an honorable way?
----------------
Unlike others, I do not demand that these questions be answered before I
will agree to move forward and stop bringing these up. I do hold to the
idea that I can bring things up if I have reason to believe there is a
danger to someone, but I do not consider general Usenet debates to be
dangerous.
I look forward to seeing all of these questions answered completely and
fully. I am sure you will all be happy to do so. [that is sarcasm if you
could not tell]
Elizabot
> Ok, these questions have been floating for a while... let's see what we
> have:
>
> Steve Carroll has evaded every question
>
> Elizabot has evaded all but one question
Geez, Snit, I was busy earlier. So quick to jump to conclusions you are.
Snit
40a7f147$0$203$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 3:55 PM:
I appreciate your answering more of them... and showing a level of integrity
that Steve C and Sandman are not showing.
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> Ok, these questions have been floating for a while... let's see what we
> have:
>
> Steve Carroll has evaded every question
Translation: Steve has actually answered all my questions (even all of
the irrelevant ones, which most of them were) many times over. I must
deny the fact that he has done so because I could not address the
answers.
Steve
p.s. Tell me again what standard you are claiming I am holding you to.
Elizabot
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 40a7f147$0$203$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 3:55 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, these questions have been floating for a while... let's see what we
>>>have:
>>>
>>>Steve Carroll has evaded every question
>>>
>>>Elizabot has evaded all but one question
>>
>>Geez, Snit, I was busy earlier. So quick to jump to conclusions you are.
>
>
> I appreciate your answering more of them... and showing a level of integrity
> that Steve C and Sandman are not showing.
My answering your questions has NOTHING to do with the other posters.
You should stop this childish attempt at manipulation. It is not honorable.
I do NOT appreciate your using the fact that I answered your questions
as a way to flame other posters.
I will get back to your other posts later. You asked for my own
explanations. Obviously you did not accept my explanations very well and
want to continue arguing about what I have said. I am busy right now.
Snit
40a7f499$0$205$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 4:09 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
>> 40a7f147$0$203$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 3:55 PM:
>>
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, these questions have been floating for a while... let's see what we
>>>> have:
>>>>
>>>> Steve Carroll has evaded every question
>>>>
>>>> Elizabot has evaded all but one question
>>>
>>> Geez, Snit, I was busy earlier. So quick to jump to conclusions you are.
>>
>>
>> I appreciate your answering more of them... and showing a level of integrity
>> that Steve C and Sandman are not showing.
>
> My answering your questions has NOTHING to do with the other posters.
> You should stop this childish attempt at manipulation. It is not honorable.
I am comparing your efforts with theirs. You *are* acting in a better, more
honest way than Steve Carroll is. Of that there is no doubt.
>
> I do NOT appreciate your using the fact that I answered your questions
> as a way to flame other posters.
I am not using it to flame them, I am simply pointing out that you have more
integrity than they do. Or, at the very least, you are showing more
integrity here...
>
> I will get back to your other posts later. You asked for my own
> explanations. Obviously you did not accept my explanations very well and
> want to continue arguing about what I have said. I am busy right now.
When people do not accept my answers I am held accountable. Seems that
standard is a silly one... I apologize if I have done to you what others
have done to me.
Snit
gDSpc.49753$Oq3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com on 5/16/04 4:16 PM:
> In news:BCCD3764.502E5%sn...@nospam.cableone.net,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> typed:
>> Ok, these questions have been floating for a while... let's see what
>> we have:
> <snip>
>>
>> Sigh. I tried. I really tried to stop the fighting. I gave up on
>> asking people to explain their pasts. I stopped asking for
>> apologies. I just was looking to let it all go. The reality is I
>> *still* am looking to let it all go, but feel it is important for
>> people to see all the questions that need to be answered by others.
>> Here goes:
> <snip>
>
> so just drop this crap, and stop w/ these silly questions. you say you
> don't want to bring up the past, keep up the silly fighting, etc, etc., so
> the obivous thing is for you to stop it first, and perhaps the others will
> too. you baiting folks, and constantly dredging up the past isn't helping.
> if you want to be "honest and honorable" as you say, why don't *you* step up
> and stop posting this crap?
I *did* stop. I *did* ask others to drop it. They told me, very clearly in
words and actions, that they would not.
If I am going to be asked questions... ones that I have already answered...
then I should be able to have my questions answered.
Elizabot and Steve M. have shown some level of integrity by at least making
attempts... Steve has been a horrid little evasive troll and Sandman has
just ignored the questions.
Clearly they hold me to a standard they do not hold themselves... they
expect me to answer their questions when they will not answer mine.
Why do you think they hold me to a standard they themselves do not live up
to? And why do you think they do not live up to that standard when I do?
Lloyd Parsons
I await Snit's posting telling all that he has completed that task,
followed by the rest of the wannabe's...
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Elizabot" <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote in
> 40a7f147$0$203$7586...@news.frii.net on 5/16/04 3:55 PM:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> >> Ok, these questions have been floating for a while... let's see what we
> >> have:
> >>
> >> Steve Carroll has evaded every question
> >>
> >> Elizabot has evaded all but one question
> >
> > Geez, Snit, I was busy earlier. So quick to jump to conclusions you are.
>
> I appreciate your answering more of them... and showing a level of integrity
> that Steve C and Sandman are not showing.
You might want to take a recount on Steve M while you're at it, Snit:)
Steve
ed
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> typed:
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote in
> gDSpc.49753$Oq3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com on 5/16/04 4:16 PM:
>
>> In news:BCCD3764.502E5%sn...@nospam.cableone.net,
>> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> typed:
>>> Ok, these questions have been floating for a while... let's see what
>>> we have:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Sigh. I tried. I really tried to stop the fighting. I gave up on
>>> asking people to explain their pasts. I stopped asking for
>>> apologies. I just was looking to let it all go. The reality is I
>>> *still* am looking to let it all go, but feel it is important for
>>> people to see all the questions that need to be answered by others.
>>> Here goes:
>> <snip>
>>
>> so just drop this crap, and stop w/ these silly questions. you say
>> you don't want to bring up the past, keep up the silly fighting,
>> etc, etc., so the obivous thing is for you to stop it first, and
>> perhaps the others will too. you baiting folks, and constantly
>> dredging up the past isn't helping. if you want to be "honest and
>> honorable" as you say, why don't *you* step up and stop posting this
>> crap?
>
> I *did* stop. I *did* ask others to drop it. They told me, very
> clearly in words and actions, that they would not.
wo what? if you want to be "honest and honorable", what they do should be
irrelevant to you. just stop.
> If I am going to be asked questions... ones that I have already
> answered... then I should be able to have my questions answered.
>
> Elizabot and Steve M. have shown some level of integrity by at least
> making attempts... Steve has been a horrid little evasive troll and
> Sandman has
> just ignored the questions.
>
> Clearly they hold me to a standard they do not hold themselves... they
> expect me to answer their questions when they will not answer mine.
>
> Why do you think they hold me to a standard they themselves do not
> live up to? And why do you think they do not live up to that
> standard when I do?
quit posting crap like this, and ignore it when others do. this is getting
ridiculous.
MR_ED_of_Course
sn...@nospam.cableone.net wrote on 5/16/04 4:21 PM:
The questions I pose below are rhetorical, for fucks sake please don't waste
any more bits by answering them.
>> so just drop this crap, and stop w/ these silly questions. you say you
>> don't want to bring up the past, keep up the silly fighting, etc, etc., so
>> the obivous thing is for you to stop it first, and perhaps the others will
>> too. you baiting folks, and constantly dredging up the past isn't helping.
>> if you want to be "honest and honorable" as you say, why don't *you* step up
>> and stop posting this crap?
>
> I *did* stop. I *did* ask others to drop it. They told me, very clearly in
> words and actions, that they would not.
So what? You want to be "honest and honorable"? How about having some self
respect and stop regardless of what they do.
> If I am going to be asked questions... ones that I have already answered...
> then I should be able to have my questions answered.
Why?
And more to the point, what do you hope to accomplish?
> Elizabot and Steve M. have shown some level of integrity by at least making
> attempts... Steve has been a horrid little evasive troll and Sandman has
> just ignored the questions.
Well, la-ti-fucking-da! What does any of that have to do with CSMA?
> Clearly they hold me to a standard they do not hold themselves... they
> expect me to answer their questions when they will not answer mine.
So don't answer their questions, and don't ask any more.
Who said the definition of insanity is constantly doing the same thing and
expecting different results?
> Why do you think they hold me to a standard they themselves do not live up
> to? And why do you think they do not live up to that standard when I do?
I hate to break it to you Snit, but nobody not engaged in this pettiness
thinks anything about any of this shit.
If *ANY* of you wanted to show some dignity, self-respect, maturity, or
consideration for the rest of us, you'd simply ignore any posts from the
others which are targeted towards you.
If their posts bother you that much, why are you all feeding your enemies?
Why not simply change your alias and let your current one die. Do you
really think any one of you would continue to receive bashing in perpetuity
if you didn't feed the other?
Seriously, spend half a day at any pre-school or kindergarten and see if the
kids there can't teach you a thing or two about social behavior.
Steve Carroll
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> In news:BCCD3764.502E5%sn...@nospam.cableone.net,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> typed:
> > Ok, these questions have been floating for a while... let's see what
> > we have:
> <snip>
> >
> > Sigh. I tried. I really tried to stop the fighting. I gave up on
> > asking people to explain their pasts. I stopped asking for
> > apologies. I just was looking to let it all go. The reality is I
> > *still* am looking to let it all go, but feel it is important for
> > people to see all the questions that need to be answered by others.
> > Here goes:
> <snip>
>
> so just drop this crap, and stop w/ these silly questions. you say you
> don't want to bring up the past, keep up the silly fighting, etc, etc., so
> the obivous thing is for you to stop it first, and perhaps the others will
> too. you baiting folks, and constantly dredging up the past isn't helping.
> if you want to be "honest and honorable" as you say, why don't *you* step up
> and stop posting this crap?
I've already brought up this point. He ignored it.
Steve
Snit
fretwizz-EEB5D9...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/16/04 4:42 PM:
Seems you want me to stop where you will not. Why hold me, again, to a
higher standard than you will hold yourself?
I asked people to stop "dredging up the past". I stopped doing it myself.
That did not work.
I shall try again soon.
Snit
BCCD4A0B.19A1%OhNo...@pacbell.net on 5/16/04 4:41 PM:
> in article BCCD4591.5031D%sn...@nospam.cableone.net, Snit at
> sn...@nospam.cableone.net wrote on 5/16/04 4:21 PM:
>
>
> The questions I pose below are rhetorical, for fucks sake please don't waste
> any more bits by answering them.
Then why did you ask them?
I have spent time in those grades... I am a teacher if you will recall. :)
Snit
He, to, has shown some honor and respectability in answering questions.
Will you?
Never mind... we all know you will not.
Snit
TRSpc.49756$xB3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com on 5/16/04 4:32 PM:
Seems fair. Will you make the same request of them, or are you holding me
to a higher standard?
>
>> If I am going to be asked questions... ones that I have already
>> answered... then I should be able to have my questions answered.
>>
>> Elizabot and Steve M. have shown some level of integrity by at least
>> making attempts... Steve has been a horrid little evasive troll and
>> Sandman has
>> just ignored the questions.
>>
>> Clearly they hold me to a standard they do not hold themselves... they
>> expect me to answer their questions when they will not answer mine.
>>
>> Why do you think they hold me to a standard they themselves do not
>> live up to? And why do you think they do not live up to that
>> standard when I do?
>
> quit posting crap like this, and ignore it when others do. this is getting
> ridiculous.
Getting... got there long ago. That has been my point...
Snit
160520041827126830%lloydp...@spamac.com on 5/16/04 4:29 PM:
> How about if you all just stuffed this crap where the sun don't shine?
>
> I await Snit's posting telling all that he has completed that task,
> followed by the rest of the wannabe's...
Believe it or not, I agree with the sentiment of all of this.
I would prefer to let it all go... I have proposed that to the "group".
Seems they are not willing...
How about this...
I will go the next 24 hours without responding to anything... and then will
come back some time after that... this allows people to get their flames out
without response from me. I will them come back and not ask questions about
the past for anyone who does not make accusations against me dealing with
the past.
Want to bet that Steve Carroll will start his attacks again very quickly? I
would place money that he will do so. If he does not for one week, I will
take down my site that quotes a small percentage of his lies and other
stupid games.
LOL... Steve... you have 24 hours to lie about my site with no reply... then
we get to see if you can go a whole week without making any attack against
me.
Wanna bet you can not? I will be pleasantly surprised if you manage to do
it.
Elizabot... I suppose this let's you off the hook for you poo-posting
question, and I am agreeing to do what I think you asked me to do a couple
of times. Not that my doing this is contingent on it, but can you go a
whole 10 posts without referencing me? I would be happy to see that as
well...
ed
yes, they should stop as well; in this particular case, you *should* be held
to a "higher standard", since you are harping on the point a lot more than
others, starting more threads about it than others, and generally belabor
the point more than others. so, since you've explicitly agreed that you
should stop this crap, whether others stop or not, i'll expect to not see
these posts from you. great!
Elizabot
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote in
> 160520041827126830%lloydp...@spamac.com on 5/16/04 4:29 PM:
>
>
>>How about if you all just stuffed this crap where the sun don't shine?
>>
>>I await Snit's posting telling all that he has completed that task,
>>followed by the rest of the wannabe's...
>
>
> Believe it or not, I agree with the sentiment of all of this.
>
> I would prefer to let it all go... I have proposed that to the "group".
> Seems they are not willing...
>
> How about this...
>
> I will go the next 24 hours without responding to anything... and then will
> come back some time after that... this allows people to get their flames out
> without response from me. I will them come back and not ask questions about
> the past for anyone who does not make accusations against me dealing with
> the past.
Are you going to respond to the posts made in that 24 hr period when you
get back? I still have some questions for you and can hold my posts
until after that time if you are not going to respond to any of them.
I'm not quite done with them yet.
> Want to bet that Steve Carroll will start his attacks again very quickly? I
> would place money that he will do so. If he does not for one week, I will
> take down my site that quotes a small percentage of his lies and other
> stupid games.
>
> LOL... Steve... you have 24 hours to lie about my site with no reply... then
> we get to see if you can go a whole week without making any attack against
> me.
>
> Wanna bet you can not? I will be pleasantly surprised if you manage to do
> it.
>
> Elizabot... I suppose this let's you off the hook for you poo-posting
> question,
I can hold that post for more than 24 hours, if you'd like. Will you
address it then?
> and I am agreeing to do what I think you asked me to do a couple
> of times. Not that my doing this is contingent on it, but can you go a
> whole 10 posts without referencing me? I would be happy to see that as
> well...
Well, getting back to getting you to specify your criteria a little
better under your Honor Code, (I have not agreed to actually sign it
yet) can I get my responses that I promised you out first? Before you
start counting my posts? There are a few things I'd like you to address.
After that, do I have a week to post my ten posts that do not reference
you? Or is it 10 posts in a row? Can I posts 10 posts not about you and
then talk about you for a post and then do 10 more without referencing
you for, like, all week? I need you to be very specific about this.
Besides, it'll give you something to do (count my posts) while you are
not posting.
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote in
> 160520041827126830%lloydp...@spamac.com on 5/16/04 4:29 PM:
>
> > How about if you all just stuffed this crap where the sun don't shine?
> >
> > I await Snit's posting telling all that he has completed that task,
> > followed by the rest of the wannabe's...
>
> Believe it or not, I agree with the sentiment of all of this.
>
> I would prefer to let it all go... I have proposed that to the "group".
> Seems they are not willing...
Yeah... that is strange, isn't it? OTOH... why should people let you get
off scot free from all the shit you have pulled?
>
> How about this...
How about this... fuck off, Snit:)
Steve
Steve Carroll
Elizabot
I'm wondering if I should number my posts from 1 - 10. Snit used to get
confused in the flame group with his counting there. Or would my
mentioning which number post I've made be indirectly referring to Snit?
Hey, Snit. Maybe you can answer my questions in the flame group. Would
that be breaking the rules of your new game> You're making me wait to
get answers to my important questions on the rules of this new game is
not fair. My 24 hours are running out!!!
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
I guess it would... he'd get you on a technicality:)
> Hey, Snit. Maybe you can answer my questions in the flame group. Would
> that be breaking the rules of your new game> You're making me wait to
> get answers to my important questions on the rules of this new game is
> not fair. My 24 hours are running out!!!
Well, he just said 10 posts, right? He didn't say which NG's. Do you,(or
have you) written 10 posts to other NG's? You might be over the limit
already.
Snit thinks that I should be willing to make some sort of deal with him.
For some strange reason he thinks I'll simply forget the fact that he is
a lying pile of dogshit. Where do you suppose he gets these delusions?
Steve
Elizabot
[snip]
> He, to, has shown some honor and respectability in answering questions.
>
> Will you?
>
> Never mind... we all know you will not.
Steve will lose nothing but not answering your questions here. There is
nothing wrong with him refusing to play, what has become all too
apparent, your newest game. Well, if he's playing a game, it's not the
one you want him to play....
Elizabot
He really needed to be more specific before he announced this new game.
Looks like the game where he was asking us to be specific is over.
>>Hey, Snit. Maybe you can answer my questions in the flame group. Would
>>that be breaking the rules of your new game> You're making me wait to
>>get answers to my important questions on the rules of this new game is
>>not fair. My 24 hours are running out!!!
>
>
> Well, he just said 10 posts, right? He didn't say which NG's. Do you,(or
> have you) written 10 posts to other NG's? You might be over the limit
> already.
Not today.
I suppose *we* should decide the rules of this newxt game. It's about
time we get a say on them, isn't it?
I will finish addressing Snit's posts after the 24 hour time period is
over and tie that up. After that, sometime during the week period, I
will get in my 10 posts not about Snit.
Does that sound fair to you, Steve?
> Snit thinks that I should be willing to make some sort of deal with him.
I don't see why.
> For some strange reason he thinks I'll simply forget the fact that he is
> a lying pile of dogshit. Where do you suppose he gets these delusions?
Probably that invisible green dragon he talks about....
Wally
----------
In article <40a83be8$0$209$7586...@news.frii.net>, Elizabot
<toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
Perhaps he could give supergoober (<super...@cableone.net>) his proxy?
that must be within the rules! ;=)
Sandman
> <trolling snipped>
The Official sigmond FAQ
This is a FAQ created with the sole intention to gather the actual facts surrounding a specific poster on the group comp.sys.mac.advocacy (csma). It is posted without linewrapping in an attempt to preserve URLs at the bottom of the post.
1. Who is sigmond?
2. Who is Michael (Snit)?
3. What's this about an IP?
4. Is 24.117.214.4 Michaels IP?
5. Is Michael lying?
6. Has Michael countered any of these facts?
7. What does Michael say to all of this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Who is sigmond?
A. sigmond was a poster that appeared in csma for a brief period of time in January of 2004. sigmond appeared in a debate between Michael and a number of other posters. sigmond had no earlier posting history to usenet prior to that and disappeared quickly when it was claimed he was a sock puppet of Michael. sigmond also posted a specifically poor taste post about another poster in csma, Elizabot. sigmond has since then removed his posts from Google in what appears as an attempt to hide his origin. This means that no references to his actual posts can be made, only to replies to them. [1] is a reply to the poor taste post from sigmond.
Q. Who is Michael (Snit) ?
A. Michael is an Mac advocate and a frequent poster to csma and has been since 2003-10-07 when he posted his first csma post [2]. Since then he has been deemed a troll by the majority of the people he has been engaged in argument with, including but not limited to, the general group of people that usually are found arguing with the trolls in the group.
Q. What's this about an IP?
A. Michael posts via SuperNews, which doesn't append a NNTP-Posting-Host header to posts posted through their service, making the posters anonymous, hence the IP of Michael isn't shown
in posts he has made through SuperNews. sigmond posted through Google, which does include the NNTP-Posting-Host header and sigmonds IP was 24.117.214.4.
Q. Is 24.117.214.4 Michaels IP?
A. Yes, it is. He has posted to usenet with this very IP [3] and sent an email to Steve Mackay [4] which was verified by Sandman (who was given the password to Steves mail account) [5]. There is no doubt that this is Michaels IP.
Q. Is Michael lying?
A. Yes, he is. Given the actual proof found above, he stills deny that he created sigmond as a sock puppet, which means he is a liar.
Q. Has Michael countered any of this proof?
A. In short, no he hasn't. He has constructed some far fetched conspiracy theories about sigmond which can be found in [6] where the only point that tries to counter these facts is that he is pointing to the fact that there has been a poster by the name "Steve Sigmond" and implied that that means Steve Carroll is sigmond, even though that this "Steve Sigmond" hasn't posted since 1993 and never to csma, and never used the IP in question.
Q. What does Michael say to all of this?
A. Nothing, really. He will ignore posts containing these facts as much as he can. He will either snip all of the facts away or try to counter it with something irrelevant, like trying to deem this collection of facts as trolling. Hee fails to realize that this FAQ is a collection of substantiated facts, not speculations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4072eff2%240%24195%2475868355%40news.frii.net
[2] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BBA835A9.29784%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
[3] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC172FBE.37F1C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC1706B3.37DCC%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
[4] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pan.2004.04.03.01.50.03.297000%40hotmail.com
[5] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mr-9A4617.19380305042004%40news.fu-berlin.de
[6] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC9D9CA5.4839F%25snit%40nospam-cableone.net
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Elizabot <toolittl...@poo.com> wrote:
If you are asking me to join you in a game where he chose the rules, you
know I won't do that:) But you can... at this point, I don't see it as
being particularly unfair to you in any way. If you're asking me to join
a game where we choose the rules after his deal ends... I might be open
to that... just to see if he can be something other than a shitheel,
even if only for a short period of time.
> > Snit thinks that I should be willing to make some sort of deal with him.
>
> I don't see why.
>
> > For some strange reason he thinks I'll simply forget the fact that he is
> > a lying pile of dogshit. Where do you suppose he gets these delusions?
>
> Probably that invisible green dragon he talks about....
Steve
Elizabot
[snip]
> If you are asking me to join you in a game where he chose the rules, you
> know I won't do that:) But you can... at this point, I don't see it as
> being particularly unfair to you in any way. If you're asking me to join
> a game where we choose the rules after his deal ends... I might be open
> to that... just to see if he can be something other than a shitheel,
> even if only for a short period of time.
Actually, I've decided to drop him for the time. I've decided to send
off the two posts I worked on yesterday and then (hopefully) I'll be
done with him for a while.
Snit
> In article <BCCD3764.502E5%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> Ok, these questions have been floating for a while... let's see what we
>> have:
>>
>> Steve Carroll has evaded every question
>
> Translation:
This is one of your trolling methods.. redefining what someone meant. Why
not actually answer the questions? Why not just read what people write?
> Steve has actually answered all my questions (even all of
> the irrelevant ones, which most of them were) many times over. I must
> deny the fact that he has done so because I could not address the
> answers.
Can you point to the post or posts where you have answered these questions?
I have asked in the past and you never have... you only evade. You are
simply evading the questions because you know what they show about you.
You *have* been caught lying, based on your own words... repeatedly.