Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ping CC: You Exposed Onion Knight as a stooge....
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Torre Starnes
Aug 25, 2012, 6:48:29 PM8/25/12
to
He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at him.
The instant messenger bell went off at least twice when Onion Knight
was in trouble.
Highly suspicious.
In this case it does sound like Onion Knight is a different person.
Still processed though, which might be on purpose and might be on
his end because he does sound a bit over cautious.
You sound very professional CC and I'm impressed.
Whether or not the Onion Knight in the first recording is indeed
snit I don't know for sure, but they don't sound the same to me.
Again, could be processing on purpose by Onion Knight as a shield or
it could have been snit playing games, which I still suspect.
Add in Snit "screwing up " this recording and things get murky.
However, it's a moot point because as far as COLA is concerned Snit
was posting as Onion Knight. The screw up DFS pointed out, the items
You, cc pointed to in this current recording just nail that one
closed.
Whether he uses a stooge on skype or plays with the audio or both is
really immaterial.
Snit = Onion Knight.
No doubt about it.
The instant messenger bell went off at least twice when Onion Knight
was in trouble.
Highly suspicious.
In this case it does sound like Onion Knight is a different person.
Still processed though, which might be on purpose and might be on
his end because he does sound a bit over cautious.
You sound very professional CC and I'm impressed.
Whether or not the Onion Knight in the first recording is indeed
snit I don't know for sure, but they don't sound the same to me.
Again, could be processing on purpose by Onion Knight as a shield or
it could have been snit playing games, which I still suspect.
Add in Snit "screwing up " this recording and things get murky.
However, it's a moot point because as far as COLA is concerned Snit
was posting as Onion Knight. The screw up DFS pointed out, the items
You, cc pointed to in this current recording just nail that one
closed.
Whether he uses a stooge on skype or plays with the audio or both is
really immaterial.
Snit = Onion Knight.
No doubt about it.
Snit
Aug 25, 2012, 6:58:01 PM8/25/12
to
On 8/25/12 3:48 PM, in article 1qyny7vlvkj4x.1ljhbs5xi7gvu$.d...@40tude.net,
> In this case it does sound like Onion Knight is a different person.
Utter rubbish. Here are clips from the two:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/SameVoiceOK.aiff>
Clearly the same person. No doubt. You and your court "expert", if he even
exists, were just flat out wrong. Your supposed expert has been proved a
complete quack.
> Still processed though, which might be on purpose and might be on
> his end because he does sound a bit over cautious.
It is *SKYPE*. The sound quality is not great. Deal with it.
> You sound very professional CC and I'm impressed.
>
> Whether or not the Onion Knight in the first recording is indeed
> snit I don't know for sure, but they don't sound the same to me.
Now you do not know for sure. You go back and forth a *lot* on this.
Hint: we are different people with different voices. Deal with it.
> Again, could be processing on purpose by Onion Knight as a shield or
> it could have been snit playing games, which I still suspect.
Yes, I can speak twice at the same time. LOL!
> Add in Snit "screwing up " this recording and things get murky.
I hope cc or Onion Knight recorded the conversation, too.
> However, it's a moot point because as far as COLA is concerned Snit
> was posting as Onion Knight.
So evidence is not needed, what matters is what you believe. Got it. LOL!
> The screw up DFS pointed out, the items
> You, cc pointed to in this current recording just nail that one
> closed.
DFS never pointed out any "items" of evidence nor has cc. Heck, he was
hounded to give his best evidence and he choked. He had *nothing* of
substance... just that Onion Knight posts anonymously and called cc out on
some of the same BS I did. Oh, and he knows of my stalker and has been
harrassed by him, too. Man, *must* be me based on that overwhelming
evidence. LOL!
> Whether he uses a stooge on skype or plays with the audio or both is
> really immaterial.
>
> Snit = Onion Knight.
> No doubt about it.
LOL! Even when your claim is proved 100% wrong, repeatedly, you cannot stop
from making the same claim.
As I have noted: the more I note how you have no evidence and the more I
speak honestly and deny the BS, the more weak-minded people are going to
believe it.
It is why politicians are often told to ignore accusations unless they
become huge - people believe what is not true if it is denied. Amazing how
true that is proving to be. Assuming you even believe what you say... I am
not convinced of that.
--
* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.
"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at him.
> The instant messenger bell went off at least twice when Onion Knight
> was in trouble.
> Highly suspicious.
Can you quote a question he did not answer?
> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at him.
> The instant messenger bell went off at least twice when Onion Knight
> was in trouble.
> Highly suspicious.
> In this case it does sound like Onion Knight is a different person.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/SameVoiceOK.aiff>
Clearly the same person. No doubt. You and your court "expert", if he even
exists, were just flat out wrong. Your supposed expert has been proved a
complete quack.
> Still processed though, which might be on purpose and might be on
> his end because he does sound a bit over cautious.
> You sound very professional CC and I'm impressed.
>
> Whether or not the Onion Knight in the first recording is indeed
> snit I don't know for sure, but they don't sound the same to me.
Hint: we are different people with different voices. Deal with it.
> Again, could be processing on purpose by Onion Knight as a shield or
> it could have been snit playing games, which I still suspect.
> Add in Snit "screwing up " this recording and things get murky.
> However, it's a moot point because as far as COLA is concerned Snit
> was posting as Onion Knight.
> The screw up DFS pointed out, the items
> You, cc pointed to in this current recording just nail that one
> closed.
hounded to give his best evidence and he choked. He had *nothing* of
substance... just that Onion Knight posts anonymously and called cc out on
some of the same BS I did. Oh, and he knows of my stalker and has been
harrassed by him, too. Man, *must* be me based on that overwhelming
evidence. LOL!
> Whether he uses a stooge on skype or plays with the audio or both is
> really immaterial.
>
> Snit = Onion Knight.
> No doubt about it.
from making the same claim.
As I have noted: the more I note how you have no evidence and the more I
speak honestly and deny the BS, the more weak-minded people are going to
believe it.
It is why politicians are often told to ignore accusations unless they
become huge - people believe what is not true if it is denied. Amazing how
true that is proving to be. Assuming you even believe what you say... I am
not convinced of that.
--
* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.
Steve Carroll
Aug 25, 2012, 7:00:30 PM8/25/12
to
believe that Onion Knight was anything other than a Snit shill. Now
you're "professionalism" has been called into question... by a guy who
crowed and crowed... and somehow didn't manage to record his voice for
his 'big show' ;) As expected, the stupid f*ck is crowing even louder
now... as is his way. He's like one of those punchings bag dummies
with sand in the base. LOL!
Onion Knight
Aug 25, 2012, 7:19:43 PM8/25/12
to
and I answered all the questions asked of me. You and your cola creeps
are just making this up.
Torre Starnes
Aug 25, 2012, 7:24:41 PM8/25/12
to
upon previous recordings I have of snit.
Still processed though but that may be due to Onion Knight doing it
himself.
Onion Knight is clearly a shill though because he fell apart when CC
asked SPECIFIC questions.
Thus the dings from snit Instant Messaging him to coach him.
It didn't work too well.
Snit should have picked a better stooge.
And now look who comes out of the blue in COLA to post!
Yes our very own, snit, ahem Onion Knight.
It's laughable.
The Onion Knight on the first skype sounds differnet than this one
but that could be Skype or processing where Onion disguised his own
voice, at least on this one.
The first Skype is Snit playing both parts.
The reason snit doesn't have both he and Onion recorded on this
Skype is he knew it was too easy to screw up now that he had to
switch it real time because CC was also on the call.
Snit is as bogus as a 1.5 dollar bill.
Snit
Aug 25, 2012, 7:40:20 PM8/25/12
to
On 8/25/12 4:19 PM, in article
cf3cd3d5-7c5e-4754...@b10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
all about it.
LOL!
How stupid does he think people are?
As far as my screwing up with not recording my own voice, gee, he busted me.
I was trying to hide that so much. :)
cf3cd3d5-7c5e-4754...@b10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onion...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I haven't listened to the recording but... seriously... did anyone
>> believe that Onion Knight was anything other than a Snit shill. Now
>> you're "professionalism" has been called into question... by a guy who
>> crowed and crowed... and somehow didn't manage to record his voice for
>> his 'big show' ;) As expected, the stupid f*ck is crowing even louder
>> now... as is his way. He's like one of those punchings bag dummies
>> with sand in the base. LOL!
>
> You don't know what you are talking about. I'm not a shill for anyone
> and I answered all the questions asked of me. You and your cola creeps
> are just making this up.
The stalker admits he has not listened to the conversation but somehow knows
>> I haven't listened to the recording but... seriously... did anyone
>> believe that Onion Knight was anything other than a Snit shill. Now
>> you're "professionalism" has been called into question... by a guy who
>> crowed and crowed... and somehow didn't manage to record his voice for
>> his 'big show' ;) As expected, the stupid f*ck is crowing even louder
>> now... as is his way. He's like one of those punchings bag dummies
>> with sand in the base. LOL!
>
> You don't know what you are talking about. I'm not a shill for anyone
> and I answered all the questions asked of me. You and your cola creeps
> are just making this up.
all about it.
LOL!
How stupid does he think people are?
As far as my screwing up with not recording my own voice, gee, he busted me.
I was trying to hide that so much. :)
Snit
Aug 25, 2012, 7:43:59 PM8/25/12
to
On 8/25/12 4:24 PM, in article nhyrl5iqbh1f.4wem2c3o3rab$.d...@40tude.net,
both conversations: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/SameVoiceOK.aiff>
Clearly the same voice.
> Still processed though but that may be due to Onion Knight doing it
> himself.
Skype. Look it up. :)
He might be modifying his voice, though he never said so, but this seems
unlikely given how he offered to show his face.
> Onion Knight is clearly a shill though because he fell apart when CC
> asked SPECIFIC questions.
Such as?
> Thus the dings from snit Instant Messaging him to coach him.
> It didn't work too well.
Nope.
> Snit should have picked a better stooge.
You should not have made up a story about a court "expert"... now you are
eating crow.
> And now look who comes out of the blue in COLA to post!
> Yes our very own, snit, ahem Onion Knight.
We both have posted after the conversation. What an amazing thing!
> It's laughable.
Yes, it is. :)
> The Onion Knight on the first skype sounds differnet than this one
> but that could be Skype or processing where Onion disguised his own
> voice, at least on this one.
Wipe that egg off your face.
> The first Skype is Snit playing both parts.
Incorrect.
> The reason snit doesn't have both he and Onion recorded on this
> Skype is he knew it was too easy to screw up now that he had to
> switch it real time because CC was also on the call.
cc and Onion Knight were both welcome to record the call as well. I believe
cc even said he would - or at least others asked him to. I hope he did.
> Snit is as bogus as a 1.5 dollar bill.
How is that crow tasting? LOL!
"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
>> I haven't listened to the recording but... seriously... did anyone
>> believe that Onion Knight was anything other than a Snit shill. Now
>> you're "professionalism" has been called into question... by a guy who
>> crowed and crowed... and somehow didn't manage to record his voice for
>> his 'big show' ;) As expected, the stupid f*ck is crowing even louder
>> now... as is his way. He's like one of those punchings bag dummies
>> with sand in the base. LOL!
>
> In this recording Onion Knight sounds like a different person based
> upon previous recordings I have of snit.
Why would the same person sound like a different one to you? Here he is in
>> I haven't listened to the recording but... seriously... did anyone
>> believe that Onion Knight was anything other than a Snit shill. Now
>> you're "professionalism" has been called into question... by a guy who
>> crowed and crowed... and somehow didn't manage to record his voice for
>> his 'big show' ;) As expected, the stupid f*ck is crowing even louder
>> now... as is his way. He's like one of those punchings bag dummies
>> with sand in the base. LOL!
>
> In this recording Onion Knight sounds like a different person based
> upon previous recordings I have of snit.
both conversations: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/SameVoiceOK.aiff>
Clearly the same voice.
> Still processed though but that may be due to Onion Knight doing it
> himself.
He might be modifying his voice, though he never said so, but this seems
unlikely given how he offered to show his face.
> Onion Knight is clearly a shill though because he fell apart when CC
> asked SPECIFIC questions.
> Thus the dings from snit Instant Messaging him to coach him.
> It didn't work too well.
> Snit should have picked a better stooge.
eating crow.
> And now look who comes out of the blue in COLA to post!
> Yes our very own, snit, ahem Onion Knight.
> It's laughable.
Yes, it is. :)
> The Onion Knight on the first skype sounds differnet than this one
> but that could be Skype or processing where Onion disguised his own
> voice, at least on this one.
> The first Skype is Snit playing both parts.
> The reason snit doesn't have both he and Onion recorded on this
> Skype is he knew it was too easy to screw up now that he had to
> switch it real time because CC was also on the call.
cc even said he would - or at least others asked him to. I hope he did.
> Snit is as bogus as a 1.5 dollar bill.
Steve Carroll
Aug 25, 2012, 7:48:50 PM8/25/12
to
> cf3cd3d5-7c5e-4754-9a79-7c44b5077...@b10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "Onion
away and stated as much. The question is: Who is he/she really gaming?
Looks like it could be you... but you're not bright enough to
understand why ;)
> LOL!
>
> How stupid does he think people are?
Can you still not tell if I went to your site yet, Snit? Don't you
want to put up a bogus log like you used to? You know, to show I'm
spending "hours and hours" there? ;)
Fact: There is no evidence that I listened to this audio. Any you
produce will be faked... like much of your "evidence". I don't need to
listen to it... I already know it's all BS... as are most things
connected to you.
> As far as my screwing up with not recording my own voice
... you're a crowing idiot? No one questioned that.
>
> Knight" <onions1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I haven't listened to the recording but... seriously... did anyone
> >> believe that Onion Knight was anything other than a Snit shill. Now
> >> you're "professionalism" has been called into question... by a guy who
> >> crowed and crowed... and somehow didn't manage to record his voice for
> >> his 'big show' ;) As expected, the stupid f*ck is crowing even louder
> >> now... as is his way. He's like one of those punchings bag dummies
> >> with sand in the base. LOL!
>
> > You don't know what you are talking about. I'm not a shill for anyone
> > and I answered all the questions asked of me. You and your cola creeps
> > are just making this up.
>
> The stalker admits he has not listened to the conversation but somehow knows
> all about it.
All about it? High again, Snit? I knew Onion Knight was a shill right
> Knight" <onions1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I haven't listened to the recording but... seriously... did anyone
> >> believe that Onion Knight was anything other than a Snit shill. Now
> >> you're "professionalism" has been called into question... by a guy who
> >> crowed and crowed... and somehow didn't manage to record his voice for
> >> his 'big show' ;) As expected, the stupid f*ck is crowing even louder
> >> now... as is his way. He's like one of those punchings bag dummies
> >> with sand in the base. LOL!
>
> > You don't know what you are talking about. I'm not a shill for anyone
> > and I answered all the questions asked of me. You and your cola creeps
> > are just making this up.
>
> The stalker admits he has not listened to the conversation but somehow knows
> all about it.
away and stated as much. The question is: Who is he/she really gaming?
Looks like it could be you... but you're not bright enough to
understand why ;)
> LOL!
>
> How stupid does he think people are?
want to put up a bogus log like you used to? You know, to show I'm
spending "hours and hours" there? ;)
Fact: There is no evidence that I listened to this audio. Any you
produce will be faked... like much of your "evidence". I don't need to
listen to it... I already know it's all BS... as are most things
connected to you.
> As far as my screwing up with not recording my own voice
7
Aug 25, 2012, 8:08:46 PM8/25/12
to
Torre Starnes wrote:
> H
Snit is Spartacus and will prove himself worthy of the title
by installing Linux and disown Appile and Micorshaft for
their patent trolling and vow never to buy appile
products again until appil coughs up the $1 billion stolen from
Samsung.
You Torre Starnes will kneel before your king Spartacus
and become his pet for endless COLA amusement.
I have a lot of popcorn stocks riding on this.
Here Snit - lots of Linux to install:
http://www.livecdlist.com
http://www.distrowatch.com
> H
Snit is Spartacus and will prove himself worthy of the title
by installing Linux and disown Appile and Micorshaft for
their patent trolling and vow never to buy appile
products again until appil coughs up the $1 billion stolen from
Samsung.
You Torre Starnes will kneel before your king Spartacus
and become his pet for endless COLA amusement.
I have a lot of popcorn stocks riding on this.
Here Snit - lots of Linux to install:
http://www.livecdlist.com
http://www.distrowatch.com
Nobody
Aug 25, 2012, 10:22:24 PM8/25/12
to
On 08/25/2012 05:48 PM, Torre Starnes wrote:
[...]
first Skype conversation with himself?
[...]
>
> Snit = Onion Knight.
> No doubt about it.
What happened to the "Le Femme" sock that came here to comment on Snit's
> Snit = Onion Knight.
> No doubt about it.
first Skype conversation with himself?
Nobody
Aug 25, 2012, 10:33:57 PM8/25/12
to
On 08/25/2012 05:48 PM, Torre Starnes wrote:
> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at him.
> The instant messenger bell went off at least twice when Onion Knight
> was in trouble.
[...]
> The instant messenger bell went off at least twice when Onion Knight
> was in trouble.
Moe! Larry! The cheese!
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 26, 2012, 1:25:39 AM8/26/12
to
Torre Starnes wrote:
> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at him.
> The instant messenger bell went off at least twice when Onion Knight
> was in trouble.
> Highly suspicious.
I'm listening. Onionhead seems very ill at ease and unprepared. The IM alert
> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at him.
> The instant messenger bell went off at least twice when Onion Knight
> was in trouble.
> Highly suspicious.
is pretty obvious.
--
Perhaps this situation requires a more Klingon response.
[tv]
cc
Aug 26, 2012, 9:29:33 AM8/26/12
to
On Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:48:29 PM UTC-4, Torre Starnes wrote:
>
> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at him.
All I wanted want some specifics about the thread/topic he first started posting in/about, and he was unable to give any. Not only that, he's general answer about stalkers doesn't hold up. When Onion Knight first posted in the thread, he wasn't saying anything about stalkers, or harrassment. He responded that he hasn't been following the conversation, but that Snit was right and the trendline was accurate. Yet Onion Knight could not even say anything to that effect. He didn't mention anything about crossposting questions to other groups for answers, or any of the hundreds of posts he made specifically about that topic. He stuck to "stalker." I tried to get more out of him, but I didn't want to lead him into any answers.
>
> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at him.
But maybe he just didn't understand what I was asking? Well after that brief conversation what do you hear on the audio? You hear me talking for 30+ minutes. Now why is that? Well one reason is that Snit is so fucking incompetent that he didn't record himself. Not to mention that we had to start over since he didn't record anyone for the first couple of minutes. What a "radio show"! But also conspicuously absent is Onion Knight. He just sat there. So we were discussing a topic he posted on for over a month straight, one where he actively participated in and even cross posted to other groups, and all of sudden it's like he has no idea what Snit and I are talking about. He couldn't even muster an, "I agree with you Snit." He had no idea what we were talking about, because he is not the same person who posts as Onion Knight. So maybe I could have done more, but it was obvious he was just some poor schlub who Snit gave some buzzwords to so why harrass the guy?
> In this case it does sound like Onion Knight is a different person.
> You sound very professional CC and I'm impressed.
--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 26, 2012, 9:36:41 AM8/26/12
to
cc wrote:
> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but what can
> you do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected myself, but that won't
> stop Snit from harping on it.
He already has. :-D
> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but what can
> you do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected myself, but that won't
> stop Snit from harping on it.
--
If you believe in telekinesis, please raise my hand.
[tv]
Snit
Aug 26, 2012, 12:33:51 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/12 6:36 AM, in article he853wo9s8n6$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
being me who posted the data that went back to 2007, about him not having
posted his work where he came up with his "outliers" results - though he has
agreed to do so by tomorrow - we shall see how that goes, he made it clear
he did not know what an inflection point is and cannot identify even the
approximate location of one by site, and he made it clear he could not name
the step I missed in making a linear trend line (because I missed no steps).
In other words, he could not show a single point from my .sig where I am
wrong... though if he can produce the Excel workbook tomorrow, as he said,
*and* if it shows what he claims to have found, then he will have refuted
the top two points.
He also showed that his "best case" against Onion Knight and myself was to
say that Onion Knight posts anonymously (something that is not in contention
but is not relevant) and that Onion Knight knows some of the history of my
stalker (many do... and Onion Knight has written about this), and Onion
Knight called cc on his BS (though even with that, I believe Onion Knight
merely noted he was not supporting his claims... I could be wrong, but I do
not believe Onion Knight ever claimed to know much about the topic, and on
the Skype he made it clear he did not).
And, yes, after months of cc lying about me I shall feel free to speak of
these things... he made it very clear he has been lying for months.
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> cc wrote:
>
>> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but what can
>> you do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected myself, but that won't
>> stop Snit from harping on it.
>
> He already has. :-D
cc screwed up by showing I was right: he admitted that I was right about it
> cc wrote:
>
>> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but what can
>> you do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected myself, but that won't
>> stop Snit from harping on it.
>
> He already has. :-D
being me who posted the data that went back to 2007, about him not having
posted his work where he came up with his "outliers" results - though he has
agreed to do so by tomorrow - we shall see how that goes, he made it clear
he did not know what an inflection point is and cannot identify even the
approximate location of one by site, and he made it clear he could not name
the step I missed in making a linear trend line (because I missed no steps).
In other words, he could not show a single point from my .sig where I am
wrong... though if he can produce the Excel workbook tomorrow, as he said,
*and* if it shows what he claims to have found, then he will have refuted
the top two points.
He also showed that his "best case" against Onion Knight and myself was to
say that Onion Knight posts anonymously (something that is not in contention
but is not relevant) and that Onion Knight knows some of the history of my
stalker (many do... and Onion Knight has written about this), and Onion
Knight called cc on his BS (though even with that, I believe Onion Knight
merely noted he was not supporting his claims... I could be wrong, but I do
not believe Onion Knight ever claimed to know much about the topic, and on
the Skype he made it clear he did not).
And, yes, after months of cc lying about me I shall feel free to speak of
these things... he made it very clear he has been lying for months.
Snit
Aug 26, 2012, 1:04:02 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/12 6:29 AM, in article
1ade7c82-4e63-4ed4...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
*you* cannot think of anything he could have said to convince you otherwise.
In other words, you already had your mind made up and evidence was not going
to change your opinion.
> Not only that, he's general answer about stalkers doesn't hold up. When Onion
> Knight first posted in the thread, he wasn't saying anything about stalkers,
> or harrassment. He responded that he hasn't been following the conversation,
> but that Snit was right and the trendline was accurate.
I do not believe that is correct - I think he was simply noting how you
never backed up your claims. He made it clear online and on Skype that he
was not well versed in the area. But if you think I am wrong about this
show the posts. For once in your life at least *try* to support your
claims.
> Yet Onion Knight could not even say anything to that effect.
So he repeated what he said online and did not make claims other than
that... and this you hold against him. And me. That is just bizarre.
> He didn't mention anything about crossposting questions to other groups for
> answers, or any of the hundreds of posts he made specifically about that
> topic. He stuck to "stalker." I tried to get more out of him, but I didn't
> want to lead him into any answers.
He did not mention anything about the stats group he wrote to where they
also spoke of you being wrong. OK. So?
> But maybe he just didn't understand what I was asking? Well after that brief
> conversation what do you hear on the audio? You hear me talking for 30+
> minutes. Now why is that? Well one reason is that Snit is so fucking
> incompetent that he didn't record himself.
Where is your recording? The idea was we were both supposed to record it so
there could be no monkey play?
Yes, I goofed and did not hit the right checkbox... guilty as charged. Your
excuse for having no recording at all?
> Not to mention that we had to start over since he didn't record anyone for the
> first couple of minutes. What a "radio show"! But also conspicuously absent is
> Onion Knight. He just sat there. So we were discussing a topic he posted on
> for over a month straight, one where he actively participated in and even
> cross posted to other groups, and all of sudden it's like he has no idea what
> Snit and I are talking about. He couldn't even muster an, "I agree with you
> Snit." He had no idea what we were talking about, because he is not the same
> person who posts as Onion Knight. So maybe I could have done more, but it was
> obvious he was just some poor schlub who Snit gave some buzzwords to so why
> harrass the guy?
Ah, so he did not jump in and speak *again* about his dishonest and lost you
have been... and you are holding that against him. And me. Yeah, that
makes sense. LOL!
>> In this case it does sound like Onion Knight is a different person.
>
> Different person from the previous recording? I thought so, but like I said,
> I'm no authority.
It is the same person - or at least someone with the same Skype ID and the
same voice. I suppose he could have a twin with a very similar voice or
something. Sorta a stretch to make that claim though, eh?
> I saw some other posts about it being suspicious that Snit didn't get
> recorded. I don't know what kind of audio tricks can be done, or what effect
> his voice not being on there has when comparing it against the previous
> recording, but to me it's not suspicious, just idiocy. If he was doing
> everything himself and there really was no other person talking as "Onion
> Knight" I would be totally shocked. In my mind there's just no way he didn't
> have someone else there as Onion Knight.
Onion Knight was speaking as Onion Knight. What an amazing mystery!
And, hey, shouldn't you be working on finding that Excel file which fits
your claims? LOL!
>> You sound very professional CC and I'm impressed.
>
> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but what can you
> do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected myself, but that won't stop Snit
> from harping on it.
You merely made it clear that you could not refute a single point in the
.sig I had been using and that you had *no* reasonable evidence to back your
accusations against Onion Knight and I. When pushed for your "best
evidence" or "best case" all you could say was that he posts anonymously and
he called you out on your lack of support for your claims. Yeah, that
proves... nothing you wanted it to. And you at least admitted that.
But, hey, you also said you have proof my first two claims are wrong...
though bizarrely you cannot post it until Monday. LOL! Working hard to try
to "find" it... but if you do I did admit I would be eating some crow. I
wonder how many people you have helping you right now to try to create this
evidence that actually fits your past claims?
You will have it by tomorrow, right? You said you would... :)
--
When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having
no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone's design is
"obvious." -- Dan Frakes
1ade7c82-4e63-4ed4...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:48:29 PM UTC-4, Torre Starnes wrote:
>>
>> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at him.
>
> All I wanted want some specifics about the thread/topic he first started
> posting in/about, and he was unable to give any.
What type info were you looking for? I have asked you this repeatedly and
> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:48:29 PM UTC-4, Torre Starnes wrote:
>>
>> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at him.
>
> All I wanted want some specifics about the thread/topic he first started
> posting in/about, and he was unable to give any.
*you* cannot think of anything he could have said to convince you otherwise.
In other words, you already had your mind made up and evidence was not going
to change your opinion.
> Not only that, he's general answer about stalkers doesn't hold up. When Onion
> Knight first posted in the thread, he wasn't saying anything about stalkers,
> or harrassment. He responded that he hasn't been following the conversation,
> but that Snit was right and the trendline was accurate.
never backed up your claims. He made it clear online and on Skype that he
was not well versed in the area. But if you think I am wrong about this
show the posts. For once in your life at least *try* to support your
claims.
> Yet Onion Knight could not even say anything to that effect.
that... and this you hold against him. And me. That is just bizarre.
> He didn't mention anything about crossposting questions to other groups for
> answers, or any of the hundreds of posts he made specifically about that
> topic. He stuck to "stalker." I tried to get more out of him, but I didn't
> want to lead him into any answers.
also spoke of you being wrong. OK. So?
> But maybe he just didn't understand what I was asking? Well after that brief
> conversation what do you hear on the audio? You hear me talking for 30+
> minutes. Now why is that? Well one reason is that Snit is so fucking
> incompetent that he didn't record himself.
there could be no monkey play?
Yes, I goofed and did not hit the right checkbox... guilty as charged. Your
excuse for having no recording at all?
> Not to mention that we had to start over since he didn't record anyone for the
> first couple of minutes. What a "radio show"! But also conspicuously absent is
> Onion Knight. He just sat there. So we were discussing a topic he posted on
> for over a month straight, one where he actively participated in and even
> cross posted to other groups, and all of sudden it's like he has no idea what
> Snit and I are talking about. He couldn't even muster an, "I agree with you
> Snit." He had no idea what we were talking about, because he is not the same
> person who posts as Onion Knight. So maybe I could have done more, but it was
> obvious he was just some poor schlub who Snit gave some buzzwords to so why
> harrass the guy?
have been... and you are holding that against him. And me. Yeah, that
makes sense. LOL!
>> In this case it does sound like Onion Knight is a different person.
>
> Different person from the previous recording? I thought so, but like I said,
> I'm no authority.
same voice. I suppose he could have a twin with a very similar voice or
something. Sorta a stretch to make that claim though, eh?
> I saw some other posts about it being suspicious that Snit didn't get
> recorded. I don't know what kind of audio tricks can be done, or what effect
> his voice not being on there has when comparing it against the previous
> recording, but to me it's not suspicious, just idiocy. If he was doing
> everything himself and there really was no other person talking as "Onion
> Knight" I would be totally shocked. In my mind there's just no way he didn't
> have someone else there as Onion Knight.
And, hey, shouldn't you be working on finding that Excel file which fits
your claims? LOL!
>> You sound very professional CC and I'm impressed.
>
> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but what can you
> do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected myself, but that won't stop Snit
> from harping on it.
.sig I had been using and that you had *no* reasonable evidence to back your
accusations against Onion Knight and I. When pushed for your "best
evidence" or "best case" all you could say was that he posts anonymously and
he called you out on your lack of support for your claims. Yeah, that
proves... nothing you wanted it to. And you at least admitted that.
But, hey, you also said you have proof my first two claims are wrong...
though bizarrely you cannot post it until Monday. LOL! Working hard to try
to "find" it... but if you do I did admit I would be eating some crow. I
wonder how many people you have helping you right now to try to create this
evidence that actually fits your past claims?
You will have it by tomorrow, right? You said you would... :)
--
When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having
no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone's design is
"obvious." -- Dan Frakes
cc
Aug 26, 2012, 1:32:19 PM8/26/12
to
On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Your excuse for having no recording at all?
"I feel no need to record it." - 13 Aug 2012
>
> Your excuse for having no recording at all?
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f663b365b51991c7?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
You knew all along I wasn't going to record it, so don't whine now.
cc
Aug 26, 2012, 1:36:56 PM8/26/12
to
On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
>
> What type info were you looking for?
Any! He offered up nothing.
> He made it clear online and on Skype that he was not
> well versed in the area.
Snit
Aug 26, 2012, 1:38:55 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/12 10:32 AM, in article
ebed9e26-aba4-4015...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
forgot to hit the right checkbox. I know the conspiracy theorists will
claim it was done on purpose - and that is a bit amusing - so it is not all
bad. :)
ebed9e26-aba4-4015...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Your excuse for having no recording at all?
>
> "I feel no need to record it." - 13 Aug 2012
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f663b365b51991c7?dm
> ode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
>
> You knew all along I wasn't going to record it, so don't whine now.
Forgot about that. I really wish you had. It is a bit embarrassing that I
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Your excuse for having no recording at all?
>
> "I feel no need to record it." - 13 Aug 2012
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f663b365b51991c7?dm
> ode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
>
> You knew all along I wasn't going to record it, so don't whine now.
forgot to hit the right checkbox. I know the conspiracy theorists will
claim it was done on purpose - and that is a bit amusing - so it is not all
bad. :)
Steve Carroll
Aug 26, 2012, 1:46:41 PM8/26/12
to
On Aug 26, 10:33 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/26/12 6:36 AM, in article he853wo9s8n6$....@sitting.at.this.computer,
lotto. LOL!
> On 8/26/12 6:36 AM, in article he853wo9s8n6$....@sitting.at.this.computer,
>
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > cc wrote:
>
> >> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but what can
> >> you do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected myself, but that won't
> >> stop Snit from harping on it.
>
> > He already has. :-D
>
> cc screwed up by showing I was right:
Blah, blah... anyone can see that you've been crowing like you won the
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > cc wrote:
>
> >> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but what can
> >> you do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected myself, but that won't
> >> stop Snit from harping on it.
>
> > He already has. :-D
>
> cc screwed up by showing I was right:
lotto. LOL!
Snit
Aug 26, 2012, 2:07:59 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/12 10:36 AM, in article
dc359e39-96eb-41bc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
have said that he did not.
>> He made it clear online and on Skype that he was not
>> well versed in the area.
>
> Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not well versed
> in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a stalker.
So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed in
statistics online. That is a good start. I will see if I can find a quote
for you later... it is 45 minutes long and I have not even listened to the
whole thing. If I am wrong and cannot find such a quote, though, I will
admit to it. I believe, however, he briefly spoke about it.
dc359e39-96eb-41bc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> What type info were you looking for?
>
> Any! He offered up nothing.
So you have no specifics. Got it. You cannot think of a thing he "should"
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> What type info were you looking for?
>
> Any! He offered up nothing.
have said that he did not.
>> He made it clear online and on Skype that he was not
>> well versed in the area.
>
> Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not well versed
> in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a stalker.
statistics online. That is a good start. I will see if I can find a quote
for you later... it is 45 minutes long and I have not even listened to the
whole thing. If I am wrong and cannot find such a quote, though, I will
admit to it. I believe, however, he briefly spoke about it.
Nobody
Aug 26, 2012, 2:14:42 PM8/26/12
to
On 08/26/2012 01:07 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/26/12 10:36 AM, in article
> dc359e39-96eb-41bc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> What type info were you looking for?
>>
>> Any! He offered up nothing.
>
> So you have no specifics. Got it. You cannot think of a thing he "should"
> have said that he did not.
>
>>> He made it clear online and on Skype that he was not
>>> well versed in the area.
>>
>> Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not well versed
>> in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a stalker.
>
> So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed in
> statistics online.
Point out where that acknowledgement appears above.
> On 8/26/12 10:36 AM, in article
> dc359e39-96eb-41bc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> What type info were you looking for?
>>
>> Any! He offered up nothing.
>
> So you have no specifics. Got it. You cannot think of a thing he "should"
> have said that he did not.
>
>>> He made it clear online and on Skype that he was not
>>> well versed in the area.
>>
>> Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not well versed
>> in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a stalker.
>
> So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed in
> statistics online.
Snit
Aug 26, 2012, 2:21:27 PM8/26/12
to
Nobody
Aug 26, 2012, 2:28:49 PM8/26/12
to
On 08/26/2012 01:21 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/26/12 11:14 AM, in article k1dp2j$g6n$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/26/2012 01:07 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 8/26/12 10:36 AM, in article
>>> dc359e39-96eb-41bc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What type info were you looking for?
>>>>
>>>> Any! He offered up nothing.
>>>
>>> So you have no specifics. Got it. You cannot think of a thing he "should"
>>> have said that he did not.
>>>
>>>>> He made it clear online and on Skype that he was not
>>>>> well versed in the area.
>>>>
>>>> Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not well versed
>>>> in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a stalker.
>>>
>>> So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed in
>>> statistics online.
>>
>> Point out where that acknowledgement appears above.
>>
> Above what?
You're a teacher? Such directions always mean above that sentence.
> On 8/26/12 11:14 AM, in article k1dp2j$g6n$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/26/2012 01:07 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 8/26/12 10:36 AM, in article
>>> dc359e39-96eb-41bc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What type info were you looking for?
>>>>
>>>> Any! He offered up nothing.
>>>
>>> So you have no specifics. Got it. You cannot think of a thing he "should"
>>> have said that he did not.
>>>
>>>>> He made it clear online and on Skype that he was not
>>>>> well versed in the area.
>>>>
>>>> Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not well versed
>>>> in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a stalker.
>>>
>>> So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed in
>>> statistics online.
>>
>> Point out where that acknowledgement appears above.
>>
> Above what?
Point out the place in cc's reply where he made the acknowledgement you
claim he did.
Steve Carroll
Aug 26, 2012, 2:22:12 PM8/26/12
to
On Aug 26, 12:07 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/26/12 10:36 AM, in article
> dc359e39-96eb-41bc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> On 8/26/12 10:36 AM, in article
> dc359e39-96eb-41bc...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> >> What type info were you looking for?
>
> > Any! He offered up nothing.
>
> So you have no specifics.
That's his point, gluehead, there were no specifics.
> > On Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:04:02 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> >> What type info were you looking for?
>
> > Any! He offered up nothing.
>
> So you have no specifics.
> Got it. You cannot think of a thing he "should"
> have said that he did not.
something to base his assessment of Onion Knight on. Now put your
crack pipe down.
> >> He made it clear online and on Skype that he was not
> >> well versed in the area.
>
> > Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not well versed
> > in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a stalker.
>
> So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed in
> statistics online. That is a good start.
the second?
> I will see if I can find a quote
> for you later... it is 45 minutes long and I have not even listened to the
> whole thing. If I am wrong and cannot find such a quote, though, I will
> admit to it. I believe, however, he briefly spoke about it.
half an hour was absurd to engage your delusions. I was thinking about
taking a listen to it but that's out. I didn't even figure it went the
full half hour.
cc
Aug 26, 2012, 2:31:58 PM8/26/12
to
On Sunday, August 26, 2012 2:07:59 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> So you have no specifics. Got it. You cannot think of a thing
> he "should" have said that he did not.
I already gave you a list. Anything about the stats threads he posted in, to confirm he was the person posting, would have done. He could have said what he found wrong with my trendline. Why he thought you were right. At one point in the thread he said he verified what you did; he could have discussed that. The fact that he cross-posted to other groups. Literally any content, no matter how small, from those posts he made would have done. Just mentioning what I just wrote, while not very detailed, would have shown he at least *knew* about the thread I was referring to.
>
> So you have no specifics. Got it. You cannot think of a thing
> he "should" have said that he did not.
Can we expect a recording where Onion Knight discusses the very list I just gave you now? Jesus, just give it up already. You've fooled no one.
> I will see if I can find a quote for you later... it is 45 minutes
> long and I have not even listened to the whole thing.
Tattoo Vampire
Aug 26, 2012, 2:39:24 PM8/26/12
to
Snit wrote:
> It is a bit embarrassing that I forgot to hit the right checkbox.
And just an unfortunate coincidence, too, given that you're such a stickler
> It is a bit embarrassing that I forgot to hit the right checkbox.
for detail. ;-)
--
Have a (cute) electrician check your shorts.
[tv]
Snit
Aug 26, 2012, 2:44:08 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/12 11:31 AM, in article
5d8da4b7-5607-4f20...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
And why when asked for your best evidence to back your BS you could only say
Onion Knight posts through TOR (though I am not even sure that is true) and
that he called you out on not backing your claims, which is an obvious truth
others have also called you out on.
> Can we expect a recording where Onion Knight discusses the very list I just
> gave you now? Jesus, just give it up already. You've fooled no one.
I never tried to fool anyone. Never said I was trying to, either. You made
that up. See: you lie when you should be trying to back your claims. I
note this... Onion Knight notes this... others note this. Does not mean we
are all the same person.
>> I will see if I can find a quote for you later... it is 45 minutes
>> long and I have not even listened to the whole thing.
>
> Well you can certainly skip the last 35 minutes where Onion Knight tuned out
> of the very subject he had written hundreds of pages of text on previously. He
> commented here in cola on the subject constantly for month, but now your
> excuse is that he is not well versed in the area so he couldn't speak about it
> on Skype?
The main focus was on the four points in my old .sig... the points you could
not show were wrong in any way.
Hey, you said you would send a file - then even said you sent it. Never got
it. Need help in using mediafire or a similar site? I mean it should be
trivial for you to prove you have this file... *MAKE ME EAT CROW*... I
welcome it and would celebrate you actually supporting your claim!
5d8da4b7-5607-4f20...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 2:07:59 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> So you have no specifics. Got it. You cannot think of a thing
>> he "should" have said that he did not.
>
> I already gave you a list. Anything about the stats threads he posted in, to
> confirm he was the person posting, would have done. He could have said what he
> found wrong with my trendline. Why he thought you were right. At one point in
> the thread he said he verified what you did; he could have discussed that. The
> fact that he cross-posted to other groups. Literally any content, no matter
> how small, from those posts he made would have done. Just mentioning what I
> just wrote, while not very detailed, would have shown he at least *knew* about
> the thread I was referring to.
Can you quote some of the things he said online you are in reference to?
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 2:07:59 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> So you have no specifics. Got it. You cannot think of a thing
>> he "should" have said that he did not.
>
> I already gave you a list. Anything about the stats threads he posted in, to
> confirm he was the person posting, would have done. He could have said what he
> found wrong with my trendline. Why he thought you were right. At one point in
> the thread he said he verified what you did; he could have discussed that. The
> fact that he cross-posted to other groups. Literally any content, no matter
> how small, from those posts he made would have done. Just mentioning what I
> just wrote, while not very detailed, would have shown he at least *knew* about
> the thread I was referring to.
And why when asked for your best evidence to back your BS you could only say
Onion Knight posts through TOR (though I am not even sure that is true) and
that he called you out on not backing your claims, which is an obvious truth
others have also called you out on.
> Can we expect a recording where Onion Knight discusses the very list I just
> gave you now? Jesus, just give it up already. You've fooled no one.
that up. See: you lie when you should be trying to back your claims. I
note this... Onion Knight notes this... others note this. Does not mean we
are all the same person.
>> I will see if I can find a quote for you later... it is 45 minutes
>> long and I have not even listened to the whole thing.
>
> Well you can certainly skip the last 35 minutes where Onion Knight tuned out
> of the very subject he had written hundreds of pages of text on previously. He
> commented here in cola on the subject constantly for month, but now your
> excuse is that he is not well versed in the area so he couldn't speak about it
> on Skype?
not show were wrong in any way.
Hey, you said you would send a file - then even said you sent it. Never got
it. Need help in using mediafire or a similar site? I mean it should be
trivial for you to prove you have this file... *MAKE ME EAT CROW*... I
welcome it and would celebrate you actually supporting your claim!
Snit
Aug 26, 2012, 2:45:09 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/12 11:28 AM, in article k1dpt2$i5r$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
So you are looking for something that nobody said existed? I did not say it
appears above... I noted it had been posted in the past.
You are a bit lost again.
appears above... I noted it had been posted in the past.
You are a bit lost again.
cc
Aug 26, 2012, 2:35:06 PM8/26/12
to
On Sunday, August 26, 2012 2:22:12 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> WHOA!!! LOL! This recording is 45 minutes long?!! And I thought
> a half an hour was absurd to engage your delusions. I was thinking
> about taking a listen to it but that's out. I didn't even figure
> it went the full half hour.
I'm surprised anyone would listen to it. As it was happening though, it didn't feel that long to me, surprisingly enough. I offered to stay on a little longer after Onion Knight left, even.
>
> WHOA!!! LOL! This recording is 45 minutes long?!! And I thought
> a half an hour was absurd to engage your delusions. I was thinking
> about taking a listen to it but that's out. I didn't even figure
> it went the full half hour.
Snit
Aug 26, 2012, 2:54:26 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/12 11:39 AM, in article omxyyk9p33h5$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
Here is the screen: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/record-audio.png>
All I had to do was make sure the second check box was selected and the
correct option set in the menu to its right. That is how I almost always
have it... but had set it otherwise for a project before and did not set
it... just hit "Record" and not "Configure Recording..." in this menu:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/record.png>.
But frankly my mistakes were worse than that: I forgot to even do that at
the very start of the Skype and told cc and Onion Knight that... so we
repeated the first minute or so (which was not recorded at all). So I
*should* have set up the recording and *then* initiated the Skype call (I am
the one who initiated it to both other parties). I goofed and did not start
the recording... and then in my haste did not check the configuration.
Completely my fault. And a silly error to make at that. No argument here.
But keep in mind, Onion Knight and I have both agreed to do yet *another*
Skype to shut people up (or, really, to see how delusional their claims will
be - at least I do not expect people to actually give up their claims, no
matter how heavily they are proved wrong). And if we do that, you better
believe I will not make the same mistake twice. :)
"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> It is a bit embarrassing that I forgot to hit the right checkbox.
>
> And just an unfortunate coincidence, too, given that you're such a stickler
> for detail. ;-)
I goofed. No doubt. And it is not like it would have been hard to do!
> Snit wrote:
>
>> It is a bit embarrassing that I forgot to hit the right checkbox.
>
> And just an unfortunate coincidence, too, given that you're such a stickler
> for detail. ;-)
Here is the screen: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/record-audio.png>
All I had to do was make sure the second check box was selected and the
correct option set in the menu to its right. That is how I almost always
have it... but had set it otherwise for a project before and did not set
it... just hit "Record" and not "Configure Recording..." in this menu:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/record.png>.
But frankly my mistakes were worse than that: I forgot to even do that at
the very start of the Skype and told cc and Onion Knight that... so we
repeated the first minute or so (which was not recorded at all). So I
*should* have set up the recording and *then* initiated the Skype call (I am
the one who initiated it to both other parties). I goofed and did not start
the recording... and then in my haste did not check the configuration.
Completely my fault. And a silly error to make at that. No argument here.
But keep in mind, Onion Knight and I have both agreed to do yet *another*
Skype to shut people up (or, really, to see how delusional their claims will
be - at least I do not expect people to actually give up their claims, no
matter how heavily they are proved wrong). And if we do that, you better
believe I will not make the same mistake twice. :)
Steve Carroll
Aug 26, 2012, 3:12:39 PM8/26/12
to
On Aug 26, 12:54 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/26/12 11:39 AM, in article omxyyk9p33h5$....@sitting.at.this.computer,
teacher" (who regularly uses apps like presentation software with
audio) talks sh*t about audio professionals, yet, he can't hit the
record button for something this simple ;)
> On 8/26/12 11:39 AM, in article omxyyk9p33h5$....@sitting.at.this.computer,
>
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> It is a bit embarrassing that I forgot to hit the right checkbox.
>
> > And just an unfortunate coincidence, too, given that you're such a stickler
> > for detail. ;-)
>
> I goofed. No doubt. And it is not like it would have been hard to do!
What's funniest to me is that a guy claiming to be an "IT
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> It is a bit embarrassing that I forgot to hit the right checkbox.
>
> > And just an unfortunate coincidence, too, given that you're such a stickler
> > for detail. ;-)
>
> I goofed. No doubt. And it is not like it would have been hard to do!
teacher" (who regularly uses apps like presentation software with
audio) talks sh*t about audio professionals, yet, he can't hit the
record button for something this simple ;)
Nobody
Aug 26, 2012, 3:26:59 PM8/26/12
to
well versed in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a
stalker."
Snit: "So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed
stalker."
in statistics online."
Point out the place in your sentence that notes it "had been posted in
the past."
> You are a bit lost again.
I'm not the one who has failed to comprehend a mere three sentences.
> You are a bit lost again.
Nobody
Aug 26, 2012, 3:30:05 PM8/26/12
to
On 08/26/2012 01:54 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/26/12 11:39 AM, in article omxyyk9p33h5$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
[..]
> On 8/26/12 11:39 AM, in article omxyyk9p33h5$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
> And if we do that, you better
> believe I will not make the same mistake twice. :)
Snit
Aug 26, 2012, 3:32:11 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/12 12:26 PM, in article k1dta4$pni$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
do not even believe he has posted?
Again: you are completely lost.
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
> cc: "Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not
> well versed in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a
> stalker."
>
> Snit: "So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed
> in statistics online."
>
> Point out the place in your sentence that notes it "had been posted in
> the past."
You expected that he did so in the future? Or maybe in this thread where I
> cc: "Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not
> well versed in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a
> stalker."
>
> Snit: "So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed
> in statistics online."
>
> Point out the place in your sentence that notes it "had been posted in
> the past."
do not even believe he has posted?
Again: you are completely lost.
Peter Köhlmann
Aug 26, 2012, 3:36:25 PM8/26/12
to
Snot Glasser will claim the most idiotic bullshit to wiggle out of the fact
that he screwed up again
Nobody
Aug 26, 2012, 3:41:47 PM8/26/12
to
On 08/26/2012 02:32 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/26/12 12:26 PM, in article k1dta4$pni$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> cc: "Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not
>> well versed in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a
>> stalker."
>>
>> Snit: "So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed
>> in statistics online."
>>
>> Point out the place in your sentence that notes it "had been posted in
>> the past."
>
> You expected that he did so in the future? Or maybe in this thread where I
> do not even believe he has posted?
>
> Again: you are completely lost.
You actually can't comprehend what a mere three sentences say? Why did
> On 8/26/12 12:26 PM, in article k1dta4$pni$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> cc: "Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not
>> well versed in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a
>> stalker."
>>
>> Snit: "So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed
>> in statistics online."
>>
>> Point out the place in your sentence that notes it "had been posted in
>> the past."
>
> You expected that he did so in the future? Or maybe in this thread where I
> do not even believe he has posted?
>
> Again: you are completely lost.
you snip away all the context? Why am I asking you anything? If
you're not completely insane, you're doing a hell of a job pretending to be.
Snit
Aug 26, 2012, 3:59:57 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/12 12:36 PM, in article k1dtul$vhd$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
<peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
...
-----
> Snot Glasser will claim the most idiotic bullshit to wiggle out of the fact
> that he screwed up again
Snit, titling a thread where he made a mistake:
-----
Skype done.... *I* screwed up
-----
Peter K�hlman, referencing the same mistake:
-----
LOL! So how long until Peter admits he "screwed up" with his incorrect
accusation?
<peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
...
> Maybe his "intuitive OSX software" got in the way?
Nope. Already went into quite some detail about how it was my fault:
-----
I goofed. No doubt. And it is not like it would have been
hard to do! Here is the screen:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/record-audio.png>
All I had to do was make sure the second check box was
selected and the correct option set in the menu to its right.
That is how I almost always have it... but had set it
otherwise for a project before and did not set it... just hit
"Record" and not "Configure Recording..." in this menu:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/record.png>.
But frankly my mistakes were worse than that: I forgot to
even do that at the very start of the Skype and told cc and
Onion Knight that... so we repeated the first minute or so
(which was not recorded at all). So I *should* have set up
the recording and *then* initiated the Skype call (I am the
one who initiated it to both other parties). I goofed and
did not start the recording... and then in my haste did not
check the configuration.
Completely my fault. And a silly error to make at that. No
argument here.
-----
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/record-audio.png>
All I had to do was make sure the second check box was
selected and the correct option set in the menu to its right.
That is how I almost always have it... but had set it
otherwise for a project before and did not set it... just hit
"Record" and not "Configure Recording..." in this menu:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/record.png>.
But frankly my mistakes were worse than that: I forgot to
even do that at the very start of the Skype and told cc and
Onion Knight that... so we repeated the first minute or so
(which was not recorded at all). So I *should* have set up
the recording and *then* initiated the Skype call (I am the
one who initiated it to both other parties). I goofed and
did not start the recording... and then in my haste did not
check the configuration.
Completely my fault. And a silly error to make at that. No
argument here.
> Snot Glasser will claim the most idiotic bullshit to wiggle out of the fact
> that he screwed up again
-----
Skype done.... *I* screwed up
-----
Peter K�hlman, referencing the same mistake:
-----
Snot Glasser will claim the most idiotic bullshit to wiggle out
of the fact that he screwed up again
-----
of the fact that he screwed up again
LOL! So how long until Peter admits he "screwed up" with his incorrect
accusation?
Snit
Aug 26, 2012, 4:00:28 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/12 12:41 PM, in article k1du5s$rfg$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
Boring trolling from you. Try harder next time.
Steve Carroll
Aug 26, 2012, 4:40:47 PM8/26/12
to
On Aug 26, 1:41 pm, Nobody <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 08/26/2012 02:32 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/26/12 12:26 PM, in article k1dta4$pn...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> On 08/26/2012 02:32 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >> cc: "Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not
> >> well versed in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a
> >> stalker."
>
> >> Snit: "So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed
> >> in statistics online."
>
> >> Point out the place in your sentence that notes it "had been posted in
> >> the past."
>
> > You expected that he did so in the future? Or maybe in this thread where I
> > do not even believe he has posted?
>
> > Again: you are completely lost.
>
> You actually can't comprehend what a mere three sentences say?
The context got in his way. This is a pretty good munging of context
>
> >> cc: "Give me the timestamp of the Skype chat where he said he was not
> >> well versed in this area, please. I only remember him whining about a
> >> stalker."
>
> >> Snit: "So you acknowledge that he made it clear he was not well versed
> >> in statistics online."
>
> >> Point out the place in your sentence that notes it "had been posted in
> >> the past."
>
> > You expected that he did so in the future? Or maybe in this thread where I
> > do not even believe he has posted?
>
> > Again: you are completely lost.
>
> You actually can't comprehend what a mere three sentences say?
by him. Here's a better one... trust me, you'll see it... but you
won't believe it... and it underscores why Snit 'thinks' like he
does ;)
Snit:
"Ah, the old game of pretending it matters to your credibility if you
are being incompetent or dishonest."
I can't get any further than that without the milk coming out my
nose ;) But it gets better...
Wally (of CSMA):
"What! You think that incompetence or dishonesty has no effect on
credibility?
ROTFLMAO! ..... *That* really does explain a whole lot about you
Snit! :)"
Snit (trying to pretend there is some 'magical' missing context where
his statement makes sense):
"Sigh... you just like playing idiotic semantic games. Re-read my
sentence and see if you can understand it."
Wally:
"Understand it as you do Snit? I pray that day never comes!
How's your "current reality" holding up? LOL"
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/075fc856b6ffea53
> Why did you snip away all the context?
> Why am I asking you anything? If
> you're not completely insane, you're doing a hell of a job pretending to be.
gag in history.
Nobody
Aug 26, 2012, 11:41:44 PM8/26/12
to
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 12:04:55 AM8/27/12
to
On 8/26/12 8:41 PM, in article k1eq9p$n2m$3...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
Look at the context: Wally was pretending it did not matter if he was being
incompetent *or* dishonest... he was clearly being one or the other. It did
not matter to me which - clearly he was not credible. The sad thing is,
years later, Carroll is still thinking about these quotes and trying to
understand what I was saying... but is still unable to show any
understanding.
Wally was, sincerely, completely incompetent... and Carroll used him as a
stooge. One example of how lost Wally was: for a test I posted utter
gibberish - the equivalent of Lorem Ipsum but based on management guides and
not ancient texts... but just a random arrangement of words and phrases that
had *no* overall meaning. Gibberish. Here is the proof:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
These are the types of people Carroll seeks out to manipulate and act as his
henchmen or stooges, as he calls such folks. He did the same with the weak
minded Tim Adams. Really repulsive for Carroll to seek out the dim witted
to back him... he does that to add to his socks who back him as well.
Since 2004 Carroll has been doing this and following me around harassing me.
It is far past time he stops.
incompetent *or* dishonest... he was clearly being one or the other. It did
not matter to me which - clearly he was not credible. The sad thing is,
years later, Carroll is still thinking about these quotes and trying to
understand what I was saying... but is still unable to show any
understanding.
Wally was, sincerely, completely incompetent... and Carroll used him as a
stooge. One example of how lost Wally was: for a test I posted utter
gibberish - the equivalent of Lorem Ipsum but based on management guides and
not ancient texts... but just a random arrangement of words and phrases that
had *no* overall meaning. Gibberish. Here is the proof:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
These are the types of people Carroll seeks out to manipulate and act as his
henchmen or stooges, as he calls such folks. He did the same with the weak
minded Tim Adams. Really repulsive for Carroll to seek out the dim witted
to back him... he does that to add to his socks who back him as well.
Since 2004 Carroll has been doing this and following me around harassing me.
It is far past time he stops.
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 12:11:41 AM8/27/12
to
On 8/26/12 8:41 PM, in article k1eq9p$n2m$3...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Snit:
>> "Ah, the old game of pretending it matters to your credibility if you
>> are being incompetent or dishonest."
If you are being incompetent it hurts your credibility.
>> "Ah, the old game of pretending it matters to your credibility if you
>> are being incompetent or dishonest."
If you are being dishonest it hurts your credibility.
The person I wrote this two was clearly being either incompetent or
dishonest... it did not matter which. This is obviously what I was speaking
about in context: <http://tinyurl.com/93coobm>
Once again my stalker snips a part of a conversation and tries to make it
seem as though I was meaning something other than what the obvious meaning
is, in context.
He is, as is his norm, lying. He cannot help himself.
Torre Starnes
Aug 27, 2012, 8:32:13 AM8/27/12
to
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 06:29:33 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:
> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:48:29 PM UTC-4, Torre Starnes
> wrote:
>>
>> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at
>> him.
>
> All I wanted want some specifics about the thread/topic he first
> started posting in/about, and he was unable to give any. Not only
> that, he's general answer about stalkers doesn't hold up. When
> Onion Knight first posted in the thread, he wasn't saying
> anything about stalkers, or harrassment. He responded that he
> hasn't been following the conversation, but that Snit was right
> and the trendline was accurate. Yet Onion Knight could not even
> say anything to that effect.
Precisely.
It's not the same person posting in COLA.
That was obvious from the start.
Someone who was deeply involved in the original threads was flumoxed
when asked for specifics about those threads.
>> In this case it does sound like Onion Knight is a different
>> person.
>
> Different person from the previous recording? I thought so, but
> like I said, I'm no authority. I saw some other posts about it
> being suspicious that Snit didn't get recorded. I don't know what
> kind of audio tricks can be done, or what effect his voice not
> being on there has when comparing it against the previous
> recording, but to me it's not suspicious, just idiocy. If he was
> doing everything himself and there really was no other person
> talking as "Onion Knight" I would be totally shocked. In my mind
> there's just no way he didn't have someone else there as Onion
> Knight.
Different from the person posting in COLA for certain.
Different FX used on both OK in Skype one and two.
Could be the same person using different processing, difficult to
tell.
Both recordings when dissected sound and measure very differently.
Again, maybe the technology.
It doesn't matter though because you exposed the fact that the Onion
Knight posting in COLA is not the same Onion Knight talking on the
Skype.
It's painfully obvious.
All the other suspicions just add further doubt to snit's claims.
>> You sound very professional CC and I'm impressed.
> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:48:29 PM UTC-4, Torre Starnes
> wrote:
>>
>> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at
>> him.
>
> All I wanted want some specifics about the thread/topic he first
> started posting in/about, and he was unable to give any. Not only
> that, he's general answer about stalkers doesn't hold up. When
> Onion Knight first posted in the thread, he wasn't saying
> anything about stalkers, or harrassment. He responded that he
> hasn't been following the conversation, but that Snit was right
> and the trendline was accurate. Yet Onion Knight could not even
> say anything to that effect.
Precisely.
It's not the same person posting in COLA.
That was obvious from the start.
Someone who was deeply involved in the original threads was flumoxed
when asked for specifics about those threads.
>> In this case it does sound like Onion Knight is a different
>> person.
>
> Different person from the previous recording? I thought so, but
> like I said, I'm no authority. I saw some other posts about it
> being suspicious that Snit didn't get recorded. I don't know what
> kind of audio tricks can be done, or what effect his voice not
> being on there has when comparing it against the previous
> recording, but to me it's not suspicious, just idiocy. If he was
> doing everything himself and there really was no other person
> talking as "Onion Knight" I would be totally shocked. In my mind
> there's just no way he didn't have someone else there as Onion
> Knight.
Different from the person posting in COLA for certain.
Different FX used on both OK in Skype one and two.
Could be the same person using different processing, difficult to
tell.
Both recordings when dissected sound and measure very differently.
Again, maybe the technology.
It doesn't matter though because you exposed the fact that the Onion
Knight posting in COLA is not the same Onion Knight talking on the
Skype.
It's painfully obvious.
All the other suspicions just add further doubt to snit's claims.
>> You sound very professional CC and I'm impressed.
>
> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but
> what can you do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected
> myself, but that won't stop Snit from harping on it.
It's a riot!
> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but
> what can you do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected
> myself, but that won't stop Snit from harping on it.
Torre Starnes
Aug 27, 2012, 8:37:09 AM8/27/12
to
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:35:06 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 2:22:12 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>> WHOA!!! LOL! This recording is 45 minutes long?!! And I thought
>> a half an hour was absurd to engage your delusions. I was thinking
>> about taking a listen to it but that's out. I didn't even figure
>> it went the full half hour.
>
> I'm surprised anyone would listen to it. As it was happening
> though, it didn't feel that long to me, surprisingly enough. I
> offered to stay on a little longer after Onion Knight left, even.
It wasn't boring listening to you peal the skin off the Onion.
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 2:22:12 PM UTC-4, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>> WHOA!!! LOL! This recording is 45 minutes long?!! And I thought
>> a half an hour was absurd to engage your delusions. I was thinking
>> about taking a listen to it but that's out. I didn't even figure
>> it went the full half hour.
>
> I'm surprised anyone would listen to it. As it was happening
> though, it didn't feel that long to me, surprisingly enough. I
> offered to stay on a little longer after Onion Knight left, even.
The statistics part is totally foreign to me though.
I made it through Statistics 101 using the cookbook method :)
At any rate, it was far more interesting than the tripe Slimeowitz
and his stooge Goblin put out.
cc
Aug 27, 2012, 8:29:16 AM8/27/12
to
On Monday, August 27, 2012 12:11:41 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Once again my stalker snips a part of a conversation and
> tries to make it seem as though I was meaning something other
> than what the obvious meaning is, in context.
Ironic.
>
> Once again my stalker snips a part of a conversation and
> tries to make it seem as though I was meaning something other
> than what the obvious meaning is, in context.
By the way, "Onion Knight" never said anything about not being well versed in what we were discussing. So no need to look for a timestamp because it doesn't exist. Just one more piece of info he could have mentioned, but didn't.
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 10:24:49 AM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 5:29 AM, in article
8c80ae45-8112-448e...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
But I do remember you said you would send me an Excel file by today. You
have now claimed to send it twice... but, gee, for some reason you cannot
figure out how to actually get it through email. So use a file sharing
service like mediafire.
Or send it to TomB.
But you will not - because it does not exist. I was 100% right about that.
8c80ae45-8112-448e...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 12:11:41 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Once again my stalker snips a part of a conversation and
>> tries to make it seem as though I was meaning something other
>> than what the obvious meaning is, in context.
>
> Ironic.
>
> By the way, "Onion Knight" never said anything about not being well versed in
> what we were discussing. So no need to look for a timestamp because it doesn't
> exist. Just one more piece of info he could have mentioned, but didn't.
I do not have the conversation memorized. OH NO!
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 12:11:41 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Once again my stalker snips a part of a conversation and
>> tries to make it seem as though I was meaning something other
>> than what the obvious meaning is, in context.
>
> Ironic.
>
> By the way, "Onion Knight" never said anything about not being well versed in
> what we were discussing. So no need to look for a timestamp because it doesn't
> exist. Just one more piece of info he could have mentioned, but didn't.
But I do remember you said you would send me an Excel file by today. You
have now claimed to send it twice... but, gee, for some reason you cannot
figure out how to actually get it through email. So use a file sharing
service like mediafire.
Or send it to TomB.
But you will not - because it does not exist. I was 100% right about that.
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 10:38:17 AM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 5:32 AM, in article 1kezetm1oy5t6.fv6434xngydq$.d...@40tude.net,
Median and Array (with different Z-score Tolerances):
* PDF: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
* Excel: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.xls>
Grubbs and Quartile:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
BoxPlot:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
Doing all I could to support cc's findings:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
And yet on the Skype cc claimed to not recall these files. He could not
speak about them. cc was flummoxed when asked for specifics about those
threads.
Can you name a single area where Onion Knight was as equally clueless?
>
>
>>> In this case it does sound like Onion Knight is a different
>>> person.
>>
>> Different person from the previous recording? I thought so, but
>> like I said, I'm no authority. I saw some other posts about it
>> being suspicious that Snit didn't get recorded. I don't know what
>> kind of audio tricks can be done, or what effect his voice not
>> being on there has when comparing it against the previous
>> recording, but to me it's not suspicious, just idiocy. If he was
>> doing everything himself and there really was no other person
>> talking as "Onion Knight" I would be totally shocked. In my mind
>> there's just no way he didn't have someone else there as Onion
>> Knight.
>
> Different from the person posting in COLA for certain.
> Different FX used on both OK in Skype one and two.
> Could be the same person using different processing, difficult to
> tell.
Easy to tell: he is the same person.
> Both recordings when dissected sound and measure very differently.
> Again, maybe the technology.
Before you were so sure, based on your incompetent or fictional expert.
Now you flip flop *again* and are not so sure!
> It doesn't matter though because you exposed the fact that the Onion
> Knight posting in COLA is not the same Onion Knight talking on the
> Skype.
>
> It's painfully obvious.
And yet you cannot find any evidence... and everything Onion Knight is
blamed of is *more* true of cc than of Onion Knight. Again, why did cc not
know of the files which were some of the key points for the debates? He
claimed to have no knowledge of them.
Onion Knight made no such gaffs. cc did.
> All the other suspicions just add further doubt to snit's claims.
>
>
>
>>> You sound very professional CC and I'm impressed.
>>
>> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but
>> what can you do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected
>> myself, but that won't stop Snit from harping on it.
>
> It's a riot!
>
"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 06:29:33 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:48:29 PM UTC-4, Torre Starnes
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at
>>> him.
>>
>> All I wanted want some specifics about the thread/topic he first
>> started posting in/about, and he was unable to give any. Not only
>> that, he's general answer about stalkers doesn't hold up. When
>> Onion Knight first posted in the thread, he wasn't saying
>> anything about stalkers, or harrassment. He responded that he
>> hasn't been following the conversation, but that Snit was right
>> and the trendline was accurate. Yet Onion Knight could not even
>> say anything to that effect.
>
> Precisely.
> It's not the same person posting in COLA.
> That was obvious from the start.
> Someone who was deeply involved in the original threads was flumoxed
> when asked for specifics about those threads.
Some things from the threads:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 06:29:33 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:48:29 PM UTC-4, Torre Starnes
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> He was unable to answer a single specific question you fired at
>>> him.
>>
>> All I wanted want some specifics about the thread/topic he first
>> started posting in/about, and he was unable to give any. Not only
>> that, he's general answer about stalkers doesn't hold up. When
>> Onion Knight first posted in the thread, he wasn't saying
>> anything about stalkers, or harrassment. He responded that he
>> hasn't been following the conversation, but that Snit was right
>> and the trendline was accurate. Yet Onion Knight could not even
>> say anything to that effect.
>
> Precisely.
> It's not the same person posting in COLA.
> That was obvious from the start.
> Someone who was deeply involved in the original threads was flumoxed
> when asked for specifics about those threads.
Median and Array (with different Z-score Tolerances):
* PDF: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
* Excel: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.xls>
Grubbs and Quartile:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
BoxPlot:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
Doing all I could to support cc's findings:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
And yet on the Skype cc claimed to not recall these files. He could not
speak about them. cc was flummoxed when asked for specifics about those
threads.
Can you name a single area where Onion Knight was as equally clueless?
>
>
>>> In this case it does sound like Onion Knight is a different
>>> person.
>>
>> Different person from the previous recording? I thought so, but
>> like I said, I'm no authority. I saw some other posts about it
>> being suspicious that Snit didn't get recorded. I don't know what
>> kind of audio tricks can be done, or what effect his voice not
>> being on there has when comparing it against the previous
>> recording, but to me it's not suspicious, just idiocy. If he was
>> doing everything himself and there really was no other person
>> talking as "Onion Knight" I would be totally shocked. In my mind
>> there's just no way he didn't have someone else there as Onion
>> Knight.
>
> Different from the person posting in COLA for certain.
> Different FX used on both OK in Skype one and two.
> Could be the same person using different processing, difficult to
> tell.
> Both recordings when dissected sound and measure very differently.
> Again, maybe the technology.
Now you flip flop *again* and are not so sure!
> It doesn't matter though because you exposed the fact that the Onion
> Knight posting in COLA is not the same Onion Knight talking on the
> Skype.
>
> It's painfully obvious.
blamed of is *more* true of cc than of Onion Knight. Again, why did cc not
know of the files which were some of the key points for the debates? He
claimed to have no knowledge of them.
Onion Knight made no such gaffs. cc did.
> All the other suspicions just add further doubt to snit's claims.
>
>
>
>>> You sound very professional CC and I'm impressed.
>>
>> Hah. Tattoo Vampire is right, it was all kind of childish, but
>> what can you do. I screwed up a couple of times, corrected
>> myself, but that won't stop Snit from harping on it.
>
> It's a riot!
>
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 10:45:51 AM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 5:37 AM, in article m7oo55j7q03w.o6vgxc93ekwb$.d...@40tude.net,
The statistics part was totally foreign to cc as well... to the point where
he suddenly could not recall having been shown these files:
Median and Array (with different Z-score Tolerances):
* PDF: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
* Excel: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.xls>
Grubbs and Quartile:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
BoxPlot:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
Doing all I could to support cc's findings:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
Then cc had the audacity to accuse Onion Knight of not knowing the
particulars of the discussion. Those files were key evidence proving cc to
be clueless and a liar... with him claiming that he would counter them with
an Excel file which, for some reason he cannot explain, oddly cannot be sent
via email and actually make it someone else (myself or TomB) and cannot be
uploaded to mediafire or any other similar service.
cc proved himself clueless and a liar. Again. He does that a lot.
he suddenly could not recall having been shown these files:
Median and Array (with different Z-score Tolerances):
* PDF: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
* Excel: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.xls>
Grubbs and Quartile:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
BoxPlot:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
Doing all I could to support cc's findings:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
particulars of the discussion. Those files were key evidence proving cc to
be clueless and a liar... with him claiming that he would counter them with
an Excel file which, for some reason he cannot explain, oddly cannot be sent
via email and actually make it someone else (myself or TomB) and cannot be
uploaded to mediafire or any other similar service.
cc proved himself clueless and a liar. Again. He does that a lot.
Steve Carroll
Aug 27, 2012, 11:02:11 AM8/27/12
to
On Aug 27, 8:38 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
(snip)
> ... and everything Onion Knight is blamed of is *more*
> true of cc than of Onion Knight.
Lied Snit as he conveniently forgets the kinds of disgusting, juvenile
lies Onion Knight has written to usenet. Do you ever tell the truth,
Snit? Ever? Do you even know how?
(snip)
> ... and everything Onion Knight is blamed of is *more*
> true of cc than of Onion Knight.
lies Onion Knight has written to usenet. Do you ever tell the truth,
Snit? Ever? Do you even know how?
Steve Carroll
Aug 27, 2012, 10:34:27 AM8/27/12
to
On Aug 27, 6:29 am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 12:11:41 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > Once again my stalker snips a part of a conversation and
> > tries to make it seem as though I was meaning something other
> > than what the obvious meaning is, in context.
>
LOL! No, Snit... your bogus *claim* about Wally "being incompetent
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 12:11:41 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> > Once again my stalker snips a part of a conversation and
> > tries to make it seem as though I was meaning something other
> > than what the obvious meaning is, in context.
>
*or* dishonest" aside, there is no magical context that saves you
here. Unless you really believe what you wrote (and there are good
reasons to think you do), what you probably meant was:
'Ah, the old game of pretending it matters 'not' to your credibility
if you are being incompetent or dishonest.'
This is the only kind of "pretending" that makes any sense with what
you're now trying (unsuccessfully) to argue. What you wrote was quite
different (missing the word "not"):
"Ah, the old game of pretending it matters to your credibility if you
are being incompetent or dishonest."
how context works... or when it can/can't help you ;)
IOW, I didn't take anything out of context... your reading
comprehension let you down... again.
> Ironic.
Really ;)
> By the way, "Onion Knight" never said anything about not being well versed in what we were discussing. So no need to look for a timestamp because it doesn't exist. Just one more piece of info he could have mentioned, but didn't.
*claiming* you didn't send (he makes a LOT of *claims*) and he'll try
to get as much mileage out of it as he can because he thinks it's a
weak point. Strange how an "IT teacher" can't operate simple
recordings, his own email account or grasp self contained context.
Onion Knight
Aug 27, 2012, 11:41:33 AM8/27/12
to
There is no doubt here that cc is lying yet again. He said he would provide this Excel file and he never will. It does not exist.
Come on cc why not make share your file and why not explain why you could not recall those files Snit showed you repeatedly? You blame me of not knowing the particulars of the discussion but can't name a single thing I got wrong. You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the particulars of the conversation.
Onion Knight
Aug 27, 2012, 11:42:40 AM8/27/12
to
Hadron
Aug 27, 2012, 11:44:35 AM8/27/12
to
Onion Knight <onionkn...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:45:51 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>> On 8/27/12 5:37 AM, in article m7oo55j7q03w.o6vgxc93ekwb$.d...@40tude.net,
>>
>> "Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
> He claimed to have sent it and you say you did not get it. To prove the file
> exists he just needs to upload it but he never will.
>
"but he never will".
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:45:51 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>> On 8/27/12 5:37 AM, in article m7oo55j7q03w.o6vgxc93ekwb$.d...@40tude.net,
>>
>> "Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
> He claimed to have sent it and you say you did not get it. To prove the file
> exists he just needs to upload it but he never will.
>
Give it up Snit.
--
A certain COLA "advocate" faking his user-agent in order to pretend to be a Linux
user: User-Agent: Outlook 5.5 (WinNT 5.0), User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0
(Linux), Message-ID: <wPGdnd3NnOM...@comcast.com>
Onion Knight
Aug 27, 2012, 11:44:26 AM8/27/12
to
On Sunday, August 26, 2012 12:59:57 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 8/26/12 12:36 PM, in article k1dtul$vhd$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
> Peter K�hlman, referencing the same mistake:
> On 8/26/12 12:36 PM, in article k1dtul$vhd$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
>
> -----
>
> Snot Glasser will claim the most idiotic bullshit to wiggle out
>
> of the fact that he screwed up again
>
> -----
>
>
>
> LOL! So how long until Peter admits he "screwed up" with his incorrect
>
> accusation?
He never will.
> -----
>
> Snot Glasser will claim the most idiotic bullshit to wiggle out
>
> of the fact that he screwed up again
>
> -----
>
>
>
> LOL! So how long until Peter admits he "screwed up" with his incorrect
>
> accusation?
Foster
Aug 27, 2012, 11:51:34 AM8/27/12
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:44:35 +0100, Hadron wrote:
> Onion Knight <onionkn...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:45:51 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>> On 8/27/12 5:37 AM, in article m7oo55j7q03w.o6vgxc93ekwb$.d...@40tude.net,
>>>
>>> "Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> He claimed to have sent it and you say you did not get it. To prove the file
>> exists he just needs to upload it but he never will.
>>
>
> "but he never will".
>
> Give it up Snit.
Hilarious.
> Onion Knight <onionkn...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:45:51 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>> On 8/27/12 5:37 AM, in article m7oo55j7q03w.o6vgxc93ekwb$.d...@40tude.net,
>>>
>>> "Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> He claimed to have sent it and you say you did not get it. To prove the file
>> exists he just needs to upload it but he never will.
>>
>
> "but he never will".
>
> Give it up Snit.
Snit is fooling himself only.
cc
Aug 27, 2012, 12:10:32 PM8/27/12
to
On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:41:33 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>
> You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the
> particulars of the conversation.
Weird how that accusation comes up now, but no one mentioned anything of the sort during the chat. For 30+ minutes I talked completely off topic? Odd that Snit didn't try to direct me back on topic (and he actually thanked me for participating and answering questions), and odder still that the "Onion Knight" chatting didn't have jack shit to say one way or another on this subject that he is not well versed in (at least according to Snit only), yet posted about for a solid month straight. Neither person said I was lost on the particulars of the discussion as we were having it, which would have been the ideal time to bring it up.
>
> You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the
> particulars of the conversation.
Are you saying the person talking as "cc" in the recording is different from the "cc" posting this message? Since that would be the implication based on the context of the discussion.
Foster
Aug 27, 2012, 12:32:32 PM8/27/12
to
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:41:33 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>> You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the
>> particulars of the conversation.
>
> Weird how that accusation comes up now, but no one mentioned
> anything of the sort during the chat. For 30+ minutes I talked
> completely off topic? Odd that Snit didn't try to direct me back
> on topic (and he actually thanked me for participating and
> answering questions), and odder still that the "Onion Knight"
> chatting didn't have jack shit to say one way or another on this
> subject that he is not well versed in (at least according to Snit
> only), yet posted about for a solid month straight. Neither
> person said I was lost on the particulars of the discussion as we
> were having it, which would have been the ideal time to bring it
> up.
That is correct.
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:41:33 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>> You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the
>> particulars of the conversation.
>
> Weird how that accusation comes up now, but no one mentioned
> anything of the sort during the chat. For 30+ minutes I talked
> completely off topic? Odd that Snit didn't try to direct me back
> on topic (and he actually thanked me for participating and
> answering questions), and odder still that the "Onion Knight"
> chatting didn't have jack shit to say one way or another on this
> subject that he is not well versed in (at least according to Snit
> only), yet posted about for a solid month straight. Neither
> person said I was lost on the particulars of the discussion as we
> were having it, which would have been the ideal time to bring it
> up.
He was totally flumoxed by your queries.
> Are you saying the person talking as "cc" in the recording is
> different from the "cc" posting this message? Since that would be
> the implication based on the context of the discussion.
Pretty similar.
Onion Knight
Aug 27, 2012, 12:40:15 PM8/27/12
to
Are you so fucked up you think you suddenly become credible if you can show you are incompetent or are you so fucked up you think you suddenly become credible if you can show you are dishonest?
At least this is from 2009 and not from 2004 like most of your crap is from. Still you have been waiting for 3 years to try to figure out what Snit was talking about and you still can't get it right. Fucking amazing.
> Wally was, sincerely, completely incompetent... and Carroll used him as a
>
> stooge. One example of how lost Wally was: for a test I posted utter
> gibberish - the equivalent of Lorem Ipsum but based on management guides and
>
> not ancient texts... but just a random arrangement of words and phrases that
>
> had *no* overall meaning. Gibberish. Here is the proof:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/coherent_gibberish.mov>
> These are the types of people Carroll seeks out to manipulate and act as his
>
> henchmen or stooges, as he calls such folks. He did the same with the weak
>
> minded Tim Adams. Really repulsive for Carroll to seek out the dim witted
>
> to back him... he does that to add to his socks who back him as well.
>
>
> Since 2004 Carroll has been doing this and following me around harassing me.
>
> It is far past time he stops.
>
I bet she has dumped his ass again which is why Steve is so bitter and angry these days. His wife goes off blowing pilots and he has to stay at home wacking off to porn, paying dollar whores and harassing you and others.
Wait he can't get a dollar whore because he does not even know what a dollar is. What a fucking nut job that ass hole is.
Steve Carroll
Aug 27, 2012, 12:52:16 PM8/27/12
to
On Aug 27, 9:44 am, Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:45:51 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> >> On 8/27/12 5:37 AM, in article m7oo55j7q03w.o6vgxc93ekwb$....@40tude.net,
> > On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:45:51 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>
> >> "Torre Starnes" <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
>
> > He claimed to have sent it and you say you did not get it. To prove the file
> > exists he just needs to upload it but he never will.
>
> "but he never will".
>
> Give it up Snit.
Said the guy who claims Snit doesn't lie ;)
> >> "Torre Starnes" <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
>
> > He claimed to have sent it and you say you did not get it. To prove the file
> > exists he just needs to upload it but he never will.
>
> "but he never will".
>
> Give it up Snit.
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 12:57:57 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 9:10 AM, in article
e8c90066-a04b-4281...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
them. Here they are, *again*:
Median and Array (with different Z-score Tolerances):
* PDF: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
* Excel: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.xls>
Grubbs and Quartile:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
BoxPlot:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
Doing all I could to support your findings:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
But you claimed to not recall those. Why not? How many times did I show
you those files? Why could you not recall them?
And you said you would provide me with you Excel file by today. Ok, you
claimed to have emailed it... but there is *no* evidence of that. So use
mediafire or the like.
But you will not. You will make excuses. You will never do it because the
file does not exist.
On the Skype, by the way, I did call you out on a point which you *should*
have known because you have been told repeatedly... I even made a video to
explain the concept to you: <http://youtu.be/MoW3hMq-eIc?hd=1>
And, yes, you finally figured out that there are only two inflection points,
but at first you thought there were *three* (or maybe even more, at one
point I think you said there were multiple per side... but I would have to
listen again).
So why were *you* so clueless about the conversation? These are specific
things you showed *no* recollection of, even though I repeated them many
times (Hardon even called me out on repeating them too many times - it got
absurd how many times you were told these things).
When asked what thinks Onion Knight could not recall you have listed
*nothing*. Not a thing. Now I am not going to say that neither he nor I
forgot some point or made some mistake, but we were nowhere near as clueless
about the conversation as you were.
And yet you have the audacity to accuse *him* of not knowing the
particulars. Why don't you explain why *you* did not know *any* of these
things? Maybe you were not the one posting under the cc handle at the time
- maybe it was my stalker? Makes a *lot* more sense than your accusations
against Onion Knight and I (not that I am saying you and my stalker are the
same person - you are just an idiot).
> For 30+ minutes I talked completely off topic? Odd that Snit didn't try to
> direct me back on topic (and he actually thanked me for participating and
> answering questions), and odder still that the "Onion Knight" chatting didn't
> have jack shit to say one way or another on this subject that he is not well
> versed in (at least according to Snit only), yet posted about for a solid
> month straight.
I have asked you to point to any post of his where he showed knowledge of
something he did not on the Skype. You have failed. Again: *you* are the
one who could not recall key parts of the idiotic debate - I am *very*
specific with that, above. You accuse Onion Knight of this but cannot name
a *single* thing.
> Neither person said I was lost on the particulars of the discussion as we were
> having it, which would have been the ideal time to bring it up.
I called you out on your lies multiple times.
> Are you saying the person talking as "cc" in the recording is different from
> the "cc" posting this message? Since that would be the implication based on
> the context of the discussion.
I am noting that what you are using as "evidence" against Onion Knight
applies *far* more to you than it does to him and you have *no* explanation
for it. No, I am not saying you are not the same person who posted on
Skype, I am *showing* how much of an idiot you are and how much of the
conversation you clearly have not understood.
Got it yet?
And one last reminder: it is Monday - the day you said you would provide
your Excel file. Not done yet. And it never will be. You have no such
file... none to back your claims.
You made it up. You were busted lying *again*. You get busted lying every
time you open your mouth.
e8c90066-a04b-4281...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:41:33 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>> You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the
>> particulars of the conversation.
>
> Weird how that accusation comes up now, but no one mentioned anything of the
> sort during the chat.
When asked about the files that proved you wrong you claimed to not recall
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:41:33 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>>
>> You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the
>> particulars of the conversation.
>
> Weird how that accusation comes up now, but no one mentioned anything of the
> sort during the chat.
them. Here they are, *again*:
Median and Array (with different Z-score Tolerances):
* PDF: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
* Excel: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.xls>
Grubbs and Quartile:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
BoxPlot:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
But you claimed to not recall those. Why not? How many times did I show
you those files? Why could you not recall them?
And you said you would provide me with you Excel file by today. Ok, you
claimed to have emailed it... but there is *no* evidence of that. So use
mediafire or the like.
But you will not. You will make excuses. You will never do it because the
file does not exist.
On the Skype, by the way, I did call you out on a point which you *should*
have known because you have been told repeatedly... I even made a video to
explain the concept to you: <http://youtu.be/MoW3hMq-eIc?hd=1>
And, yes, you finally figured out that there are only two inflection points,
but at first you thought there were *three* (or maybe even more, at one
point I think you said there were multiple per side... but I would have to
listen again).
So why were *you* so clueless about the conversation? These are specific
things you showed *no* recollection of, even though I repeated them many
times (Hardon even called me out on repeating them too many times - it got
absurd how many times you were told these things).
When asked what thinks Onion Knight could not recall you have listed
*nothing*. Not a thing. Now I am not going to say that neither he nor I
forgot some point or made some mistake, but we were nowhere near as clueless
about the conversation as you were.
And yet you have the audacity to accuse *him* of not knowing the
particulars. Why don't you explain why *you* did not know *any* of these
things? Maybe you were not the one posting under the cc handle at the time
- maybe it was my stalker? Makes a *lot* more sense than your accusations
against Onion Knight and I (not that I am saying you and my stalker are the
same person - you are just an idiot).
> For 30+ minutes I talked completely off topic? Odd that Snit didn't try to
> direct me back on topic (and he actually thanked me for participating and
> answering questions), and odder still that the "Onion Knight" chatting didn't
> have jack shit to say one way or another on this subject that he is not well
> versed in (at least according to Snit only), yet posted about for a solid
> month straight.
something he did not on the Skype. You have failed. Again: *you* are the
one who could not recall key parts of the idiotic debate - I am *very*
specific with that, above. You accuse Onion Knight of this but cannot name
a *single* thing.
> Neither person said I was lost on the particulars of the discussion as we were
> having it, which would have been the ideal time to bring it up.
> Are you saying the person talking as "cc" in the recording is different from
> the "cc" posting this message? Since that would be the implication based on
> the context of the discussion.
applies *far* more to you than it does to him and you have *no* explanation
for it. No, I am not saying you are not the same person who posted on
Skype, I am *showing* how much of an idiot you are and how much of the
conversation you clearly have not understood.
Got it yet?
And one last reminder: it is Monday - the day you said you would provide
your Excel file. Not done yet. And it never will be. You have no such
file... none to back your claims.
You made it up. You were busted lying *again*. You get busted lying every
time you open your mouth.
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 1:10:23 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 9:32 AM, in article i5q9i5s8ysow$.1d0v0n5y8o4nf$.d...@40tude.net,
was completely lost:
Median and Array (with different Z-score Tolerances):
* PDF: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
* Excel: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.xls>
Grubbs and Quartile:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
BoxPlot:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
Doing all I could to support cc's findings:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
A video explaining inflection points:
* <http://youtu.be/MoW3hMq-eIc?hd=1>
On the Skype cc had *no* knowledge of any of those... even though I
repeatedly gave him links to them and discussed those with him.
So what is your explanation for why he was so "flummoxed"? And, again, be
specific as to what Onion Knight showed ignorance of... as I have done with
cc.
>> Are you saying the person talking as "cc" in the recording is
>> different from the "cc" posting this message? Since that would be
>> the implication based on the context of the discussion.
>
> You post like you speak.
> Pretty similar.
Oh, I am not really saying cc and my stalker are the same person - I am
noting that the accusations being thrown at Onion Knight apply *much* more
to cc than they do to him. Much, much more.
But neither you nor he will *ever* explain why cc was so ignorant about
those things.
Also, where is cc's Excel file? He has claimed to provide it... but it is
nowhere to be found. It does not exist. If it did he would upload it to
mediafire or the like and not just *claim* to have emailed it to me but have
*nothing* to support that.
I say it does not exist. I say if he can show the Excel file and if it
shows what he claimed to find I will be eating crow. And cc would chew his
left arm off to *finally* prove me wrong. And yet he cannot provide this
Excel file - the very one he said he would?
How do you explain that? To be clear, the things that should be explained:
Questions about the Skype call between cc, Onion Knight, and myself:
1) Why did cc have no recollection of the "outliers" files I showed him?
2) Why did cc have no recollection of the standard deviation video?
3) Why can't cc provide the Excel file he gave his word he would share?
I think that will be my new .sig. :)
"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:
>
>> On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:41:33 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>>>
>>> You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the
>>> particulars of the conversation.
>>
>> Weird how that accusation comes up now, but no one mentioned
>> anything of the sort during the chat. For 30+ minutes I talked
>> completely off topic? Odd that Snit didn't try to direct me back
>> on topic (and he actually thanked me for participating and
>> answering questions), and odder still that the "Onion Knight"
>> chatting didn't have jack shit to say one way or another on this
>> subject that he is not well versed in (at least according to Snit
>> only), yet posted about for a solid month straight. Neither
>> person said I was lost on the particulars of the discussion as we
>> were having it, which would have been the ideal time to bring it
>> up.
>
> That is correct.
> He was totally flumoxed by your queries.
Such as? I keep asking for specifics. I can give specifics as to where cc
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:
>
>> On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:41:33 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>>>
>>> You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the
>>> particulars of the conversation.
>>
>> Weird how that accusation comes up now, but no one mentioned
>> anything of the sort during the chat. For 30+ minutes I talked
>> completely off topic? Odd that Snit didn't try to direct me back
>> on topic (and he actually thanked me for participating and
>> answering questions), and odder still that the "Onion Knight"
>> chatting didn't have jack shit to say one way or another on this
>> subject that he is not well versed in (at least according to Snit
>> only), yet posted about for a solid month straight. Neither
>> person said I was lost on the particulars of the discussion as we
>> were having it, which would have been the ideal time to bring it
>> up.
>
> That is correct.
> He was totally flumoxed by your queries.
was completely lost:
Median and Array (with different Z-score Tolerances):
* PDF: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.pdf>
* Excel: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/median_and_array.xls>
Grubbs and Quartile:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Grubbs-Quartile_Nov2007-May2012.pdf>
BoxPlot:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BoxPlot.pdf>
Doing all I could to support cc's findings:
* <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/long-term-trend.pdf>
* <http://youtu.be/MoW3hMq-eIc?hd=1>
On the Skype cc had *no* knowledge of any of those... even though I
repeatedly gave him links to them and discussed those with him.
So what is your explanation for why he was so "flummoxed"? And, again, be
specific as to what Onion Knight showed ignorance of... as I have done with
cc.
>> Are you saying the person talking as "cc" in the recording is
>> different from the "cc" posting this message? Since that would be
>> the implication based on the context of the discussion.
>
> You post like you speak.
> Pretty similar.
noting that the accusations being thrown at Onion Knight apply *much* more
to cc than they do to him. Much, much more.
But neither you nor he will *ever* explain why cc was so ignorant about
those things.
Also, where is cc's Excel file? He has claimed to provide it... but it is
nowhere to be found. It does not exist. If it did he would upload it to
mediafire or the like and not just *claim* to have emailed it to me but have
*nothing* to support that.
I say it does not exist. I say if he can show the Excel file and if it
shows what he claimed to find I will be eating crow. And cc would chew his
left arm off to *finally* prove me wrong. And yet he cannot provide this
Excel file - the very one he said he would?
How do you explain that? To be clear, the things that should be explained:
Questions about the Skype call between cc, Onion Knight, and myself:
1) Why did cc have no recollection of the "outliers" files I showed him?
2) Why did cc have no recollection of the standard deviation video?
3) Why can't cc provide the Excel file he gave his word he would share?
I think that will be my new .sig. :)
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 1:11:16 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 8:44 AM, in article
d58438a8-5b1f-4114...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
--
d58438a8-5b1f-4114...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
<onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Snit, titling a thread where he made a mistake:
>> -----
>> Skype done.... *I* screwed up
>> -----
>>
>> Peter K�hlman, referencing the same mistake:
>> Snit, titling a thread where he made a mistake:
>> -----
>> Skype done.... *I* screwed up
>> -----
>>
>> -----
>> Snot Glasser will claim the most idiotic bullshit to wiggle out
>> of the fact that he screwed up again
>> -----
>>
>> LOL! So how long until Peter admits he "screwed up" with his incorrect
>> accusation?
>
> He never will.
Of course not. Peter K�hlmann is completely incompetent and dishonest.
>> Snot Glasser will claim the most idiotic bullshit to wiggle out
>> of the fact that he screwed up again
>> -----
>>
>> LOL! So how long until Peter admits he "screwed up" with his incorrect
>> accusation?
>
> He never will.
--
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 1:13:41 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 8:51 AM, in article lwqmd8ilyqfc.4cdbiljaamwp$.d...@40tude.net,
I am not trying to fool anyone. I would like to see you try to answer the
questions from my .sig.
So far nobody can.
questions from my .sig.
So far nobody can.
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 1:14:48 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 8:44 AM, in article yz1uisi...@news.eternal-september.org,
in my .sig.
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Onion Knight <onionkn...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:45:51 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>> On 8/27/12 5:37 AM, in article m7oo55j7q03w.o6vgxc93ekwb$.d...@40tude.net,
>>>
>>> "Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> He claimed to have sent it and you say you did not get it. To prove the file
>> exists he just needs to upload it but he never will.
>>
>
> "but he never will".
>
> Give it up Snit.
He never will. Period. Nor will he or anyone answer the questions listed
> Onion Knight <onionkn...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Monday, August 27, 2012 7:45:51 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>>> On 8/27/12 5:37 AM, in article m7oo55j7q03w.o6vgxc93ekwb$.d...@40tude.net,
>>>
>>> "Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> He claimed to have sent it and you say you did not get it. To prove the file
>> exists he just needs to upload it but he never will.
>>
>
> "but he never will".
>
> Give it up Snit.
in my .sig.
Steve Carroll
Aug 27, 2012, 12:50:36 PM8/27/12
to
On Aug 27, 10:40 am, Onion Knight <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 9:04:55 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> > On 8/26/12 8:41 PM, in article k1eq9p$n2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 9:04:55 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
>
> > >>> Why did you snip away all the context?
>
> > >> What? You thought I was kidding when I said it got in his way? ;)
>
> > >>> Why am I asking you anything? If
>
> > >>> you're not completely insane, you're doing a hell of a job pretending to be.
>
> > >> If he's pretending we should call Guniness as it's the longest running
>
> > >> gag in history.
>
> > > Thanks for sharing. Those quotes are hilarious. :-)
>
> > Look at the context: Wally was pretending it did not matter if he was being
>
> > incompetent *or* dishonest... he was clearly being one or the other. It did
>
> > not matter to me which - clearly he was not credible. The sad thing is,
>
> > years later, Carroll is still thinking about these quotes and trying to
>
> > understand what I was saying... but is still unable to show any
>
> > understanding.
>
> Steve is a fucking obsessive idiot.
Why are all your socks/shills as stupid as you are, Snit (and in the
> > >>> Why did you snip away all the context?
>
> > >> What? You thought I was kidding when I said it got in his way? ;)
>
> > >>> Why am I asking you anything? If
>
> > >>> you're not completely insane, you're doing a hell of a job pretending to be.
>
> > >> If he's pretending we should call Guniness as it's the longest running
>
> > >> gag in history.
>
> > > Thanks for sharing. Those quotes are hilarious. :-)
>
> > Look at the context: Wally was pretending it did not matter if he was being
>
> > incompetent *or* dishonest... he was clearly being one or the other. It did
>
> > not matter to me which - clearly he was not credible. The sad thing is,
>
> > years later, Carroll is still thinking about these quotes and trying to
>
> > understand what I was saying... but is still unable to show any
>
> > understanding.
>
> Steve is a fucking obsessive idiot.
*exact* same way)? Don't you realize that if you vary the degree and
kinds of stupidity they're less likely to be spotted as socks/shills?
For all the years you've been doing this it's nothing short of amazing
that you can't grasp this despite being told it numerous times.
> Are you so fucked up you think you suddenly become credible if you can show you are incompetent
> or are you so fucked up you think you suddenly become credible if you can show you are dishonest?
People aren't as stupid as you need them to be... sorry... they just
aren't.
> > Wally was, sincerely, completely incompetent... and Carroll used him as a
>
> > stooge. One example of how lost Wally was: for a test I posted utter
>
> I was in CSMA at that time.
> Wally was mentally retarded.
You say this, yet, you are the guy who has scores and scores of people
making that claim about you, Snit. LOL!
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 1:17:58 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 8:41 AM, in article
28d587a5-52db-49c3...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
28d587a5-52db-49c3...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
<onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good point. Why didn't cc recall any of those files? Where is his Excel
> file? He claimed to have sent it and you say you did not get it. To prove
> the file exists he just needs to upload it but he never will.
>
> There is no doubt here that cc is lying yet again. He said he would provide
> this Excel file and he never will. It does not exist.
>
> Come on cc why not make share your file and why not explain why you could not
> recall those files Snit showed you repeatedly? You blame me of not knowing
> the particulars of the discussion but can't name a single thing I got wrong.
> You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the particulars of the
> conversation.
He will *never* answer the questions in my .sig. Not will anyone else.
> Good point. Why didn't cc recall any of those files? Where is his Excel
> file? He claimed to have sent it and you say you did not get it. To prove
> the file exists he just needs to upload it but he never will.
>
> There is no doubt here that cc is lying yet again. He said he would provide
> this Excel file and he never will. It does not exist.
>
> Come on cc why not make share your file and why not explain why you could not
> recall those files Snit showed you repeatedly? You blame me of not knowing
> the particulars of the discussion but can't name a single thing I got wrong.
> You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the particulars of the
> conversation.
Steve Carroll
Aug 27, 2012, 1:22:36 PM8/27/12
to
On Aug 27, 10:10 am, cc <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:41:33 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>
> > You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the
> > particulars of the conversation.
>
> Weird how that accusation comes up now
It's actually not weird for Snit, in fact, it's to be expected from
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:41:33 AM UTC-4, Onion Knight wrote:
>
> > You clearly were fucking lost when it came to the
> > particulars of the conversation.
>
> Weird how that accusation comes up now
him. I can point to similar things that he indicated were settled only
to see him subsequently troll with it later. Snit has no honor at all,
there is not a decent, honest bone in his body. Realistically, you
will probably never run across anyone as dishonorable, disingenuous
and deceitful as he is in your entire life.
Steve Carroll
Aug 27, 2012, 1:39:46 PM8/27/12
to
On Aug 27, 11:11 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/27/12 8:44 AM, in article
> d58438a8-5b1f-4114...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Snit, titling a thread where he made a mistake:
> >> -----
> >> Skype done.... *I* screwed up
> >> -----
>
> >> Peter K hlman, referencing the same mistake:
> >> -----
> >> Snot Glasser will claim the most idiotic bullshit to wiggle out
> >> of the fact that he screwed up again
> >> -----
>
> >> LOL! So how long until Peter admits he "screwed up" with his incorrect
> >> accusation?
>
> > He never will.
>
> Of course not. Peter K hlmann is completely incompetent and dishonest.
Just curious, Snit... do you even realize how many people you have
> On 8/27/12 8:44 AM, in article
> d58438a8-5b1f-4114...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <onionknight...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Snit, titling a thread where he made a mistake:
> >> -----
> >> Skype done.... *I* screwed up
> >> -----
>
> >> Peter K hlman, referencing the same mistake:
> >> -----
> >> Snot Glasser will claim the most idiotic bullshit to wiggle out
> >> of the fact that he screwed up again
> >> -----
>
> >> LOL! So how long until Peter admits he "screwed up" with his incorrect
> >> accusation?
>
> > He never will.
>
> Of course not. Peter K hlmann is completely incompetent and dishonest.
labeled as these things? Perhaps a "list" (your favorite thing) is in
order to give you a little perspective. How is it possible that damn
near everyone you've come into contact with on usenet is "dishonest",
"incompetent", "unprofessional", etc.? If true, this would be a rather
incredible phenomena, wouldn't you say? Or does your tiny, little
brain not process obvious things like this?
Nobody
Aug 27, 2012, 3:27:45 PM8/27/12
to
On 08/27/2012 12:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Aug 27, 11:11 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/27/12 8:44 AM, in article
>> d58438a8-5b1f-4114...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>>
[...]
> On Aug 27, 11:11 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/27/12 8:44 AM, in article
>> d58438a8-5b1f-4114...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>>
>
> Just curious, Snit... do you even realize how many people you have
> labeled as these things? Perhaps a "list" (your favorite thing) is in
> order to give you a little perspective. How is it possible that damn
> near everyone you've come into contact with on usenet is "dishonest",
> "incompetent", "unprofessional", etc.? If true, this would be a rather
> incredible phenomena, wouldn't you say? Or does your tiny, little
> brain not process obvious things like this?
The answer is obvious: the world is crazy. Snit is the only sane one.
> Just curious, Snit... do you even realize how many people you have
> labeled as these things? Perhaps a "list" (your favorite thing) is in
> order to give you a little perspective. How is it possible that damn
> near everyone you've come into contact with on usenet is "dishonest",
> "incompetent", "unprofessional", etc.? If true, this would be a rather
> incredible phenomena, wouldn't you say? Or does your tiny, little
> brain not process obvious things like this?
:-D
Steve Carroll
Aug 27, 2012, 4:30:31 PM8/27/12
to
reasoned discussions. I am honest which makes me a rare "breed" in
CSMA and COLA." - Snit
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/2c88a281c8489fe7
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 4:53:02 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 12:27 PM, in article k1ghnh$p6h$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
Steve is lying about me. Heck, ask him to point to the posts from
non-advocacy groups he followed me to as he harassed me there.
The results were *very* different than in the advocacy groups. And ask him
why he never follows me into moderated groups even though he reads what I
write there.
He knows he is harassing me. Period.
non-advocacy groups he followed me to as he harassed me there.
The results were *very* different than in the advocacy groups. And ask him
why he never follows me into moderated groups even though he reads what I
write there.
He knows he is harassing me. Period.
Nobody
Aug 27, 2012, 5:04:11 PM8/27/12
to
On 08/27/2012 03:53 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/27/12 12:27 PM, in article k1ghnh$p6h$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/27/2012 12:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Aug 27, 11:11 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/27/12 8:44 AM, in article
>>>> d58438a8-5b1f-4114...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Just curious, Snit... do you even realize how many people you have
>>> labeled as these things? Perhaps a "list" (your favorite thing) is in
>>> order to give you a little perspective. How is it possible that damn
>>> near everyone you've come into contact with on usenet is "dishonest",
>>> "incompetent", "unprofessional", etc.? If true, this would be a rather
>>> incredible phenomena, wouldn't you say? Or does your tiny, little
>>> brain not process obvious things like this?
>>
>> The answer is obvious: the world is crazy. Snit is the only sane one.
>>
>> :-D
>>
> Steve is lying about me. Heck, ask him to point to the posts from
> non-advocacy groups he followed me to as he harassed me there.
>
> The results were *very* different than in the advocacy groups. And ask him
> why he never follows me into moderated groups even though he reads what I
> write there.
>
> He knows he is harassing me. Period.
How did you come by the opinion I'm stupid enough to believe a word of
> On 8/27/12 12:27 PM, in article k1ghnh$p6h$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/27/2012 12:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Aug 27, 11:11 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/27/12 8:44 AM, in article
>>>> d58438a8-5b1f-4114...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Just curious, Snit... do you even realize how many people you have
>>> labeled as these things? Perhaps a "list" (your favorite thing) is in
>>> order to give you a little perspective. How is it possible that damn
>>> near everyone you've come into contact with on usenet is "dishonest",
>>> "incompetent", "unprofessional", etc.? If true, this would be a rather
>>> incredible phenomena, wouldn't you say? Or does your tiny, little
>>> brain not process obvious things like this?
>>
>> The answer is obvious: the world is crazy. Snit is the only sane one.
>>
>> :-D
>>
> Steve is lying about me. Heck, ask him to point to the posts from
> non-advocacy groups he followed me to as he harassed me there.
>
> The results were *very* different than in the advocacy groups. And ask him
> why he never follows me into moderated groups even though he reads what I
> write there.
>
> He knows he is harassing me. Period.
that? I've had my own dealings with you. I know first hand what you
do. My own experience with you supports Steve's observations and
quotes of you.
Steve Carroll
Aug 27, 2012, 5:09:13 PM8/27/12
to
On Aug 27, 2:53 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/27/12 12:27 PM, in article k1ghnh$p6...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
all the work for *your* delusions?
> The results were *very* different than in the advocacy groups. And ask him
> why he never follows me into moderated groups even though he reads what I
> write there.
WTF are you babbling about now?
> He knows he is harassing me. Period.
You ask for proof of your "wrongs"... I give it to you. Period.
> On 8/27/12 12:27 PM, in article k1ghnh$p6...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 08/27/2012 12:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> On Aug 27, 11:11 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> On 8/27/12 8:44 AM, in article
> >>> d58438a8-5b1f-4114...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>
> > [...]
>
> >> Just curious, Snit... do you even realize how many people you have
> >> labeled as these things? Perhaps a "list" (your favorite thing) is in
> >> order to give you a little perspective. How is it possible that damn
> >> near everyone you've come into contact with on usenet is "dishonest",
> >> "incompetent", "unprofessional", etc.? If true, this would be a rather
> >> incredible phenomena, wouldn't you say? Or does your tiny, little
> >> brain not process obvious things like this?
>
> > The answer is obvious: the world is crazy. Snit is the only sane one.
>
> > :-D
>
> Steve is lying about me. Heck, ask him to point to the posts from
> non-advocacy groups he followed me to as he harassed me there.
Why aren't *you* pointing to them? Why do you feel everyone should do
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 08/27/2012 12:39 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> On Aug 27, 11:11 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> On 8/27/12 8:44 AM, in article
> >>> d58438a8-5b1f-4114...@googlegroups.com, "Onion Knight"
>
> > [...]
>
> >> Just curious, Snit... do you even realize how many people you have
> >> labeled as these things? Perhaps a "list" (your favorite thing) is in
> >> order to give you a little perspective. How is it possible that damn
> >> near everyone you've come into contact with on usenet is "dishonest",
> >> "incompetent", "unprofessional", etc.? If true, this would be a rather
> >> incredible phenomena, wouldn't you say? Or does your tiny, little
> >> brain not process obvious things like this?
>
> > The answer is obvious: the world is crazy. Snit is the only sane one.
>
> > :-D
>
> Steve is lying about me. Heck, ask him to point to the posts from
> non-advocacy groups he followed me to as he harassed me there.
all the work for *your* delusions?
> The results were *very* different than in the advocacy groups. And ask him
> why he never follows me into moderated groups even though he reads what I
> write there.
> He knows he is harassing me. Period.
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 5:27:14 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 2:04 PM, in article k1gncd$6pq$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
Yawn. If that were the case you could point to examples. You cannot.
Hence you are lying.
Hence you are lying.
Nobody
Aug 27, 2012, 5:36:36 PM8/27/12
to
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 5:40:49 PM8/27/12
to
On 8/27/12 2:36 PM, in article k1gp95$adj$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
...
fool people. I just remain honest and largely open... and in a cesspool
like COLA people assume others are like them... so with me they hunt and dig
to try to find the "lies" and get very frustrated when they cannot find
them.
Look at you: seething and going into convulsions as you try to find a single
example of my doing as you accuse. You cannot find one. Quite telling.
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
...
>>> How did you come by the opinion I'm stupid enough to believe a word of
>>> that? I've had my own dealings with you. I know first hand what you
>>> do. My own experience with you supports Steve's observations and
>>> quotes of you.
>>>
>> Yawn. If that were the case you could point to examples. You cannot.
>> Hence you are lying.
>
> You really expect that game to fool anybody?
>
You seem obsessed with the idea of fooling people. Not I. I do not try to
>>> that? I've had my own dealings with you. I know first hand what you
>>> do. My own experience with you supports Steve's observations and
>>> quotes of you.
>>>
>> Yawn. If that were the case you could point to examples. You cannot.
>> Hence you are lying.
>
> You really expect that game to fool anybody?
>
fool people. I just remain honest and largely open... and in a cesspool
like COLA people assume others are like them... so with me they hunt and dig
to try to find the "lies" and get very frustrated when they cannot find
them.
Look at you: seething and going into convulsions as you try to find a single
example of my doing as you accuse. You cannot find one. Quite telling.
Steve Carroll
Aug 27, 2012, 5:51:38 PM8/27/12
to
On Aug 27, 3:40 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/27/12 2:36 PM, in article k1gp95$ad...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
stop: Stalker!
;)
> On 8/27/12 2:36 PM, in article k1gp95$ad...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>
> <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...>>> How did you come by the opinion I'm stupid enough to believe a word of
> >>> that? I've had my own dealings with you. I know first hand what you
> >>> do. My own experience with you supports Steve's observations and
> >>> quotes of you.
>
> >> Yawn. If that were the case you could point to examples. You cannot.
> >> Hence you are lying.
>
> > You really expect that game to fool anybody?
>
> You seem obsessed
Uh oh... you've been labeled obsessed by the Obsession King... next
> <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...>>> How did you come by the opinion I'm stupid enough to believe a word of
> >>> that? I've had my own dealings with you. I know first hand what you
> >>> do. My own experience with you supports Steve's observations and
> >>> quotes of you.
>
> >> Yawn. If that were the case you could point to examples. You cannot.
> >> Hence you are lying.
>
> > You really expect that game to fool anybody?
>
> You seem obsessed
stop: Stalker!
;)
Nobody
Aug 27, 2012, 5:53:00 PM8/27/12
to
On 08/27/2012 04:40 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/27/12 2:36 PM, in article k1gp95$adj$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> How did you come by the opinion I'm stupid enough to believe a word of
>>>> that? I've had my own dealings with you. I know first hand what you
>>>> do. My own experience with you supports Steve's observations and
>>>> quotes of you.
>>>>
>>> Yawn. If that were the case you could point to examples. You cannot.
>>> Hence you are lying.
>>
>> You really expect that game to fool anybody?
>>
> You seem obsessed with the idea of fooling people. Not I. I do not try to
> fool people. I just remain honest and largely open... and in a cesspool
> like COLA people assume others are like them... so with me they hunt and dig
> to try to find the "lies" and get very frustrated when they cannot find
> them.
>
> Look at you: seething and going into convulsions as you try to find a single
> example of my doing as you accuse. You cannot find one. Quite telling.
That's the longest "yes" I've ever seen!
> On 8/27/12 2:36 PM, in article k1gp95$adj$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> How did you come by the opinion I'm stupid enough to believe a word of
>>>> that? I've had my own dealings with you. I know first hand what you
>>>> do. My own experience with you supports Steve's observations and
>>>> quotes of you.
>>>>
>>> Yawn. If that were the case you could point to examples. You cannot.
>>> Hence you are lying.
>>
>> You really expect that game to fool anybody?
>>
> You seem obsessed with the idea of fooling people. Not I. I do not try to
> fool people. I just remain honest and largely open... and in a cesspool
> like COLA people assume others are like them... so with me they hunt and dig
> to try to find the "lies" and get very frustrated when they cannot find
> them.
>
> Look at you: seething and going into convulsions as you try to find a single
> example of my doing as you accuse. You cannot find one. Quite telling.
LOL
Snit
Aug 27, 2012, 6:03:48 PM8/27/12
to
William Poaster
Aug 27, 2012, 6:28:34 PM8/27/12
to
to have Snit binned..
--
Linux. The Malicious Software Removal
tool which wipes Windows from your PC in
seconds!
Gates: Spam To Be Canned By 2006
"Two years from now, spam will be solved,"
he told a select group of World Economic
Forum participants in 2004.
William Poaster
Aug 27, 2012, 6:47:54 PM8/27/12
to
> :-D
--
Linux -- the Ultimate Windows Service Pack!
This is Linux country. On a quiet night, you can hear NT re-boot.
"Microsoft is to quality software what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking"
0 new messages