Re: OT:Snit - Public Service Announcement #1
Steve Carroll
> In an exchange from a thread entitled: "Now is the time to be
> Strong...", Snit (engaged in one of his patented delusions) once
> posted this to Steve Mackay:
> "Really - work on being honest like I am. It would do you good".
> <W3Uef.22269$dO2.7...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
>
> ed, upon seeing Snit having written such blatant dishonesty,
> challenged Snit with:
> "hey snit, since you seem to be giving much lip service to honesty and
> not
> lying these days, would you like to go ahead and fess up to some of
> the lies
> you've admitted to me in email, or perhaps you you won't mind me
> posting it
> up? how about it?".
> <W3Uef.22269$dO2.7...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
>
> Snit as expected, responded to ed in his usual dishonest,
> dishonorable and evasive style:
> "It is not lip service... I truly would like Steve to stop lying and
> trolling, which he has at times admitted (but also denied!)"
> <BFA15E8A.3A600%S...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>
> ed, seeing that Snit did his usual snippage and didn't answer his
> question, replied with:
> "so if it's not lip service, the answer to the rest of my question
> is..?
> (here's the rest of the question for ya "...would you like to go
> ahead
> and fess up to some of the lies you've admitted to me in email, or
> perhaps you you won't mind me posting it up? how about it?"
> <1132285643.770938.134...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> Snit, in his usual disingenuous hypocritical fashion, then wrote to
> ed:
> "I have no desire to have you make anything private between us become
> public.".
> <1132466718.088580.198...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>
> ed, finally lowering the boom of reality onto Snit's head, wrote:
> "that's bullshit since you've posted at least 2 or 3 emails of mine".
> <1132518888.924383.292...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
>
> The ever narcissistic Snit, this time snipping *everything* away,
> replied to ed with:
> "Reply again, Ed, but do so in an honest way (and get Steve Carroll
> to
> do the same) and I will release you from your agreement. There is
> nothing else to add".
> <1132520798.029741.312...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> *This message is a public service announcement to those fools (this
> includes you, John) who still labor under the delusion that Snit is
> "honest and honorable".
ThunderCleats
> On Jan 26, 9:24 am, Steve Carroll <fretw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In an exchange from a thread entitled: "Now is the time to be
>> Strong...", Snit (engaged in one of his patented delusions) once
>> posted this to Steve Mackay:
>> "Really - work on being honest like I am. It would do you good".
>> <W3Uef.22269$dO2.7...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
>>
>> ed, upon seeing Snit having written such blatant dishonesty,
>> challenged Snit with:
>> "hey snit, since you seem to be giving much lip service to honesty
>> and not
>> lying these days, would you like to go ahead and fess up to some of
>> the lies
>> you've admitted to me in email, or perhaps you you won't mind me
>> posting it
>> up? how about it?".
>> <W3Uef.22269$dO2.7...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
What lies? You reference people making accusations.
What lies? Come on Steve? Quite the lies!
Snit
PM:
...
>>> *This message is a public service announcement to those fools (this
>>> includes you, John) who still labor under the delusion that Snit is
>>> "honest and honorable".
>
> What lies? Come on Steve? Quite the lies!
Ed trolled me in email. I posted those emails. I also posted some private
info to ed *when he asked me to* and asked him not to repeat it.
Steve thinks that makes me morally as corrupt as he is. Years later Steve
is still obsessing over it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
LOL!
You can't hide Snit's dishonorable and dishonest behavior regarding
the posting of private emails between he and ed... emails that Snit
posted to a public forum without first obtaining ed's permission
(making Snit dishonorable).
Snit's lie (making Snit dishonest) was when he wrote:
"I have no desire to have you make anything private between us become
public."
This is an obvious lie, as evidence by Snit's own admission in this
very thread:
"Ed trolled me in email. I posted those emails. I also posted some
private
info to ed *when he asked me to* and asked him not to repeat it".
Get that? Snit wrote: "I posted those emails".
Fact #1: When I asked ed the following question (about Snit posting
these private emails in a public forum):
"Did Snit obtain your permission to post these emails?"
I received the following reply from ed:
"absolutely not".
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/55590334ec6ced7e?hl=en&dmode=source
Fact #2 It's obvious that ed believes Snit publicly posted email
exchanges he had with Snit without first obtaining ed's permission.
It's obvious that Snit is in a position of bearing the burden of
proving ed gave him permission to post these private emails to a
public forum. Ed clearly says Snit did not have permission If Snit
fails to provide proof that he was ever granted such permission by ed
it should (and will) rightfully be considered a tacit admission on
Snit's part that he lacted dishonorably by posting the emails and that
he acted dishonestly when he wrote:
"I have no desire to have you make anything private between us become
public."
... but then went ahead and posted the emails without permission!
My prediction: Neither the dishonest and dishonorable Snit nor his
socks/shills will provide anything remotely resembling an actual
answer to this question.
Edward Stanfield
Snit posted private emails into a public forum and he has now admitted to
it. Clearly he is utter scum. There is no excuse for doing so.
Snit
2:13 PM:
...
>> It's obvious that Snit is in a position of bearing the burden of
>> proving ed gave him permission to post these private emails to a
>> public forum. Ed clearly says Snit did not have permission If Snit
>> fails to provide proof that he was ever granted such permission by ed
>> it should (and will) rightfully be considered a tacit admission on
>> Snit's part that he lacted dishonorably by posting the emails and that
>> he acted dishonestly when he wrote:
...
>
> Snit posted private emails into a public forum and he has now admitted to
> it. Clearly he is utter scum. There is no excuse for doing so.
Steve Mackay claims his proof against me for some ancient alleged lie is
based on an alleged email he posted. Therefore:
It's obvious that Steve Mackay is in a position of bearing
the burden of proving Snit gave him permission to post that
private email to a public forum. Snit clearly says Steve
Mackay did not have permission If Steve Mackay fails to
provide proof that he was ever granted such permission by
Snit it should (and will) rightfully be considered a tacit
admission on Steve Mackay's part that he acted dishonorably
by posting the emails and that he acted dishonestly.
Great. Steve Carroll is now claiming Steve Mackay's actions against me were
wrong, *even if* Steve Mackay had not lied about the email he said came from
me.
LOL!
Oh, I love when the Steve's note how the other is acting poorly... and then
deny they are doing so. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> Edward Stanfield stated in post glqhqa$s7...@news.albasani.net on 1/28/09
> 2:13 PM:
>
> ...
>
> >> It's obvious that Snit is in a position of bearing the burden of
> >> proving ed gave him permission to post these private emails to a
> >> public forum. Ed clearly says Snit did not have permission If Snit
> >> fails to provide proof that he was ever granted such permission by ed
> >> it should (and will) rightfully be considered a tacit admission on
> >> Snit's part that he lacted dishonorably by posting the emails and that
> >> he acted dishonestly when he wrote:
> ...
>
> > Snit posted private emails into a public forum and he has now admitted to
> > it. Clearly he is utter scum. There is no excuse for doing so.
>
> Steve Mackay claims his proof against me for some ancient alleged lie is
> based on an alleged email he posted.
Google has proven (numerous times now, to your repeated denials) that
several witnesses saw Mackay's evidence. The fact is that Mackay
sufficiently proved his case to those that were watching (even to a
disinterested, uninvolved 3rd party). That he didn't appear to prove
it to the perpetrator (you) was to be expected. Even though you knew
you were lying and everyone else knew you were lying (though it took a
bit to convince me you had written that sex garbage about Elizabot) no
one expected you to admit to it. By the way, do you really think that
people will fall for your feeble attempt at misdirection from your
dishonesty here?
Why do you persist in believing that people are as stupid as you need
them to be?
The reality you will undoubtedly run from: Unlike Mackay, who did post
up the evidence used to prove to people that you were sigmond, you are
noticeably lacking *any* proof that you had ed's permission to post
those emails.
You need to get your money back on your "psych degree"... you really
suck at this.
(snip Snit's new lie based on a feeble attempt at shining the light
elsewhere)
Edward Stanfield
Snit thinks the rules that apply to honest and honorable people apply to
him. That is absurd. He is the biggest liar in Usenet history. Mackay
posted the email to prove Snit was using sock puppets and he still is. Snit
can not give up his socks puppets and shills. They are the only ones who
ever support him.
Edward Stanfield
Steve Carroll did not mention Steve Mackay *at all*. You forged a quote and
claimed it was from him. Once again you are a liar.
The Lost Packet
My take: if this is going to be made public, as it has, then evidence
should be forthcoming which includes private email exchanges -
permission not needing to be sought from the other party. What's in
one's mailbox is one's own property, the disposition of which is
entirely down to the owner of that mailbox hence its entire contents.
That's the /law/ which applies in every civilised nation on Earth.
Proof of permission is not therefore needed, because the permission was
not required to be sought.
Snit
4:22 PM:
> My take: if this is going to be made public, as it has, then evidence
> should be forthcoming which includes private email exchanges -
> permission not needing to be sought from the other party. What's in
> one's mailbox is one's own property, the disposition of which is
> entirely down to the owner of that mailbox hence its entire contents.
> That's the /law/ which applies in every civilised nation on Earth.
> Proof of permission is not therefore needed, because the permission was
> not required to be sought.
Steve Carroll is just lashing out against me... but now that he has been
reminding that his buddy Steve Mackay posted what he claimed was an email
from me, Steve Carroll is realizing he has pushed himself into a corner.
Again.
For the record: if someone emails me in an adult way I will not publish it.
If someone emails me to further their online trolling, as Steve Carroll has
recently done, then I very well might publish it.
But, sure, unless there is an agreement to *not* publish what I send in an
email I have nothing against doing so. I *do* have something against
modifying that email and then claiming it was an unaltered email from
someone.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
>
> > Fact #2 It's obvious that ed believes Snit publicly posted email
> > exchanges he had with Snit without first obtaining ed's permission.
>
> > It's obvious that Snit is in a position of bearing the burden of
> > proving ed gave him permission to post these private emails to a
> > public forum. Ed clearly says Snit did not have permission If Snit
> > fails to provide proof that he was ever granted such permission by ed
> > it should (and will) rightfully be considered a tacit admission on
> > Snit's part that he lacted dishonorably by posting the emails and that
> > he acted dishonestly when he wrote:
>
> > "I have no desire to have you make anything private between us become
> > public."
>
> > ... but then went ahead and posted the emails without permission!
>
> > My prediction: Neither the dishonest and dishonorable Snit nor his
> > socks/shills will provide anything remotely resembling an actual
> > answer to this question.
>
> My take: if this is going to be made public, as it has, then evidence
> should be forthcoming which includes private email exchanges -
> permission not needing to be sought from the other party. What's in
> one's mailbox is one's own property, the disposition of which is
> entirely down to the owner of that mailbox hence its entire contents.
> That's the /law/ which applies in every civilised nation on Earth.
> Proof of permission is not therefore needed, because the permission was
> not required to be sought.
The law? LOL!
Reality check for "Lost" somebody or other... I'll make this real
simple for you.
Snit wrote to ed:
"I have no desire to have you make anything private between us become
public.".
Snit, in this very thread, admitted:
"I posted those emails".
I label Snit having engaged in those two contradictory positions as
dishonorable (and hypocritical because Snit is asking for something
from ed that Snit was unwilling to give ed (notably, ed has never
divulged the content, he remained honorable to the "agreement") and I
firmly believe that all sane, honest and honorable people believe the
same thing.
You are missing the obvious point that it was Snit himself who called
the email exchanges "private between us" (between he and ed). In
light of this reality your legal "take" on this is completely
irrelevant. This isn't about law, it's about honor and honesty.
Realistically, that Snit is trying to refocus things onto Steve Mackay
should be all you need to know about Snit. Look at the BS he wrote in
reply to you here. What Snit SHOULD have written to you was:
For the record: if someone emails me and I publicly label those emails
"private between us" then neither of us should post those emails in
public without express permission from the other.
Notably, Snit didn't write anything remotely resembling that. In any
honest and honorable world emails that have been labeled by Snit as
"private between us" constitute a form of "agreement" on Snit's
behalf... one that he admits to having broken. Now go back and read
Snit's BS reply to you about an "agreement". It isn't too terribly
difficult to figure out that google proves agreements with the
hypocrite named Snit (aka Michael Glasser) are one sided.
libcrus...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Snit also thinks Dan Rather still anchors CBS News and that Gitmo
terrorists are innocent!
Any time Snit is cornered, he changes the subject and will never admit
he's wrong.
Everything you say about Snit is 100% true.
Snit
a1711fbf-bd93-43a0...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 1/28/09
8:09 PM:
> Snit also thinks Dan Rather still anchors CBS News and that Gitmo
> terrorists are innocent!
You just told *two* lies about me. Why? Seriously, is that the only way
you could think to wave your white flag... just start lying?
> Any time Snit is cornered, he changes the subject and will never admit
> he's wrong.
Well, why not show me how: admit it was wrong of you to tell those two
blatant lies about me.
But you will not.
Your white flag is accepted.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> libcrushersm...@gmail.com stated in post
> a1711fbf-bd93-43a0-9b99-b822f8d0d...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 1/28/09
> 8:09 PM:
>
> > Snit also thinks Dan Rather still anchors CBS News and that Gitmo
> > terrorists are innocent!
>
> You just told *two* lies about me. Why? Seriously, is that the only way
> you could think to wave your white flag... just start lying?
>
> > Any time Snit is cornered, he changes the subject and will never admit
> > he's wrong.
>
> Well, why not show me how: admit it was wrong of you to tell those two
> blatant lies about me.
>
> But you will not.
>
> Your white flag is accepted.
Said the guy who is running from his own dishonorable and dishonest
actions.
Edward Stanfield
Snit runs from his own shadow. Why won't he respond to either of us?
Edward Stanfield
Snit never does anything with honor. He is a lying little jerk.
ed
> ThunderCleats stated in post glo1l7$li...@news.albasani.net on 1/27/09 3:25
> PM:
> >>> *This message is a public service announcement to those fools (this
> >>> includes you, John) who still labor under the delusion that Snit is
> >>> "honest and honorable".
>
> > What lies? Come on Steve? Quite the lies!
>
> Ed trolled me in email. I posted those emails.
i would disagree that i was "trolling" you- i was taking off topic
posts offline (i asked you to not follow me around the group to troll
me) - but putting that aside, as steve rightly says, you claim you had
no interest in making any 'private' (i.e. email) communications
between us public. you previously posting those types of
communications indicates that your comments obviously only applies
when it suits you.
> I also posted some private
> info to ed *when he asked me to* and asked him not to repeat it.
yup, and the difference is that i respected that and did not post said
info, even though i did not make any indication of agreement, and you
asked me not to in the email in which said info was already sent.
additionally, when YOU have asked me to back up statements i've made,
statements which i could potentially back up with said emails, i've
asked you if you were rescinding your request that i not post such
info. when you indicated you did not wish me to post it, i did not.
*THAT* is acting in good faith.
dr. Baf
Snit
1fe4def3-e4fb-4e3d...@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com on 1/29/09
6:39 PM:
If someone takes their trolling to email I will feel free to do with that
email as I please.
If you do not like it, well, then do not email me with continuations of your
trolling.
Simple.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Carroll
> ed stated in post
> 1fe4def3-e4fb-4e3d-a31f-dc11d0b1b...@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com on 1/29/09
Said the hypocritical liar who labeled the emails between he and ed
with the label of "private between us".
Question you will run from:
If ed, all by himself, decides to label your emails to him as
"trolling" he should feel free to post them up, right?
Another question you will run from:
Are you *so* stupid that you don't realize this is the logical
extension of your ridiculous and dishonorable position?