COLA Filters Update: Sunday the 30th of September, 2012.

[Homer]

This is an automatically generated and published archive of the filters
used by the Leafnode server which hosts the COLA Stats Engine - updated
on Sunday the 30th of September, 2012.

http://slated.org/files/COLA-filters-20120930.tar.bz2

The data contained in this archive is dedicated to the Public Domain.

A script to produce rudimentary filters for Thunderbird, based on this,
is also available here:

http://slated.org/files/maketbfilters.sh.bz2

--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 34 days | ~ V for Vendetta.

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 1:00 AM, in article apalj9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"

<use...@slated.org> wrote:

> This is an automatically generated and published archive of the filters
> used by the Leafnode server which hosts the COLA Stats Engine - updated
> on Sunday the 30th of September, 2012.
>
> http://slated.org/files/COLA-filters-20120930.tar.bz2
>
> The data contained in this archive is dedicated to the Public Domain.
>
> A script to produce rudimentary filters for Thunderbird, based on this,
> is also available here:
>
> http://slated.org/files/maketbfilters.sh.bz2

Wow... when you block yourself off *that* much, what is left in COLA? 2
posts a month... maybe?

LOL!


--
<http://goo.gl/uFKQS>
15 points Foster and his farm of loonies will *always* run from... and
absolute proof they know their accusations are false.

[Adam Gansefoort]

Snit wrote:
> On 9/30/12 1:00 AM, in article apalj9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>
>> This is an automatically generated and published archive of the
>> filters used by the Leafnode server which hosts the COLA Stats
>> Engine - updated on Sunday the 30th of September, 2012.
>>
>> http://slated.org/files/COLA-filters-20120930.tar.bz2
>>
>> The data contained in this archive is dedicated to the Public Domain.
>>
>> A script to produce rudimentary filters for Thunderbird, based on
>> this, is also available here:
>>
>> http://slated.org/files/maketbfilters.sh.bz2
>
> Wow... when you block yourself off *that* much, what is left in COLA?
> 2 posts a month... maybe?
>
> LOL!

If they allow Onion Knight 1002 a month... maybe?

LOL!

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Snit belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On 9/30/12 1:00 AM, in article apalj9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>
>> This is an automatically generated and published archive of the filters
>> used by the Leafnode server which hosts the COLA Stats Engine - updated
>> on Sunday the 30th of September, 2012.
>>
>> http://slated.org/files/COLA-filters-20120930.tar.bz2
>>
>> The data contained in this archive is dedicated to the Public Domain.
>>
>> A script to produce rudimentary filters for Thunderbird, based on this,
>> is also available here:
>>
>> http://slated.org/files/maketbfilters.sh.bz2
>
> Wow... when you block yourself off *that* much, what is left in COLA? 2
> posts a month... maybe?
>
> LOL!

No. No LOL.

The amount of garbage that Snit and the other trolls emit is sickening.

It's the destruction of a Linux news group by a gang of thugs, pariahs,
yahoos, assholes, and mentally-ill screwballs.

It's disgusting.

--
Ok, who are you? Clearly a clueless fool and a nym shift from one of
Roy's fluffers. If his website was not compromised then please ask Roy
what he was doing with his 1000s of files the past 2 days.
-- "Hadron", http://www.techreplies.com/computer-security-27/warning-roy-schestowitz-spreading-virusses-his-608017-2/

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 9:24 AM, in article k49rle$cun$2...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"

<ad...@cyberbully.com> wrote:

> After swilling some grog, Snit belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 9/30/12 1:00 AM, in article apalj9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This is an automatically generated and published archive of the filters
>>> used by the Leafnode server which hosts the COLA Stats Engine - updated
>>> on Sunday the 30th of September, 2012.
>>>
>>> http://slated.org/files/COLA-filters-20120930.tar.bz2
>>>
>>> The data contained in this archive is dedicated to the Public Domain.
>>>
>>> A script to produce rudimentary filters for Thunderbird, based on this,
>>> is also available here:
>>>
>>> http://slated.org/files/maketbfilters.sh.bz2
>>
>> Wow... when you block yourself off *that* much, what is left in COLA? 2
>> posts a month... maybe?
>>
>> LOL!
>
> No. No LOL.
>
> The amount of garbage that Snit and the other trolls emit is sickening.
>
> It's the destruction of a Linux news group by a gang of thugs, pariahs,
> yahoos, assholes, and mentally-ill screwballs.
>
> It's disgusting.

Poor you... the lies your herd spews get buried in the noise. Must be
horrible for you.

[Hadron]

Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:

> After swilling some grog, Snit belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 9/30/12 1:00 AM, in article apalj9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This is an automatically generated and published archive of the filters
>>> used by the Leafnode server which hosts the COLA Stats Engine - updated
>>> on Sunday the 30th of September, 2012.
>>>
>>> http://slated.org/files/COLA-filters-20120930.tar.bz2
>>>
>>> The data contained in this archive is dedicated to the Public Domain.
>>>
>>> A script to produce rudimentary filters for Thunderbird, based on this,
>>> is also available here:
>>>
>>> http://slated.org/files/maketbfilters.sh.bz2
>>
>> Wow... when you block yourself off *that* much, what is left in COLA? 2
>> posts a month... maybe?
>>
>> LOL!
>
> No. No LOL.
>
> The amount of garbage that Snit and the other trolls emit is sickening.
>
> It's the destruction of a Linux news group by a gang of thugs, pariahs,
> yahoos, assholes, and mentally-ill screwballs.
>
> It's disgusting.

Whats disgusting is you sucking up to chrisv and calling open source
contributors "fuckheads and cunts" in a pique of showing off and
currying favor with the other nutjob "advocates" who inhabit this
cesspit.

--
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>

[DFS]

On 9/30/2012 12:24 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Snit belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 9/30/12 1:00 AM, in article apalj9-...@sky.matrix, "Homer"
>> <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This is an automatically generated and published archive of the filters
>>> used by the Leafnode server which hosts the COLA Stats Engine - updated
>>> on Sunday the 30th of September, 2012.
>>>
>>> http://slated.org/files/COLA-filters-20120930.tar.bz2
>>>
>>> The data contained in this archive is dedicated to the Public Domain.
>>>
>>> A script to produce rudimentary filters for Thunderbird, based on this,
>>> is also available here:
>>>
>>> http://slated.org/files/maketbfilters.sh.bz2
>>
>> Wow... when you block yourself off *that* much, what is left in COLA? 2
>> posts a month... maybe?
>>
>> LOL!
>
> No. No LOL.
>
> The amount of garbage that Snit and the other trolls emit is sickening.
>
> It's the destruction of a Linux news group by a gang of thugs, pariahs,
> yahoos, assholes, and mentally-ill screwballs.
>
> It's disgusting.

No doubt it is: Here's 17 days of turdv's cola posts in June 2012:

"stupid, morons and assholes, fucking moron, true stupidity, puerile
assholery, worthless POS, evil bastards, trolling assholes, jackass,
dumb bastard, Wintroll circle-jerk, trolls are filthy, lying piece of
shit, piece of shit, POS, POS, what an *asshole*, fucking *assholes*,
shitty and dishonest Linux-haters, prick shit-canned, filthy lying
*asshole*, shit-brained arsehole, *stupidity* of epic proportions,
stupid* pile of shit, *jackass*, too God-damned *stupid*, trolling
shitwits, *stupid*, assholery, brain-damaged fucktard, piece of shit,
drooling retard/liar, drooling retard/liar, stupid piece of shit wannabe
dictators, jackass, clueless and lying idiot, ignorant ass, Stupid
fuckwit!, You stepped in your own shit, fuckwitted asshole, extremely
shitty, lying asshole, trolling fuckwit, you *stupid* asshole, POS,
asshole, shitty dishonesty, piece of shit, asshole, fuckwit, fuckwit,
lying fuckwit, you POS, you stupid piece of shit, couple of dishonest
little shits, a disease infesting the planet, POS and liar, fucktard
trolls, Windows-loving asshole, shitty, filthy Wintroll, bald-faced
liar, you piece of shit liar, shitty, useless Linux-haters, you stupid
piece of shit, piece of shit, Utterly worthless liar, filthy Win troll,
lying pieces of shit, fricken jackass, worthless lying POS jackass,
shamelessly lying POS, worthless, shit-brained asshole, POS liar, the
filthy liar, evil selfish bastards, fucking idiot, fucking *stupid*,
ignorant, spews garbage, jackass, idiot asshole, piece of shit, stupid
POS, trolling fuckwit, POS, lies his ass off, vile thing, shitty, liar,
ignorant lying piece of shit, vile bastard asshole liar, fucking *liar*,
worthless, shameless jackass, shitty, piece of shit liar, shameless
jackass, filthy lying assholes, jackass, cram it up your ass, asshole,
POS, filthy, immoral, dogshit brains, shitty little freedom-hating
dictator wannabee, fucking idiot, piece of shit, stupid, ignorant,
shameless asshole. Linux-hating pieces of shit, fucking, shit, shitty,
shitty, shitty, selfish assholes, shamelessly dishonest POS, vile lying
bastards, filthy liar, filthy fucks, fucking *assholes*, disgusting
scumbag, vile filthy mean, fuckwit, filthy fucking, liar, trolling
fuckwit, POS, filthy fuckwit, vile pukes, you shit, vile bastards,
filthy fuck, mentally-defective bigots disgusting freaks, piece of shit,
filthy lying bigot, shitty, filthy bigots, trolling fuckwit and shit,
vile bigot, fuckwit piece of shit disgusting freak"

[Hadron]

And Creepy Chris Ahlstrom posts here supporting the turd? It's simply
unbelievable. Is he simple?

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 9:47 AM, in article pupq53f...@news.eternal-september.org,

"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And Creepy Chris Ahlstrom posts here supporting the turd? It's simply
> unbelievable. Is he simple?

The herd protects their own.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 30, 10:41 am, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/2012 12:24 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > After swilling some grog, Snit belched this bit o' wisdom:
>

> >> On 9/30/12 1:00 AM, in article apalj9-8jl....@sky.matrix, "Homer"

But he's never nasty ;)

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 30, 9:57 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/12 9:47 AM, in article pupq53foes....@news.eternal-september.org,

>
> "Hadron" <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And Creepy Chris Ahlstrom posts here supporting the turd? It's simply
> > unbelievable. Is he simple?
>
> The herd protects their own.

The herd is you and Onion Knight and your other socks.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 30, 10:23 am, Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Snit belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 9/30/12 1:00 AM, in article apalj9-8jl....@sky.matrix, "Homer"

> > <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>
> >> This is an automatically generated and published archive of the filters
> >> used by the Leafnode server which hosts the COLA Stats Engine - updated
> >> on Sunday the 30th of September, 2012.
>
> >>http://slated.org/files/COLA-filters-20120930.tar.bz2
>
> >> The data contained in this archive is dedicated to the Public Domain.
>
> >> A script to produce rudimentary filters for Thunderbird, based on this,
> >> is also available here:
>
> >>http://slated.org/files/maketbfilters.sh.bz2
>
> > Wow... when you block yourself off *that* much, what is left in COLA?  2
> > posts a month... maybe?
>
> > LOL!
>
> No.  No LOL.
>
> The amount of garbage that Snit and the other trolls emit is sickening.

Well... Snit is a mentally deficient crank, no question there... but
he does bring up some good points. The main problem with him is that
he exhibits what most narcissistic, pathological liars do. Even so,
you can easily snip out *all* his BS and address his points if you
have an argument that counter his... I do this all the time. The other
trolls target you for a reason (*see below).

> It's the destruction of a Linux news group by a gang of thugs, pariahs,
> yahoos, assholes, and mentally-ill screwballs.
>
> It's disgusting.

Blah, blah... face it, you're not going to get rid of people that have
opinions about Linux that are at odds with your opinions. Your options
are:

1 - killfile what you don't want to see and ignore it

2 - killfile what you don't want to see and respond from behind a kill
filter

3 - * killfile what you claim you don't want to see and respond from
behind a kill filter

4 - figure out a way to engage them (TomB seems to do fine)

5 - start a moderated newsgroup

6 - go to an existing moderated newsgroup

You've chosen option 3 which , obviously, is the option that will make
you the biggest target. Perhaps that is your goal? I'd say, if you
want to be Snit Jr. then option 3 is the way to go. A couple of things
you should keep in mind:

1 -Despite what all the charters say we all know the advocacy
hierarchy on usenet was created to pen in trolls. You can argue all
day long about this but there is a ton of history that indicates this
is the case. No matter, anyway... as that's what advocacy newsgroups
do today.

2 - COLA, like it or not, isn't anyone's personal property or place to
hold a Linux Love Fest. You want that? Go create it.

[Torre Starnes]

Can't say about his other socks as I don't follow snit much except
when he piques my curiosity.

He's obviously obsessed with minutia while ignoring the big picture.

It's his way of rolling the snit circus into town and letting it
have an endless run on Broadway.

Take his Onion Knight sock for example.

The big picture is snit is Onion Knight in COLA.
That is without question when looking at the entire scam as a whole.

One can totally discount all the audio claims because nobody can
definitively say for sure, except of course snit and whomever else
he involved in his scam.

All that can be said is that the audio is edited and the voice of
Onion Knight is processed. And in a court of law that would cast
reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the entire affair.

It doesn't matter if it's snit or someone else or both.

So let's suppose for a moment both skypes are indeed 2 different
people. Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
different people. Snit and the person he claims is the Onion Knight
posting in COLA.

Let's just look at the context, not how it sounds.

So in the first skype Onion Knight really doesn't say much other
than stalker and being stalked and so forth so that's pretty generic
stuff and since the skype is very short and snit does most of the
talking, it really doesn't reveal anything much.

Now moving along to the second skype, we have Onion Knight unable to
answer a single specific question, or provide a single specific item
related to his own posts!!

Come on already folks.

Does anyone believe that this person suddenly got amnesia?

I don't think there is a single person in this group that cannot
provide some specific details about the postings between snit and
Onion Knight. Anything, something, even a small insignificant piece
of specific information would have sufficed.

This charade went on for a few minutes and CC gave Onion Knight
numerous opportunities to put something on the table.
He couldn't and he only barely muttered some other vague items after
the 2 bell sounds which no doubt was snit couching him.

So the conclusion, minus all the audio analysis except the bell
sounds, has to be, HAS TO BE, the Onion Knight on the Skype IS NOT
THE ONION KNIGHT POSTING IN COLA.

That's it in a nutshell.
It's the ONLY logical conclusion that can be reached.

Listen to a clip here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?m28y1l9f4our0p8

It's like someone who claims to have been at the WTC when they were
hit by planes on 9-11 and when asked about specifics keeps saying
over and over again "the buildings fell down".

Yea, well we all know that part......

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 10:48 AM, in article m2xop44aozsy.10...@40tude.net,

"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On Sep 30, 9:57 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/30/12 9:47 AM, in article pupq53foes....@news.eternal-september.org,
>>>
>>> "Hadron" <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> And Creepy Chris Ahlstrom posts here supporting the turd? It's simply
>>>> unbelievable. Is he simple?
>>>
>>> The herd protects their own.
>>
>> The herd is you and Onion Knight and your other socks.
>
> Can't say about his other socks as I don't follow snit much except
> when he piques my curiosity.
>
> He's obviously obsessed with minutia while ignoring the big picture.

What big picture do you think I have missed?

The big picture with your lies here is obvious: you made an accusation and
it has been proved false. You keep talking about it and making the same
accusations but you refuse to respond to the 15 points I showed which prove
your magic larynx transplant theory to be false.

In other words: you *know* your claims are baseless... but you have put in
so much energy into making the accusations you refuse to back down.

> It's his way of rolling the snit circus into town and letting it
> have an endless run on Broadway.

You lie about me. I respond. You blame me. Amazing.

> Take his Onion Knight sock for example.
>
> The big picture is snit is Onion Knight in COLA.
>
> That is without question when looking at the entire scam as a whole.

As noted: the evidence shows you do not believe this. If you did you would
not run from the proof you are wrong: <http://goo.gl/uFKQS>. For that
matter, you *admit* to it, below.

Not even you believe your BS.

> One can totally discount all the audio claims because nobody can
> definitively say for sure, except of course snit and whomever else
> he involved in his scam.

LOL! Now you are discounting the audio in your claim that in the audio
Onion Knight somehow used my voice (except when he did not, of course...
your magic larynx transplant theory).

> All that can be said is that the audio is edited and the voice of
> Onion Knight is processed.

If you consider Skype to be "processing" the audio, sure. But that is an
idiotic way of defining things.

...

> Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
> different people.

Correct - though you denied this for a *long* time. Good to see you admit
your claims have been complete rubbish.

> Snit and the person he claims is the Onion Knight
> posting in COLA.

There is no reason to doubt this.

...

> Does anyone believe that this person suddenly got amnesia?

As noted, cc was a *lot* less knowledgeable than was Onion Knight. This is
shown in the 15 points you refuse to discuss.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 30, 11:10 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/12 10:48 AM, in article m2xop44aozsy.10tkit59aj9oi....@40tude.net,

>
> "Torre Starnes" <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 30, 9:57 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> On 9/30/12 9:47 AM, in article pupq53foes....@news.eternal-september.org,
>
> >>> "Hadron" <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> And Creepy Chris Ahlstrom posts here supporting the turd? It's simply
> >>>> unbelievable. Is he simple?
>
> >>> The herd protects their own.
>
> >> The herd is you and Onion Knight and your other socks.
>
> > Can't say about his other socks as I don't follow snit much except
> > when he piques my curiosity.
>
> > He's obviously obsessed with minutia while ignoring the big picture.
>
> What big picture do you think I have missed?

That you are an idiot who thinks he is smarter than everyone else.

> The big picture with your lies here is obvious: you made an accusation and
> it has been proved false.  You keep talking about it and making the same
> accusations but you refuse to respond to the 15 points I showed which prove
> your magic larynx transplant theory to be false.

He never said a thing about a magic larynx. You are lying.

> In other words: you *know* your claims are baseless... but you have put in
> so much energy into making the accusations you refuse to back down.

Speaking for others again, Snit?

> > It's his way of rolling the snit circus into town and letting it
> > have an endless run on Broadway.
>
> You lie about me.  I respond.  You blame me.  Amazing.

Every thread you are in turns into a circus and you blame everyone
else. Poor victim Snit.

> > Take his Onion Knight sock for example.
>
> > The big picture is snit is Onion Knight in COLA.
>
> > That is without question when looking at the entire scam as a whole.
>
> As noted: the evidence shows you do not believe this.  If you did you would
> not run from the proof you are wrong: <http://goo.gl/uFKQS>.  For that
> matter, you *admit* to it, below.

Your link shows proof of nothing.

> Not even you believe your BS.

Not even you should speak for others.

> > One can totally discount all the audio claims because nobody can
> > definitively say for sure, except of course snit and whomever else
> > he involved in his scam.
>
> LOL!  Now you are discounting the audio in your claim that in the audio
> Onion Knight somehow used my voice (except when he did not, of course...
> your magic larynx transplant theory).

He said /if/ that was the case. The first recording is obviously
processed and he has shown that beyond any reasonable doubt.

> > All that can be said is that the audio is edited and the voice of
> > Onion Knight is processed.
>
> If you consider Skype to be "processing" the audio, sure.  But that is an
> idiotic way of defining things.

He has explained what type processing you did and how you screwed up
by not selecting the whole track.

> ...
>
> > Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
> > different people.
>
> Correct - though you denied this for a *long* time.  Good to see you admit
> your claims have been complete rubbish.

You snipped and ran, as you call it. Put his sentence back in
context.

> > Snit and the person he claims is the Onion Knight
> > posting in COLA.
>
> There is no reason to doubt this.

You claim it to be true. That is enough reason to doubt.

> ...
>
> > Does anyone believe that this person suddenly got amnesia?
>
> As noted, cc was a *lot* less knowledgeable than was Onion Knight.  This is
> shown in the 15 points you refuse to discuss.

No it is not no matter how many times you repeat that lie. People are
not as stupid as you need them to be.

[Steve Carroll]

Snit... cool it on the forgeries, it's beyond boring at this point.

[Torre Starnes]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:

> On Sep 30, 11:10 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/30/12 10:48 AM, in article m2xop44aozsy.10tkit59aj9oi....@40tude.net,
>>
>> "Torre Starnes" <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 10:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 30, 9:57 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/30/12 9:47 AM, in article pupq53foes....@news.eternal-september.org,
>>
>>>>> "Hadron" <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> And Creepy Chris Ahlstrom posts here supporting the turd? It's simply
>>>>>> unbelievable. Is he simple?
>>
>>>>> The herd protects their own.
>>
>>>> The herd is you and Onion Knight and your other socks.
>>
>>> Can't say about his other socks as I don't follow snit much except
>>> when he piques my curiosity.
>>
>>> He's obviously obsessed with minutia while ignoring the big picture.
>>
>> What big picture do you think I have missed?
>
> That you are an idiot who thinks he is smarter than everyone else.

Yep.
He picks and chooses what he replies to in order to twist what
people are saying.
He thinks others don't realize it.

Classic narcissism.

>> The big picture with your lies here is obvious: you made an accusation and
>> it has been proved false.  You keep talking about it and making the same
>> accusations but you refuse to respond to the 15 points I showed which prove
>> your magic larynx transplant theory to be false.
>
> He never said a thing about a magic larynx. You are lying.

That is correct.
I never said that.

Snit = Onion Knight said that.

I have addressed his points many times already but he just keeps
lying and lying.

>> In other words: you *know* your claims are baseless... but you have put in
>> so much energy into making the accusations you refuse to back down.
>
> Speaking for others again, Snit?

My claims have a hell of a lot more merit than his snit circus.
He offers ZERO PROOF to substantiate his claims.

>>> It's his way of rolling the snit circus into town and letting it
>>> have an endless run on Broadway.
>>
>> You lie about me.  I respond.  You blame me.  Amazing.
>
> Every thread you are in turns into a circus and you blame everyone
> else. Poor victim Snit.

Yep.
That's his method of getting attention.
I rarely feed him except when I want to either expose or tweak him,
which I am doing both of now.
So are you :)

>>> Take his Onion Knight sock for example.
>>
>>> The big picture is snit is Onion Knight in COLA.
>>
>>> That is without question when looking at the entire scam as a whole.
>>
>> As noted: the evidence shows you do not believe this.  If you did you would
>> not run from the proof you are wrong: <http://goo.gl/uFKQS>.  For that
>> matter, you *admit* to it, below.
>
> Your link shows proof of nothing.

That is correct except for the fact it shows that SNIT = ONION
KNIGHT, made the Larnyx comment, right here in fact.

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ff3c3579c77254e4?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

"I did not get a larynx replacement between the two Skype
conversations
and have no plans on getting one now. "

See how snit lies?

>> Not even you believe your BS.
>
> Not even you should speak for others.
>
>>> One can totally discount all the audio claims because nobody can
>>> definitively say for sure, except of course snit and whomever else
>>> he involved in his scam.
>>
>> LOL!  Now you are discounting the audio in your claim that in the audio
>> Onion Knight somehow used my voice (except when he did not, of course...
>> your magic larynx transplant theory).
>
> He said /if/ that was the case. The first recording is obviously
> processed and he has shown that beyond any reasonable doubt.

That is correct.

It's a hypothetical.

See how snit lies?

>>> All that can be said is that the audio is edited and the voice of
>>> Onion Knight is processed.
>>
>> If you consider Skype to be "processing" the audio, sure.  But that is an
>> idiotic way of defining things.
>
> He has explained what type processing you did and how you screwed up
> by not selecting the whole track.

Correct again.

Here is a simple video using Audacity.
What the person doesn't mention is that you can select all, or part
of the track and the FX will only be applied to the section
selected.

Now since the very start of Onion Knight's speech is what is
unprocessed, it's a pretty good bet that snit didn't swipe/select
the entire track and thus ended up with the very start of the track
unprocessed.

>> ...
>>
>>> Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
>>> different people.
>>
>> Correct - though you denied this for a *long* time.  Good to see you admit
>> your claims have been complete rubbish.
>
> You snipped and ran, as you call it. Put his sentence back in
> context.

Correct again.....
Snit LIES by snipping.

Here is the full statement:

"So let's suppose for a moment both skypes are indeed 2 different

people. Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
different people. Snit and the person he claims is the Onion Knight
posting in COLA. "

Why do you lie so much snit?

>>> Snit and the person he claims is the Onion Knight
>>> posting in COLA.
>>
>> There is no reason to doubt this.
>
> You claim it to be true. That is enough reason to doubt.

Also he snipped and runs again:

Here again is the entire statement in context:

"So let's suppose for a moment both skypes are indeed 2 different

people. Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
different people. Snit and the person he claims is the Onion Knight
posting in COLA. "

>> ...
>>
>>> Does anyone believe that this person suddenly got amnesia?
>>
>> As noted, cc was a *lot* less knowledgeable than was Onion Knight.  This is
>> shown in the 15 points you refuse to discuss.
>
> No it is not no matter how many times you repeat that lie. People are
> not as stupid as you need them to be.

It's not about CC at all.
Cc's identity is NOT in question.
We all believe he is a real, and different person than you and Onion
Knight.


This is just another example that you have uncovered Steve, of Snit
and his game of lies.

If this post doesn't convince people of what a fraud this guy snit
is, nothing will.

The snit circus has been officially closed by The Board of Health!

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 11:46 AM, in article 6lq07sfvk82h$.y4yncpm0...@40tude.net,

"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:

>> That you are an idiot who thinks he is smarter than everyone else.
>
> Yep.
> He picks and chooses what he replies to in order to twist what
> people are saying.
> He thinks others don't realize it.

So when are you going to stop "picking and choosing" and respond to the 15
points that proved you wrong?

<http://goo.gl/uFKQS>

And when you do "pick an choose" as you are doing, what do you think that
says about someone?

> Classic narcissism.

Yes - that was *your* claim about what *your* actions show.

With me the complaint is I do *not* pick and choose and respond to every
post where you lie about me... you know, your whining about your "circus"
you blame me for.

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 11:46 AM, in article 6lq07sfvk82h$.y4yncpm0...@40tude.net,
"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:

>>> The big picture with your lies here is obvious: you made an accusation and
>>> it has been proved false.  You keep talking about it and making the same
>>> accusations but you refuse to respond to the 15 points I showed which prove
>>> your magic larynx transplant theory to be false.
>>
>> He never said a thing about a magic larynx. You are lying.
>
> That is correct.
> I never said that.
>
> Snit = Onion Knight said that.
>
> I have addressed his points many times already but he just keeps
> lying and lying.

It is your claim (or was, you are changing your claims again recently) that
Onion Knight and I have the same voice in the first Skype but that his
voice, though not shown to be any different, is not the same as mine in the
second.

Where do you say I am misrepresenting your claims?

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 11:46 AM, in article 6lq07sfvk82h$.y4yncpm0...@40tude.net,
"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:

>>> so much energy into making the accusations you refuse to back down.
>>
>> Speaking for others again, Snit?
>
> My claims have a hell of a lot more merit than his snit circus.
> He offers ZERO PROOF to substantiate his claims.

If that were true you would not run from the 15 points that prove you wrong.

<http://goo.gl/uFKQS>

In those, by the way, I discuss the burden of proof - it is all on you. You
like to speak about "if this was a court case". Well, it is not - but if it
was you would have the obligation to back your ever changing accusations.

And you have not.

I am not obligated to do a thing... but I have anyway - I have proved you
wrong. Even you finally admitted:

-----

Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
different people.

-----

The exact opposite of what you have been claiming about Skype 1. In other
words, you finally admitted you were wrong.

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 11:46 AM, in article 6lq07sfvk82h$.y4yncpm0...@40tude.net,
"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:

>>> You lie about me.  I respond.  You blame me.  Amazing.
>>
>> Every thread you are in turns into a circus and you blame everyone
>> else. Poor victim Snit.
>
> Yep.
> That's his method of getting attention.
> I rarely feed him except when I want to either expose or tweak him,
> which I am doing both of now.
> So are you :)

I respond to your lies about me and you whine I am trying to get *your*
attention.

That is called irony. :)

[Hadron]

Chris Ahlstrom has described turd as "insightful and intelligent". I kid
you not.

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 11:46 AM, in article 6lq07sfvk82h$.y4yncpm0...@40tude.net,
"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:

>>> As noted: the evidence shows you do not believe this. �If you did you would
>>> not run from the proof you are wrong: <http://goo.gl/uFKQS>. �For that
>>> matter, you *admit* to it, below.
>>
>> Your link shows proof of nothing.
>
> That is correct except for the fact it shows that SNIT = ONION
> KNIGHT, made the Larnyx comment, right here in fact.
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ff3c3579c77254e4?dm
> ode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
>
> "I did not get a larynx replacement between the two Skype
> conversations
> and have no plans on getting one now. "
>
> See how snit lies?

It is your theory... though you finally dropped it:

-----

Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
different people.

-----

At this time you should be apologizing for your false accusations.

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 11:55 AM, in article dulifrf...@news.eternal-september.org,

But there is no "herd". LOL!

[Foster]

Maybe compared to Chris Ahlstrom he is :)

[Steve Carroll]

It's the same kind of "amnesia" that had Snit forgetting he snipped
the audio.

> I don't think there is a single person in this group that cannot
> provide some specific details about the postings between snit and
> Onion Knight. Anything, something, even a small insignificant piece
> of specific information would have sufficed.
>
> This charade went on for a few minutes and CC gave Onion Knight
> numerous opportunities to put something on the table.
> He couldn't and he only barely muttered some other vague items after
> the 2 bell sounds which no doubt was snit couching him.
>
> So the conclusion, minus all the audio analysis except the bell
> sounds, has to be, HAS TO BE, the Onion Knight on the Skype IS NOT
> THE ONION KNIGHT POSTING IN COLA.
>
> That's it in a nutshell.
> It's the ONLY logical conclusion that can be reached.
>
> Listen to a clip here:
>
> http://www.mediafire.com/?m28y1l9f4our0p8

ROFLMAO!

Thanks for posting that, I was never going to bother to listen to it
but I'm glad I did. This entire thing is *so* ridiculous only Snit
would try to sell it. I'd say this is likely to be one of his
brothers (which might explain the voiceprint results). When cc asked:
Why did you drop into "that" conversation all of a sudden?

Unquestionably, Snit hadn't prepped him well. This bit...

"I felt the urge...?"

... is patently absurd. Worse... he, apparently, didn't recall that he
was supposed to say "harassment" until *after* the bell. Too funny ;)

I'll examine the "I felt the urge" response prior to Snit's obvious
prompting as I ask the obvious question here:

Why would a guy, for whom is has been (falsely) claimed was "stalked"
by me in CSMA, have an "urge" to create a usenet persona and argue a
topic with cc that he (Onion Knight) freely admitted not knowing much
about?

This is a laugh test fail of epic proportions. And this next bit was a
pretty good indicator, too:

"the same reason everyone posts on there"

Uh... "everyone" doesn't come into a thread 'out of the blue' where
Snit is getting his ass handed to him and *claim* to have been
"stalked" in another newsgroup as they satisfy their "urge" to join a
conversation on a topic they admit they know squat about with the
person that *didn't* harass them.

But the sense this response *doesn't* make is probably best
illuminated by recalling what his goal is:

Onion Knight has been trying hard to sell himself as someone who has
been "stalked" and "harassed" by me, yet, aside from this alleged
"urge", the reason he gave when asked why he was posting in that
thread was... "the same reason everyone posts on there".

There can be no question that his phenomenal stupidity prevents him
from realizing his blunder. With this drivel he's essentially arguing
that "everyone" has been "stalked" and "harassed" by me.

(I keep tellin' ya, Foster... Snit is not too bright ... and the
people he drags in from real life aren't either ;)

"I've been harassed before and... it's no fun... this guy was
harassing Snit".

Obvious question to this farce: Where is the "evidence" that I ever
"harassed" this "Onion Knight" person, or, for that matter, ever
interfaced with him at all?

None has been produced and neither of them have pointed to a single
communication that would show I ever even spoke with this person, much
less "harassed" him. We are simply expected to take their word it
happened... the viewer will not be allowed to judge for themselves
what happened. If Onion Knight is hidden safely away, as they've been
trying to sell, there should be no problem pointing to this alleged
"stalking" of Onion Knight in the past. Again.., epic laugh test fail
as it smacks up against reality. Only Snit could dream these kinds of
things up and think people are stupid enough to swallow them.

Then cc asks: "how" has he been harassing Snit? How? The absurdly
evasive answer:

"I believe it's an ongoing thing"

Let's forget that he couldn't state "how" as we ask the obvious: He
believes it's an ongoing thing? He came on the way he did and he
doesn't *know* this is the case (didn't the online Onion Knight claim
to *know*?) ? Who does that?

The other obvious question based on his ridiculous response: Why does
he believe this?

The obvious answer, of course, is that Snit convinced him of it... he
(Onion Knight) certainly doesn't provide any reason on his own to the
contrary. He doesn't have sh*t in the way of answers. His followup
answer when cc mentioned this "particular" case was equally evasive
(and laughable). And the sounds of the messages are, as you say,
unmistakable. Even better... these lines: "every time he opens his
mouth he gives me more info" and "He managed to "lose" me for
awhile". If I was stalking him and knew where he lived or anything
else about him, how did he manage to "lose" me? Did he move because of
this alleged stalking... that he can't even point to? There is no
such 'staked' poster, this is all BS from the mind of a delusional
nitwit who has a severe victim mentality and claims he is being
"attacked" by everyone,

Another pause and finally...

"Hm... what caught my eye about the conversation?"

It's ridiculous that he couldn't answer cc's pointed questions about
the reason (all stalker BS aside) that he decided to join...
"that" ..."particular"... conversation. But not just join it... create
a new persona to do so... only to subsequently claim he had an "urge"
to argue points on a topic he admits he's all but clueless on with the
person that *didn't* stalk him (cc). Sure... that all makes sense
<eyeroll>.

Then, when cc boiled it down Onion Knight *kept* going with the
"stalker" thing! But what else did he have? LOL! Obviously, Snit only
prepped him on "stalker" 101 and *nothing* else.

> It's like someone who claims to have been at the WTC when they were
> hit by planes on 9-11 and when asked about specifics keeps saying
> over and over again "the buildings fell down".

LOL! This is probably the funniest Snit scam to date (and that's
saying a lot). Kudos to you (and cc) for spending the time you have to
uncover it.

> Yea, well we all know that part......

Again, thanks for putting this up... it's actually *far* more
hilarious than I ever imagined ;)

[Steve Carroll]

LOL! (sorry Ahlstrom, but that was funny)

[Steve Carroll]

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 30, 11:56 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/12 11:46 AM, in article 6lq07sfvk82h$.y4yncpm0q57x....@40tude.net,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Torre Starnes" <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> >>> As noted: the evidence shows you do not believe this. If you did you would
> >>> not run from the proof you are wrong: <http://goo.gl/uFKQS>. For that
> >>> matter, you *admit* to it, below.
>
> >> Your link shows proof of nothing.
>
> > That is correct except for the fact it shows that SNIT = ONION
> > KNIGHT, made the Larnyx comment, right here in fact.
>

> >https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ff3c3579c7...

> > ode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
>
> > "I did not get a larynx replacement between the two Skype
> > conversations
> > and have no plans on getting one now. "
>
> > See how snit lies?
>
> It is your theory... though you finally dropped it:
>
>     -----
>     Both skype #1 and skype #2 are two (CC is not in question)
>     different people.
>     -----
>
> At this time you should be apologizing for your false accusations.
>
> --
> <http://goo.gl/uFKQS>
> 15 points Foster and his farm of loonies will *always* run from... and
> absolute proof they know their accusations are false.

Why not just rip his 15 stupid points apart to get him to shut up?

[Torre Starnes]

Snit has selective memory.
He only remembers his screw ups when people point them out.
Quite odd.

>> I don't think there is a single person in this group that cannot
>> provide some specific details about the postings between snit and
>> Onion Knight. Anything, something, even a small insignificant piece
>> of specific information would have sufficed.
>>
>> This charade went on for a few minutes and CC gave Onion Knight
>> numerous opportunities to put something on the table.
>> He couldn't and he only barely muttered some other vague items after
>> the 2 bell sounds which no doubt was snit couching him.
>>
>> So the conclusion, minus all the audio analysis except the bell
>> sounds, has to be, HAS TO BE, the Onion Knight on the Skype IS NOT
>> THE ONION KNIGHT POSTING IN COLA.
>>
>> That's it in a nutshell.
>> It's the ONLY logical conclusion that can be reached.
>>
>> Listen to a clip here:
>>
>> http://www.mediafire.com/?m28y1l9f4our0p8
>
> ROFLMAO!

I hope so because that's the effect it should have on anyone who
wants to actually hear what a liar snit really is.

He tried to pull a scam and got caught dead cold.

> Thanks for posting that, I was never going to bother to listen to it
> but I'm glad I did. This entire thing is *so* ridiculous only Snit
> would try to sell it. I'd say this is likely to be one of his
> brothers (which might explain the voiceprint results). When cc asked:
> Why did you drop into "that" conversation all of a sudden?

> Unquestionably, Snit hadn't prepped him well. This bit...
>
> "I felt the urge...?"

Yea. That's the way it starts and it goes way down hill from there.
And real fast.

> ... is patently absurd. Worse... he, apparently, didn't recall that he
> was supposed to say "harassment" until *after* the bell. Too funny ;)

Yep.
Glad you picked up on that one.

> I'll examine the "I felt the urge" response prior to Snit's obvious
> prompting as I ask the obvious question here:
>
> Why would a guy, for whom is has been (falsely) claimed was "stalked"
> by me in CSMA, have an "urge" to create a usenet persona and argue a
> topic with cc that he (Onion Knight) freely admitted not knowing much
> about?

Good question.
Maybe Snit / Onion Knight can answer it :)

> This is a laugh test fail of epic proportions. And this next bit was a
> pretty good indicator, too:
>
> "the same reason everyone posts on there"
>
> Uh... "everyone" doesn't come into a thread 'out of the blue' where
> Snit is getting his ass handed to him and *claim* to have been
> "stalked" in another newsgroup as they satisfy their "urge" to join a
> conversation on a topic they admit they know squat about with the
> person that *didn't* harass them.

Yea.
Notice the complete generality here.
Nothing specific.

Just like my 9-11 example.
The buildings fell down.
Yea, we all know that now how about something specific.
Well the buildings fell down.
etc.

It's laughable.

Snit seriously thinks he is superior and the rest of us are idiots.
He has to.

> But the sense this response *doesn't* make is probably best
> illuminated by recalling what his goal is:
>
> Onion Knight has been trying hard to sell himself as someone who has
> been "stalked" and "harassed" by me, yet, aside from this alleged
> "urge", the reason he gave when asked why he was posting in that
> thread was... "the same reason everyone posts on there".
>
> There can be no question that his phenomenal stupidity prevents him
> from realizing his blunder. With this drivel he's essentially arguing
> that "everyone" has been "stalked" and "harassed" by me.

Yep.
It all sounds way to familiar.

> (I keep tellin' ya, Foster... Snit is not too bright ... and the
> people he drags in from real life aren't either ;)

Snit is moron when it comes to non technical issues.
He understands technology, but venture even the slightest bit from
that area and snit falls apart.

Why he feels the need to invent these imaginary people is a mystery
known only to him.

> "I've been harassed before and... it's no fun... this guy was
> harassing Snit".

Another general response.
No specifics.

> Obvious question to this farce: Where is the "evidence" that I ever
> "harassed" this "Onion Knight" person, or, for that matter, ever
> interfaced with him at all?

There is none.

This is snit prompting Onion.

> None has been produced and neither of them have pointed to a single
> communication that would show I ever even spoke with this person, much
> less "harassed" him. We are simply expected to take their word it
> happened... the viewer will not be allowed to judge for themselves
> what happened. If Onion Knight is hidden safely away, as they've been
> trying to sell, there should be no problem pointing to this alleged
> "stalking" of Onion Knight in the past. Again.., epic laugh test fail
> as it smacks up against reality. Only Snit could dream these kinds of
> things up and think people are stupid enough to swallow them.

Yep.
And snit truly believes people are ignorant to believe this crap.

> Then cc asks: "how" has he been harassing Snit? How? The absurdly
> evasive answer:
>
> "I believe it's an ongoing thing"

Another general answer from a person who at the time was posting
many messages to COLA.
Yea right.

> Let's forget that he couldn't state "how" as we ask the obvious: He
> believes it's an ongoing thing? He came on the way he did and he
> doesn't *know* this is the case (didn't the online Onion Knight claim
> to *know*?) ? Who does that?

CC gave him many opportunities to offer specifics and Onion Knight
could not.

> The other obvious question based on his ridiculous response: Why does
> he believe this?
>
> The obvious answer, of course, is that Snit convinced him of it... he
> (Onion Knight) certainly doesn't provide any reason on his own to the
> contrary. He doesn't have sh*t in the way of answers. His followup
> answer when cc mentioned this "particular" case was equally evasive
> (and laughable). And the sounds of the messages are, as you say,
> unmistakable. Even better... these lines: "every time he opens his
> mouth he gives me more info" and "He managed to "lose" me for
> awhile". If I was stalking him and knew where he lived or anything
> else about him, how did he manage to "lose" me? Did he move because of
> this alleged stalking... that he can't even point to? There is no
> such 'staked' poster, this is all BS from the mind of a delusional
> nitwit who has a severe victim mentality and claims he is being
> "attacked" by everyone,

It's the same thing repeated by Onion Knight over and over again.
No specifics, just generalities.

CC nailed Snit's coffin shut with this Skype.

> Another pause and finally...
>
> "Hm... what caught my eye about the conversation?"

Yep.
The guy who posted all over COLA all of a sudden has to think about
what he posted?

Come on.....

Nobody is stupid enough to believe this farce.

> It's ridiculous that he couldn't answer cc's pointed questions about
> the reason (all stalker BS aside) that he decided to join...
> "that" ..."particular"... conversation. But not just join it... create
> a new persona to do so... only to subsequently claim he had an "urge"
> to argue points on a topic he admits he's all but clueless on with the
> person that *didn't* stalk him (cc). Sure... that all makes sense
> <eyeroll>.

Yep.

Classic!

> Then, when cc boiled it down Onion Knight *kept* going with the
> "stalker" thing! But what else did he have? LOL! Obviously, Snit only
> prepped him on "stalker" 101 and *nothing* else.

Obvious.
And anyone can extrapolate on the stalker 101.
He has my email, he contacts my employer, he calls my house etc.
Any idiot can play that game.

Just leave out the specifics and that is exatly what Onion Knight
did.

>> It's like someone who claims to have been at the WTC when they were
>> hit by planes on 9-11 and when asked about specifics keeps saying
>> over and over again "the buildings fell down".
>
> LOL! This is probably the funniest Snit scam to date (and that's
> saying a lot). Kudos to you (and cc) for spending the time you have to
> uncover it.

It was trivial.
And snit has the nerve to claim *I* am licking my wounds?
Laughable.

Hey COLA people, do me a favor, listen to the clip and laugh along
with the rest of us.

If you have doubts that snit is Onion Knight, just give a listen and
you will remove all doubt.

Onion Knight = Snit.
The method is not important.
The end result is all that matters and it's a fact.

And if snit wants to prove me wrong let him.
He better have his ducks and facts in order though or I will tear
him a new one just like I have just done, with help from Steve and
others in COLA who aren't ignorant enough to take snit at his word.

> Again, thanks for putting this up... it's actually *far* more
> hilarious than I ever imagined ;)

I just hope others in the group will listen.
It tells the entire story and exposes snit for what he really is.

A liar.

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 5:59 PM, in article 16sm2tg3p3mdu$.1uwxovm9...@40tude.net,
"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:

...

>> It's the same kind of "amnesia" that had Snit forgetting he snipped
>> the audio.
>
> Snit has selective memory.
> He only remembers his screw ups when people point them out.
> Quite odd.

You proved I snipped an "um". Man, I feel so *busted*! Wow... the
humiliation is horrible.

I snipped an "um" and you pushed a magic larynx transplant "theory". I
think you win the prize for being the bigger idiot. :)

Add to that your willingness to be manipulated by the stalker. Really, you
*should* know better than to be as stupid as he needs you to be. But, as
with all your actions, it is your choice.

...

>> ROFLMAO!
>
> I hope so because that's the effect it should have on anyone who
> wants to actually hear what a liar snit really is.
>
> He tried to pull a scam and got caught dead cold.

Yawn. As you have noted not even you believe your claims. Or are you back
to pushing your magic larynx transplant "theory"?

...

>> Why would a guy, for whom is has been (falsely) claimed was "stalked"
>> by me in CSMA, have an "urge" to create a usenet persona and argue a
>> topic with cc that he (Onion Knight) freely admitted not knowing much
>> about?
>
> Good question.
> Maybe Snit / Onion Knight can answer it :)

The fact Carroll stalked me to COLA is not in question. That is why he is
here. The fact he stalked me to ASAP is not in question. Heck, Carroll has
admitted to stalking me so closely he claims to know when I have taken
vacations for the last *10* years.

Yes. He admitted to that. And he harassed many other people in CSMA. I do
not know who Onion Knight posted as in CSMA, but I have no problem believing
his claims that he was one of Carroll's targets.

> Yea.
> Notice the complete generality here.
> Nothing specific.

Just like you have nothing specific to say about the 15 points you run from.
You just pick and choose...

Foster:
-----

He picks and chooses what he replies to in order to twist what
people are saying. He thinks others don't realize it.

Classic narcissism.
----

LOL!

...

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 30, 7:51 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/12 5:59 PM, in article 16sm2tg3p3mdu$.1uwxovm93u59y....@40tude.net,

>
> "Torre Starnes" <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> It's the same kind of "amnesia" that had Snit forgetting he snipped
> >> the audio.
>
> > Snit has selective memory.
> > He only remembers his screw ups when people point them out.
> > Quite odd.
>
> You proved

... beyond any and all reasonable doubt that the "Onion Knight" who
posted to COLA was not the same person appearing on Skype. This was
proven even while you used your absurd smoke screen where you thought
you could convince people that... if you could produce two people...
it would somehow prove that the COLA Onion Knight and the Skype Onion
Knight were the same person. One listen to the audio tosses that
pathetic attempt at deception into the sh*tter where it belongs. It's
actually quite fitting that your voice didn't get recorded as the
listener was spared your feeble attempts at manipulation for a change.
I would have enjoyed it, though, it would have given me further
opportunity to discredit your crap ;)

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 30, 6:59 pm, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:

(snip too much fun)

> > Again, thanks for putting this up... it's actually *far* more
> > hilarious than I ever imagined ;)
>
> I just hope others in the group will listen.
> It tells the entire story and exposes snit for what he really is.
>
> A liar.

For all the practice he's had he's not even any good at it. Truly
pathetic attempt. You should have put it in its own thread. I doubt
many will bother to listen if you don't. Too bad because it is some
funny shit ;) What's the rest of it like, is there more with Onion
Knight? As you said previously, I also thought cc did a great job of
exposing this. He didn't really offer any info and he got none in
return... tells you all you need right there. One really funny part in
all this, like he did with Sandman regarding the web dev issue, Snit
is here questioning *your* professionalism, yet, he couldn't even
manage to hit a simple record button on his *own* track... this, from
a guy who claims to do screen-casting and other assorted BS...
"professionally". LOL!

[Torre Starnes]

Yep.

That's the bottom line.

All snit's squirming does not change that fact and anyone listening
to Skype #2 will hear it.

[Torre Starnes]

It's laughable indeed.
I'll bet snit lost sleep trying to figure out how to fake a snit, cc
and onion knight skype.

He failed.

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 7:56 PM, in article 1631e0fiaw9k3.1...@40tude.net,

Yawn. Already refuted in the points you refuse to discuss:
<http://goo.gl/uFKQS>.

But good to see you are dropping your magic larynx transplant BS. Though
that was a more amusing story of yours. :)

Just keep in mind, all this BS is from Carroll manipulating you. Completely
transparent to anyone who is reading this... esp. those of us who have seen
Carroll mess with others before. As I have said, he is good at it. Too bad
he is also stupid and got busted "forging" himself.

[Snit]

On 9/30/12 7:57 PM, in article 1vg38b793hyum$.da87mxiwj9ff$.d...@40tude.net,

I lose no sleep over your lies nor your being manipulated by Carroll so
much. Nor your running from the 15 points that prove you wrong.

By the way, your sudden lack of response is yet another dead give-away you
know your story is completely lacking in any support... not even you believe
it.

Yup: I am calling you out on your lies. You are not stating what you
believe, you are lying... trolling. Having fun yet?

LOL!

Oh, and while I do make videos for my job, I have never claimed to have any
special training in making such. I also never claimed even someone who does
have training cannot forget to hit a check box... esp. when doing so in a
hurry. Ask cc - I first *forget to even start the recording* and we have to
start over. Yup... another mistake I made.

I admit to my mistakes... and you and Carroll see that *strength* as a
weakness. Shows how I am honest... and neither of you are.

Heck, how many names do you use? How many does Carroll? Keep in mind he
has been busted - with 100% certainty - at being his own "forger". He was
stupid enough to be digging through my site as he turned TOR on and off.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 30, 8:59 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/12 7:56 PM, in article 1631e0fiaw9k3.199bjo5a47so8....@40tude.net,

And these 'anyones' will post any minute now to prove it. <eyeroll>

The funny part is that, today you say something like this to Foster...
tomorrow you'll be telling someone else that Foster (or cc, TomB, TTV
etc,) is my sock puppet. It doesn't seem to occur to you that the
'Steve Carroll as scapegoat' plan has failed miserably... long ago.

> ... esp. those of us who have seen
> Carroll mess with others before.

Point to some of these "people". Oh yeah... you just tried to with
"Onion Knight".

> As I have said, he is good at it.

You seem to forget that you've also stated this to me: "you are,
after all, dumber than your shoe".

How can a person who is 'dumber than his shoe' be good at manipulating
people into believing a genius like you is anything other than a
genius, genius? How did such a person convince all the people on your
quotes list of this?

Reality Check: It was your actions that convinced them... I just point
those actions out. And now... cc, Foster, TomB, TTV and others are
doing the same thing. All that's happening is the inevitable... you
can't fool all of the people all of the time.

(snip more false BS)

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 30, 9:04 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/12 7:57 PM, in article 1vg38b793hyum$.da87mxiwj9ff$....@40tude.net,

... sure you don't... and that why still you're posting (whining) at
12:43 am:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1a78f0171eb489b3