Skype of Snit and Onion Knight

[Snit]

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-Skype.mp3>

Brief... just recorded a couple minutes ago and uploaded. Not edited or
cleaned up in any way other than to have my recording software set to
"remove background noise" and "smooth audio levels" (and trimmed the empty
noise after the hanging up of the call) and then used another tool to
convert from AIFF to MP3 just so the file will be smaller (54 MP down to
under 4 MB).

Anyway, I do not expect this to stop the lies about either of us, but here
is the proof positive that the lies of us being the same person are, in
fact, lies.

PS: I am happy his voice does not sound just like mine. That would have
sucked. :)

Thank you Onion Knight.

--
🙈🙉🙊

[Nobody]

Snit recorded an mp3 file on his personal Web site, and named it
"http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-Skype.mp3" because he really
does think people are as stupid as he needs them to be! LOL

[La Femme]

You sound like a fucking faggot snit.
Are you homosexual?
Bisexual?
You have a very effeminate tone to your voice.
Sounds like a fruitcake to me.

[Snit]

On 8/12/12 2:53 PM, in article k098kg$7a3$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

Would a random string of characters have been more pleasing to you as I
proved you wrong? How, exactly, do you like to be proved wrong - I just
might be willing to comply if your request is reasonable!


--
* 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.

[Snit]

On 8/12/12 4:16 PM, in article 5028393f$0$3600$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org, "La

If I was a homosexual would you consider me a parasite? If so that is quite
telling of whose sock you are. :)

[La Femme]

On 8/12/2012 7:47 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/12/12 4:16 PM, in article 5028393f$0$3600$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org, "La
> Femme" <lafemme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/2012 5:28 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-Skype.mp3>
>>>
>>> Brief... just recorded a couple minutes ago and uploaded. Not edited or
>>> cleaned up in any way other than to have my recording software set to
>>> "remove background noise" and "smooth audio levels" (and trimmed the empty
>>> noise after the hanging up of the call) and then used another tool to
>>> convert from AIFF to MP3 just so the file will be smaller (54 MP down to
>>> under 4 MB).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do not expect this to stop the lies about either of us, but here
>>> is the proof positive that the lies of us being the same person are, in
>>> fact, lies.
>>>
>>> PS: I am happy his voice does not sound just like mine. That would have
>>> sucked. :)
>>>
>>> Thank you Onion Knight.
>>>
>> You sound like a fucking faggot snit.
>> Are you homosexual?
>> Bisexual?
>> You have a very effeminate tone to your voice.
>> Sounds like a fruitcake to me.
>>
>>
> If I was a homosexual would you consider me a parasite? If so that is quite
> telling of whose sock you are. :)

Parasite?
Of course not.
Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle. I have no issues with those
who consider themselves homosexuals anymore than I do with say Amish,
Christian, Nuns or others who abstain from sex before marriage.
It's a choice.
All I am saying is you sound quite feminine.

[Snit]

On 8/12/12 4:55 PM, in article 50284260$0$3604$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org, "La
Femme" <lafemme...@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

>> If I was a homosexual would you consider me a parasite? If so that is quite
>> telling of whose sock you are. :)
>
> Parasite?
> Of course not.

I absolutely agree. Anyone who would call homosexuals "parasites" is a
bigot and a fool.

> Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle.

Not sure I would even say it is a lifestyle... my heterosexuality is not my
"lifestyle", it is merely part of who I am.

> I have no issues with those
> who consider themselves homosexuals anymore than I do with say Amish,
> Christian, Nuns or others who abstain from sex before marriage.
> It's a choice.

Absolutely agree.

...

[Nobody]

On 8/12/2012 7:06 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/12/12 4:55 PM, in article 50284260$0$3604$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org, "La
> Femme" <lafemme...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>> If I was a homosexual would you consider me a parasite? If so that is quite
>>> telling of whose sock you are. :)
>>
>> Parasite?
>> Of course not.
>
> I absolutely agree. Anyone who would call homosexuals "parasites" is a
> bigot and a fool.
>
>> Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle.
>
> Not sure I would even say it is a lifestyle... my heterosexuality is not my
> "lifestyle", it is merely part of who I am.
>
>> I have no issues with those
>> who consider themselves homosexuals anymore than I do with say Amish,
>> Christian, Nuns or others who abstain from sex before marriage.
>> It's a choice.
>
> Absolutely agree.
>
> ...

Did you notice no one is stupid enough to go to your site, Onion Knight,
other than your newest sock?

[Snit]

On 8/12/12 6:12 PM, in article k09kak$7cc$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

LOL! When faced with absolute proof of his incorrect claims, "Nobody" just
dodges and spews insults.

You were proved wrong... but you will not admit to it. That is simply
outside your abilities.

[Snit]

On 8/12/12 6:49 PM, in article CC4DAB2C.7B6B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,

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

>> Did you notice no one is stupid enough to go to your site, Onion Knight,
>> other than your newest sock?
>>
> LOL! When faced with absolute proof of his incorrect claims, "Nobody" just
> dodges and spews insults.
>
> You were proved wrong... but you will not admit to it. That is simply
> outside your abilities.

No comment from "Nobody".

[Nobody]

Anybody take your bait yet, Onion Knight? Seems like you're alone in
the pumpkin patch again, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arise...

[Snit]

On 8/12/12 9:51 PM, in article k0a0g2$4e5$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

Ah, absolute proof is not sufficient for "Nobody". Yeah, "Nobody" is a good
name for you. By the way, did you used to post as Edwin?

[Nobody]

So no takers yet on your site, Onion Knight?

[Snit]

On 8/12/12 11:28 PM, in article k0a65n$rbp$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:

>>> Anybody take your bait yet, Onion Knight? Seems like you're alone in
>>> the pumpkin patch again, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arise...
>>
>> Ah, absolute proof is not sufficient for "Nobody". Yeah, "Nobody" is a good
>> name for you. By the way, did you used to post as Edwin?
>
> So no takers yet on your site, Onion Knight?

Takers? It is not up for sale. And you dodged my question as you confused
me with someone else who I have now been *proved* not to be (not as though
anyone really thought I was, but whatever).

[Nobody]

Snit wrote:
> On 8/12/12 11:28 PM, in article k0a65n$rbp$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Anybody take your bait yet, Onion Knight? Seems like you're alone in
>>>> the pumpkin patch again, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arise...
>>> Ah, absolute proof is not sufficient for "Nobody". Yeah, "Nobody" is a good
>>> name for you. By the way, did you used to post as Edwin?
>> So no takers yet on your site, Onion Knight?
>
> Takers? It is not up for sale. And you dodged my question as you confused
> me with someone else who I have now been *proved* not to be (not as though
> anyone really thought I was, but whatever).

How would an mp3 file you recorded on your personal Web site be proof of
any thing?

Haven't you noticed no one has gone to your site to listen to your mp3 file?

[Snit]

On 8/12/12 11:47 PM, in article k0a7a5$ta3$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

It is only proof to people with intelligence. To others it is just noise.

> Haven't you noticed no one has gone to your site to listen to your mp3 file?

I have not. Can you please point to the stats?

[Nobody]

Snit wrote:
> On 8/12/12 11:47 PM, in article k0a7a5$ta3$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> On 8/12/12 11:28 PM, in article k0a65n$rbp$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Anybody take your bait yet, Onion Knight? Seems like you're alone in
>>>>>> the pumpkin patch again, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arise...
>>>>> Ah, absolute proof is not sufficient for "Nobody". Yeah, "Nobody" is a
>>>>> good
>>>>> name for you. By the way, did you used to post as Edwin?
>>>> So no takers yet on your site, Onion Knight?
>>> Takers? It is not up for sale. And you dodged my question as you confused
>>> me with someone else who I have now been *proved* not to be (not as though
>>> anyone really thought I was, but whatever).
>> How would an mp3 file you recorded on your personal Web site be proof of
>> any thing?
>
> It is only proof to people with intelligence. To others it is just noise.

Failure to answer noted.

>> Haven't you noticed no one has gone to your site to listen to your mp3 file?
>
> I have not. Can you please point to the stats?

You can't tell if you've had visitors to your own Web site? Yet you
want people to believe you have computer "clients?" LOL

[Snit]

On 8/12/12 11:57 PM, in article k0a7t5$ta3$3...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>> On 8/12/12 11:47 PM, in article k0a7a5$ta3$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/12 11:28 PM, in article k0a65n$rbp$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Anybody take your bait yet, Onion Knight? Seems like you're alone in
>>>>>>> the pumpkin patch again, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arise...
>>>>>> Ah, absolute proof is not sufficient for "Nobody". Yeah, "Nobody" is a
>>>>>> good
>>>>>> name for you. By the way, did you used to post as Edwin?
>>>>> So no takers yet on your site, Onion Knight?
>>>> Takers? It is not up for sale. And you dodged my question as you confused
>>>> me with someone else who I have now been *proved* not to be (not as though
>>>> anyone really thought I was, but whatever).
>>> How would an mp3 file you recorded on your personal Web site be proof of
>>> any thing?
>>
>> It is only proof to people with intelligence. To others it is just noise.
>
> Failure to answer noted.

Your failure to understand the answer is noted.

>>> Haven't you noticed no one has gone to your site to listen to your mp3 file?
>>
>> I have not. Can you please point to the stats?
>
> You can't tell if you've had visitors to your own Web site?

You made that up. You asked if I noticed something you are claiming to be
true... but it turns out you are just blowing smoke.

> Yet you
> want people to believe you have computer "clients?" LOL

What you believe is of no importance to me.

[Nobody]

Snit wrote:
> On 8/12/12 11:57 PM, in article k0a7t5$ta3$3...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> On 8/12/12 11:47 PM, in article k0a7a5$ta3$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> On 8/12/12 11:28 PM, in article k0a65n$rbp$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>>>>> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anybody take your bait yet, Onion Knight? Seems like you're alone in
>>>>>>>> the pumpkin patch again, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arise...
>>>>>>> Ah, absolute proof is not sufficient for "Nobody". Yeah, "Nobody" is a
>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>> name for you. By the way, did you used to post as Edwin?
>>>>>> So no takers yet on your site, Onion Knight?
>>>>> Takers? It is not up for sale. And you dodged my question as you confused
>>>>> me with someone else who I have now been *proved* not to be (not as though
>>>>> anyone really thought I was, but whatever).
>>>> How would an mp3 file you recorded on your personal Web site be proof of
>>>> any thing?
>>> It is only proof to people with intelligence. To others it is just noise.
>> Failure to answer noted.
>
> Your failure to understand the answer is noted.

Then why don't you explain how an mp3 file you recorded yourself on your
personal Web site proves anything?

>>>> Haven't you noticed no one has gone to your site to listen to your mp3 file?
>>> I have not. Can you please point to the stats?
>> You can't tell if you've had visitors to your own Web site?
>
> You made that up. You asked if I noticed something you are claiming to be
> true... but it turns out you are just blowing smoke.

Haven't you noticed the only posters in this thread are you, me, and
your latest sock?

>> Yet you
>> want people to believe you have computer "clients?" LOL
>
> What you believe is of no importance to me.

That would explain why you answer my posts. LOL

[cc]

So what happened to getting you and me and Onion Knight on your "radio show" you made up?

--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis

[Snit]

On 8/13/12 5:15 AM, in article
77dba9b4-d044-4fc9...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:28:36 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-Skype.mp3>
>> Brief... just recorded a couple minutes ago and uploaded.
>> Not edited or cleaned up in any way other than to have my
>> recording software set to "remove background noise" and
>> "smooth audio levels" (and trimmed the empty noise after the
>> hanging up of the call) and then used another tool to convert
>> from AIFF to MP3 just so the file will be smaller
>> (54 MP down to under 4 MB). Anyway, I do not expect this to
>> stop the lies about either of us, but here is the proof positive
>> that the lies of us being the same person are, in fact, lies.
>> PS: I am happy his voice does not sound just like mine.
>> That would have sucked. :) Thank you Onion Knight.
>
> So what happened to getting you and me and Onion Knight on your "radio show"
> you made up?

LOL! When did you say you wanted to be on the show?

Hey, I would love to have you on an actual "show" and not just a five minute
hello to someone... when do you want to do it? We can discuss the points in
my .sig any any others you want to.

[Snit]

On 8/13/12 4:37 AM, in article k0ao9n$35n$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:

...

>>>> It is only proof to people with intelligence. To others it is just noise.
>>> Failure to answer noted.
>>
>> Your failure to understand the answer is noted.
>
> Then why don't you explain how an mp3 file you recorded yourself on your
> personal Web site proves anything?

For obvious reasons that, clearly, go above your head. In that recording
you hear two people with clearly different voices - two people who have been
accused of being the same person. They are proved, by their voices, to not
be.

Man you are one dim bulb!
...

[Nobody]

On 8/13/2012 11:49 AM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/13/12 4:37 AM, in article k0ao9n$35n$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>> It is only proof to people with intelligence. To others it is just noise.
>>>> Failure to answer noted.
>>>
>>> Your failure to understand the answer is noted.
>>
>> Then why don't you explain how an mp3 file you recorded yourself on your
>> personal Web site proves anything?
>
> For obvious reasons that, clearly, go above your head. In that recording
> you hear two people with clearly different voices - two people who have been
> accused of being the same person. They are proved, by their voices, to not
> be.
>
> Man you are one dim bulb!
> ...

So you recorded two different voices. How does that prove they are who
you say they are? This is after all *your* recording on *your* Web site.

Everybody has noted how "Onion Knight" has not been here to say anything
about this. You don't dare use that sock, for fear of answering as
Snit while posting as Onion Knight, as you did in the past.

[Snit]

On 8/13/12 11:02 AM, in article k0bffg$lm8$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

Yawn.

[cc]

On Monday, August 13, 2012 12:39:12 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 8/13/12 5:15 AM, in article 77dba9b4-d044-4fc9-92e2-54fe66eb6320

>
> When did you say you wanted to be on the show?

A week ago, retard.

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f663b365b51991c7?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

[Snit]

On 8/13/12 11:20 AM, in article
219b0968-9af7-492c...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, August 13, 2012 12:39:12 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 8/13/12 5:15 AM, in article 77dba9b4-d044-4fc9-92e2-54fe66eb6320
>>
>> When did you say you wanted to be on the show?
>
> A week ago, retard.
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f663b365b51991c7?dm
> ode=source&output=gplain&noredirect

cc:
-----
I feel no need to record it. You've demonstrated your lack
of morals, so I have no doubt you will post an editted
version, but I could really care less.
-----

Such deep interest and desire you showed there! How could I forget! But
you can record it to, so your BS about fearing me editing it was just your
way of backing out.

But you did later say in the same post:

cc:
-----
So I'll consider giving him a pass and just going on with you
and Onion Knight.
-----

Well, I will not speak for others, but I am game. I am even free tonight...
how about then - you and I discuss the issues in my .sig and yours and
whatever else either of us want to talk about. Onion Knight, if you care to
join you are welcome, too. You too, Hadron.

[cc]

On Monday, August 13, 2012 2:34:36 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Such deep interest and desire you showed there!

I'm sorry I'm not showing an incredible interest for a "radio show" you just made up last week out of the blue then claimed I refused to come on. I imagine the conversation will go exactly like it did here: me asking you where the increase in Linux usage is, you running and not really getting basic mathematical concepts. Then you won't let it go here either. But like I said, I'm game.

> Well, I will not speak for others, but I am game.

Like I said, you won't have to. They will be there. This is the only request I have.

> I am even free tonight... how about then - you and I discuss the
> issues in my .sig and yours and whatever else either of us want
> to talk about. Onion Knight, if you care to join you are welcome,
> too. You too, Hadron.

Well you obviously can't read very well, because as I pointed out in my previous post, I'm busy. I said you had to get it set up by the end of last week or it was going to be a couple of weeks until I would be able to do it. Well the end of last week has passed...

Hadron won't come, because he's a pussy. Onion Knight must be there, or it's a no go. I'm fairly easy to please.

Let's set a tentative date of Aug. 25th at 11am Pacific.

Who am I to resist something so needlessly pointless.

[Snit]

On 8/13/12 1:19 PM, in article
a1e8fffd-2aaf-4750...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, August 13, 2012 2:34:36 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Such deep interest and desire you showed there!
>
> I'm sorry I'm not showing an incredible interest for a "radio show" you just
> made up last week out of the blue then claimed I refused to come on.

cc:
-----
I feel no need to record it. You've demonstrated your lack
of morals, so I have no doubt you will post an editted
version, but I could really care less.
-----

Funny how you snipped that quote of yours.

But you are welcome to have a recorded Skype session with me. When would
you like to do it?

...

> Let's set a tentative date of Aug. 25th at 11am Pacific.

Done and done. I see you want Onion Knight there as well - he is invited.
Up to him.

> Who am I to resist something so needlessly pointless.

I look forward to it. I have it on my calendar.

My guess: you back out. I hope you prove me wrong.

[cc]

On Monday, August 13, 2012 4:41:45 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> I have it on my calendar. My guess: you back out. I hope you prove me wrong.

The only way I back out is if Onion Knight doesn't show. That was the deal. In another thread you say that Onion Knight was "barely involved" which is laughable. Do I need to link to the name calling, the barely disguised rehashes of your idiotic arguments, the cross posts into other groups where people completely agreed with what I was saying? He was heavily involved.

You and Onion Knight are one and the same, and I will prove it. If you're not going to admit that you're Onion Knight, then you better start figuring out how you can fake it. No Onion Knight, no skype.

[Hadron]

cc <scat...@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Monday, August 13, 2012 4:41:45 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> I have it on my calendar. My guess: you back out. I hope you prove me wrong.
>
> The only way I back out is if Onion Knight doesn't show. That was the deal. In
> another thread you say that Onion Knight was "barely involved" which is
> laughable. Do I need to link to the name calling, the barely disguised rehashes
> of your idiotic arguments, the cross posts into other groups where people
> completely agreed with what I was saying? He was heavily involved.
>
> You and Onion Knight are one and the same, and I will prove it. If you're not
> going to admit that you're Onion Knight, then you better start figuring out how
> you can fake it. No Onion Knight, no skype.

I was skeptical at first but surely there cant be two such gas bags :
Snit is "Onion Knight" alright. The only one that comes close to
repetition and bullshit is Gobbler.

Maybe he'll pull the old "off to the toilet" routine as he walks out and
Onion Knight walks in... LOL!

--
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>

[Snit]

On 8/13/12 2:05 PM, in article
f361147c-4aa0-40d5...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, August 13, 2012 4:41:45 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> I have it on my calendar. My guess: you back out. I hope you prove me wrong.
>
> The only way I back out is if Onion Knight doesn't show.

Why is that even a requirement? As I said, he is welcome, but until we hear
from him there is no way to know. I do know he wants his ID kept a secret.
Does Skype show someone's actual IP? I do not know? What is your goal
here?

> That was the deal.

In other words, you will do what you can to set things up so you can back
out if multiple people do not play by your tune. But I am still game.

> In another thread you say that Onion Knight was "barely involved" which is
> laughable. Do I need to link to the name calling, the barely disguised
> rehashes of your idiotic arguments, the cross posts into other groups where
> people completely agreed with what I was saying? He was heavily involved.

Onion Knight is not needed for you to explain yourself:

* 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.

Of course, you cannot explain yourself... hence the rules you are setting
up. But, again, I am still game and hope Onion Knight is willing as well.

> You and Onion Knight are one and the same, and I will prove it.

WTF? One, that is an absurd and baseless accusation... of which there is no
evidence and not worthy of a response. Even so, he and I *still* went out
of our way to prove it was not the case (see the start of this thread).

So that is what this is about... you want to hear our voices together again?

> If you're not
> going to admit that you're Onion Knight, then you better start figuring out
> how you can fake it. No Onion Knight, no skype.

As I said, he is welcome on the Skype... but I will not speak for him. Will
you?

[Snit]

On 8/13/12 2:09 PM, in article h4txw6x...@news.eternal-september.org,

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

> cc <scat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Monday, August 13, 2012 4:41:45 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> I have it on my calendar. My guess: you back out. I hope you prove me wrong.
>>
>> The only way I back out is if Onion Knight doesn't show. That was the deal.
>> In
>> another thread you say that Onion Knight was "barely involved" which is
>> laughable. Do I need to link to the name calling, the barely disguised
>> rehashes
>> of your idiotic arguments, the cross posts into other groups where people
>> completely agreed with what I was saying? He was heavily involved.
>>
>> You and Onion Knight are one and the same, and I will prove it. If you're not
>> going to admit that you're Onion Knight, then you better start figuring out
>> how
>> you can fake it. No Onion Knight, no skype.
>
> I was skeptical at first but surely there cant be two such gas bags :
> Snit is "Onion Knight" alright. The only one that comes close to
> repetition and bullshit is Gobbler.

Again: a baseless accusation... one you show no backing for. Neither he nor
I owe anyone anything to disprove a baseless accusation, but we did
anyway... see the first post of this thread.

How do you explain how your claim is disproved?

> Maybe he'll pull the old "off to the toilet" routine as he walks out and
> Onion Knight walks in... LOL!

Yeah, we have the exact same voice and manner of speech, eh? LOL!

[Tattoo Vampire]

cc wrote:

> Let's set a tentative date of Aug. 25th at 11am Pacific.

I'll bring popcorn.

--
Perhaps this situation requires a more Klingon response.

[tv]

[Tattoo Vampire]

Hadron wrote:

> Maybe he'll pull the old "off to the toilet" routine as he walks out and
> Onion Knight walks in... LOL!

No, that's to a nearby phone booth to change costumes. Wait, they don't have
those anymore...

[cc]

On Monday, August 13, 2012 6:19:28 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> On 8/13/12 2:05 PM, in article f361147c-4aa0-40d5...@googlegroups.com, "cc" <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The only way I back out is if Onion Knight doesn't show.
>
> Why is that even a requirement?

Because you're one and the same. So we'll tick off that lie from you, and continue down the list. Why is this requirement such a problem?

> As I said, he is welcome, but until we hear from him there
> is no way to know.

Then I guess that tentative date will remain tentative until he confirms. Or you can just stop the charade and we can nail down the date right now. Up to you.

[Hadron]

Tattoo Vampire <sit...@this.computer> writes:

> cc wrote:
>
>> Let's set a tentative date of Aug. 25th at 11am Pacific.
>
> I'll bring popcorn.

An empty box by the time you get there no doubt fatty..

[Tattoo Vampire]

Hadron wrote:

> An empty box by the time you get there no doubt fatty..

Awww, Quack is on the rag because Marti doesn't respond to his advances.

Go brush your teeth, assbreath.

[Snit]

On 8/13/12 3:34 PM, in article
52442693-82d0-4ae1...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, August 13, 2012 6:19:28 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>> On 8/13/12 2:05 PM, in article
>> f361147c-4aa0-40d5...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>> <scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The only way I back out is if Onion Knight doesn't show.
>>
>> Why is that even a requirement?
>
> Because you're one and the same.

This is a lie. You are, again, lying. You are unable to be honest.

But the tentative date is set... and you and I are agreed. We shall see if
Onion Knight accepts the offer or not. But your looking to use others as a
reason to back out of your agreements is utter BS... just another sign of
how dishonest and disreputable you are.

> So we'll tick off that lie from you, and
> continue down the list. Why is this requirement such a problem?

Your dishonest and lack of honor is a problem for me because it is contrary
to my moral code. It is not a problem for you because you are a liar.
Simple.

...

[Snit]

On 8/13/12 3:44 PM, in article 1l2kv6kju140t$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,

"Tattoo Vampire" <sit...@this.computer> wrote:

> cc wrote:
>
>> Let's set a tentative date of Aug. 25th at 11am Pacific.
>
> I'll bring popcorn.

No matter what Onion Knight says, cc will back out. Count on it. He is
already working on making stipulations to allow himself to not answer for
why he was unable to post data back to 2007, why he could not produce an
Excel workbook or other data to back his claims, why he could not find a
single sigma depiction I claimed was wrong which was not, or what step
listed by MS and others I missed in making a linear trend line.

Bottom line: cc knows he cannot do *any* of these. Any. He will *always*
run. It is just what he does.

[Nobody]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Maybe he'll pull the old "off to the toilet" routine as he walks out and
>> Onion Knight walks in... LOL!
>
> No, that's to a nearby phone booth to change costumes. Wait, they don't have
> those anymore...

The last time I went into a phone booth it was oddly larger on the
inside than it was on the outside....

[cc]

On Monday, August 13, 2012 7:07:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> We shall see if Onion Knight accepts the offer or not.
> But your looking to use others as a reason to back out of
> your agreements is utter BS... just another sign of how
> dishonest and disreputable you are.

Onion Knight won't accept because you are Onion Knight and you do not want to be found out. Of course this puts you in an awkward position. Onion Knight already made a post demanding Steve Carroll come on with him. And you made a recording between "you and Onion Knight." So if Onion Knight were to suddenly come on and make a post saying he won't do it... well that will speak volumes.

I'm not looking to back out at all. This has been my request since you suddenly invited a Skype radio show for yourself. I'm more than willing to come on. But if you're not going to fess up to the obvious lies, then why should I? I had my suspicions about the recording and several theories about what you did, but if resident cola audio expert Foster (1. someone who *everyone* in the group agrees knows his stuff about audio, and 2. someone who has had no problem with you historically and has no reason to lie about it) says it's a fake, then I'm inclined to believe him.

So you have a couple of options. You can post as Onion Knight and refuse to come on and try to cling to your charade. You can admit you lied about being Onion Knight, then this little Skype chat can proceed. Or you can try to fake it and see if you can play both parts, which will be fun for me. Your call.

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 7:45 AM, in article
1a8871c9-7285-405f...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, August 13, 2012 7:07:33 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> We shall see if Onion Knight accepts the offer or not.
>> But your looking to use others as a reason to back out of
>> your agreements is utter BS... just another sign of how
>> dishonest and disreputable you are.
>
> Onion Knight won't accept because you are Onion Knight and you do not want to
> be found out.

Keep in mind you are making an argument that:

1) There is no support for
2) Is made simply to troll me
3) I had no obligation to say a word about
4) I (and Onion Knight) went out of our way to disprove

And, if accepted, your request allows you to get Onion Knight's IP address
(I have now tested with someone else - going through a proxy kills the
quality to the point you cannot even understand what is being said).

So other than a ploy to get his IP and try to find his identity, what is the
goal here?

> Of course this puts you in an awkward position. Onion Knight
> already made a post demanding Steve Carroll come on with him. And you made a
> recording between "you and Onion Knight." So if Onion Knight were to suddenly
> come on and make a post saying he won't do it... well that will speak volumes.

Again, I will not speak for others, but I do not know if Onion Knight knows
that his real IP can be found when he Skypes. Maybe he and I can do another
form of chat and you or whoever can chat with me and hear his voice but not
connect directly. I will have to see if that is do-able.

> I'm not looking to back out at all. This has been my request since you
> suddenly invited a Skype radio show for yourself.

Who cares.

> I'm more than willing to come on.

Excellent. And you already asked for a date and time that was agreed on. I
will be there.

> But if you're not going to fess up to the obvious lies, then why
> should I? I had my suspicions about the recording and several theories about
> what you did, but if resident cola audio expert Foster (1. someone who
> *everyone* in the group agrees knows his stuff about audio, and 2. someone who
> has had no problem with you historically and has no reason to lie about it)
> says it's a fake, then I'm inclined to believe him.

He made up a story. Period.

> So you have a couple of options. You can post as Onion Knight and refuse to
> come on and try to cling to your charade. You can admit you lied about being
> Onion Knight, then this little Skype chat can proceed. Or you can try to fake
> it and see if you can play both parts, which will be fun for me. Your call.

Again: you are making an unsupported accusation. Boring.

Bottom line: you are trying to avoid speaking about the items in my .sig...
you know you are wrong. You knew it all along.

But, hey, *I* am completely open to having you and Onion Knight on a Skype
call. 100%. I just want Onion Knight to know of the dangers.

[cc]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:03:55 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Again, I will not speak for others,

Except you're going to go ahead and speak for "Onion Knight" and his/your concerns about his/your IP address.

> but I do not know if Onion Knight knows that his real IP
> can be found when he Skypes. Maybe he and I can do another form
> of chat and you or whoever can chat with me and hear his voice
> but not connect directly. I will have to see if that is do-able.

And the games begin... No other form of chat. Skype only.

> Bottom line: you are trying to avoid speaking about the
> items in my .sig...

I've already written about them hundreds of times. I'm not avoiding anything.

> But, hey, *I* am completely open to having you and Onion Knight
> on a Skype call. 100%.

Again, it won't happen unless you are both there, or you admit you are one and the same.

> I just want Onion Knight to know of the dangers.

The danger of being found out as being your sock?

[Foster]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:22:25 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:03:55 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Again, I will not speak for others,
>
> Except you're going to go ahead and speak for "Onion Knight" and his/your concerns about his/your IP address.

Yep.

>> but I do not know if Onion Knight knows that his real IP
>> can be found when he Skypes. Maybe he and I can do another form
>> of chat and you or whoever can chat with me and hear his voice
>> but not connect directly. I will have to see if that is do-able.
>
> And the games begin... No other form of chat. Skype only.

Snit found a new angle to play.

>> Bottom line: you are trying to avoid speaking about the
>> items in my .sig...
>
> I've already written about them hundreds of times. I'm not avoiding anything.

Like most of what snit writes, I didn't follow it.

>> But, hey, *I* am completely open to having you and Onion Knight
>> on a Skype call. 100%.
>
> Again, it won't happen unless you are both there, or you admit you are one and the same.

They are the same.

>> I just want Onion Knight to know of the dangers.
>
> The danger of being found out as being your sock?

He's setting up an out for "Onion Knight".

It's the same kind of crap that Goblin uses.
Make an offer that he knows will never happen.
Use that offer to answer to his detractors.

It's classic goblin.

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 8:22 AM, in article
289c0a8c-9cbf-48b7...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:03:55 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Again, I will not speak for others,
>
> Except you're going to go ahead and speak for "Onion Knight" and his/your
> concerns about his/your IP address.

I spoke to him the other day on Skype and he has made it clear in Usenet he
does not want his ID known. I feel safe in repeating what he has asked.

Again, because you snipped and ran (as is your way):

-----

Keep in mind you are making an argument that:

1) There is no support for
2) Is made simply to troll me
3) I had no obligation to say a word about

4) I (and Onion Knight) went out of our way to disprove your BS

And, if accepted, your request allows you to get Onion Knight's IP address
(I have now tested with someone else - going through a proxy kills the
quality to the point you cannot even understand what is being said).

So other than a ploy to get his IP and try to find his identity, what is the
goal here?

-----

And you have no answer.

>> but I do not know if Onion Knight knows that his real IP
>> can be found when he Skypes. Maybe he and I can do another form
>> of chat and you or whoever can chat with me and hear his voice
>> but not connect directly. I will have to see if that is do-able.
>
> And the games begin... No other form of chat. Skype only.

So you can get his IP address. Got it. You want to track him down.

>> Bottom line: you are trying to avoid speaking about the
>> items in my .sig...
>
> I've already written about them hundreds of times. I'm not avoiding anything.

LOL! Have run from it about a hundred times.

>> But, hey, *I* am completely open to having you and Onion Knight
>> on a Skype call. 100%.
>
> Again, it won't happen unless you are both there, or you admit you are one and
> the same.

Both where? On a chat with you? Again, I am game - though how do we
protect you from getting his IP. I know if I were him (which I am not) I
would not trust you to not get it.

>> I just want Onion Knight to know of the dangers.
>
> The danger of being found out as being your sock?

You forget:

Keep in mind you are making an argument that:

1) There is no support for
2) Is made simply to troll me
3) I had no obligation to say a word about

4) I (and Onion Knight) went out of our way to disprove your BS

And the question you are running from: other than a ploy to get his IP and
try to find his identity, what is the goal here? Wait... there is one... to
add complications so you do not have to answer the questions in my .sig.

[Sandman]

In article <fv9htd80wd68.jd0wg0m0zyed$.d...@40tude.net>,

Foster <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> but I do not know if Onion Knight knows that his real IP
> >> can be found when he Skypes. Maybe he and I can do another form
> >> of chat and you or whoever can chat with me and hear his voice
> >> but not connect directly. I will have to see if that is do-able.
> >
> > And the games begin... No other form of chat. Skype only.
>
> Snit found a new angle to play.

Haha - "for reasons unknown, this supposedly not-me person will be
using a fake skype ID and I want to make sure you can't track my.. uh,
his IP as well!" :-D

This is like the hundreth time Snit has done something like this. I've
documented and exposed many of his forgeries in the past. :)


--
Sandman[.net]

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 8:27 AM, in article fv9htd80wd68.jd0wg0m0zyed$.d...@40tude.net,

"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:22:25 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:03:55 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> Again, I will not speak for others,
>>
>> Except you're going to go ahead and speak for "Onion Knight" and his/your
>> concerns about his/your IP address.
>
> Yep.

Gee, I can listen to him and repeat his concerns. He has made it clear he
does not want his identity known. I have not talked to him, but I do know
that Skype does not work well over a proxy (I tested that) and that it makes
direct connections.

So how do you propose to get what cc wants along with protecting his
identity. Remember, he has been *very* clear about not wanting it known -
he does not want my stalker to attack him as he has done in the past.

>>> but I do not know if Onion Knight knows that his real IP
>>> can be found when he Skypes. Maybe he and I can do another form
>>> of chat and you or whoever can chat with me and hear his voice
>>> but not connect directly. I will have to see if that is do-able.
>>
>> And the games begin... No other form of chat. Skype only.
>
> Snit found a new angle to play.

LOL! Yeah, the new "angle" - protect someone's identity who has made it
known he wants it protected.

>>> Bottom line: you are trying to avoid speaking about the
>>> items in my .sig...
>>
>> I've already written about them hundreds of times. I'm not avoiding anything.
>
> Like most of what snit writes, I didn't follow it.

Yet you claim I am wrong. It is easy:

1) cc claimed he had Linux usage data that went back to 2007... but he
cannot show the post where he posted the data. I ended up posting it.

2) cc claimed he had an Excel workbook where he had worked out stats. I
proved none of the common methods showed the results he claimed to get...
and he never was able to show this Excel file. He also claimed that what he
found was a "fact", when I proved that different common methods come to
different results.

3) I pointed to incorrect depictions of sigma lines. cc claimed they were
all fine... but cannot point to *one* where this is the case. Not one.

4) cc claimed I skipped a step in making a linear trend line, but on being
shown the steps from MS he could not name what step. His "out" here was he
wanted me to do things I had not said I had done. So at least he has a
small "out" in his BS on this one.

It really is that simple.

>>> But, hey, *I* am completely open to having you and Onion Knight
>>> on a Skype call. 100%.
>>
>> Again, it won't happen unless you are both there, or you admit you are one
>> and the same.
>
> They are the same.

A lie from you.

>>> I just want Onion Knight to know of the dangers.
>>
>> The danger of being found out as being your sock?
>
> He's setting up an out for "Onion Knight".
>
> It's the same kind of crap that Goblin uses.
> Make an offer that he knows will never happen.
> Use that offer to answer to his detractors.
>
> It's classic goblin.

[cc]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:37:17 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> So you can get his IP address. Got it. You want to track him down.

You already post with personal info in your headers, therefore your name/IP address, etc are all public knowledge already. And since you are one and the same, I have no need to get your IP address again.

> what is the goal here?

To show that you are Onion Knight, then to repeat the same smackdown I laid on you in textual form, verbally. You happened to post the exact same mistakes in the exact same style when you were posting as Onion Knight, so luckily that nym is 100% relevant to the discussion.

It's funny how for as much as claim to not want to speak for anyone, you sure are backing down for Onion Knight rapidly.

[Goblin]

On 14/08/12 16:27, Foster wrote:
> It's the same kind of crap that Goblin uses.
> Make an offer that he knows will never happen.

Really Foster? Why won't it happen? I'm happy to justify to you
directly in a recorded conversation that list of half-truths you
Microsoft Advocates re-push every few months.

Why will it never happen?

The only thing I can think of is that you know you are wrong and you
don't dare try to justify 15+ years of posting here in your vile and
vulgar way in the name of Microsoft Advocacy. Thats why you won't have
the conversation. You've made all the excuses under the sun and now
its come to this.

I'm only surprised one of you Microsoft Advocates haven't yet said "rope
a dope"...... Maybe thats the last excuse.

--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: bytes...@googlemail.com
Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114824920343832764896/posts
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes

[Torre Starnes]

It's laughable.

To be honest I haven't had any reason to look more closely at snit
and his wars and tactics because much of his technical debates I do
agree with.

However, the Goblin thread where he accused me of running away and
lying (not true at all) piqued my curiosity so I started to look
further into his game playing.

The Onion Knight Skype conversation is laughable.
When Onion first appeared here in COLA, I did initially believe it
was a new person and not a snit sock. That changed however as it
became apparent they are the same person. The gaff DFS posted where
snit and Onion Knight get mixed up was the confirmation.

The Skype conversation is blatantly dubbed using a voice changing
plugin.

[Hadron]

Goblin <bytes...@googlemail.com> writes:

> On 14/08/12 16:27, Foster wrote:
>> It's the same kind of crap that Goblin uses.
>> Make an offer that he knows will never happen.
>
> Really Foster? Why won't it happen? I'm happy to justify to you directly in a
> recorded conversation that list of half-truths you Microsoft Advocates re-push
> every few months.
>
> Why will it never happen?
>
> The only thing I can think of is that you know you are wrong and you don't dare
> try to justify 15+ years of posting here in your vile and vulgar way in the name
> of Microsoft Advocacy. Thats why you won't have the conversation. You've made
> all the excuses under the sun and now its come to this.

Er no. Its because the Qs were posed here and you refuse to type your
answers in as you know there will be an indelible trail to your idiocy
and blatant hypocrisy.

You clearly DO hate MS when it suits you or you're blowing Roy.

[Goblin]

On 14/08/12 18:09, Hadron wrote:
> Er no. Its because the Qs were posed here and you refuse to type your
> answers

Already answered many times before, the same stuff gets re-posted in
order to waste my time. Bring them to me directly I'll answer and I'll
also have a record in which to link to if ever you Microsoft Advocates
try any more of your dirty tricks.

If you were that interested you could have brought up those points in
the articles on my site at the time. You didn't, the trick here is
clear, thats why a direct conversation which you MS advocates can record
too will lay the matter to rest.

But then how could you continue to repeat your lies if there was a
comprehensive record? and which one of you would dare to put your voice
to the behaviour you Microsoft Advocates have engaged in for many years
here?

lol.

I'll wait. As I say, this won't go away and I'll happily answer any and
all of your q's direct....not here where your many years of lies, hiding
and fudging show me that trying to engage normally with you Microsoft
Advocates is a waste of time... Thats what you intend too.

[Foster]

Exactly.
This is not about anyone but Goblin.

He doesn't like being cornered and evidently he dislikes supporting
his own words even more so.

Hell, he claims he has answered DFS's questions in text forums
already, so it should be a trivial matter for him to point to his
clarifications.

> You clearly DO hate MS when it suits you or you're blowing Roy.

He's a classic "Linux advocate" hypocrite.
He plays both sides of the fence and is neither hot nor cold.

Lukewarm is what Goblin is because he doesn't have the testicular
fortitude to commit to and back up his statements.

[Goblin]

On 14/08/12 18:17, Foster wrote:
> He doesn't like being cornered and evidently he dislikes supporting
> his own words even more so.

Eh? I want a recorded skype call for everyone to hear me answering
rather than doing it via text..... Thats called supporting words,
putting my actual voice to my answers.

This won't go away Foster/Gary Stewart/Flatfish your Microsoft Advocacy
tricks will not work and once I return to TechBytes (and the other
audiocasts I've been invited on) I will be repeating this challenge to
you Dirty Microsoft Advocates - Yes, I stand behind that too.

[Steve Carroll]

On Aug 14, 9:27 am, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:22:25 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:03:55 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> >> Again, I will not speak for others,
>
> > Except you're going to go ahead and speak for "Onion Knight" and his/your concerns about his/your IP address.
>
> Yep.
>
> >> but I do not know if Onion Knight knows that his real IP
> >> can be found when he Skypes. Maybe he and I can do another form
> >> of chat and you or whoever can chat with me and hear his voice
> >> but not connect directly. I will have to see if that is do-able.
>
> > And the games begin... No other form of chat. Skype only.
>
> Snit found a new angle to play.

LOL! Yeah, new angle... but it's the same tired game he's always
played... grade school stuff.

> >> Bottom line: you are trying to avoid speaking about the
> >> items in my .sig...
>
> > I've already written about them hundreds of times. I'm not avoiding anything.
>
> Like most of what snit writes, I didn't follow it.
>
> >> But, hey, *I* am completely open to having you and Onion Knight
> >> on a Skype call. 100%.
>
> > Again, it won't happen unless you are both there, or you admit you are one and the same.
>
> They are the same.
>
> >> I just want Onion Knight to know of the dangers.
>
> > The danger of being found out as being your sock?
>
> He's setting up an out for "Onion Knight".

Snit thinks he sets up "outs" cleverly. I see you guys have been busy
with him the last couple or so days;)

You may have noticed, after I pointed out how Snit fed "Onion Knight"
the same disinformation I fed only to Snit, Snit then tried to setup
an "out" for it. I read the post earlier somewhere... if it's pointed
out enough Snit will probably point back to this belated "out" (See?
Snit does read what I write, ALL of it ;) Equally notable is that this
only happened after I also pointed out how stupid they were to whine
about my feeding Snit some crap, they didn't immediately realize what
that did to their position. As I've said all along... Snit is really
not as bright as he appears... neither is his fellow coward, "Onion
Knight" ;)

> It's the same kind of crap that Goblin uses.
> Make an offer that he knows will never happen.
> Use that offer to answer to his detractors.
>
> It's classic goblin.

It's BS... no matter which of these cowardly, lying, hypocritical
weasels do it.

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 8:47 AM, in article
9e872de3-62f5-4073...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:37:17 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> So you can get his IP address. Got it. You want to track him down.
>
> You already post with personal info in your headers, therefore your name/IP
> address, etc are all public knowledge already. And since you are one and the
> same, I have no need to get your IP address again.

I am noting things about him. You keep talking about me. This is even
after it has been established:

Your are making an argument that:

1) There is no support for
2) Is made simply to troll me
3) I had no obligation to say a word about
4) I (and Onion Knight) went out of our way to disprove your BS

Curious: are you even willing to talk about the things listed in my sig when
we speak on Skype, assuming you do not pull out (as you almost surely will,
even if Onion Knight agrees to it).

Simple yes or no here, cc.

>> what is the goal here?
>
> To show that you are Onion Knight, then to repeat the same smackdown I laid on
> you in textual form, verbally.

Ah, you want to lie. That is your goal. Thank you for making that clear.

> You happened to post the exact same mistakes in the exact same style when you
> were posting as Onion Knight, so luckily that nym is 100% relevant to the
> discussion.

See: you want to lie. Remember, it has been proved that your accusations
are false.

> It's funny how for as much as claim to not want to speak for anyone, you sure
> are backing down for Onion Knight rapidly.

I am happy to have him on... I just want to know how you plan on protecting
his IP.

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 10:17 AM, in article 1bfddh2e3rjj$.55z9jp7v...@40tude.net,

Yawn. Goblin has said he does not hate MS but does not find all of their
products useful for him... and even has taken pleasure in them having some
bad news.

How much mileage are you hoping to get from this?

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 10:13 AM, in article 4HvWr.1253987$2z2.8...@fx19.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 14/08/12 18:09, Hadron wrote:
>> Er no. Its because the Qs were posed here and you refuse to type your
>> answers
>
> Already answered many times before, the same stuff gets re-posted in
> order to waste my time. Bring them to me directly I'll answer and I'll
> also have a record in which to link to if ever you Microsoft Advocates
> try any more of your dirty tricks.
>
> If you were that interested you could have brought up those points in
> the articles on my site at the time. You didn't, the trick here is
> clear, thats why a direct conversation which you MS advocates can record
> too will lay the matter to rest.
>
> But then how could you continue to repeat your lies if there was a
> comprehensive record? and which one of you would dare to put your voice
> to the behaviour you Microsoft Advocates have engaged in for many years
> here?
>
> lol.
>
> I'll wait. As I say, this won't go away and I'll happily answer any and
> all of your q's direct....not here where your many years of lies, hiding
> and fudging show me that trying to engage normally with you Microsoft
> Advocates is a waste of time... Thats what you intend too.

You have stated you do not hate MS but do not find all of their products
useful for your needs... and even have taken pleasure in them having some
bad news.

How much mileage are they hoping to get from this? Why is this an issue at
all?

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 8:42 AM, in article mr-5B173F.17...@News.Individual.NET,

Really, what are you talking about?

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 9:31 AM, in article a91codt391bp$.15nuviad...@40tude.net,

So you became convinced of a lie.

> The gaff DFS posted where
> snit and Onion Knight get mixed up was the confirmation.

DFS lied about that.

> The Skype conversation is blatantly dubbed using a voice changing
> plugin.

Incorrect. You made that up.

[Sandman]

In article <a91codt391bp$.15nuviad...@40tude.net>,

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

> > This is like the hundreth time Snit has done something like this. I've
> > documented and exposed many of his forgeries in the past. :)
>
> It's laughable.
>
> To be honest I haven't had any reason to look more closely at snit
> and his wars and tactics because much of his technical debates I do
> agree with.
>
> However, the Goblin thread where he accused me of running away and
> lying (not true at all) piqued my curiosity so I started to look
> further into his game playing.
>
> The Onion Knight Skype conversation is laughable.
> When Onion first appeared here in COLA, I did initially believe it
> was a new person and not a snit sock. That changed however as it
> became apparent they are the same person. The gaff DFS posted where
> snit and Onion Knight get mixed up was the confirmation.

I have Snit killfiled so I have no idea about who this Onion Knight is
or the circumstances are. But I've never seen anyone use sock puppets
as much as Snit, so if anyone claims they are the same, i'd believe
that before anything Snit says.

A quick test is to see if the poster in question is on Snit's side in
any argument. This is a telltale sign that it's a sock puppet. I.e.
there are tons of people that may be *against* the person Snit is in
"debate" with, but in the history of csma, not one singel actual
poster have posted something to defend Snit in any way, shape or form.
Some have joined to attack the "other guy", be it me, Steve Carroll or
whoever. But none have come in and said things like...

"You have been cyber harassing and stalking Snit and others
since at least 2004"
- Onion Knight

...and not been proven a Snit sock puppet later. Because even if
people dislike the other guy, everyone always dislikes Snit more.




--
Sandman[.net]

[Steve Carroll]

On Aug 14, 10:31 am, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:42:21 +0200, Sandman wrote:

> > In article <fv9htd80wd68.jd0wg0m0zyed$....@40tude.net>,

> >  Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> but I do not know if Onion Knight knows that his real IP
> >>>> can be found when he Skypes. Maybe he and I can do another form
> >>>> of chat and you or whoever can chat with me and hear his voice
> >>>> but not connect directly. I will have to see if that is do-able.
>
> >>> And the games begin... No other form of chat. Skype only.
>
> >> Snit found a new angle to play.
>
> > Haha - "for reasons unknown, this supposedly not-me person will be
> > using a fake skype ID and I want to make sure you can't track my.. uh,
> > his IP as well!" :-D
>
> > This is like the hundreth time Snit has done something like this. I've
> > documented and exposed many of his forgeries in the past. :)
>
> It's laughable.
>
> To be honest I haven't had any reason to look more closely at snit
> and his wars and tactics because much of his technical debates I do
> agree with.
>
> However, the Goblin thread where he accused me of running away and
> lying (not true at all) piqued my curiosity so I started to look
> further into his game playing.
>
> The Onion Knight Skype conversation is laughable.
> When Onion first appeared here in COLA, I did initially believe it
> was a new person and not a snit sock.

A new person?! Why? Like many of Snit's socks/shills "Onion Knight"
appeared literally out of the blue (ask Sandman about this sort of
thing in CSMA with Snit). Look at the facts here that can be proven
beyond reasonable doubt:

1 - "Onion Knight" had no prior use of that handle on usenet.

2 - He *somehow* (miraculously) made his way to not only a particular
newsgroup, but to a particular thread where Snit was getting his ass
handed to him and I was agreeing with the other party and began
arguing the same argument in the same manner as did Snit, despite
admitting that he didn't know much about stats.

3 - We see "Onion Knight" start spewing crap about me a new poster
couldn't possibly know (without Snit's help), targeting me with the
same lies and BS that Snit has (Losing an argument? Toss in some red
herring lies and bring in reinforcements! Yawn...).

4 - Then, once that is pointed out we see "Onion Knight" claim to be a
poster from CSMA who doesn't want his identity known.

At first I thought someone was trying to set Snit up (which may still
be the case... if I'm right about the identity, this is still a
possibility, even if he's working 'with' Snit). When "Onion Knight"
starting spewing some info I purposefully gave only to Snit I
unquestionably knew there was a connection. Snit is lying the way he
has lied about all his socks/shills... even long after he's been
busted.

>That changed however as it
> became apparent they are the same person. The gaff DFS posted where
> snit and Onion Knight get mixed up was the confirmation.
>
> The Skype conversation is blatantly dubbed using a voice changing
> plugin.

That may be true (it sounds like it) but that doesn't prove that it's
one person... I'm pretty sure they are not the same person.

Bottom line... as stated by Snit about Onion Knight on this recording:

"As long as no identifying information of his is known" = Gutless,
*totally* anonymous coward

Notice that "Onion Knight" is heard claiming that he has a "shared"
problem of a "stalker" but gives no details on that. All the listener/
reader ever gets from him is unsupported accusations and tag teaming
onto Snit's BS. This underscores how weak and pathetic he and Snit
are, preferring to take bogus potshots instead of addressing Snit's
poor usenet behavior... thinking no one will spot this red herring.
It's an old game by Snit.

I'm curious as to who these "people" are that Snit claims "wanted" to
hear him talk about his "stalker". I'm betting that's just another
narcissistic delusion he's having ;)

[Steve Carroll]

On Aug 14, 11:45 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/14/12 8:42 AM, in article mr-5B173F.17422114082...@News.Individual.NET,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article <fv9htd80wd68.jd0wg0m0zyed$....@40tude.net>,

> >  Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> but I do not know if Onion Knight knows that his real IP
> >>>> can be found when he Skypes. Maybe he and I can do another form
> >>>> of chat and you or whoever can chat with me and hear his voice
> >>>> but not connect directly. I will have to see if that is do-able.
>
> >>> And the games begin... No other form of chat. Skype only.
>
> >> Snit found a new angle to play.
>
> > Haha - "for reasons unknown, this supposedly not-me person will be
> > using a fake skype ID and I want to make sure you can't track my.. uh,
> > his IP as well!" :-D
>
> > This is like the hundreth time Snit has done something like this. I've
> > documented and exposed many of his forgeries in the past. :)
>
> Really, what are you talking about?

He's talking about the kinds of activity you have engaged in that has
you calling 165 posters liars.

LOL!

[Nobody]

On 8/14/2012 11:31 AM, Torre Starnes wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:42:21 +0200, Sandman wrote:
>
>> In article <fv9htd80wd68.jd0wg0m0zyed$.d...@40tude.net>,
>> Foster <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

[...]

>
> However, the Goblin thread where he accused me of running away and
> lying (not true at all) piqued my curiosity so I started to look
> further into his game playing.

[...]

Isn't it interesting that Snit turns posters of all stripes against him
by pulling the same crap on everybody? Even people who initially agree
with him and support him eventually turn against him. Even the trolls
call him troll and plonk him.

That's reason his socks are so easy to spot. They're the only ones who
will support him, and the only ones he doesn't pull his same tired old
routines on.

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 10:56 AM, in article
mr-9190AD.19...@News.Individual.NET, "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net>
wrote:

Poor Sandman - ever since I proved he was lying about his site he has been
lying about me every time he talks about me. Even has a site filled with
lies about me.

<http://csma.sandman.net/atlas/faq/index.php?faq=sigmond>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Css_Validation>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Gibberish>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Quote_Forging>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Tilde>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery>
<http://csma.sandman.net/pages/ScreenshotForgery>
<http://csma.sandman.net/plain/ascii.php?name=Snit>
<http://csma.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit>

Every one of those pages is filled with lies about me. Every single one.
And I am sure there are more.

[Foster]

Good analysis of snit.
I've never gotten that deep into it.

Did you listen to the section of audio I described?

This is not an artifact due to processing because then snit's voice
would also sound processed and it doesn't. He sounds basically like
he did on Roy's podcast.

Let's see if snit will post the raw file prior to noise reduction
and snipping.

That will confirm whether audio (not voice changing) processing is
effecting the voices.

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 11:02 AM, in article k0e3s8$et3$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

There are many liars in advocacy groups. Liars do not like me. I sleep
well at night.

[Nobody]

On 8/14/2012 1:19 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 8/14/12 11:02 AM, in article k0e3s8$et3$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/2012 11:31 AM, Torre Starnes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:42:21 +0200, Sandman wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <fv9htd80wd68.jd0wg0m0zyed$.d...@40tude.net>,
>>>> Foster <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> However, the Goblin thread where he accused me of running away and
>>> lying (not true at all) piqued my curiosity so I started to look
>>> further into his game playing.
>> [...]
>>
>> Isn't it interesting that Snit turns posters of all stripes against him
>> by pulling the same crap on everybody? Even people who initially agree
>> with him and support him eventually turn against him. Even the trolls
>> call him troll and plonk him.
>>
>> That's reason his socks are so easy to spot. They're the only ones who
>> will support him, and the only ones he doesn't pull his same tired old
>> routines on.
>
> There are many liars in advocacy groups. Liars do not like me. I sleep
> well at night.

Sociopaths do sleep like babies.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

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

> On 14/08/12 18:09, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Er no. Its because the Qs were posed here and you refuse to type your
>> answers
>
> Already answered many times before, the same stuff gets re-posted in
> order to waste my time.

As "Hadron" well knows; he has posted endless bullshit about what people
have said, over and over and over. What a wanker.

--
Just don't rub Liarnut (Ahlstrom) up the wrong way. When you get past
the "snicker" side of his character he's been know to froth and rage and
get very, very nasty. It's why Roy employs him as his attack dog. Only
Koehlmann (being German) is more dangerous as Roy's Rottweiler.
-- "Hadron" <h8r3tk$68k$1...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Foster]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:31:39 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After swilling some grog, Goblin belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 14/08/12 18:09, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Er no. Its because the Qs were posed here and you refuse to type your
>>> answers
>>
>> Already answered many times before, the same stuff gets re-posted in
>> order to waste my time.
>
> As "Hadron" well knows; he has posted endless bullshit about what people
> have said, over and over and over. What a wanker.

Then Goblin should have no problem posting links to his answers and
thus winning the debate.
It's as simple as that.

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 11:09 AM, in article ygsws55i8uxo$.1wbef46j...@40tude.net,

And he explained why: he is one of the many you have harassed over the years
and he wants to remain anonymous.

>> 2 - He *somehow* (miraculously) made his way to not only a particular
>> newsgroup, but to a particular thread where Snit was getting his ass
>> handed to him and I was agreeing with the other party and began
>> arguing the same argument in the same manner as did Snit, despite
>> admitting that he didn't know much about stats.

I believe he said he looked us up to see if you were still harassing me.
You were. Nothing "miraculous" about this. You have been cyber stalking me
and harassing me since 2004 with few breaks.

>> 3 - We see "Onion Knight" start spewing crap about me a new poster
>> couldn't possibly know (without Snit's help), targeting me with the
>> same lies and BS that Snit has (Losing an argument? Toss in some red
>> herring lies and bring in reinforcements! Yawn...).

Onion Knight never claimed to be a new poster. And he never lied. If he
had Carroll would have quoted some.

>> 4 - Then, once that is pointed out we see "Onion Knight" claim to be a
>> poster from CSMA who doesn't want his identity known.

Why would this come up until Carroll asked him about it?

>> At first I thought someone was trying to set Snit up (which may still
>> be the case... if I'm right about the identity, this is still a
>> possibility, even if he's working 'with' Snit).

So you are trying to figure out his identity. He is right about that.

>> When "Onion Knight" starting spewing some info I purposefully gave only to
>> Snit I unquestionably knew there was a connection.

There is no such info. I do not read your emails.

>> Snit is lying the way he has lied about all his socks/shills... even long
>> after he's been busted.
>>
>>> That changed however as it
>>> became apparent they are the same person. The gaff DFS posted where
>>> snit and Onion Knight get mixed up was the confirmation.
>>>
>>> The Skype conversation is blatantly dubbed using a voice changing
>>> plugin.
>>
>> That may be true (it sounds like it) but that doesn't prove that it's
>> one person... I'm pretty sure they are not the same person.
>>
>> Bottom line... as stated by Snit about Onion Knight on this recording:
>>
>> "As long as no identifying information of his is known" = Gutless,
>> *totally* anonymous coward

Gee, the people you harass do not want you to do to them as you have done to
me - threaten to contact my employer with lies with the stated goal of
having me be fired: <http://goo.gl/7HRLZ>.

Carroll denies that post... but the proof is right there.

>> Notice that "Onion Knight" is heard claiming that he has a "shared"
>> problem of a "stalker" but gives no details on that.

Carroll is fishing for info - which of the people who he has harassed is
calling him out. Poor Carroll does not know. I do not either... though I
have my guesses. No, I will not share.

>> All the listener/ reader ever gets from him is unsupported accusations and
>> tag teaming onto Snit's BS.

Untrue... it has been proved you cannot back your accusations nor account
for your own behavior:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0922f9c56bb0f503>

Proved.

>> This underscores how weak and pathetic he and Snit are, preferring to take
>> bogus potshots instead of addressing Snit's poor usenet behavior... thinking
>> no one will spot this red herring. It's an old game by Snit.

Oh, the irony.

>> I'm curious as to who these "people" are that Snit claims "wanted" to
>> hear him talk about his "stalker". I'm betting that's just another
>> narcissistic delusion he's having ;)
>
> Good analysis of snit.

It is nothing but lies.

> I've never gotten that deep into it.
>
> Did you listen to the section of audio I described?
>
> This is not an artifact due to processing because then snit's voice
> would also sound processed and it doesn't. He sounds basically like
> he did on Roy's podcast.

I did the recording... my voice is local. Onion Knight is over Skype which
has poor quality. Man, what a mystery!

> Let's see if snit will post the raw file prior to noise reduction
> and snipping.

Why not? No smoothing or removing of background noise or even altering the
volumes of the two voices (they are on different tracks) to try to make them
roughly the same. I did not bring back the last bit after we hung up... so
there is that "editing"... trimming off the end. I also did not record the
very start... so you do not hear the start of the call. Re-exported as
AIFF... not even compressed as an MP3. About 55 MB:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-RAW.aiff>

What lies will you tell about that?

> That will confirm whether audio (not voice changing) processing is
> effecting the voices.

It will just give you more chances to lie. Siding with my stalker about his
lies about me... shame on you. Really.

[Goblin]

On 14/08/12 19:34, Foster wrote:
> Then Goblin should have no problem posting links to his answers and
> thus winning the debate.
> It's as simple as that.

No Foster, I cannot recall every thread and everytime in a paragraph of
text I may have answered. If the points were that important, why not
post to the articles which they came from? In any case as for the
"claims" I repeat:

I want a recorded skype call for everyone to hear me answering rather
than doing it via text..... Thats called supporting words, putting my
actual voice to my answers.

This won't go away Foster/Gary Stewart/Flatfish your Microsoft Advocacy
tricks will not work and once I return to TechBytes (and the other
audiocasts I've been invited on) I will be repeating this challenge to

you Dirty Microsoft Advocates - Yes, I stand behind that too.

[Steve Carroll]

On Aug 14, 12:27 pm, Nobody <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 8/14/2012 1:19 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 8/14/12 11:02 AM, in article k0e3s8$et...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

> > <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 8/14/2012 11:31 AM, Torre Starnes wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:42:21 +0200, Sandman wrote:
>

> >>>> In article <fv9htd80wd68.jd0wg0m0zyed$....@40tude.net>,

> >>>>    Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> However, the Goblin thread where he accused me of running away and
> >>> lying (not true at all) piqued my curiosity so I started to look
> >>> further into his game playing.
> >> [...]
>
> >> Isn't it interesting that Snit turns posters of all stripes against him
> >> by pulling the same crap on everybody?  Even people who initially agree
> >> with him and support him eventually turn against him.  Even the trolls
> >> call him troll and plonk him.
>
> >> That's reason his socks are so easy to spot.  They're the only ones who
> >> will support him, and the only ones he doesn't pull his same tired old
> >> routines on.
>
> > There are many liars in advocacy groups.  Liars do not like me.  I sleep
> > well at night.
>
> Sociopaths do sleep like babies.

Good point. To hear Snit tell it...there are scores of "liars" between
CSMA and COLA.

[cc]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:39:05 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>

Hmm, thought I already responded to this, but it's not showing up.

> Curious: are you even willing to talk about the things listed
> in my sig when we speak on Skype, assuming you do not pull out
> (as you almost surely will, even if Onion Knight agrees to it).

I will talk about anything and everything.

> I am happy to have him on... I just want to know how you plan
> on protecting his IP.

He can use a proxy. I have never had a problem using a proxy before (and I had planned on using one for our conversatoin as well). I can't find anything online about any people have problems with proxies in general. Most people are very happy using TOR as their Skype proxy.

So here's a simple solution: Onion Knight uses a proxy, and if the call quality actually is really terrible, we'll stop, and figure something else out. So since *you* are incredibly paranoid about *Onion Knight's* IP address, then this will solve that problem for you.

There, the IP address issue is solved. Now there's no reason for him not to come on.

--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov> - Snit's ignorance of Excel and his hilarious attempt at statistical analysis

[cc]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:39:05 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>

> Curious: are you even willing to talk about the things listed
> in my sig when we speak on Skype, assuming you do not pull out
> (as you almost surely will, even if Onion Knight agrees to it).

I'm willing to talk about anything and everything.

> I am happy to have him on... I just want to know how you plan
> on protecting his IP.

Why do you want to know? Shouldn't "he" be all up in arms about this? The only way I would release his IP address is if it is the same as yours. I have never had any problem using a proxy with Skype either, certainly nothing like you've listed here. In fact I find no reference online of anyone experience degradation simply because they're using a proxy.

A simple solution is for "Onion Knight" to use a proxy (since according *to you* he is very extremely worried about his IP address being found out). If the call quality does suffer, then we'll simply stop and revisit the concept again. If you say he is so worried about it, then this is a simple solution that we can try until we realize it just won't work. Perhaps we'll find that any degradation that does occur isn't really detrimental to the conversation.

There, IP address issue solved. No reason for "him" to refuse now.

[Steve Carroll]

On Aug 14, 12:37 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/14/12 11:09 AM, in article ygsws55i8uxo$.1wbef46jq93ar....@40tude.net,

I haven't stalked anyone... but if you believe otherwise why aren't
you reporting it? Everyone knows why.

>
> >> 3 - We see "Onion Knight" start spewing crap about me a new poster
> >> couldn't possibly know (without Snit's help), targeting me with the
> >> same lies and BS that Snit has (Losing an argument? Toss in some red
> >> herring lies and bring in reinforcements! Yawn...).
>
> Onion Knight never claimed to be a new poster.

Exactly... and the idea that he was shilling for you was immediately
obvious.

>  And he never lied.

Like hell he didn't.

>  If he had Carroll would have quoted some.

I need to quote the filthy lies about my wife? And you wonder why
people think you're an arrogant, egocentric, pathological liar who is
cock sure people are as stupid as he needs them to be? LOL!

> >> 4 - Then, once that is pointed out we see "Onion Knight" claim to be a
> >> poster from CSMA who doesn't want his identity known.
>
> Why would this come up until Carroll asked him about it?

Why wouldn't his filthy lies (that were your filthy lies) come up?
Sorry, Snit... people aren't as stupid as you need them to be.

> >> At first I thought someone was trying to set Snit up (which may still
> >> be the case... if I'm right about the identity, this is still a
> >> possibility, even if he's working 'with' Snit).
>
> So you are trying to figure out his identity.  He is right about that.

Nah... I just have an idea who it is. Realistically, though, it
doesn't much matter as he's a whining coward... just like you are.

> >> When "Onion Knight" starting spewing some info I purposefully gave only to
> >> Snit I unquestionably knew there was a connection.
>
> There is no such info.  I do not read your emails.

Yes, there was "such info". I keep trying to tell you that people
aren't as stupid as you need them to be. You seem to forget that some
of the emails were sent via Google Groups and you responded to them.
The idea that you "do not read" them is bullshit and the Google
archive proves it. You read everything I write and you prove it almost
daily. It's only your ridiculous belief that people are as stupid as
you need them to be that has thinking otherwise. You just said (again)
you wouldn't respond to me via 3rd party... and here you are...
responding to me via 3rd party. Do you ever do anything but lie? Ever?

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0922f9c56bb0f503

> >> Snit is lying the way he has lied about all his socks/shills... even long
> >> after he's been busted.
>
> >>> That changed however as it
> >>> became apparent they are the same person. The gaff DFS posted where
> >>> snit and Onion Knight get mixed up was the confirmation.
>
> >>> The Skype conversation is blatantly dubbed using a voice changing
> >>> plugin.
>
> >> That may be true (it sounds like it) but that doesn't prove that it's
> >> one person... I'm pretty sure they are not the same person.
>
> >> Bottom line... as stated by Snit about Onion Knight on this recording:
>
> >>  "As long as no identifying information of his is known" = Gutless,
> >> *totally* anonymous coward
>
> Gee, the people you harass do not want you to do to them as you have done to
> me

I didn't threaten anything.

> - threaten to contact my employer with lies with the stated goal of
> having me be fired: <http://goo.gl/7HRLZ>.
>
> Carroll denies that post... but the proof is right there.

Where is the "threat" there?

> >> Notice that "Onion Knight" is heard claiming that he has a "shared"
> >> problem of a "stalker" but gives no details on that.
>
> Carroll is fishing for info

Incorrect... I'm not fishing for what I know isn't there.

> - which of the people who he has harassed is
> calling him out.  Poor Carroll does not know.  I do not either... though I
> have my guesses.  No, I will not share.

You don't need to share the fact that Onion Knight is a coward who is
making unsupported allegations in the same manner that you do,
everyone already understands this is fact.

> >> All the listener/ reader ever gets from him is unsupported accusations and
> >> tag teaming onto Snit's BS.
>
> Untrue

Gee... you said it... so it must be, huh? LOL!

> ... it has been proved you cannot back your accusations nor account
> for your own behavior:

> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0922f9c56bb...>
>
> Proved.

To whom? You and "Onion Knight"?

> >> This underscores how weak and pathetic he and Snit are,
preferring to take
> >> bogus potshots instead of addressing Snit's poor usenet behavior... thinking
> >> no one will spot this red herring. It's an old game by Snit.
>
> Oh, the irony.

Said the cowardly weasel calling himself "Snit" over a conversation
where another guy named "Onion Knight" is spreading Snit's falsehoods
for Snit.

> >> I'm curious as to who these "people" are that Snit claims "wanted" to
> >> hear him talk about his "stalker". I'm betting that's just another
> >> narcissistic delusion he's having ;)
>
> > Good analysis of snit.
>
> It is nothing but lies.

You call it lies... but it's fact to everyone who bothered to read
Onion Knight's crap.

> > I've never gotten that deep into it.
>
> > Did you listen to the section of audio I described?
>
> > This is not an artifact due to processing because then snit's voice
> > would also sound processed and it doesn't. He sounds basically like
> > he did on Roy's podcast.
>
> I did the recording... my voice is local.  Onion Knight is over Skype which
> has poor quality.  Man, what a mystery!

It also doesn't prove a single thing.

> > Let's see if snit will post the raw file prior to noise reduction
> > and snipping.
>
> Why not?  No smoothing or removing of background noise or even altering the
> volumes of the two voices (they are on different tracks) to try to make them
> roughly the same.  I did not bring back the last bit after we hung up... so
> there is that "editing"... trimming off the end.  I also did not record the
> very start... so you do not hear the start of the call.  Re-exported as
> AIFF... not even compressed as an MP3.  About 55 MB:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-RAW.aiff>
>
> What lies will you tell about that?

This issue aside... who doesn't know you are a pathological liar?

> > That will confirm whether audio (not voice changing) processing is
> > effecting the voices.
>
> It will just give you more chances to lie.  Siding with my stalker about his
> lies about me... shame on you.  Really.

Sorry... but people aren't as stupid as you need them to be, Snit...
they just aren't.

(cue up Snit, jealously questioning another professional, Foster...
just like he did with Sandman on his website development... to further
his trolling agenda).

[William Poaster]

Here is a facsimile from Goblin who, on 14/8/2012 17:29, wrote:

> On 14/08/12 16:27, Foster wrote:
>> It's the same kind of crap that Goblin uses.
>> Make an offer that he knows will never happen.
>
> Really Foster? Why won't it happen? I'm happy to justify to you
> directly in a recorded conversation that list of half-truths you
> Microsoft Advocates re-push every few months.
>
> Why will it never happen?

Obviously because you were correct, when you said they were liars &
cowards & won't come on your show.
HTH :-)

> The only thing I can think of is that you know you are wrong and you
> don't dare try to justify 15+ years of posting here in your vile and
> vulgar way in the name of Microsoft Advocacy. Thats why you won't have
> the conversation. You've made all the excuses under the sun and now
> its come to this.
>

> I'm only surprised one of you Microsoft Advocates haven't yet said "rope
> a dope"...... Maybe thats the last excuse.
>

--
Dr. Who has been struck off due to unprofessional conduct with a
Darlek.

Micro$oft, the company that makes spreading malware easy.

Microsoft exec Ron Markezich was quoted saying that for every $1
companies spend on Microsoft software, they need to spend $6 getting
it to work right. -- April 2011 SanFrancisco Chronical --

"We have no intention of shipping another bloated OS and shoving
it down the throats of our users."
-- Paul Maritz, Microsoft group vice president --

What's bad about Micro$oft:
http://www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.html

[Torre Starnes]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:

> On Aug 14, 12:37�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/14/12 11:09 AM, in article ygsws55i8uxo$.1wbef46jq93ar....@40tude.net,

>> I did the recording... my voice is local. �Onion Knight is over Skype which
>> has poor quality. �Man, what a mystery!
>
> It also doesn't prove a single thing.

Of course he is local and Onion remote however, unless he sat there
and applied his processing (cleaning up the sound) surgically to
ONLY the Onion Knight portions of the wave, the entire wave file
will be processed.

>>> Let's see if snit will post the raw file prior to noise reduction
>>> and snipping.
>>
>> Why not? �No smoothing or removing of background noise or even altering the
>> volumes of the two voices (they are on different tracks) to try to make them
>> roughly the same. �I did not bring back the last bit after we hung up... so
>> there is that "editing"... trimming off the end. �I also did not record the
>> very start... so you do not hear the start of the call. �Re-exported as
>> AIFF... not even compressed as an MP3. �About 55 MB:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-RAW.aiff>
>>
>> What lies will you tell about that?
>
> This issue aside... who doesn't know you are a pathological liar?

The original has a completely different, and superior sound even
with the noise. It has a natural noise floor as well.

Snit's processing programs got confused with the audio coming over
Skype which has major phase problems to begin with and accentuated
everything resulting in many audio artifacts.

Converting down to mp3 magnified these artifacts even more so.

The two files, mp3 vs aiff sound NOTHING alike, especially at
percussive points in the dialog, like when each person starts
speaking.

Bottom line given the original .aiff file and loading it up into
Samplitude ProX or iZotope RX2 the suspicious sections are no longer
suspect.

Apology to snit for accusing him of faking the Skype.
They are two different people. At least in this Skype conversation.

BTW this is one reason why programs like Sonnox cost a lot of money.
Had he used a professional level program to do his editing and FX it
would have come out better with less artifacts.

The techloons clowns have the same problem.

The quality of the programs makes a huge difference in the quality
and accuracy of the project.

[Nobody]

I'd go listen for myself, but how can I do that without Snit data mining
my personal information?

[Torre Starnes]

Use an anonymous proxy like TOR.
https://www.torproject.org/

[William Poaster]

Here is a facsimile from Goblin who, on 14/8/2012 18:19, wrote:

> On 14/08/12 18:17, Foster wrote:
>> He doesn't like being cornered and evidently he dislikes supporting
>> his own words even more so.

Anyone else find this ironic?

> Eh? I want a recorded skype call for everyone to hear me answering

> rather than doing it via text..... Thats called supporting words,
> putting my actual voice to my answers.
>
> This won't go away Foster/Gary Stewart/Flatfish your Microsoft Advocacy
> tricks will not work and once I return to TechBytes (and the other
> audiocasts I've been invited on) I will be repeating this challenge to
> you Dirty Microsoft Advocates - Yes, I stand behind that too.

Well said.

--
Linux. The Malicious Software Removal tool which wipes Windows from
your PC in seconds!

[Steve Carroll]

On Aug 14, 3:54 pm, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 12:37 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/14/12 11:09 AM, in article ygsws55i8uxo$.1wbef46jq93ar....@40tude.net,
> >> I did the recording... my voice is local. Onion Knight is over Skype which
> >> has poor quality. Man, what a mystery!
>
> > It also doesn't prove a single thing.
>
> Of course he is local and Onion remote however, unless he sat there
> and applied his processing (cleaning up the sound) surgically to
> ONLY the Onion Knight portions of the wave, the entire wave file
> will be processed.

I don't think he did that... not sure he'd even know to do it ;)

> >>> Let's see if snit will post the raw file prior to noise reduction
> >>> and snipping.
>
> >> Why not? No smoothing or removing of background noise or even altering the
> >> volumes of the two voices (they are on different tracks) to try to make them
> >> roughly the same. I did not bring back the last bit after we hung up... so
> >> there is that "editing"... trimming off the end. I also did not record the
> >> very start... so you do not hear the start of the call. Re-exported as
> >> AIFF... not even compressed as an MP3. About 55 MB:
>
> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-RAW.aiff>
>
> >> What lies will you tell about that?
>
> > This issue aside... who doesn't know you are a pathological liar?
>
> The original has a completely different, and superior sound even
> with the noise. It has a natural noise floor as well.
>
> Snit's processing programs got confused with the audio coming over
> Skype which has major phase problems to begin with and accentuated
> everything resulting in many audio artifacts.

That's the most likely explanation. The two voices don't have the same
'meter' or sound much alike in any way to my ear.

> Converting down to mp3 magnified these artifacts even more so.
>
> The two files, mp3 vs aiff sound NOTHING alike, especially at
> percussive points in the dialog, like when each person starts
> speaking.
>
> Bottom line given the original .aiff file and loading it up into
> Samplitude ProX or iZotope RX2 the suspicious sections are no longer
> suspect.
>
> Apology to snit for accusing him of faking the Skype.
> They are two different people. At least in this Skype conversation.

I never thought there were the same person... but this doesn't change
a thing. Onion Knight is just as much a cowardly liar as Snit is.
Nothing new to see here... Snit's sock/shills are (and have always
been) boring.

> BTW this is one reason why programs like Sonnox cost a lot of money.
> Had he used a professional level program to do his editing and FX it
> would have come out better with less artifacts.
>
> The techloons clowns have the same problem.

I think that accounts for a lot of it. You would almost have to try to
produce audio as bad as they have... even using cheap gear nowadays.

> The quality of the programs makes a huge difference in the quality
> and accuracy of the project.

No question.

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 11:36 AM, in article
cbb363e8-c5c9-4721...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:39:05 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Curious: are you even willing to talk about the things listed
>> in my sig when we speak on Skype, assuming you do not pull out
>> (as you almost surely will, even if Onion Knight agrees to it).
>
> I'm willing to talk about anything and everything.

Excellent.

>> I am happy to have him on... I just want to know how you plan
>> on protecting his IP.
>
> Why do you want to know?

Because I know it is important to him... he has made that clear. He does
not want his identity known. You are asking to add someone to our Skype
session simply so you can troll me, and I am asking you what protections you
are willing to put into place to protect his ID.

> Shouldn't "he" be all up in arms about this?

I have not seen him post on this issue - nor do I know if he has the
technical background to understand the risk.

> The only way I would release his IP address is if it is the same as yours.

He is not going to be Skyping from my house but from his (or wherever he
is). But now you have admitted you will be checking. Will you release any
info from it... what city or ISP, for example?

> I have never had any problem using a proxy with Skype either, certainly
> nothing like you've listed here. In fact I find no reference online of anyone
> experience degradation simply because they're using a proxy.

As I said, I tested it and it did not work well with that test.

> A simple solution is for "Onion Knight" to use a proxy (since according *to
> you* he is very extremely worried about his IP address being found out).

He has made it clear he does not what his identity known. From his own
claims he has been the target of my stalker in the past and does not want my
stalker to focus on him. Very reasonable.

> If the call quality does suffer, then we'll simply stop and revisit the
> concept again. If you say he is so worried about it, then this is a simple
> solution that we can try until we realize it just won't work. Perhaps we'll
> find that any degradation that does occur isn't really detrimental to the
> conversation.

Could be.

> There, IP address issue solved. No reason for "him" to refuse now.

Assuming he knows how to set up proxies and is willing to jump through
hoops. Unlike you I shall not pretend to speak for him.

[Foster]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:00:04 +0100, William Poaster wrote:


>> This won't go away Foster/Gary Stewart/Flatfish your Microsoft Advocacy
>> tricks will not work and once I return to TechBytes (and the other
>> audiocasts I've been invited on) I will be repeating this challenge to
>> you Dirty Microsoft Advocates - Yes, I stand behind that too.
>
> Well said.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Won't go away?

Who the hell cares? I'm not the one running from my own words.
That's Goblin who still hasn't addressed the contradictions in his
own statements.

He'll be repeating this challenge on an audio cast virtually nobody
listens to?

Hahahha!
That's funny.
Really funny!

He seems to forget the challenge was dropped into his lap by DFS and
instead of addressing it, he has been dodging the very act of
explaining his own words.

Here are Goblin of techrights.org own words once again:

**************Originally Posted By DFS*****************
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a036a15606af2e66?hl=en
Well, it turns out MS has been partying it up since the Win7
release... 600
million licenses sold in <3 years...
How about you? You celebrating with them?
How's your Windows job going?
How much do you play your XBox 360?
What version of Windows do your wife and children use?
===========================================================================================

Goob claim: "I don't hate Microsoft"
Goob behavior:
* wanted to throw a party to celebrate his hoped-for failure of
Windows 7
* completely obsessed over the so-called failure of the Kin,
writing
many negative and gloating remarks:
"Ive certainly had a laugh at the disaster that was the Kin.",
"What made the failure so comical..."
"utter disaster"
"#fail"
"I take some joy in failures like Kin..."
"you get a kick in the teeth from Microsoft abandoning it"
* "predicted" the WinPhone7 would be "lacking" and gloats over
every issue and problem he can find.
* actually had the galling idiocy to label the MS Kinect "not a
success" and "a toy".
The Kinect was/is the fastest selling electronic gadget in history.
* claimed the "[Microsoft hate site] boycottnovell is the most
interesting and informative site on the Internet".
* actually shows Spamowitz's idiotic lies on his site, such as
"Vista 7 Top οΏ½FeatureοΏ½ is Access to Intruders"
* babbled "I removed OpenSUSE from our local computer club
machines
after they signed up with Microsoft"
* claims any Skype successes in the future cannot be attributed
to Microsoft.
* blog contains ONLY negative articles about Microsoft
* repeatedly gloat about Microsoft's errors, failures and less
than huge-successes.
* blog labels Microsoft "underhanded"
* claims "I cannot think of one MS tech which is better for me
than what Im using"
* claims "time and again I was burned by Microsoft products that
were not fit for purpose for me"
* claims the Acer Aspire One is "wholly unsuitable for XP"
* says he's suspicious of anyone who posts pro-MS comments
* says he's skeptical of pro-MS literature.
* Gaming section on his blog doesn't mention Windows gaming at
all
which is the best in the world.
* all his posts to Usenet are negative about Microsoft
* never said anything good about MS that I can find

You get 'em Goob! You utter, shabby hypocrite.
END DFS Section----------------------
TAGS FOR SEACRH ENGINES.
(Let's seed the search engines like Spamowitz does).

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 11:27 AM, in article k0e5bl$hpi$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

Waking up every couple of hours crying?

The point, which you missed, is I lose no sleep over liars such as yourself
lying about me.

[Torre Starnes]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:10:44 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:

> On Aug 14, 3:54�pm, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Aug 14, 12:37 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/12 11:09 AM, in article ygsws55i8uxo$.1wbef46jq93ar....@40tude.net,
>>>> I did the recording... my voice is local. Onion Knight is over Skype which
>>>> has poor quality. Man, what a mystery!
>>
>>> It also doesn't prove a single thing.
>>
>> Of course he is local and Onion remote however, unless he sat there
>> and applied his processing (cleaning up the sound) surgically to
>> ONLY the Onion Knight portions of the wave, the entire wave file
>> will be processed.
>
> I don't think he did that... not sure he'd even know to do it ;)

Precisely which is why I questioned it.

>>>>> Let's see if snit will post the raw file prior to noise reduction
>>>>> and snipping.
>>
>>>> Why not? No smoothing or removing of background noise or even altering the
>>>> volumes of the two voices (they are on different tracks) to try to make them
>>>> roughly the same. I did not bring back the last bit after we hung up... so
>>>> there is that "editing"... trimming off the end. I also did not record the
>>>> very start... so you do not hear the start of the call. Re-exported as
>>>> AIFF... not even compressed as an MP3. About 55 MB:
>>
>>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-RAW.aiff>
>>
>>>> What lies will you tell about that?
>>
>>> This issue aside... who doesn't know you are a pathological liar?
>>
>> The original has a completely different, and superior sound even
>> with the noise. It has a natural noise floor as well.
>>
>> Snit's processing programs got confused with the audio coming over
>> Skype which has major phase problems to begin with and accentuated
>> everything resulting in many audio artifacts.
>
> That's the most likely explanation. The two voices don't have the same
> 'meter' or sound much alike in any way to my ear.

The meter is similar but the accentuations are far less in the
original file so that was magnified as well.

>> Converting down to mp3 magnified these artifacts even more so.
>>
>> The two files, mp3 vs aiff sound NOTHING alike, especially at
>> percussive points in the dialog, like when each person starts
>> speaking.
>>
>> Bottom line given the original .aiff file and loading it up into
>> Samplitude ProX or iZotope RX2 the suspicious sections are no longer
>> suspect.
>>
>> Apology to snit for accusing him of faking the Skype.
>> They are two different people. At least in this Skype conversation.
>
> I never thought there were the same person... but this doesn't change
> a thing. Onion Knight is just as much a cowardly liar as Snit is.
> Nothing new to see here... Snit's sock/shills are (and have always
> been) boring.

I was just interested in how he could fake the Skype cast. To be
honest the topic discussed isn't of interest to me.

>> BTW this is one reason why programs like Sonnox cost a lot of money.
>> Had he used a professional level program to do his editing and FX it
>> would have come out better with less artifacts.
>>
>> The techloons clowns have the same problem.
>
> I think that accounts for a lot of it. You would almost have to try to
> produce audio as bad as they have... even using cheap gear nowadays.

It's literally almost impossible.
I'm not really sure why it sounds so bad.

>> The quality of the programs makes a huge difference in the quality
>> and accuracy of the project.
>
> No question.

Well snit's off the hook this time.
There is always tomorrow though :)

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 2:54 PM, in article djyzrqr914nj.zpz62dxm1ylx$.d...@40tude.net,

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

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On Aug 14, 12:37�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/14/12 11:09 AM, in article ygsws55i8uxo$.1wbef46jq93ar....@40tude.net,
>
>>> I did the recording... my voice is local. �Onion Knight is over Skype which
>>> has poor quality. �Man, what a mystery!
>>
>> It also doesn't prove a single thing.
>
> Of course he is local and Onion remote however, unless he sat there
> and applied his processing (cleaning up the sound) surgically to
> ONLY the Onion Knight portions of the wave, the entire wave file
> will be processed.

Well, since it was done on Skype and recorded locally I did have the two
voices on different tracks. So I *could* manipulate one track and not the
other (and in fact did boost the sound of one track).

...

> Apology to snit for accusing him of faking the Skype.

Thank you.

> They are two different people. At least in this Skype conversation.

Of course we are. And we do not merge off of Skype conversations! What a
weird thing it would be if we did! :)

> BTW this is one reason why programs like Sonnox cost a lot of money.
> Had he used a professional level program to do his editing and FX it
> would have come out better with less artifacts.

I literally clicked *two* checkmarks in a program, set the volume to one
track a little higher and trimmed the end.

As I said.

And you claimed I was lying.

But at least you have the good graces to admit you were wrong. I commend
you for that and respect your admission. We all make mistakes - you made
one, based on a bias you had, but then did not let that bias stop you from
admitting to your mistake. This puts you well ahead of many in the
"advocacy" groups.

> The techloons clowns have the same problem.
>
> The quality of the programs makes a huge difference in the quality
> and accuracy of the project.

I used simple screencasting software - nothing fancy. And, as I said, I did
very little to try to clean up the sound. The goal was not to produce a
radio-quality show, it was simply to be very, very kind and prove an absurd
accusation false - an accusation which neither I nor Onion Knight had any
obligation to speak of at all. I thank Onion Knight for also doing the same
thing.

So at least now you accept the truth: he and I are not the same person.
Never were and, presumably, never will be. :)

[Steve Carroll]

On Aug 14, 4:17 pm, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:

(snip)

> I was just interested in how he could fake the Skype cast. To be
> honest the topic discussed isn't of interest to me.

Other than the cowardly Onion Knight taking the filthy sexual lying
potshots about my wife, things Snit has stated are not lies I don't
care much either. You can pretty much pick a topic and Snit has lied
about it... he'll lie about anything... but especially in an attempt
to cover the lies of one of his socks/shills. Just today we see this
new lie that Onion Knight "never lied".

"Onion Knight never claimed to be a new poster. And he never lied." -
Snit

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f3f5d888a8193a4b

Snit has no defense for his bizarre usenet behavior so he creates
giant piles of shit (along with sock, shills, etc.)... thinking that
people are stupid enough to fall for his grade school BS.

(snip)

> Well snit's off the hook this time.
> There is always tomorrow though :)

Or later today...

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 3:03 PM, in article 1lddfovec98tn$.17jjjkcb...@40tude.net,

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

>>> The quality of the programs makes a huge difference in the quality
>>> and accuracy of the project.
>>
>> I'd go listen for myself, but how can I do that without Snit data mining
>> my personal information?
>
> Use an anonymous proxy like TOR.
> https://www.torproject.org/

If you want, Torre Starnes, feel free to copy the files and post them
elsewhere for people to listen to them. You have my permission. Neither
you nor anyone else has my permission to alter them in any way without
written permission.

[Nobody]

So you lack knowledge of common idioms.

> The point, which you missed, is I lose no sleep over liars such as yourself
> lying about me.

One needs to have a conscience before it can keep one awake at night.

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 3:17 PM, in article kk0hqb5525y3$.14fr3ko9391dw$.d...@40tude.net,
"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:

...

>>> Of course he is local and Onion remote however, unless he sat there
>>> and applied his processing (cleaning up the sound) surgically to
>>> ONLY the Onion Knight portions of the wave, the entire wave file
>>> will be processed.
>>
>> I don't think he did that... not sure he'd even know to do it ;)
>
> Precisely which is why I questioned it.

Oh, since they are on separate tracks I could easily export one, modify it,
and put it back in. Here... me with a lowered pitch and Onion Knight as a
chipmunk. :)

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-Silly.mp3>

I could also make one of us sound like a robot if you cared. The point is
not that I could not do so... the point is I posted exactly what I had done
with the file. There was no reason to doubt this... I do not lie. I mean I
guess I could have forgotten a step or something... but no reason to think I
would lie when it is clearly not a part of my character.

...

>>> Snit's processing programs got confused with the audio coming over
>>> Skype which has major phase problems to begin with and accentuated
>>> everything resulting in many audio artifacts.
>>
>> That's the most likely explanation. The two voices don't have the same
>> 'meter' or sound much alike in any way to my ear.
>
> The meter is similar but the accentuations are far less in the
> original file so that was magnified as well.

Bottom line: we are not the same person. The whole accusation was idiotic
and designed to obfuscate the facts about my stalker... who has attacked
others. So many others he cannot figure out who Onion Knight is
(thankfully). As I have said, I do not know either and did not check for
his IP and would not. I respect his desire to remain anonymous.

...

> I was just interested in how he could fake the Skype cast. To be
> honest the topic discussed isn't of interest to me.

I did not fake anything... and you finally admitted to that. Thank you. I
will chalk up your past claims to a mistake based on your own bias. It
happens.

...

> Well snit's off the hook this time.
> There is always tomorrow though :)

Yes, Carroll will always lie about me... as will cc and others in the
"advocacy" groups. These are "advocacy" groups after all - not exactly
known for their reasoned discussions. I am honest which makes me a rare
"breed" in CSMA and COLA.

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 3:38 PM, in article k0ek2a$gc1$2...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:

>> The point, which you missed, is I lose no sleep over liars such as yourself
>> lying about me.
>
> One needs to have a conscience before it can keep one awake at night.

Well, I hope you grow one.

[Torre Starnes]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:58:46 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 8/14/12 3:17 PM, in article kk0hqb5525y3$.14fr3ko9391dw$.d...@40tude.net,
> "Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> Of course he is local and Onion remote however, unless he sat there
>>>> and applied his processing (cleaning up the sound) surgically to
>>>> ONLY the Onion Knight portions of the wave, the entire wave file
>>>> will be processed.
>>>
>>> I don't think he did that... not sure he'd even know to do it ;)
>>
>> Precisely which is why I questioned it.
>
> Oh, since they are on separate tracks I could easily export one, modify it,
> and put it back in. Here... me with a lowered pitch and Onion Knight as a
> chipmunk. :)
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-Silly.mp3>
>
> I could also make one of us sound like a robot if you cared. The point is
> not that I could not do so... the point is I posted exactly what I had done
> with the file. There was no reason to doubt this... I do not lie. I mean I
> guess I could have forgotten a step or something... but no reason to think I
> would lie when it is clearly not a part of my character.

You are not helping your cause..........

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 3:13 PM, in article 1y008acqvlozx$.1x9hha9gwl10o$.d...@40tude.net,

> "Vista 7 Top �Feature� is Access to Intruders"

Goblin has said he does not hate MS but does not find all of their products
useful for him... and even has taken pleasure in them having some bad news.

How much mileage are you hoping to get from this?

[Steve Carroll]

On Aug 14, 4:58 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

(snip a bunch of Snit's other lies about how he doesn't lie)

> > Well snit's off the hook this time.
> > There is always tomorrow though :)
>
> Yes, Carroll will always lie about me... as will cc and others in the
> "advocacy" groups.  These are "advocacy" groups after all - not exactly
> known for their reasoned discussions.  I am honest which makes me a rare
> "breed" in CSMA and COLA.

FINALLY! Took you long enough (6 years!)!!

After watching your quotes list grow and grow... where people have all
labeled you a liar, troll or worse... you're finally seen intimating
your ridiculous delusion that entire "groups" of people liars. LOL!

[Snit]

On 8/14/12 4:06 PM, in article vycyhmmtinm3.j...@40tude.net,

I am, as is my norm, being honest. I am not going to lie and claim it would
be hard for me to make edits such as the one linked to above. It was quite
trivial to make that altered-voice file. Exported the sounds to a file I
could import into iMovie, altered the sounds there, and then re-imported
them back into the original program. Hmmm, could have just imported both
into iMovie and done it there... so I guess I am guilty of being inefficient
on that one. Oh well.

[Justin]

On 8/12/12 5:28 PM, Snit wrote:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-Skype.mp3>
>
> Brief... just recorded a couple minutes ago and uploaded. Not edited or
> cleaned up in any way other than to have my recording software set to
> "remove background noise" and "smooth audio levels" (and trimmed the empty
> noise after the hanging up of the call) and then used another tool to
> convert from AIFF to MP3 just so the file will be smaller (54 MP down to
> under 4 MB).
>
> Anyway, I do not expect this to stop the lies about either of us, but here
> is the proof positive that the lies of us being the same person are, in
> fact, lies.
>
> PS: I am happy his voice does not sound just like mine. That would have
> sucked. :)
>
> Thank you Onion Knight.
>


mp3s are still around?

I would have thought they would have been replaced by the absolutely
superior Microsoft WMA format.

[cc]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 6:12:04 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>
> Assuming he knows how to set up proxies and is willing to
> jump through hoops. Unlike you I shall not pretend to speak for him.

Nice try. He/you has been using TOR to post here. So good, no reason to refuse then.

[Snit]

On 8/15/12 5:13 AM, in article
1381d0a1-3b84-4e9f...@googlegroups.com, "cc"

<scat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 6:12:04 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>
>> Assuming he knows how to set up proxies and is willing to
>> jump through hoops. Unlike you I shall not pretend to speak for him.
>
> Nice try. He/you has been using TOR to post here. So good, no reason to refuse
> then.
>

I do not use TOR and I have no idea what he uses. You are lying.

[Steve Carroll]

On Aug 13, 5:07 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/13/12 3:34 PM, in article
> 52442693-82d0-4ae1...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>
> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, August 13, 2012 6:19:28 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >> On 8/13/12 2:05 PM, in article
> >> f361147c-4aa0-40d5...@googlegroups.com, "cc"
> >> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The only way I back out is if Onion Knight doesn't show.
>
> >> Why is that even a requirement?
>
> > Because you're one and the same.
>
> This is a lie.  You are, again, lying.  You are unable to be honest.
>
> But the tentative date is set... and you and I are agreed.  We shall see if
> Onion Knight accepts the offer or not.  But your looking to use others as a
> reason to back out of your agreements is utter BS... just another sign of
> how dishonest and disreputable you are.


ROFLMAO!!!

Snit... seriously... are you ever *not* a lying hypocrite? Ever?

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b354048b39228d6f


> > So we'll tick off that lie from you, and
> > continue down the list. Why is this requirement such a problem?
>
> Your dishonest and lack of honor is a problem for me because it is contrary
> to my moral code.  It is not a problem for you because you are a liar.
> Simple.

You're clearly delusional.