More fun with Snit and his faked Onion Knight....

[Torre Starnes]

Here we have a program called iZotope RX2 Advanced analyzing the
clip of Snit vs Onion Knight in Skype ONE.

http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/

The audio clip for those who don't have it is here:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?x3ii1jkmi1rxvhu

Get it SNIT, SKYPE ONE....... NOT SKYPE TWO.

Ok so here is a visual of that clip.
You can follow along by listening to the audio and looking at the
screen shot of the clip.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ufvzsg4wbp5lg1i

Notice the section where the cursor is at about 6.5 on the time
line?
See how there is a black line there?

That's an edit point and it corresponds exact where "Onion Knight"
says "Other than the stalker problem which is obviously cut off at
the beginning"

Conclusion: This file has been edited and very badly at that.

And that's not all.
Take a look at Snit's audio vs "Onion Knight's" audio.
Ignore the amplitude (how tall the wave form is) and look at the
curly bands especially toward the bottom of the wave form.

Notice anything?

If you have two really different people recording audio, this
imprint will look drastically different. It's only when it's the
same voice or a really, really, really similar voice and it has to
be almost indistingushable from each other in normal speaking, that
these imprints will look the same.

Sorry snit, but this one is another nail in your coffin.....

[Steve Carroll]

Wow! I figured this would be *much* more difficult to spot. C'mon...
are you on the level here? If so... Snit is busted big time ;)

I've been waiting to see this (mainly just to see the app)/ Thanks for
putting it up!

[Snit]

On 9/28/12 5:11 PM, in article 1owdkrpgosvhx.1...@40tude.net,

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

> Here we have a program called iZotope RX2 Advanced analyzing the
> clip of Snit vs Onion Knight in Skype ONE.
>
> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/
>
> The audio clip for those who don't have it is here:
>
> http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?x3ii1jkmi1rxvhu
>
> Get it SNIT, SKYPE ONE....... NOT SKYPE TWO.
>
> Ok so here is a visual of that clip.
> You can follow along by listening to the audio and looking at the
> screen shot of the clip.
>
> http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ufvzsg4wbp5lg1i
>
> Notice the section where the cursor is at about 6.5 on the time
> line?
> See how there is a black line there?
>
> That's an edit point and it corresponds exact where "Onion Knight"
> says "Other than the stalker problem which is obviously cut off at
> the beginning"
>
> Conclusion: This file has been edited and very badly at that.

Here is the original sound file:

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

If you think it has been changed please point where and how! Clearly you
have a copy of it so do a checksum if you like. Does not matter to me...

Now here is a view of the original file - I did make some changes:

1) I removed the clips in the time line.
2) I dragged the original clips from the media area in the timeline
3) I trimmed a few seconds from the front where Onion Knight said
something he did not want the stalker to hear so we started over
4) I split the video / audio clip and removed the video - it shows
info that is not public (other names I have in Skype and even
what programs I have on my dock... if you want I can re-add these
and blur them out and show the video. Cannot see what benefit
that would be

If you look you can see their are only two media files - one from the screen
recording and the remote voice, and then the other the local voice. This is
shown in a full sized video from my computer... no shrinking of details. At
the end I zoom into the intro of Onion Knight so you can see the sound wave
- the place you say there is a cut. There is none. But wait... I am not
saying you are wrong:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-no-snips.mov>

I then compared this to the original file, the one "RAW" one linked to,
above... and there is a snip. I did not recall making it... but I snipped
out an "um" of mine. Easy to see on that recording. So you seem to be
right that there is a cut. A missing "um". Compare the two... you can see
it.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Um-snipped.mov>

But you will claim I quickly faked this... you *will* come up with
something. I admit, I do not recall snipping the "um". Guilty as charged
on that. So be it. I do not show it in the video, but it looks like, just
seeing the audio wave, I snipped another "um" or something later.

As noted though: you have come to a conclusion and the evidence is not at
all relevant to your view.

> And that's not all.
> Take a look at Snit's audio vs "Onion Knight's" audio.
> Ignore the amplitude (how tall the wave form is) and look at the
> curly bands especially toward the bottom of the wave form.
>
> Notice anything?
>
> If you have two really different people recording audio, this
> imprint will look drastically different. It's only when it's the
> same voice or a really, really, really similar voice and it has to
> be almost indistingushable from each other in normal speaking, that
> these imprints will look the same.
>
> Sorry snit, but this one is another nail in your coffin.....

Compare the voice of Onion Knight in audio 1 and audio 2 and then explain
why they have the same voice.

Oh.

You cannot do that - and it goes contrary to your claims. Really: prove
yourself wrong and compare the two audio files and show how his voice is not
the same in the two. You claim you can tell when the voices *are* the same
- so look at the two audio files and explain why his voice is the same in
the first and the second.

But you will never even try.


--
"But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don't even want
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Torre Starnes]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:11:56 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 9/28/12 5:11 PM, in article 1owdkrpgosvhx.1...@40tude.net,
> "Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:
>
>> Here we have a program called iZotope RX2 Advanced analyzing the
>> clip of Snit vs Onion Knight in Skype ONE.
>>
>> http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/
>>
>> The audio clip for those who don't have it is here:
>>
>> http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?x3ii1jkmi1rxvhu
>>
>> Get it SNIT, SKYPE ONE....... NOT SKYPE TWO.
>>
>> Ok so here is a visual of that clip.
>> You can follow along by listening to the audio and looking at the
>> screen shot of the clip.
>>
>> http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ufvzsg4wbp5lg1i
>>
>> Notice the section where the cursor is at about 6.5 on the time
>> line?
>> See how there is a black line there?
>>
>> That's an edit point and it corresponds exact where "Onion Knight"
>> says "Other than the stalker problem which is obviously cut off at
>> the beginning"
>>
>> Conclusion: This file has been edited and very badly at that.
>
> Here is the original sound file:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-RAW.aiff>
>
> If you think it has been changed please point where and how! Clearly you
> have a copy of it so do a checksum if you like. Does not matter to me...

Try again Snit...

That's the exact file that was used.
It was downloaded on 8/14 and is 53,186KB in length....
My download logs do not lie.
You modified it at 3.46PM and it was downloaded at 7.19PM.

Anything you offer after that is off the table....

Keep squirming.

[Snit]

On 9/28/12 6:11 PM, in article CC8B98EC.BECD%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,

Here it is... a moment of silence:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Two-Snips.mov>

So you got me - two snips from the original sound file. And, yup, I forgot
I made them. The file was used to make the silly recording and then
saved... so I do not have the copy with the snips (though I did have a copy
on Time Machine with the two sound files... hence how I got those back). Oh
well.

Good detective work... to find *nothing* that backs your claim. :)

It does show I snipped though - and I completely accept that. Do not recall
doing so, but did not expect this to become the big silliness it has become.

This is COLA though and I should have known otherwise. :)

Still want you to explain why Onion Knight has the same voice in both
recordings of him. But you will never admit that he does.

Why is his voice in the first one, which you claim is my voice, the same as
his voice in the second, which you claim is not? Why won't you talk about
this? Why do you keep running?

>
> As noted though: you have come to a conclusion and the evidence is not at
> all relevant to your view.
>
>> And that's not all.
>> Take a look at Snit's audio vs "Onion Knight's" audio.
>> Ignore the amplitude (how tall the wave form is) and look at the
>> curly bands especially toward the bottom of the wave form.
>>
>> Notice anything?
>>
>> If you have two really different people recording audio, this
>> imprint will look drastically different. It's only when it's the
>> same voice or a really, really, really similar voice and it has to
>> be almost indistingushable from each other in normal speaking, that
>> these imprints will look the same.
>>
>> Sorry snit, but this one is another nail in your coffin.....
>
> Compare the voice of Onion Knight in audio 1 and audio 2 and then explain
> why they have the same voice.
>
> Oh.
>
> You cannot do that - and it goes contrary to your claims. Really: prove
> yourself wrong and compare the two audio files and show how his voice is not
> the same in the two. You claim you can tell when the voices *are* the same
> - so look at the two audio files and explain why his voice is the same in
> the first and the second.
>
> But you will never even try.
>



--

"90% of computers use Microsoft's Windows ... Macs account for 9% of the
market while the open source system Linux accounts for 0.8%."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Snit]

On 9/28/12 6:30 PM, in article fvl256uh1s5e$.nvnctdggy60c$.d...@40tude.net,

Try what again?

> That's the exact file that was used.
> It was downloaded on 8/14 and is 53,186KB in length....
> My download logs do not lie.
> You modified it at 3.46PM and it was downloaded at 7.19PM.
>
> Anything you offer after that is off the table....
>
> Keep squirming.

I modified nothing. It is 51.9 MB (54,461,688 bytes). Has been since it
was posted on August 14, 2012 6:31:00 PM MST. That is the RAW file. Exact
same file is posted as on day one. Including the two cuts... you found one
and I found the other.

In any case, you then ignored the rest of the post. In other words, you
know I am right. Here is what you are running from:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a6ac84366da29140>

And specifically this question:

-----

Why is his voice in the first one, which you claim is my voice, the
same as his voice in the second, which you claim is not?

-----

You cannot answer that question. Well, you can - but you would have to
admit you were wrong. :)


--
"In fact, the main goal of Linux might be called usability... the most
important thing is that it works well and people ... want to use it."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Torre Starnes]

Running?

How am I running?

I'm the one posting the information that is exposing your fraud.
LOL!

You seem to be the one running and changing the topics, altering
your sound files in order to attack me.

You aren't Chris Ahlstrom per chance are you?

Sorry snit... But you are the one running.

I have the raw from the very day I asked you to upload it.
You claimed it was taking a long time to upload so I waited.

I fully expected you to claim the file is faked.

It's really your only defense.

But you see snit, what I posted is only the tip of the iceberg when
it comes to exposing your Onion Knight fraud.

So let's totally eliminate the audio, including the clip which for
some strange reason you did NOT deny. It was only until I posted the
screen shot really nailing you that you complained it was faked, and
I knew all along you would react that way because it's your only
defense.

So why didn't you complain earlier?
Answer: you didn't realize the evidence I really had, and guess what
there is even more. I'm saving that for a rainy day.

So anyway, let's discount the audio/pic of that clip completely.

That leaves us with:

1. An Onion Knight who can't seem to answer a single specific
question asked by CC about posts he supposedly made in Skype 2.

How many times can this fake Onion Knight stooge say "your stalker,
the stalker, stalker" seems to be the only word he knows.

Give it up already snit. You've lost even before the rest of this
post.

2. The voice in skype one doesn't sound like the voice in skype 2.

Similar but not the same. You sound exactly the same as you do on
Roy's skype so how do you explain this? You are the only one who
doesn't have artifacts?

Yea sure.

3. Onion Knight magically appears when you are in trouble.

4. Onion Knight uses the same odd phrases as you do.

5. You screwed up a reply and posted as Onion Knight or snit
mistakenly. I forget which one, but it was documented.

There are several other factors.

So even discounting what I have posted, you still are exposed as
being Onion Knight and no sane person will ever disagree with that.

[Snit]

On 9/28/12 6:54 PM, in article 1csqbl7ljbowt.1...@40tude.net,

You refuse to discuss:

1) Why Onion Knight has the same voice in Skype 1 and 2, contrary to your
claims.

2) Why your catching of my one snip (yet missing the other) does not prove
what you claimed it does (though I admit I had not mentioned or even
recalled the two snips... but they are there, no denying it).

3) Why you would claim my voice and Onion Knights' are the same when they
are *not* the same.

4) Why you keep ignoring how cc has been proved to have been less
knowledgeable about the COLA discussion than Onion Knight (he screwed up on
his claims with having an Excel file, with not knowing about the stats files
I posted, and not knowing the info in the video file on standard
deviations). He also has admitted his questions were vague - and his
complaint is that he did not get a *specific* answer to a *vague* question.

You just ignore these things. You also keep saying I am not posting
evidence for my claims - but the Skype recordings were posted *as* evidence
to prove false the claims that Onion Knight and I are the same person! So
you are attacking the evidence as you claim there is no evidence!

> How am I running?

You want an adverb? Repeatedly!

> I'm the one posting the information that is exposing your fraud.

Two snips. You found one and I showed it and the other. Got me.

> LOL!
>
> You seem to be the one running and changing the topics, altering
> your sound files in order to attack me.

I am noting facts you do not like.

Hey, why not get what you claim is the original and the one I have posted
and show the difference!

> You aren't Chris Ahlstrom per chance are you?
>
> Sorry snit... But you are the one running.

What do you think I am running from? I am facing your accusations *HEAD ON*
and explaining why you are wrong (or, in the case of the snip, showing you
to be right).

> I have the raw from the very day I asked you to upload it.

And how do you think it is different from the one uploaded now (hint, it is
not).

> You claimed it was taking a long time to upload so I waited.
>
> I fully expected you to claim the file is faked.
>
> It's really your only defense.

What file do you think I will claim is faked?

> But you see snit, what I posted is only the tip of the iceberg when
> it comes to exposing your Onion Knight fraud.

You have *nothing* to "expose" what is not true.

> So let's totally eliminate the audio, including the clip which for
> some strange reason you did NOT deny. It was only until I posted the
> screen shot really nailing you that you complained it was faked, and
> I knew all along you would react that way because it's your only
> defense.

I did not claim it was a fake. I acknowledged the snip... and pointed you to
*another* snip. I denied nothing.

> So why didn't you complain earlier?

About what?

> Answer: you didn't realize the evidence I really had, and guess what
> there is even more. I'm saving that for a rainy day.

You have *no* evidence for what is not. You did find evidence of snipping -
and it was correct. Got me. I snipped an "um" and a second of dead space.

> So anyway, let's discount the audio/pic of that clip completely.
>
> That leaves us with:
>
> 1. An Onion Knight who can't seem to answer a single specific
> question asked by CC about posts he supposedly made in Skype 2.

cc did not ask a single specific question... he asked vague questions and
bitched about not getting specific answers. He *also* was showed he was
ignorant about the stats files and videos I posted, as well as completely
unable to produce the Excel file he claimed to have.

> How many times can this fake Onion Knight stooge say "your stalker,
> the stalker, stalker" seems to be the only word he knows.

There is no such "stooge". And, as he said, he came to COLA to see what the
stalker was doing. He is also one who has been attacked by the stalker.

He also talked about not being familiar with the stats stuff... and now the
evidence "against" him is he did not seem that familiar with the stats
stuff! Do you not see this as being a bit silly?

> Give it up already snit. You've lost even before the rest of this
> post.

What do you think I have lost? I have *truth* on my side. I shall not give
that up no matter how many times you ask me!

> 2. The voice in skype one doesn't sound like the voice in skype 2.

Show it! You have the sound programs - show how my voice is more like Onion
Knights than his is like his own... which is your claim (and it is *wrong*)

> Similar but not the same. You sound exactly the same as you do on
> Roy's skype so how do you explain this? You are the only one who
> doesn't have artifacts?

Because I record myself locally... not through Skype!

> Yea sure.
>
> 3. Onion Knight magically appears when you are in trouble.

If you want to know about his posting times *ASK HIM*.

> 4. Onion Knight uses the same odd phrases as you do.

Such as?

> 5. You screwed up a reply and posted as Onion Knight or snit
> mistakenly. I forget which one, but it was documented.

This is a complete lie.

> There are several other factors.

Nope.

> So even discounting what I have posted, you still are exposed as
> being Onion Knight and no sane person will ever disagree with that.

Again: you are not correct. Does not matter if you get a million people to
claim otherwise: remember, I have *truth* on my side. Numbers cannot trump
truth.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 28, 7:54 pm, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:42:20 -0700, Snit wrote:

> > On 9/28/12 6:30 PM, in article fvl256uh1s5e$.nvnctdggy60c$....@40tude.net,

> > "Torre Starnes" <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:11:56 -0700, Snit wrote:
>

> >>> On 9/28/12 5:11 PM, in article 1owdkrpgosvhx.1i9gwwr3657z4....@40tude.net,

A big one is the fact that Snit has a history of posters who have
never posted to the internet before coming to his rescue. That tells
you all you need to know about sock puppets and shills where Snit is
concerned.

> So even discounting what I have posted, you still are exposed as
> being Onion Knight and no sane person will ever disagree with that.

Why do you think I've called him "Arnie"? ( DeCaprio's character in
'What's Eating Gilbert Grape?' ) His sh*t is *that* retarded. ;)

[Snit]

Some things Foster refuses to discuss:

1) You showed that there was a cut in Skype 1. You were right... but then I
showed that the cut snipped nothing but an "um" of mine (and showed another
cut where I removed some dead space). There was *nothing* else to the cut
you found. Nothing that would indicate and form of "processing" of any
voice or indicate two different people (Onion Knight and myself) have the
same voice, as you claimed we do on Skype 1.

2) Onion Knight's voice is the same in Skype 1 and 2 (or, at worst, not
shown to be different).

3) Onion Knight's voice is not the same as mine (this is clear when
listening and nothing suggests otherwise). I suggest you get some decent
voice authentication software if you want to try to support your claims
(but, as you will find, it will show your claims to be false).

4) Onion Knight answered *every* question asked of him in Skype 2 (no
question has been quoted that he did not answer).

5) In Skype 2, cc was shown to be ignorant about the stats files showing the
median and array method, the Grubbs method, the Quartile method, and the
BoxPlot method.

6) In Skype 2 (and his subsequent inability to produce the file he gave his
word he would), cc was shown to be lying about having an Excel file which
showed "four outliers in the latter half of 2011" using any of those methods
(or any other method for that matter).

7) In Skype 2, cc was shown to be ignorant of the video I posted showing
where inflection points are on a normal bell curve (he had the wrong number
at first and only later was able to figure out what the video makes clear).

8) In COLA, cc admitted he asked only vague questions and was frustrated he
did not get a specific answer! Only weeks later did he think of a specific
question and decided then that Onion Knight should have somehow answered the
question he did not ask!

9) Points 5-8 show cc was less knowledgable about the COLA discussion than
was Onion Knight who made no such gaffs! And yet you and cc claim Onion
Knight is the one who showed ignorance - this is in direct contradiction to
the facts!

10) In COLA, on his first days of posting, Onion Knight made it clear that
he was not very knowledge about stats, but the fact he did not speak in
detail about stats was used by you (and cc) as evidence *against* him - as
if his consistent lack of experience in this area somehow showed he was
different people at different times!

11) The person who made the initial accusation against Onion Knight and
myself was - you got it - the stalker! If he makes an accusation against me
you can be sure it is baseless. Frankly that is just a given. He is
completely dishonest and obsessive.

12) You have claimed I have not backed my position and yet cannot say what
obligation I have to defend myself against every whacko claim made against
me and others.

13) You say I have not backed my position but that is completely false. You
and others accused Onion Knight of being the same person. We produced a
Skype recording to prove this false. You attacked that as "faked" even
though it was not. Onion Knight and I then did *another* Skype, this time
including cc, and you discounted that one as well! We not only provided one
Skype, but two. And since that time I have shown different forms of
analysis to counter your claims about those audio files.

14) Given how you have been given such evidence yet not only rejected it but
deny it exists, you have been asked what you *would* take as evidence that
the Onion Knights' voice is his on both Skype recordings (and is not mine).
As of yet you have not been able to offer *ANYTHING*. You keep asking me to
offer you something YOU would accept as proof, but everything that is
offered you discount and you fail to suggest anything you would accept.

15) You accused Onion Knight and/or I as posting as the other... but there
is no evidence that this ever happened: no link to any post, no quote...
*NOTHING*.

Bottom line: you made up your mind and evidence will not get you to change
it. You are acting based on emotion and not rationality (or at least
present yourself that way - I suspect you know you are wrong but just will
not admit to it). The fact is, Onion Knight has the same voice in both
Skype calls and his voice and mine are not the same. That is *FACT*.
Period. Tell you what: you spring for some pro-quality voice authentication
software and we can test Onion Knight's voice on the two Skypes and my voice
compared to his. You and I both know what we will fine - his voice is his
voice and my voice is mine... and they are *not* the same. Period. You
might want to try something like this: <http://tinyurl.com/9sbzhxz>. There
is even an open source package that might do the trick for you:
<http://code.google.com/p/improved-mistral/>. We have enough techies in
COLA where someone should be able to get this to work... I looked at it for
a minute or two... seems it is non-compiled. So maybe this weekend I will
compile it and see what it does. Why don't you do the same?

You have a way to prove your accusation if you want. I bet you never even
try to use it... at this point it is not likely you believe your claims.

--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I
have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Torre Starnes]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:34:03 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Some things Foster refuses to discuss:

Here is one thing I will now refuse to discuss.
Anything with you snit.

My evidence was posted, it's there for all to examine.
Others have posted their observations which are there for
examination.
And you have your claims.

Let the COLA group decide for themselves.

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 5:35 AM, in article qj2t6myq0aon.14lh0o05p6vzd$.d...@40tude.net,

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

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:34:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Some things Foster refuses to discuss:
>>

>> 1) You showed that there was a cut in Skype 1. You were right... but then I
>> showed that the cut snipped nothing but an "um" of mine (and showed another
>> cut where I removed some dead space). There was *nothing* else to the cut
>> you found. Nothing that would indicate and form of "processing" of any voice
>> or indicate two different people (Onion Knight and myself) have the same
>> voice, as you claimed we do on Skype 1.

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 2) Onion Knight's voice is the same in Skype 1 and 2 (or, at worst, not shown
>> to be different).

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 3) Onion Knight's voice is not the same as mine (this is clear when listening
>> and nothing suggests otherwise). I suggest you get some decent voice
>> authentication software if you want to try to support your claims (but, as
>> you will find, it will show your claims to be false).

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 4) Onion Knight answered *every* question asked of him in Skype 2 (no
>> question has been quoted that he did not answer).

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 5) In Skype 2, cc was shown to be ignorant about the stats files showing the
>> median and array method, the Grubbs method, the Quartile method, and the
>> BoxPlot method.

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 6) In Skype 2 (and his subsequent inability to produce the file he gave his
>> word he would), cc was shown to be lying about having an Excel file which
>> showed "four outliers in the latter half of 2011" using any of those methods
>> (or any other method for that matter).

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 7) In Skype 2, cc was shown to be ignorant of the video I posted showing
>> where inflection points are on a normal bell curve (he had the wrong number
>> at first and only later was able to figure out what the video makes clear).

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 8) In COLA, cc admitted he asked only vague questions and was frustrated he
>> did not get a specific answer! Only weeks later did he think of a specific
>> question and decided then that Onion Knight should have somehow answered the
>> question he did not ask!

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 9) Points 5-8 show cc was less knowledgable about the COLA discussion than
>> was Onion Knight who made no such gaffs! And yet you and cc claim Onion
>> Knight is the one who showed ignorance - this is in direct contradiction to
>> the facts!

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 10) In COLA, on his first days of posting, Onion Knight made it clear that he
>> was not very knowledge about stats, but the fact he did not speak in detail
>> about stats was used by you (and cc) as evidence *against* him - as if his
>> consistent lack of experience in this area somehow showed he was different
>> people at different times!

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 11) The person who made the initial accusation against Onion Knight and
>> myself was - you got it - the stalker! If he makes an accusation against me
>> you can be sure it is baseless. Frankly that is just a given. He is
>> completely dishonest and obsessive.

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 12) You have claimed I have not backed my position and yet cannot say what
>> obligation I have to defend myself against every whacko claim made against me
>> and others.

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 13) You say I have not backed my position but that is completely false. You
>> and others accused Onion Knight of being the same person. We produced a
>> Skype recording to prove this false. You attacked that as "faked" even
>> though it was not. Onion Knight and I then did *another* Skype, this time
>> including cc, and you discounted that one as well! We not only provided one
>> Skype, but two. And since that time I have shown different forms of analysis
>> to counter your claims about those audio files.

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 14) Given how you have been given such evidence yet not only rejected it but
>> deny it exists, you have been asked what you *would* take as evidence that
>> the Onion Knights' voice is his on both Skype recordings (and is not mine).
>> As of yet you have not been able to offer *ANYTHING*. You keep asking me to
>> offer you something YOU would accept as proof, but everything that is offered
>> you discount and you fail to suggest anything you would accept.

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> 15) You accused Onion Knight and/or I as posting as the other... but there is
>> no evidence that this ever happened: no link to any post, no quote...
>> *NOTHING*.

As predicted, no comment from Torre Foster Starnes. He makes accusations
but when the facts are listed for him he has nothing to say.

>> Bottom line: you made up your mind and evidence will not get you to change
>> it. You are acting based on emotion and not rationality (or at least present
>> yourself that way - I suspect you know you are wrong but just will not admit
>> to it). The fact is, Onion Knight has the same voice in both Skype calls and
>> his voice and mine are not the same. That is *FACT*. Period. Tell you
>> what: you spring for some pro-quality voice authentication software and we
>> can test Onion Knight's voice on the two Skypes and my voice compared to his.
>> You and I both know what we will fine - his voice is his voice and my voice
>> is mine... and they are *not* the same. Period. You might want to try
>> something like this: <http://tinyurl.com/9sbzhxz>. There is even an open
>> source package that might do the trick for you:
>> <http://code.google.com/p/improved-mistral/>. We have enough techies in COLA
>> where someone should be able to get this to work... I looked at it for a
>> minute or two... seems it is non-compiled. So maybe this weekend I will
>> compile it and see what it does. Why don't you do the same?
>>
>> You have a way to prove your accusation if you want. I bet you never even
>> try to use it... at this point it is not likely you believe your claims.
>

> Here is one thing I will now refuse to discuss.
> Anything with you snit.

Right: you know you have *nothing* to back your claims. I keep calling you
out on it and now have produced a list of 15 very solid points that
completely rip your BS circus apart. So you are mad. You will no longer
speak to me. You going to the other sandbox, running away. What, is that
some sand in your eye or are you crying because you realize you lost your
silly little battle. Yeah, you lost a Usenet debate so you are sulking off
to go cry. Oh well. Do not expect any sympathy from me!

> My evidence was posted, it's there for all to examine.

You showed I made 1 cut... and missed the other. I have now shown details
on both. Look here:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a6ac84366da29140>

And you cannot answer any of my questions, above... with #14 perhaps being
the most telling. You *know* there is *nothing* that can be shown to get
you to stop making your incorrect claims - and yet you whine I have not
posted anything to get you to stop.

> Others have posted their observations which are there for
> examination.
> And you have your claims.
>
> Let the COLA group decide for themselves.

Again: how many people, in your world, have to "decide" something before it
alters *facts*?

But you just are going to run... you have no response for those 15 points.
As noted - not even you believe the BS you are spewing at this point, you
simply are too embarrassed to admit it after all this time.

I, on the other hand, openly admit to things even when they do not fit what
I "want". For example - the two cuts in the audio (the "um" and the moment
of silence - I never mentioned them and did not recall them... so be it...
when it was shown they existed I not only admitted to them but showed them
and shared the proof). Unlike you I have been completely honest... and
unlike you I do not use multiple names, Mr. Torre Foster Flatfish Starnes.
How many other names have *you* gone by?

[Steve Carroll]

They have... and they likely also know any "list" Snit produces is
just the latest, usual heapin' helpin' of BS.

At this point Snit's only remaining tactic is to attempt to win (in
his mind) by attrition. Naturally, Snit will demand proof" of what I'm
saying so the rest is really for him. People that seek to defend Snit
should stop reading now.

Here, Snit is shown commenting on what 'seemed', to him, to be a win
by attrition:

"Well, Steve, seems you won an argument simply based on outlasting
your opposition.

Are you proud? " - Snit

My reply points out the obvious:

"This shows that you feel outlasting an opponent is to be considered a
'win'. As it is something for which I have contended for you for a
long time now... and something you ran from at every corner, I can now
sincerely say: Thanks, you moron:)"

Snit will 'run' from this as he always has and, notably, his reply
shows that, this time, he 'ran in place' by purposefully ignoring
reality (as he's doing with you) on two counts:

"I find Steve's dishonest reinterpretations of comments to be funny as
well." - Snit

Any idiot can see there's no "reinterpretation" going on, only the
obvious, accurate interpretation I presented.

[Torre Starnes]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 08:22:41 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:

> On Sep 29, 6:35 am, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:34:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> Some things Foster refuses to discuss:
>>
>> Here is one thing I will now refuse to discuss.
>> Anything with you snit.
>>
>> My evidence was posted, it's there for all to examine.
>> Others have posted their observations which are there for
>> examination.
>> And you have your claims.
>>
>> Let the COLA group decide for themselves.
>
> They have... and they likely also know any "list" Snit produces is
> just the latest, usual heapin' helpin' of BS.

That's about the size of it. He loves to ask of proof of proof of
proof and this will become endless which is why I've cut him off but
yet his own proof boils down to "I made the Skype so I know what I
did".

It boils down to one single item and this item trumps all of them.

In Skype #2 when CC kept asking Onion Knight specific questions,
Onion Knight was unable to answer despite him posting many posts
about the very things CC was asking him about!

Surely Onion Knight should have been able to add to the
conversation, say SOMETHING, other than "your stalker". He sounded
like a sample being triggered each time a question was asked.

That's says it all and proves that Onion Knight at least in skype #2
was a stooge.

And extrapolating from that single item, snit's entire argument that
Onion Knight is a different person than him, falls completely apart.

Nothing else is needed.
No audio analysis.
No spectrographs.
No mixing up replies by snit.
Nothing.

It's over, signed sealed and delivered.

[Adam Gansefoort]

Snit needs another job! ;-)
http://www.dkvzwartwit.nl/files/zwartwit/915fbb89a037021275a6d52e1ad9e980.jpg

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 8:48 AM, in article k4758g$ep$1...@news.albasani.net, "Adam

Hey, the "snit circus" is just me responding to those who troll me. I have
a lot of patience in doing so... and I admit it, I kinda enjoy posting
overwhelming evidence that gets them to run off crying.

In face to face interactions when people are proved so wrong they do not
return. In COLA and CSMA, they do return, trying to get revenge for - in
some cases - 10 years. It is an interesting study in psychology.

--
"I started Linux as a desktop operating system. And it's the only area
where Linux hasn't completely taken over. That just annoys the hell out
of me." -- Linus Torvalds

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 28, 7:30 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

(snip)

> So you got me - two snips from the original sound file.  And, yup, I forgot
> I made them.  The file was used to make the silly recording and then
> saved...

Why do you always manage to 'forget' only the damning evidence, Snit?
How do you account for that? LOL!

> so I do not have the copy with the snips (though I did have a copy
> on Time Machine with the two sound files... hence how I got those back).  Oh
> well.
>
> Good detective work... to find *nothing* that backs your claim.  :)

Smile away, idiot... this detective work *proves* you lied... again.

> It does show I snipped though - and I completely accept that.  Do not recall
> doing so, but did not expect this to become the big silliness it has become.

Translation: Snit thought he blew enough smoke this time that no one
would follow.

He was wrong.

> This is COLA though and I should have known otherwise.  :)

Translation: Snit is still blowing smoke and trying hard to minimize
the effect of having gotten caught lying... again.

> Still want you to explain why Onion Knight has the same voice in both
> recordings of him.  But you will never admit that he does.
>
> Why is his voice in the first one, which you claim is my voice, the same as
> his voice in the second, which you claim is not?  Why won't you talk about
> this?  Why do you keep running?

Said the guy who has had his running shoes resoled hundreds of times.

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 8:42 AM, in article 1rf5wqjmu41o5.k62jcvrqvgp6$.d...@40tude.net,
"Torre Starnes" <torre....@gmail.org> wrote:

...

> It boils down to one single item and this item trumps all of them.
>
> In Skype #2 when CC kept asking Onion Knight specific questions,
> Onion Knight was unable to answer despite him posting many posts
> about the very things CC was asking him about!

See the list, below, where this is discussed in detail and shown to be
false.

Also: you are no dropping your claim about the voices being important - as I
said, you made up your mind and *then* came to false conclusions about the
voice.

> Surely Onion Knight should have been able to add to the
> conversation, say SOMETHING, other than "your stalker". He sounded
> like a sample being triggered each time a question was asked.

Yawn.

> That's says it all and proves that Onion Knight at least in skype #2
> was a stooge.

Nope. Again, your claim is *completely shredded*, below (and before). And
is what you are running from. Onion Knight *clearly* knew a *lot* more than
did cc - who showed deep ignorance (and dishonesty).

> And extrapolating from that single item, snit's entire argument that
> Onion Knight is a different person than him, falls completely apart.

So the fact your "single item" is utterly ripped apart - to the point you
ran away crying when asked to speak about the facts - is not something you
find to be telling. Oh well.

> Nothing else is needed.
> No audio analysis.
> No spectrographs.
> No mixing up replies by snit.
> Nothing.

In other words, even you have given up on your claims about the audio. Yup:
even you know that Onion Knight has his voice and I have mine... and they
are not the same, no matter how many "experts" you lie about having shared
it with.

> It's over, signed sealed and delivered.

You claimed you were running away to another sandbox... in tears over the
sand in your eye.

Face it: you crumbled when faced with the 15 points that you cannot give a
reasoned response to (just ripping your BS to *shred*):

Foster's BS ripped to *shred* by the facts. Poor him... now he will not
talk to me but just bad-mouth me for some time to try to save his wounded
ego.

Advocacy groups are amazing studies in psychology!

[Snit]

I predicted Foster would not be able to discuss these things... and he
proved me right. The following *completely* destroys his accusations.

But he will never admit to it. He is now in running coward mode... showing
he knows his claims have been wrong all along.

Bottom line: you made up your mind and evidence will not get you to change
it. You are acting based on emotion and not rationality (or at least
present yourself that way - I suspect you know you are wrong but just will
not admit to it). The fact is, Onion Knight has the same voice in both
Skype calls and his voice and mine are not the same. That is *FACT*.
Period. Tell you what: you spring for some pro-quality voice authentication
software and we can test Onion Knight's voice on the two Skypes and my voice
compared to his. You and I both know what we will fine - his voice is his
voice and my voice is mine... and they are *not* the same. Period. You
might want to try something like this: <http://tinyurl.com/9sbzhxz>. There
is even an open source package that might do the trick for you:
<http://code.google.com/p/improved-mistral/>. We have enough techies in
COLA where someone should be able to get this to work... I looked at it for
a minute or two... seems it is non-compiled. So maybe this weekend I will
compile it and see what it does. Why don't you do the same?

You have a way to prove your accusation if you want. I bet you never even
try to use it... at this point it is not likely you believe your claims.

[Snit]

I predicted you would have no honest response for these points, Foster, and
I was right.

You keep whining I never show support for my claims - well, the support is
right here - and all you can do is run away as you spew insults over your
shoulder. Come on, Foster, why not just admit you have been proved
*completely* wrong?

Love it! And here are the points that made Foster crumble:

9) Points 5-8 show cc was less knowledgeable about the COLA discussion than

[Onion Knight]

For Christ's sake, are you still repeating this same crap? Give it a
fucking rest already.

[Onion Knight]

Wow. The fucking stalker thinks I am Snit. He thinks everyone is
Snit.

[Onion Knight]

On Sep 28, 6:12 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/28/12 5:11 PM, in article 1owdkrpgosvhx.1i9gwwr3657z4....@40tude.net,

Snit again rips apart the idiots who say I am him. Why isn't cc
jumping in to say he agrees with Steve? You can bet he will soon!

[Onion Knight]

On Sep 28, 6:30 pm, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:11:56 -0700, Snit wrote:

> > On 9/28/12 5:11 PM, in article 1owdkrpgosvhx.1i9gwwr3657z4....@40tude.net,

What are the differences between the two sound files? I bet none. I
bet you are just full of more shit.

[Onion Knight]

On Sep 28, 6:42 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/28/12 6:30 PM, in article fvl256uh1s5e$.nvnctdggy60c$....@40tude.net,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Torre Starnes" <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:11:56 -0700, Snit wrote:
>

> >> On 9/28/12 5:11 PM, in article 1owdkrpgosvhx.1i9gwwr3657z4....@40tude.net,

> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a6ac84366da...>

>
> And specifically this question:
>
>     -----
>     Why is his voice in the first one, which you claim is my voice, the
>     same as his voice in the second, which you claim is not?
>     -----
>
> You cannot answer that question.  Well, you can - but you would have to
> admit you were wrong.  :)

He will not answer questions. Maybe be is cc.

[Onion Knight]

On Sep 28, 6:54 pm, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:42:20 -0700, Snit wrote:

> > On 9/28/12 6:30 PM, in article fvl256uh1s5e$.nvnctdggy60c$....@40tude.net,

> > "Torre Starnes" <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:11:56 -0700, Snit wrote:
>

> >>> On 9/28/12 5:11 PM, in article 1owdkrpgosvhx.1i9gwwr3657z4....@40tude.net,

You refuse to answer questions but then claim Snit is running. What
do you think he is running from? What question has he not answered?

[Onion Knight]

On Sep 29, 9:15 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> I predicted you would have no honest response for these points, Foster, and
> I was right.
>
> You keep whining I never show support for my claims - well, the support is
> right here - and all you can do is run away as you spew insults over your
> shoulder.  Come on, Foster, why not just admit you have been proved
> *completely* wrong?
>
> Love it!  And here are the points that made Foster crumble:
>
> 1) You showed that there was a cut in Skype 1.  You were right... but then I
> showed that the cut snipped nothing but an "um" of mine (and showed another
> cut where I removed some dead space).  There was *nothing* else to the cut
> you found.  Nothing that would indicate and form of "processing" of any
> voice or indicate two different people (Onion Knight and myself) have the
> same voice, as you claimed we do on Skype 1.

Snipping an 'um' is not 'processing' to make one voice sound like
another. My voice and your voice are not the same. Anyone who says
we have the same voice is lying.

> 2) Onion Knight's voice is the same in Skype 1 and 2 (or, at worst, not
> shown to be different).

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

> 3) Onion Knight's voice is not the same as mine (this is clear when
> listening and nothing suggests otherwise).  I suggest you get some decent
> voice authentication software if you want to try to support your claims
> (but, as you will find, it will show your claims to be false).

Of course our voices are not the same. Would have been funny had they
been.

> 4) Onion Knight answered *every* question asked of him in Skype 2 (no
> question has been quoted that he did not answer).

What question are they saying I did not answer?

> 5) In Skype 2, cc was shown to be ignorant about the stats files showing the
> median and array method, the Grubbs method, the Quartile method, and the
> BoxPlot method.

cc is a fucking idiot.

> 6) In Skype 2 (and his subsequent inability to produce the file he gave his
> word he would), cc was shown to be lying about having an Excel file which
> showed "four outliers in the latter half of 2011" using any of those methods
> (or any other method for that matter).

cc is a fucking idiot.

> 7) In Skype 2, cc was shown to be ignorant of the video I posted showing
> where inflection points are on a normal bell curve (he had the wrong number
> at first and only later was able to figure out what the video makes clear).

cc is a fucking idiot.

> 8) In COLA, cc admitted he asked only vague questions and was frustrated he
> did not get a specific answer!  Only weeks later did he think of a specific
> question and decided then that Onion Knight should have somehow answered the
> question he did not ask!

cc is a fucking idiot.

> 9) Points 5-8 show cc was less knowledgeable about the COLA discussion than
> was Onion Knight who made no such gaffs!  And yet you and cc claim Onion
> Knight is the one who showed ignorance - this is in direct contradiction to
> the facts!

cc is a fucking idiot.

> 10) In COLA, on his first days of posting, Onion Knight made it clear that
> he was not very knowledge about stats, but the fact he did not speak in
> detail about stats was used by you (and cc) as evidence *against* him - as
> if his consistent lack of experience in this area somehow showed he was
> different people at different times!

I did not take a class on it before talking to cc. I must be you.
Proved!

Fucking idiots.

> 11) The person who made the initial accusation against Onion Knight and
> myself was - you got it - the stalker!  If he makes an accusation against me
> you can be sure it is baseless.  Frankly that is just a given.  He is
> completely dishonest and obsessive.

Steve must be laughing his head off at how stupid people are.

> 12) You have claimed I have not backed my position and yet cannot say what
> obligation I have to defend myself against every whacko claim made against
> me and others.

We have no obligation to defend ourselves against Steve's lies. We
did anyway and proved him wrong.

> 13) You say I have not backed my position but that is completely false.  You
> and others accused Onion Knight of being the same person.  We produced a
> Skype recording to prove this false.  You attacked that as "faked" even
> though it was not.  Onion Knight and I then did *another* Skype, this time
> including cc, and you discounted that one as well!  We not only provided one
> Skype, but two.  And since that time I have shown different forms of
> analysis to counter your claims about those audio files.

Steve and his socks and shills will attack anything. They thrive on
attacking others.

> 14) Given how you have been given such evidence yet not only rejected it but
> deny it exists, you have been asked what you *would* take as evidence that
> the Onion Knights' voice is his on both Skype recordings (and is not mine).
> As of yet you have not been able to offer *ANYTHING*.  You keep asking me to
> offer you something YOU would accept as proof, but everything that is
> offered you discount and you fail to suggest anything you would accept.

They will accept nothing. Their goal is to lie and fight.

> 15) You accused Onion Knight and/or I as posting as the other... but there
> is no evidence that this ever happened: no link to any post, no quote...
> *NOTHING*.

I am posting as you right now. :-)

> Bottom line: you made up your mind and evidence will not get you to change
> it.  You are acting based on emotion and not rationality (or at least
> present yourself that way - I suspect you know you are wrong but just will
> not admit to it).  The fact is, Onion Knight has the same voice in both
> Skype calls and his voice and mine are not the same.  That is *FACT*.
> Period.  Tell you what: you spring for some pro-quality voice authentication
> software and we can test Onion Knight's voice on the two Skypes and my voice
> compared to his.  You and I both know what we will fine - his voice is his
> voice and my voice is mine... and they are *not* the same.  Period.  You
> might want to try something like this: <http://tinyurl.com/9sbzhxz>.  There
> is even an open source package that might do the trick for you:
> <http://code.google.com/p/improved-mistral/>.  We have enough techies in
> COLA where someone should be able to get this to work... I looked at it for
> a minute or two... seems it is non-compiled.  So maybe this weekend I will
> compile it and see what it does. Why don't you do the same?

Way out of my league but Steve claims to be an audio guy. Would love
to see him try to prove we have the same voice.

> You have a way to prove your accusation if you want.  I bet you never even
> try to use it... at this point it is not likely you believe your claims.

Hopefully Steve and his sock or shill are not as stupid as they
pretend to be. It would take a fucking idiot to believe you and I
have the same voice.

[Adam Gansefoort]

Hi Snit! ;-)

[Steve Carroll]

What stalker? That delusion aside... I know you got info from Snit.
More to the point, you popped up out of the blue and shilled for Snit,
exactly as I said you did. That Snit lied about his evidence (as he
always does) is the reason he is never believed by anyone.

The only question left is:

Who has the stronger medication? It's almost too close to call ;)

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 10:03 AM, in article
51504680-b220-48a7...@g7g2000pbh.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 29, 9:15 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> I predicted you would have no honest response for these points, Foster, and
>> I was right.
>>
>> You keep whining I never show support for my claims - well, the support is
>> right here - and all you can do is run away as you spew insults over your
>> shoulder.  Come on, Foster, why not just admit you have been proved
>> *completely* wrong?
>>
>> Love it!  And here are the points that made Foster crumble:
>>
>> 1) You showed that there was a cut in Skype 1.  You were right... but then I
>> showed that the cut snipped nothing but an "um" of mine (and showed another
>> cut where I removed some dead space).  There was *nothing* else to the cut
>> you found.  Nothing that would indicate and form of "processing" of any
>> voice or indicate two different people (Onion Knight and myself) have the
>> same voice, as you claimed we do on Skype 1.
>
> Snipping an 'um' is not 'processing' to make one voice sound like
> another. My voice and your voice are not the same. Anyone who says
> we have the same voice is lying.

You see, in Foster's mind, the fact he found I snipped an "um" somehow
proves that you and I have the same voice. There is a massive jump in
illogic there, but he is very proud of his finding. I wonder if the snipped
silence proves our voice is the same as Art Garfunkel? :)

>> 2) Onion Knight's voice is the same in Skype 1 and 2 (or, at worst, not
>> shown to be different).
>
> I did not get a larynx replacement between the two Skype conversations
> and have no plans on getting one now.

I was wondering. :)

Maybe Foster thinks I had a spare one I let you have?

>> 3) Onion Knight's voice is not the same as mine (this is clear when
>> listening and nothing suggests otherwise).  I suggest you get some decent
>> voice authentication software if you want to try to support your claims
>> (but, as you will find, it will show your claims to be false).
>
> Of course our voices are not the same. Would have been funny had they
> been.

I think it would have been hilarious if we had indistinguishable voices...
but we do not, no matter how many times Foster claims to be unable to tell
our voices apart.

But that really is his "evidence": he has such a poor ability to recognize
voices he thinks your voice and mine are the same.

>> 4) Onion Knight answered *every* question asked of him in Skype 2 (no
>> question has been quoted that he did not answer).
>
> What question are they saying I did not answer?

None. That is the point. They cannot point to a single question you did
not answer fully and completely.

>> 5) In Skype 2, cc was shown to be ignorant about the stats files showing the
>> median and array method, the Grubbs method, the Quartile method, and the
>> BoxPlot method.
>
> cc is a fucking idiot.

Undoubtedly. He lied and was busted.

>> 6) In Skype 2 (and his subsequent inability to produce the file he gave his
>> word he would), cc was shown to be lying about having an Excel file which
>> showed "four outliers in the latter half of 2011" using any of those methods
>> (or any other method for that matter).
>
> cc is a fucking idiot.

Oh, he will post the Excel file any day now... just you wait! I am sure he
has it... right cc? You have it but are holding it back... you know, the
Excel file that shows what you claimed you found:

"four outliers in the latter half of 2011"

And the stalker, I believe, said he was able to replicate this. Both lied.

>> 7) In Skype 2, cc was shown to be ignorant of the video I posted showing
>> where inflection points are on a normal bell curve (he had the wrong number
>> at first and only later was able to figure out what the video makes clear).
>
> cc is a fucking idiot.

The video was very clear... but cc showed no understanding of it.

>> 8) In COLA, cc admitted he asked only vague questions and was frustrated he
>> did not get a specific answer!  Only weeks later did he think of a specific
>> question and decided then that Onion Knight should have somehow answered the
>> question he did not ask!
>
> cc is a fucking idiot.

And he repeatedly proves this... except when he stops posting. :)

>> 9) Points 5-8 show cc was less knowledgeable about the COLA discussion than
>> was Onion Knight who made no such gaffs!  And yet you and cc claim Onion
>> Knight is the one who showed ignorance - this is in direct contradiction to
>> the facts!
>
> cc is a fucking idiot.

Did you see cc's claims and my response when he *again* proved he is
completely clueless on the conversation you, he, and I had in COLA?

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e7bda7118cd66429>

I ripped him apart *again*. Proved him a completely idiotic liar. And he
just ran. Those who troll share that in common - they just run when faced
with facts that prove them wrong... and they point to honest folks admitting
when they are wrong as a sign of weakness or a flaw. Just insane how
backwards their morality is.

>> 10) In COLA, on his first days of posting, Onion Knight made it clear that
>> he was not very knowledge about stats, but the fact he did not speak in
>> detail about stats was used by you (and cc) as evidence *against* him - as
>> if his consistent lack of experience in this area somehow showed he was
>> different people at different times!
>
> I did not take a class on it before talking to cc. I must be you.
> Proved!
>
> Fucking idiots.

You should have taken a class. That is it! Then you could have proved...
um... well, um... who knows. But Foster would just completely have dropped
his BS if you had. :)

>> 11) The person who made the initial accusation against Onion Knight and
>> myself was - you got it - the stalker!  If he makes an accusation against me
>> you can be sure it is baseless.  Frankly that is just a given.  He is
>> completely dishonest and obsessive.
>
> Steve must be laughing his head off at how stupid people are.

No doubt.

>> 12) You have claimed I have not backed my position and yet cannot say what
>> obligation I have to defend myself against every whacko claim made against
>> me and others.
>
> We have no obligation to defend ourselves against Steve's lies. We
> did anyway and proved him wrong.

Yup. But this is something Foster will never admit to.

>> 13) You say I have not backed my position but that is completely false.  You
>> and others accused Onion Knight of being the same person.  We produced a
>> Skype recording to prove this false.  You attacked that as "faked" even
>> though it was not.  Onion Knight and I then did *another* Skype, this time
>> including cc, and you discounted that one as well!  We not only provided one
>> Skype, but two.  And since that time I have shown different forms of
>> analysis to counter your claims about those audio files.
>
> Steve and his socks and shills will attack anything. They thrive on
> attacking others.

People who troll in Usenet ... while Carroll is good at manipulating people
they need not be his "socks and shills" to spew nonsense.

>> 14) Given how you have been given such evidence yet not only rejected it but
>> deny it exists, you have been asked what you *would* take as evidence that
>> the Onion Knights' voice is his on both Skype recordings (and is not mine).
>> As of yet you have not been able to offer *ANYTHING*.  You keep asking me to
>> offer you something YOU would accept as proof, but everything that is
>> offered you discount and you fail to suggest anything you would accept.
>
> They will accept nothing. Their goal is to lie and fight.

Absolutely correct. Hence the reason Foster runs from this list.

>> 15) You accused Onion Knight and/or I as posting as the other... but there
>> is no evidence that this ever happened: no link to any post, no quote...
>> *NOTHING*.
>
> I am posting as you right now. :-)

No, I am posting as you.

And Foster's head explodes. :)

>> Bottom line: you made up your mind and evidence will not get you to change
>> it.  You are acting based on emotion and not rationality (or at least
>> present yourself that way - I suspect you know you are wrong but just will
>> not admit to it).  The fact is, Onion Knight has the same voice in both
>> Skype calls and his voice and mine are not the same.  That is *FACT*.
>> Period.  Tell you what: you spring for some pro-quality voice authentication
>> software and we can test Onion Knight's voice on the two Skypes and my voice
>> compared to his.  You and I both know what we will fine - his voice is his
>> voice and my voice is mine... and they are *not* the same.  Period.  You
>> might want to try something like this: <http://tinyurl.com/9sbzhxz>.  There
>> is even an open source package that might do the trick for you:
>> <http://code.google.com/p/improved-mistral/>.  We have enough techies in
>> COLA where someone should be able to get this to work... I looked at it for
>> a minute or two... seems it is non-compiled.  So maybe this weekend I will
>> compile it and see what it does. Why don't you do the same?
>
> Way out of my league but Steve claims to be an audio guy. Would love
> to see him try to prove we have the same voice.

I am not a programmer and am not sure I can compile this and get it to work
but I might try some time soon. But would be better if one of those who
claims you and I have the same voice were to do so and post their results.
After all, if I post the results they will just claim they are "processed"
or forged or whatever.

So why doesn't Foster do an *actual* analysis and see what he finds? He
knows what he will find - you and I have our voices, like all people do.

>> You have a way to prove your accusation if you want.  I bet you never even
>> try to use it... at this point it is not likely you believe your claims.
>
> Hopefully Steve and his sock or shill are not as stupid as they
> pretend to be. It would take a fucking idiot to believe you and I
> have the same voice.

Carroll is obsessed to the point of irrationality... Foster is just seeing
others as he is and is not willing to admit he has been proved wrong.

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 9:54 AM, in article
aaef93ec-162e-4329...@u2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com, "Onion

They act the same... both pretending to be knowledgeable about topics they
are clearly clueless about.

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 9:53 AM, in article
88570696-a600-4748...@ql4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Here is the original sound file:
>>
>>> � � <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-RAW.aiff>
>>
>>> If you think it has been changed please point where and how! �Clearly you
>>> have a copy of it so do a checksum if you like. �Does not matter to me...
>>
>> Try again Snit...
>>
>> That's the exact file that was used.
>> It was downloaded on 8/14 and is 53,186KB in length....
>> My download logs do not lie.
>> You modified it at 3.46PM and it was downloaded at 7.19PM.
>>
>> Anything you offer after that is off the table....
>>
>> Keep squirming.
>
> What are the differences between the two sound files? I bet none. I
> bet you are just full of more shit.

The sound file I uploaded has not been changed - snipped "um" and all. :)

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 9:52 AM, in article
1e51a920-8fcd-4f54...@q5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Compare the voice of Onion Knight in audio 1 and audio 2 and then explain
>> why they have the same voice.
>>
>> Oh.
>>
>> You cannot do that - and it goes contrary to your claims.  Really: prove
>> yourself wrong and compare the two audio files and show how his voice is not
>> the same in the two.  You claim you can tell when the voices *are* the same
>> - so look at the two audio files and explain why his voice is the same in
>> the first and the second.
>>
>> But you will never even try.
>

> Snit again rips apart the idiots who say I am him. Why isn't cc
> jumping in to say he agrees with Steve? You can bet he will soon!

cc is still sulking and licking his wounds.

--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 10:18 AM, in article k47afs$c6j$1...@news.albasani.net, "Adam

Hi!

[Onion Knight]

You who has been stalking and harassing Snit ever since your little
whore became obsessed with him and you did the same with me and others
until we left CSMA. Now I am back and you are lying that I am Snit.

> That delusion aside... I know you got info from Snit.

What info? You will never say because you are lying. That is your
game you lie and pretend you have some secret information that will
prove your point. Who do you think is stupid enough to believe you?

> More to the point, you popped up out of the blue and shilled for Snit,

A complete lie from you Steve. I left CSMA when you attacked me and
tracked me down and then came back to usenet to see if you were still
pulling the same shit. You are.

> exactly as I said you did. That Snit lied about his evidence (as he
> always does) is the reason he is never believed by anyone.

Are you saying his snipping of an 'um' is a form of processing one
voice to make it sound like another? If not what lie do you think he
told?

> The only question left is:
>
> Who has the stronger medication? It's almost too close to call ;)

Your drug problems are well known.

[Hadron]

Hey. S(ch)ni(t)t(lauch)

Your grammar and semantics have noticeably changed recently. Why is
that?


--
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 9/29/12 10:37 AM, in article
eb41c70f-7a12-4611...@t2g2000pbt.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> I've been waiting to see this (mainly just to see the app)/ Thanks for
>>>> putting it up!
>>
>>> Wow. The fucking stalker thinks I am Snit.
>>
>> What stalker?
>
> You who has been stalking and harassing Snit ever since your little
> whore became obsessed with him and you did the same with me and others
> until we left CSMA. Now I am back and you are lying that I am Snit.

Carroll is pretending he does not know he has been stalking me... but just
recently admitted he has been doing so for 10 years - to the point he claims
to know when I have taken vacations during that whole time.

He contradicts his own BS repeatedly.

>> That delusion aside... I know you got info from Snit.
>
> What info? You will never say because you are lying. That is your
> game you lie and pretend you have some secret information that will
> prove your point. Who do you think is stupid enough to believe you?

Carroll will *never* say... because he is lying. If he was not he would be
specific and not just make up a vague story where he cannot fill in the
details.

>> More to the point, you popped up out of the blue and shilled for Snit,
>
> A complete lie from you Steve. I left CSMA when you attacked me and
> tracked me down and then came back to usenet to see if you were still
> pulling the same shit. You are.

Anyone who calls Carroll out on his BS is "shilling" for me - Carroll thinks
I am the only one who sees his BS and harassment for what it is. He thinks
everyone else but me is stupid.

>> exactly as I said you did. That Snit lied about his evidence (as he
>> always does) is the reason he is never believed by anyone.
>
> Are you saying his snipping of an 'um' is a form of processing one
> voice to make it sound like another? If not what lie do you think he
> told?

Notice how Carroll does not quote *any* lie from me. He repeatedly accuses
me of lying but fails to quotes any. I, on the other hand, was able to find
more lies from him in one hour of his posts than he can find in 10 years of
mine. In one hour of his posts, I caught him making these dishonest claims:

* flooding someone's site... something I have never done.
* contacting someone's ISP (presumably in an inappropriate way...
if not, why would have have a problem with it)
* claiming my direct knowledge of how I produced audio files was
merely an "opinion" and not something I directly know
* using sock puppets (as he does)
* claiming to have "fed" someone else information that I used -
though he cannot say what information or how... I believe he
also denied even contacting this person outside of Usenet
* lying - though he cannot provide a single example
* believing I am smarter than everyone else
* of kill filing people to not "face" them directly... but he
cannot find a single example of me *ever* doing this

One hour! More lies from Carroll than he can find in 10 years of my
posting.

>> The only question left is:
>>
>> Who has the stronger medication? It's almost too close to call ;)
>
> Your drug problems are well known.

Were you in CSMA when Carroll was obsessing over the different colored pills
he was taking... and repeatedly speaking of drug problems? He then tried to
compare that to a post to a health related forum where a bad reaction to a
*prescribed* medication was being discussed - his drug problems from the use
of illegal substances, he claimed, were no different.

Just insane. Carroll needs to let go of 2004 and move on.

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 11:18 AM, in article 95zk48k...@news.eternal-september.org,

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

>> For Christ's sake, are you still repeating this same crap? Give it a
>> fucking rest already.
>
> Hey. S(ch)ni(t)t(lauch)

What are you even trying to say?

> Your grammar and semantics have noticeably changed recently. Why is
> that?

You always use the same words in your comments? Maybe there is a coalition
of people all pretending to be Onion Knight! Maybe "he" is a whole
organization! Yes! That is it! The Onion Knight Foundation has come to
COLA to call Carroll out on his BS. You figured out the facts!

LOL! Insanity is amazing.

Hey, want to take a crack at the 15 points that made Foster go running for
the hills?

[Captain Napalm]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:51:08 -0700, Onion Knight posted...

> For Christ's sake, are you still repeating this same crap? Give it a
> fucking rest already.

You had better watch out, little Snit. Your spouse is going to wash your
mouth out with soap for cursing like a grown man. It's unfortunate she
doesn't seem to have a grown man around the house, however.

[Captain Napalm]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:54:47 -0700, Onion Knight posted...

> You refuse to answer questions but then claim Snit is running. What do
> you think he is running from? What question has he not answered?

Tell us, "Onion Knight" - why do you leap to Snit's defense? Are you his
brother? A cousin, maybe? I don't think you can be a business associate or
colleague because as we all know, Snit is too crazy to have a real job in
the real world.

[Foster]

LOL!

Notice how Onion Knight appears out of nowhere all of a sudden.

Like "Mighty Mouse" coming to save the day.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdIev12fCPs

[Captain Napalm]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 10:03:19 -0700, Onion Knight posted...

> I did not get a larynx replacement

You may need one soon if you keep deep throating Snit.

[Captain Napalm]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:51:44 -0700, Onion Snot posted...

> Wow. The fucking stalker thinks I am Snit. He thinks everyone is Snit.

Cursing must make you feel tough, right, Snit? Do you look in the mirror
and pretend the reflection is one of your perceived enemies?

[Captain Napalm]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:37:28 -0700, Onion Snot posted...

> LOL! Insanity is amazing.

That's what your wife said, as she wondered why she married into it.

[Tattoo Vampire]

Foster wrote:

> Notice how Onion Knight appears out of nowhere all of a sudden.

He's not only Snit's shill, he's Snit's bitch too. LOL!

--
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

[tv]

[Foster]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 16:01:44 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> Foster wrote:
>
>> Notice how Onion Knight appears out of nowhere all of a sudden.
>
> He's not only Snit's shill, he's Snit's bitch too. LOL!

Hahha!

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 9:14 AM, in article CC8C6C93.BF6F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,

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

> There is even an open source package that might do the trick for you:
> <http://code.google.com/p/improved-mistral/>. We have enough techies in COLA
> where someone should be able to get this to work... I looked at it for a
> minute or two... seems it is non-compiled. So maybe this weekend I will
> compile it and see what it does. Why don't you do the same?

Ok, just played with this for a few minutes and I admit that I, as a
non-programmer, did not get it to work (ran into all sorts of errors that
were beyond my knowledge). But it would be better if the info came from
someone other than me anyway - someone like Foster or my stalker or Tattoo
Vampire... one of the idiots who claim Onion Knight and I have the same
voice on Skype 1 and that Onion Knight uses a different voice on Skype 2.
To make it easy, here are the Skype recordings being referenced:

Skype 1: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Snit-OK-RAW.aiff>

Skype 2: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OKccSnit.aiff>

Keep in mind Foster lied and claimed I had modified at least one of those
files... so if he wants to present one to be used instead that is fine by
me.

If I am lying any of the COLA programmers should be able to show it fairly
easily. I have pointed you to the tools you need. All it takes is
comparing the voices and showing that Onion Knight and I share a voice and
that his voice changed from recording one to recording two. Hey, while you
are it, educate those of us who are non-programmers and show the process. I
would love to see it!

But, and this is 100% predictable, *NONE* will. Nobody *really* believes
Onion Knight and I have the same voice nor believes that his voice changes
from Skype one to Skype two. *NOBODY*, unless they are a complete idiot.

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 12:49 PM, in article 1khfwjbxshxpz.1...@40tude.net,

Looking at his posting history he posted last weekend and this. Before that
he was posting mostly in the evenings. Really, you see conspiracy
everywhere! But what you cannot do is give reasoned responses to the points
made here:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d62f37319f551cc2>

Fifteen points you have no reasonable response for and have *never* posted
any reasonable response for. You can't because by now even you know your
claims were bogus.

So now we know not even you believe your accusations - if you did you would
not be posting about the topic yet refusing to give responses to those
points.

You have been busted - you are lying.


--
"90% of computers use Microsoft's Windows ... Macs account for 9% of the
market while the open source system Linux accounts for 0.8%."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 1:02 PM, in article 1l22bn57tuc3k$.fs8ci6cek80a$.d...@40tude.net,

As noted, now that you have been proved wrong you are going into attack
mode:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d62f37319f551cc2>

Fifteen points you have no reasonable response for and have *never* posted
any reasonable response for. You can't because by now even you know your
claims were bogus.

So now we know not even you believe your accusations - if you did you would
not be posting about the topic yet refusing to give responses to those
points.

You have been busted - you are lying.


--

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 12:49 PM, in article pan.2012.09...@blah.blah.blah,

Onion Knight is the one being accused of having my voice (poor guy) and of
having a voice change from the first Skype the second. I am merely being
accused of not noticing these things... or maybe somehow facilitating them
in some unspecified way.

He is the one who is really being attacked - but Foster is so stupid he
comes after me with his attacks against Onion Knight.


--

[Steve Carroll]

I wish my kids could have gotten to see ol' Mighty ;)

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 29, 2:15 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/29/12 12:49 PM, in article pan.2012.09.29.19.49...@blah.blah.blah,

>
> "Tattoo Vampire" <hah...@its.not.me> wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:54:47 -0700, Onion Knight posted...
>
> >> You refuse to answer questions but then claim Snit is running.  What do
> >> you think he is running from?  What question has he not answered?
>
> > Tell us, "Onion Knight" - why do you leap to Snit's defense? Are you his
> > brother? A cousin, maybe? I don't think you can be a business associate or
> > colleague because as we all know, Snit is too crazy to have a real job in
> > the real world.
>
> Onion Knight is the one being accused of having my voice (poor guy) and of
> having a voice change from the first Skype the second.  I am merely being
> accused of not noticing these things... or maybe somehow facilitating them
> in some unspecified way.
>
> He is the one who is really being attacked

As it's probably at the center of a topic secret CIA project for which
it's undoubtedly illegal to even mention by name... I wonder what
kind of drug can you possibly be taking that would find you trying to
convince people who know better that Onion Knight is not the attacker,
he's the one "being attacked"?

[Tattoo Vampire]

Onion Knight wrote:

> I left CSMA when you attacked me and tracked me down and then came back to
> usenet to see if you were still pulling the same shit.

Your tall tales are just as convoluted as those of your other personality,
"Onion Knight".

Anyone who claims they have to "leave" a newsgroup is insane.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 29, 11:30 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

(snip)

> > cc is a fucking idiot.
>
> And he repeatedly proves this... except when he stops posting.  :)

You're as high as you can be, aren't you? LOL!

[Tattoo Vampire]

Snit wrote:

> On 9/29/12 12:49 PM, in article pan.2012.09...@blah.blah.blah,
> "Tattoo Vampire" <hah...@its.not.me> wrote:

Quit forging attributions, Onion Snit. :-D

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 29, 12:35 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

(snip)

> >> The only question left is:
>
> >> Who has the stronger medication? It's almost too close to call ;)
>
> > Your drug problems are well known.
>
> Were you in CSMA when Carroll was obsessing over the different colored pills
> he was taking...

Correction: That you were telling usenet readers you were taking (you
were even asking people about what dosage you should take!)

> and repeatedly speaking of drug problems?  He then tried to
> compare that to a post to a health related forum where a bad reaction to a
> *prescribed* medication was being discussed

LOL! What a total crock. Here's what you wrote:

"I used to have a very high tolerance. Now a lot of meds seems to
react oddly with me. Seems I can add alcohol to that list. Damn that
was frightening."

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.anxiety-panic/msg/046fceb5eccc0f22

Uh... gluehead... what doctor "prescribed" alcohol for you (especially
while you were on all the sh*t you had mentioned taking during that
same time period)? You really want to go into this again? Google is at
the ready, idiot :)

Your reaction most likely came from the improper dosage and your
mixing prescription meds with alcohol. Good way to kill yourself,
Snit... let newsgroup flunkies assign your dosage and down it with
booze. Real bright!

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 1:37 PM, in article om2go1tr...@sitting.at.this.computer,

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

> Onion Knight wrote:
>
>> I left CSMA when you attacked me and tracked me down and then came back to
>> usenet to see if you were still pulling the same shit.
>
> Your tall tales are just as convoluted as those of your other personality,
> "Onion Knight".
>
> Anyone who claims they have to "leave" a newsgroup is insane.

When you have someone in the group who tracks people down to their places
where they work and then threatens to contact their employer with the
purpose of having them fired (even if they have to twist arms), it makes
sense to leave.

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 29, 2:39 pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> Snit wrote:

> > On 9/29/12 12:49 PM, in article pan.2012.09.29.19.49...@blah.blah.blah,

> > "Tattoo Vampire" <hah...@its.not.me> wrote:
>
> Quit forging attributions, Onion Snit. :-D

Snionight

Has a nice ring to it for something that sounds like a disease: He
has.... Snionight!

And it's terminal ;)

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 1:05 PM, in article CC8CA29B.BFBE%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,

Played with the installation files some more - still no luck even with a
programmer friend giving suggestions over the phone (only for a couple
minutes, though, he had to run). Oh well. I tried...


--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I

[Captain Napalm]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:54:22 -0700, Steve Carroll posted...

> Your reaction most likely came from the improper dosage and your mixing
> prescription meds with alcohol. Good way to kill yourself,
> Snit... let newsgroup flunkies assign your dosage and down it with
> booze.
> Real bright!

So he's mixing Oxy and Black Velvet? That explains a lot.

[Tattoo Vampire]

Snit wrote:

> When you have someone in the group who tracks people down to their places
> where they work and then threatens to contact their employer with the
> purpose of having them fired (even if they have to twist arms), it makes
> sense to leave.

Why? A new server and a new nym will take care of any supposed "stalkers"...
but of course you know that, Onion Knight.

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 3:12 PM, in article toazisfrrop4$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer,

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

> Snit wrote:
>
>> When you have someone in the group who tracks people down to their places
>> where they work and then threatens to contact their employer with the
>> purpose of having them fired (even if they have to twist arms), it makes
>> sense to leave.
>
> Why? A new server and a new nym will take care of any supposed "stalkers"...

Which is what Onion Knight did. Only to have you and other idiots pretend
you thought he was me... down to having exactly my voice until he had a
magical voice transplant where he ended up sounding exactly as he did before
but somehow less like me.

Really, you and your fellow idiots are topping yourselves this time.

> but of course you know that, Onion Knight.



--

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 29, 2:56 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/29/12 1:37 PM, in article om2go1trtnvs....@sitting.at.this.computer,

>
> "Tattoo Vampire" <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > Onion Knight wrote:
>
> >> I left CSMA when you attacked me and tracked me down and then came back to
> >> usenet to see if you were still pulling the same shit.
>
> > Your tall tales are just as convoluted as those of your other personality,
> > "Onion Knight".
>
> > Anyone who claims they have to "leave" a newsgroup is insane.
>
> When you have someone in the group who tracks people down to their places
> where they work and then threatens to contact their employer with the
> purpose of having them fired (even if they have to twist arms), it makes
> sense to leave.

You claimed this very thing and you didn't leave. You really didn't
have to bother explaining how you make no sense, Snit... we get it ;)

[Steve Carroll]

On Sep 29, 9:42 am, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 08:22:41 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 6:35 am, Torre Starnes <torre.star...@gmail.org> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:34:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
> >>> Some things Foster refuses to discuss:
>
> >> Here is one thing I will now refuse to discuss.
> >> Anything with you snit.
>
> >> My evidence was posted, it's there for all to examine.
> >> Others have posted their observations which are there for
> >> examination.
> >> And you have your claims.
>
> >> Let the COLA group decide for themselves.
>
> > They have... and they likely also know any "list" Snit produces is
> > just the latest, usual heapin' helpin' of BS.
>
> That's about the size of it. He loves to ask of proof of proof of
> proof

That's just part of the smokescreen.

> and this will become endless

He'll try to 'win' (in his mind) by attrition. I like trying to match
him, post for post... but I never even come close. Anyway, that he
can't 'beat' me by attrition drives him nuts ;)

> which is why I've cut him off but
> yet his own proof boils down to "I made the Skype so I know what I
> did".
>
> It boils down to one single item and this item trumps all of them.
>
> In Skype #2 when CC kept asking Onion Knight specific questions,
> Onion Knight was unable to answer despite him posting many posts
> about the very things CC was asking him about!
>
> Surely Onion Knight should have been able to add to the
> conversation, say SOMETHING, other than "your stalker". He sounded
> like a sample being triggered each time a question was asked.
>
> That's says it all and proves that Onion Knight at least in skype #2
> was a stooge.

I'd use the term shill as opposed to stooge. There was never any
question about a shill being involved. The only question was about a
Snit sock *and* a shill. I use the following definition of the word:

*shill
"a person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something
in which they themselves have an interest"

The person shilling for Snit may not even have been initially
solicited by Snit (though, he's done that, too). They may be shilling
for their own reasons. In this case, as in the others, Snit was
undoubtedly in contact with the shill (and even admitted as much, not
that he could hide it).

> And extrapolating from that single item, snit's entire argument that
> Onion Knight is a different person than him, falls completely apart.
>
> Nothing else is needed.
> No audio analysis.
> No spectrographs.
> No mixing up replies by snit.
> Nothing.
>
> It's over, signed sealed and delivered.

... he's yours...

... public breakdown an' all... and you can have him. But I want a
piece from time to time ;)

[Snit]

On 9/29/12 8:42 AM, in article 1rf5wqjmu41o5.k62jcvrqvgp6$.d...@40tude.net,

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

> That's about the size of it. He loves to ask of proof of proof of

> proof and this will become endless which is why I've cut him off but

> yet his own proof boils down to "I made the Skype so I know what I
> did".

Wait! You are the one who accused Onion Knight and I of being the same
person. So we provided proof that was not the case (the first Skype
recording). You then claimed that proof was not good enough. You did not
accept the proof. So Onion Knight and I posted proof of the proof (the
second Skype recording - with cc). You did not accept that, either.
Instead you made up some whacky story where Onion Knight had the exact same
voice as mine (though processed, but not all of it!) until he had a magical
voice transplant that made him sound just like himself but nothing like me
(If A = B and B = C the A = C except when there is a magical voice
transplant... that is your best "evidence" against us!)

In any case, you are the one who asked for the proof of the proof of the
proof when you asked for proof of the *two* Skypes which were the proof you
were wrong about your accusations.

I merely noted how insane your claims are. And they are.

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d62f37319f551cc2>

Fifteen points you have no reasonable response for and have *never* posted
any reasonable response for. You can't because by now even you know your
claims were bogus.

So now we know not even you believe your accusations - if you did you would
not be posting about the topic yet refusing to give responses to those
points.

You have been busted - you are lying.


--

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d62f37319f551cc2>
15 points Foster and his farm of loonies will *always* run from.

[Sinister Midget]

On 2012-09-29, Captain Napalm <hah...@its.not.me> claimed:

> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:54:47 -0700, Onion Knight posted...
>
>> You refuse to answer questions but then claim Snit is running. What do
>> you think he is running from? What question has he not answered?
>
> Tell us, "Onion Knight" - why do you leap to Snit's defense? Are you his
> brother? A cousin, maybe?

His left hand. The other one is holding a twinkie, or some other item
he is using to try to improve his wife's lot by making her rich and
single.

--
Insert inevitable trivial witticism of your choice.
Dell Inspiron 530, Snowlinux 3 Crystal
Friends don't let friends use Windows

[Captain Napalm]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 18:16:52 -0500, Sinister Midget posted...

> His left hand. The other one is holding a twinkie, or some other item he
> is using to try to improve his wife's lot by making her rich and single.

He could improve her lot by moving her out of that mobile home park they
live in, for starters.

[Big Steel]

Why The Republican Party Is Racist And How It Got That Way

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/13/why-the-republican-party-is-racist-and-how-it-got-that-way/

[Big Steel]

On 9/29/2012 10:43 PM, Captain Napalm wrote:

<http://www.salon.com/2012/03/04/whats_the_matter_with_white_people/>

As the GOP loses its grip, it's got one loyal constituency. Will white
America go down with the ship?
By Joan Walsh