Moderation of comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Randy MacPherson
to be a first vote.
Who would moderate? I would prefer someone who works for Apple, maybe one of
their marketing evangelists. It should be easy to find someone qualified.
Google the groups history. You'll see that very little actually has anything
to do with advocacy. Most of the discussion involves mud slinging.
I'd like to see the group return to its roots - Macintosh advocacy.
Those who like things as they are can form their own group. Maybe something
like alt.mac.advocacy.
Randy MacPherson
"Randy MacPherson" <rm...@todliopers.com> wrote in message
news:gkdd3t$tgp$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> I'd like to see comp.sys.mac.advocacy become a moderated group.Consider
> this to be a first vote.
My vote: YES
Snit
gkdd3t$tgp$1...@news.motzarella.org on 1/11/09 11:17 AM:
I doubt Apple would moderate... and not sure I would want them to be able to
ban people for just speaking poorly of Apple or Apple products. I would
hope the Windows fans would be free to speak their mind. I would want just
the silly bickering to be stopped.
I would be happy take on the role... though I would want others so there is
no chance any bias I have would become unfair to anyone.
--
I can't say we will succeed at this, but we will make a significant attempt
to elevate the Linux desktop to the point where it is as good or better than
Apple.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Lloyd Parsons
"Randy MacPherson" <rm...@todliopers.com> wrote:
This group is for bitching and moaning, and trying to keep the windows
curmudgeons away from the mac groups that matter.
I'd vote no.
Snit
lloydparsons-3400...@news.individual.net on 1/11/09 12:04 PM:
Oh, keep the Windows folks here. Let there be debates... and vastly
different opinions. Let the debates become heated... even rude at times.
But the personal attacks that continue for years on end... no, those do
nobody any good. Have a very wide range of acceptable posting, but ban the
worst behavior. I am all for it... *IF* it is does fairly and with a group
of moderators who have a clear set standard to follow.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
Steve Mackay
As much as I dislike the whole Snit circus. Even sniveling little trolls
deserve freedom of speech.
So I vote no.
C Lund
CSMA serves as a drainage gutter to keep the wintrolls out of the
"real" maccie forums, so I vote no. Also, I kinda like this whole
"freedom of speech" thing.
--
C Lund
-hh
> I'd like to see comp.sys.mac.advocacy become a moderated group.
> Consider this to be a first vote.
Nice sentiments, but wrong form; you'll have to read up on the RFD/CFV
protocols.
> Who would moderate? I would prefer someone who works for Apple, maybe one of
> their marketing evangelists. It should be easy to find someone qualified.
The #1 requirement is someone who doesn't have an axe to grind.
And FWIW, I doubt that Apple would volunteer to do it, since USENET
doesn't have enough control.
> Google the groups history. You'll see that very little actually has anything
> to do with advocacy. Most of the discussion involves mud slinging.
Which is why the #1 requirement is someone who doesn't have an axe to
grind. This pretty much means that the primary instigators of the
many tit-for-tat exchanges are ineligible. So too are any sockpuppets
or other individuals whose identities cannot be clearly determined.
> I'd like to see the group return to its roots - Macintosh advocacy.
>
> Those who like things as they are can form their own group. Maybe something
> like alt.mac.advocacy.
There's already alternative web-based moderated venues where this can
be done.
-hh
Snit
B9sal.18143$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com on 1/11/09 12:56 PM:
Nothing about free speech says you cannot have moderated forums!
--
I know how a jam jar feels...
... full of jam!
Snit
507ad936-8625-4199...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com on 1/11/09
1:29 PM:
I think a pattern is forming: those that are against the idea are the very
ones who likely would, at times at least, have their posts banned - at least
if the criteria was blocking absurd attacks against other people.
I think moderation is a grand idea, assuming that the topics allowed were
very, very open and there was a strictly followed public criteria.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Snit
christopher.lund-2D...@adsl-065-015-208-084.sip.ilm.bellsout
h.net on 1/11/09 1:26 PM:
Nothing about the freedom of speech says there cannot be moderated forums.
--
Projects should really look to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can
appeal to both sides.
-hh
Correction: There's already alternative web-based moderated venues
where since this can be done, it is already being done.
-hh
stub...@aol.com
> I'd like to see comp.sys.mac.advocacy become a moderated group.
At this juncture I'd say it's a moot point.
Most people in the universe know that Macs exist (Lord knows Apple
advertises enough) and they don't seem to come to this forum to find
out about them. Correlatively, you guys just seem to be having a
conversation amongst yourselves.
If I want information or opinion about a product, I look at product
descriptions and reviews. If I need some in depth technical info,
there are other forums that fit the bill nicely too. You won't find
that meaningfully offered here.
Wally
MacPherson" <rm...@todliopers.com> wrote:
You state that you have the belief that the groups roots are "Macintosh
advocacy" .... Then you cite Google groups to prove otherwise!
I suggest that the easiest solution if you have a problem with CSMA as it is
(and has been for quite a while) is for *you* to start .... "Maybe something
like alt.mac.advocacy."
Why have you not?
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
You only think moderation is a grand idea on a group level because *that* is
what you practice on a personal level Snit!
Someone makes a post seeking any sort of support from you for any number of
lies that you have told Snit .... And you moderate it!
> assuming that the topics allowed were
> very, very open and there was a strictly followed public criteria.
With you that would not be possible Snit because of your admitted ability to
change your "current reality" by simply "doing things"!
"Well, I am doing things... and that, ...... is changing my current
reality"-Snit
The normal people that you engage in discussions do not thankfully have, nor
need *that* particular ability Snit.
ZnU
There needs to be some place on Usenet for platform wars, and the
advocacy groups have evolved to fill that role. If you want a Mac group
that contains press releases and happy Mac-related anecdotes or
whatever, petition for the creation of one, don't propose completely
changing the character of a group with decades of history.
Hell, petition to have a comp.sys.mac.advocacy.moderated created. This
is already an established naming pattern on Usenet, e.g. comp.lang.c vs.
comp.lang.c.moderated.
In practice, though, there are already several moderated forums in which
to discuss Mac-related subjects, so I'm not sure I see the point.
--
"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all
things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in
our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your
answer." -- Barack Obama, November 4th, 2008
High Plains Thumper
> Randy MacPherson wrote:
>
>> Google the groups history. You'll see that very little
>> actually has anything to do with advocacy. Most of the
>> discussion involves mud slinging.
>
> Which is why the #1 requirement is someone who doesn't have an
> axe to grind. This pretty much means that the primary
> instigators of the many tit-for-tat exchanges are ineligible.
> So too are any sockpuppets or other individuals whose
> identities cannot be clearly determined.
I think this is why that moderated forums such as Yahoo have
become increasingly popular. One can ensure that the trash
remains at the curb side. It would eliminate diatribes such as
the Snit circus.
At first I thought much of the bickering would cease if there was
a group called comp.sys.mac.advocacy.snit, but then there would
be no audience.
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> > Randy MacPherson wrote:
>
> >> Google the groups history. You'll see that very little
> >> actually has anything to do with advocacy. Most of the
> >> discussion involves mud slinging.
>
> > Which is why the #1 requirement is someone who doesn't have an
> > axe to grind. This pretty much means that the primary
> > instigators of the many tit-for-tat exchanges are ineligible.
> > So too are any sockpuppets or other individuals whose
> > identities cannot be clearly determined.
>
> I think this is why that moderated forums such as Yahoo have
> become increasingly popular. One can ensure that the trash
> remains at the curb side.
Or the MacRumors.com forums
> It would eliminate diatribes such as the Snit circus.
Particularly since who has suggested that he could serve as a
moderator...a situation reminiscent of "King of Hearts" ("Le Roi de
Coeur"), leaving all new visitors in the confused role of Private
Charles Plumpick.
-hh
High Plains Thumper
LOL! Of course he could on his own initiative, form a Google or
Yahoo group with him as moderator; but then there would be no
audience, which he so relishes.
With similar trolling efforts in COLA, I proposed to them a
comp.os.linux.advocacy.moderated, but many felt that it would be
too restrictive. I sense a similar opinion herein.
-hh
>
> comp.os.linux.advocacy.moderated, but many felt that it would be
> too restrictive. I sense a similar opinion herein.
Not really. There's obvious gamesmanship posturing in some of the
comments made and its not the first time that any group anywhere has
gone through this.
The simple bottom line is that there's not any real opposition to
moderation per se, but rather the issue is the question of who the
moderator is to be, as this is where impartial objectivity in
moderation is the underlying issue.
This is why I said that the primary qualification must be no one with
a "axe to grind", which clearly disqualifies those individuals who
have so (cough, cough) graciously volunteered.
If someone else wants to do it ... and they're demonstrably
impartial ... then I'm not at all opposed to it.
The problem is that the 'Devil is in the Details' of finding an
impartial body. And because of this, there will be some individuals
who don't truly want to risk being moderated who will claim to be
*for* it, because they know that they can oppose any/all moderator
nominations forever, or until they believe that they've found one who
will be biased in their favor. Which is also why in a disputd group,
many volunteers for the job are immediately suspect.
I don't want to be a moderator, because I know that it is a no-win
job: it requires a non-trivial of daily attention to do it right, the
work never is appreciated (because when it works okay, it is
transparent), and it only draws complaints, even when you do
everything right.
Moderating a volatile group is like telling all your neighbors that
you would be happy for their dogs to all take a crap on your lawn:
its thankless work for you, they take you for granted, and if you ever
forget to clean up the mess, they bitch at you, forgetting that it was
their own dogs that were responsible for creating the shit in the
first place.
Overall, this is generally why I pointed out that moderated venues
already exist and are in use: the Moderator already exists and
generally has a track record of reasonable impartiality. Those
individuals for whom moderation doesn't bother them are probably
already present in such groups, whereas those those only *claim* that
they're not opposed to moderation ... aren't.
Which is telling evidence that shows who's "walking the walk" versus
who's just trying to bullshit us by blowing more lame troll smoke.
-hh
Snit
C5911FF2.F76C%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/12/09 12:27 AM:
...
>> I think a pattern is forming: those that are against the idea are the very
>> ones who likely would, at times at least, have their posts banned - at least
>> if the criteria was blocking absurd attacks against other people.
>>
>> I think moderation is a grand idea,
>
> You only think moderation is a grand idea on a group level because *that* is
> what you practice on a personal level Snit!
>
> Someone makes a post seeking any sort of support from you for any number of
> lies that you have told Snit .... And you moderate it!
>
>> assuming that the topics allowed were
>> very, very open and there was a strictly followed public criteria.
>
> With you that would not be possible Snit because of your admitted ability to
> change your "current reality" by simply "doing things"!
>
> "Well, I am doing things... and that, ...... is changing my current
> reality"-Snit
>
> The normal people that you engage in discussions do not thankfully have, nor
> need *that* particular ability Snit.
>
>
>
>
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Snit
496b15d6$0$1588$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org on 1/12/09 3:05 AM:
I know I would love to see the bickering stop. I do not see any way to end
it other than moderation. So I am for it. The rules of moderation,
though, would have to be very "open" for me to be happy... off topic posts
are a past of the CMSA "culture" - I do not mind with the topic moves to
cars or politics or whatever. The incessant BS attacks, though, they serve
no value to anyone... other than people with low self esteem trying to find
a way to feel better about themselves.
I would be happy to be one moderator on a team of 3 or 5 moderators. Anyone
else?
--
I can't say we will succeed at this, but we will make a significant attempt
to elevate the Linux desktop to the point where it is as good or better than
Apple.
Steve Carroll
> "High Plains Thumper" <highplainsthum...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
> 496b15d6$0$1588$6e1ed...@read.cnntp.org on 1/12/09 3:05 AM:
>
>
>
> > -hh wrote:
> >> Randy MacPherson wrote:
>
> >>> Google the groups history. You'll see that very little
> >>> actually has anything to do with advocacy. Most of the
> >>> discussion involves mud slinging.
>
> >> Which is why the #1 requirement is someone who doesn't have an
> >> axe to grind. This pretty much means that the primary
> >> instigators of the many tit-for-tat exchanges are ineligible.
> >> So too are any sockpuppets or other individuals whose
> >> identities cannot be clearly determined.
>
> > I think this is why that moderated forums such as Yahoo have
> > become increasingly popular. One can ensure that the trash
> > remains at the curb side. It would eliminate diatribes such as
> > the Snit circus.
>
> > At first I thought much of the bickering would cease if there was
> > a group called comp.sys.mac.advocacy.snit, but then there would
> > be no audience.
>
> I know I would love to see the bickering stop.
Why do you still believe that people are as stupid as you need them to
be? No one, and I mean no one, believes what you just said. Not even
John is this stupid... it's only his pride that keeps him going.
> I do not see any way to end it other than moderation.
Moderate the group to deal with the crap that *you* are central in
perpetuating on a daily basis with any number of posters? And you have
the audacity to suggest yourself as a moderator. These things make
sense to you? A simple and obvious way for you to end it is to leave
csma forever. Another way is for you to focus on content instead of
personalities. Pretending that I am the only personality you have ever
focused on doesn't pass the laugh test... people just aren't as stupid
as you need them to be to believe such garbage.
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5911FF2.F76C%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/12/09 12:27 AM:
> >
> > With you that would not be possible Snit because of your admitted ability
> > tochange your "current reality" by simply "doing things!"
> >
> > "Well, I am doing things, and that is changing my current reality" -Snit
> >
> > The normal people that you engage in discussions do not thankfully have,
> > nor need *that* particular ability Snit.
> >
> You sure beg for my attention a lot.
You beg for everyone's attention, Mr. Incest.
Steve Carroll
To me, the best moderators are the ones that are not involved in the
forum other than to moderate the content (they don't actively
participate in discussions at all). I can't see Snit ever refraining
from creating a group of sock puppets or using a cadre of shills, even
if just to get some attention is some way. Snit obviously believes he
is "special", deserving of such attention. Personally, I don't mind
fulfilling his wish but the idea that he should even be considered for
group moderator is so absurd only he would push it. I don't see any
sane person following him down that rabbit hole;)
Snit
T-Bone-C48BBA....@unlimited.newshosting.com on 1/12/09 10:07 AM:
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Steve Carroll
> "Chance Furlong" <T-B...@megakatcity.com> stated in post
>
>
>
> > In article <C590B960.E9CB2%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> >> C5911FF2.F76C%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/12/09 12:27 AM:
>
> >>> With you that would not be possible Snit because of your admitted ability
> >>> tochange your "current reality" by simply "doing things!"
>
> >>> "Well, I am doing things, and that is changing my current reality" -Snit
>
> >>> The normal people that you engage in discussions do not thankfully have,
> >>> nor need *that* particular ability Snit.
>
> >> You sure beg for my attention a lot.
>
> > You beg for everyone's attention, Mr. Incest.
>
> You sure beg for my attention a lot.
Said the lying hypocrite who just recently wrote:
"I know I would love to see the bickering stop".
Do you *really* think that anyone (who isn't one of your sock puppets/
shills) believes that?
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
michael, the prescott computer pervert, glasser would never survive in a
moderated group unless he was the moderator. With his OT posts, lies etc, none
of his posts would actually get posted.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-1F3E7C.20...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
1/12/09 6:45 PM:
High Plains Thumper
> Snit wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper stated:
>>
>>> I think this is why that moderated forums such as Yahoo
>>> have become increasingly popular. One can ensure that the
>>> trash remains at the curb side. It would eliminate
>>> diatribes such as the Snit circus. At first I thought much
>>> of the bickering would cease if there was a group called
>>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy.snit, but then there would be no
>>> audience.
>>
>> I know I would love to see the bickering stop.
>
> Why do you still believe that people are as stupid as you need
> them to be? No one, and I mean no one, believes what you just
> said. Not even John is this stupid... it's only his pride that
> keeps him going.
>
>> I do not see any way to end it other than moderation.
>
> Moderate the group to deal with the crap that *you* are
> central in perpetuating on a daily basis with any number of
> posters? And you have the audacity to suggest yourself as a
> moderator. These things make sense to you? A simple and
> obvious way for you to end it is to leave csma forever.
> Another way is for you to focus on content instead of
> personalities. Pretending that I am the only personality you
> have ever focused on doesn't pass the laugh test... people
> just aren't as stupid as you need them to be to believe such
> garbage.
Like the continued talks on incest? Dictionary terms? Linux has
a fractured UI? Steve Carroll constantly lies when he posts the
100+ poster comments on the Snit Circus of Pathological Lies?
The 100+ posters are all liars? Rhino Plastee sock pops up in
reply, defending Snit? Then when Snit gets the puss beat out of
him, chortles a sense of hollow victory whilst RP calls him a
scumbag (Michael in self pity)? Wally continuously lies about
positive identification of Snit socks? Then Snit counters a
reply by insisting he is an advocate of (fill in the blank
________ a) Mac, b) Linux, c) Windows, d) Incest), whilst showing
his tuna milkshake sig?
Oh yeah, I can see the moderation.
Snit
...
> Like the continued talks on incest?
Absurd. I wish that BS would stop. The debate is from, seriously, 2004.
Move on!
> Dictionary terms?
Again... utter silliness in most cases. People playing semantic games.
Wish it would end.
> Linux has a fractured UI?
Yes, it does. And that is something that is worth discussing - the
implications, ways to make it less so, etc.
> Steve Carroll constantly lies when he posts the
> 100+ poster comments on the Snit Circus of Pathological Lies?
Absolutely. No doubt.
> The 100+ posters are all liars?
The quotes are ones Steve has gathered since 2004 and before... I showed
what happened when I gathered quotes on him for *one* month. And some of
his quotes are from his known other names.
If you think *I* have done something then quote it. Really. How hard is
that? But you fail. Why?
> Rhino Plastee sock pops up in reply, defending Snit?
He speaks his mind... and in terms I often disagree with. So?
> Then when Snit gets the puss beat out of
> him, chortles a sense of hollow victory whilst RP calls him a
> scumbag (Michael in self pity)?
Message ID? What debate do you think I lost? Might be one, but I bet you
cannot find it. Really... you are really bad at supporting your claims.
> Wally continuously lies about
> positive identification of Snit socks?
See that: a claim from you that you cannot support. Wally recently claimed
that because I noted I had quoted him accurately this meant I was using a
sock puppet. That was idiotic. And you jumped in to agree.
> Then Snit counters a reply by insisting he is an advocate of (fill in the
> blank ________ a) Mac, b) Linux, c) Windows, d) Incest), whilst showing his
> tuna milkshake sig?
I advocate OS X and Linux.
> Oh yeah, I can see the moderation.
I can... there is good reason to have one.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Tim Adams
humuhumunukunukuapuaa <hum...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> A slow night, eh Rick?
michael, the prescott computer pervert glasser wants the bs to stop but it was
him a couple of weeks ago that started several new threads dealing with just
that topic, thus earning him the name.
Steve Carroll
> In article <gkhm8e$mp...@nntp.motzarella.org>,
>
>
>
> humuhumunukunukuapuaa <hum...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:25:30 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> > > 496bf874$0$1587$6e1ed...@read.cnntp.org on 1/12/09 7:12 PM:
The weird thing about it is that he truly seems to believe people have
no memory of his continued trolling activities... even while he's
*still* doing them on a day to day basis. Glasser gives a whole new
meaning to the term 'detached from reality' ;)
Snit
1/13/09 4:25 AM:
I *responded* to you and Wally.
If I do not you whine I run.
If I do you whine, later, that I "brought up" the topics you two obsess over
and then make fools of yourself about.
Do you think people are too stupid to see this? Do you think I am?
Wait: you just might be. Are you?
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> If I do not you whine I run.
LOL!
Snit
> On 14/1/09 2:21 AM, in article C5921BC2.EA017%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> I *responded* to you and Wally.
>>
>> If I do not you whine I run.
>
> LOL!
>
>> If I do you whine, later, that I "brought up" the topics you two obsess over
>> and then make fools of yourself about.
>>
>> Do you think people are too stupid to see this? Do you think I am?
>>
>> Wait: you just might be. Are you?
Note: no answer. Apparently you are that stupid. But at least you realize
it... otherwise you would not have snipped, as you did. I returned context,
by the way.
As I have noted and shown, your abilities are often below that of what
should be taught in the 3rd grade. I do not care if your challenges are
based on a lack of intelligence, a learning disability, or just an amazingly
poor education. But you should care. And you should work to overcome this
deficit of yours.
--
Do you ever wake up in a cold sweat wondering what the world would be
like if the Lamarckian view of evolution had ended up being accepted
over Darwin's?
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5936747.F84B%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/13/09 5:56 PM:
>
>> On 14/1/09 2:21 AM, in article C5921BC2.EA017%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> I *responded* to you and Wally.
>>>
>>> If I do not you whine I run.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>>> If I do you whine, later, that I "brought up" the topics you two obsess over
>>> and then make fools of yourself about.
>>>
>>> Do you think people are too stupid to see this? Do you think I am?
>>>
>>> Wait: you just might be. Are you?
>
> Note: no answer. Apparently you are that stupid. But at least you realize
> it... otherwise you would not have snipped, as you did. I returned context,
> by the way.
How did this returned context make any sense of ...
"If I do not you whine I run."-Snit
As I have told you before Snit the question of your stupidity is beyond
doubt yet you insist on emphasizing the point on a daily basis!
Snit
Oh no! I did not use commas in a way that would be best! Good reason for
you to run. Here, with the commas included:
------
I *responded* to you and Wally.
If I do not, you whine I run.
LOL!
If I do, you whine, later, that I "brought up" the topics you
two obsess over and then make fools of yourself about.
Do you think people are too stupid to see this? Do you think
I am?
Wait: you just might be. Are you?
-----
But you have already answered the question. You are.
--
You really have to give credit to Apple for driving innovation.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
And that version makes more sense to you than the original Snit? LOL
Explain .... "If I do not, you whine I run."-Snit
Snit
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
Snit
>> Oh no! I did not use commas in a way that would be best! Good reason for
>> you to run. Here, with the commas included:
>>
>> ------
>> I *responded* to you and Wally.
>>
>> If I do not, you whine I run.
>
> And that version makes more sense to you than the original Snit? LOL
>
> Explain .... "If I do not, you whine I run."-Snit
Hint, read the sentence before it and look at the context. I am happy to
see you actually working on your reading comprehension. Seriously, it is a
good sign for you.
Still, you have answered the question... you are unable to acknowledge, at
least publicly, how silly your contradictory claims are: that I am wrong if
I respond to your perverse claims or if I do not. Oh well.
>> LOL!
>>
>> If I do, you whine, later, that I "brought up" the topics you
>> two obsess over and then make fools of yourself about.
>>
>> Do you think people are too stupid to see this? Do you think
>> I am?
>>
>> Wait: you just might be. Are you?
>> -----
>>
>> But you have already answered the question. You are.
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C593AF74.F87A%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/13/09 11:04 PM:
>
>>> Oh no! I did not use commas in a way that would be best! Good reason for
>>> you to run. Here, with the commas included:
>>>
>>> ------
>>> I *responded* to you and Wally.
>>>
>>> If I do not, you whine I run.
>>
>> And that version makes more sense to you than the original Snit? LOL
>>
>> Explain .... "If I do not, you whine I run."-Snit
>
> Hint, read the sentence before it and look at the context.
Ok fine I gave you the chance! ...
"I *responded* to you and Wally."-Snit
The "you" is Tim Adams, the rest is self explanatory!
"If I do not, you whine I run."-Snit
So if you do not respond you claim that Tim whines, which is of course is
simply your interpretation of his actions, and you *run*!
So you consider it whining when Tim notes that you have run away, but you
admit here that running away is exactly what you have done!
How is Tim Adams noting the truth ... Whining Snit?
See what I mean about your "values" Snit?
They are your words Snit...
"If I do not, ..... I run."-Snit
That is exactly what some of us have been telling you that you do, yet you
have repeatedly denied it .... Until now!
Snit
...
>>>> If I do not, you whine I run.
...
> "If I do not, ..... I run."-Snit
Please stop lying.
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472
Wally
"Snit the hypocrit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C593C9C4.F884%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/14/09 12:56 AM:
>
> ...
>>>>> If I do not, you whine I run.
> ...
>> "If I do not, ..... I run."-Snit
>
> Please stop lying.
"You dishonestly snipped.
In other words: you folded, you waved your white flag, you have shown not
even you believe your BS."-Snit
LOL
Snit
I noted your lie. You did not even try to defend your lie.
Once again, Wally, if you want me to play your game and partake in your
circus you will need to stop running from what you cannot handle.
Acknowledge your lie... or at least post some idiotic attempt at a defense.
To merely run from it is immature on your part.
MuahMan
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C593D99F.F89B%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/14/09 2:04 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14/1/09 5:06 PM, in article C592EB2D.EA42D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
> > "Snit the hypocrit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> >> C593C9C4.F884%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/14/09 12:56 AM:
>
> >> ...
> >>>>>> If I do not, you whine I run.
> >> ...
> >>> "If I do not, ..... I run."-Snit
>
> >> Please stop lying.
>
> > "You dishonestly snipped.
>
> > In other words: you folded, you waved your white flag, you have shown not
> > even you believe your BS."-Snit
>
> > LOL
>
> I noted your lie. You did not even try to defend your lie.
>
> Once again, Wally, if you want me to play your game and partake in your
> circus you will need to stop running from what you cannot handle.
> Acknowledge your lie... or at least post some idiotic attempt at a defense.
> To merely run from it is immature on your part.
>
> --
> It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please DIE! EVERYONE HATES YOU.
Snit
af8dcc82-6875-4828...@v42g2000yqv.googlegroups.com on 1/14/09
10:06 AM:
You sure beg for my attention a lot.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Chance Furlong
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "MuahMan" <mua...@gmail.com> stated in post
> af8dcc82-6875-4828...@v42g2000yqv.googlegroups.com on 1/14/09
> >
> > Please DIE! EVERYONE HATES YOU.
>
> You sure beg for my attention a lot.
Steve Carroll and MuahMan beg for your attention more.
Snit
I was in reference to MuahMan. :) Steve, though, begs more than any dozen
people combined - and he knows I generally do not even read his posts.
Steve Carroll
> In article <C5938664.EA5C2%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > af8dcc82-6875-4828-9ec9-d4467de61...@v42g2000yqv.googlegroups.com on 1/14/09
>
> > > Please DIE! EVERYONE HATES YOU.
>
> > You sure beg for my attention a lot.
>
> Steve Carroll and MuahMan beg for your attention more.
Yeah... right... like I really have to "beg" for Snit's attention;)
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C593D99F.F89B%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/14/09 2:04 AM:
>
>> On 14/1/09 5:06 PM, in article C592EB2D.EA42D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit the hypocrit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> C593C9C4.F884%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/14/09 12:56 AM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>>> If I do not, you whine I run.
>>> ...
>>>> "If I do not, ..... I run."-Snit
>>>
>>> Please stop lying.
>>
>>
>> "You dishonestly snipped.
>>
>> In other words: you folded, you waved your white flag, you have shown not
>> even you believe your BS."-Snit
>>
>> LOL
>>
> I noted your lie. You did not even try to defend your lie.
I will take time out to defend what is real Snit, your delusions?..no
thanks!
Snit
...
>> I noted your lie. You did not even try to defend your lie.
>
> I will take time out to defend what is real Snit, your delusions?..no
> thanks!
>
Snit:
If I do not, you whine I run.
Wally's bastardization he attributed to me:
If I do not, ..... I run.
You lied, Wally. It is that simple.
--
I can't say we will succeed at this, but we will make a significant attempt
to elevate the Linux desktop to the point where it is as good or better than
Apple.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5952B77.F917%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/15/09 2:05 AM:
>
> ...
>>> I noted your lie. You did not even try to defend your lie.
>>
>> I will take time out to defend what is real Snit, your delusions?..no
>> thanks!
>>
> Snit:
> If I do not, you whine I run.
>
> Wally's bastardization he attributed to me:
> If I do not, ..... I run.
>
> You lied, Wally. It is that simple.
Is there any part of "If I do not, ..... I run." that you claim not to have
written Snit?
Everything in that quote was written by *you* and is about *you*, that must
surely be the closest you will ever get to telling the truth Snit, or are
you saying that you can't even be believed when you state what your own
actions are?
Snit
You lied and were busted, Wally. Get over it.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C595A1AD.F96C%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/15/09 10:30 AM:
>
>> On 16/1/09 1:45 AM, in article C594B63D.EA8B5%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> C5952B77.F917%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/15/09 2:05 AM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>> I noted your lie. You did not even try to defend your lie.
>>>>
>>>> I will take time out to defend what is real Snit, your delusions?..no
>>>> thanks!
>>>>
>>> Snit:
>>> If I do not, you whine I run.
>>>
>>> Wally's bastardization he attributed to me:
>>> If I do not, ..... I run.
>>>
>>> You lied, Wally. It is that simple.
>>
>> Is there any part of "If I do not, ..... I run." that you claim not to have
>> written Snit?
Do you need a simpler question Snit?
>> Everything in that quote was written by *you* and is about *you*, that must
>> surely be the closest you will ever get to telling the truth Snit, or are
>> you saying that you can't even be believed when you state what your own
>> actions are?
>
> You lied and were busted, Wally. Get over it.
Show where I lied!
Snit
...
>> You lied and were busted, Wally. Get over it.
>
> Show where I lied!
You attributed a claim to me I never made.
Snit:
If I do not, you whine I run.
Wally's bastardization he attributed to me:
If I do not, ..... I run.
Your false attribution was a lie.
Notice how I happily support my accusations. When you were recently asked
to support your accusation against two people you fell apart, claiming that
a person notes that they quoted someone accurately that this proves sock
puppetry.
You are not very good at this whole "support your claim" thing... not in
understanding when others do it nor in being able to support yours. You
have the mental capacity of a grade school child... seriously. I say this
not to be rude but to let you know, in case you do not, and to make you
aware that it is very apparent from what you write.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C59602C6.F9DA%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/15/09 5:24 PM:
>
> ...
>>> You lied and were busted, Wally. Get over it.
>>
>> Show where I lied!
>
> You attributed a claim to me I never made.
Is there any part of ...
"If I do not, ..... I run."-Snit
... that you claim not to have written Snit? if so which part, if not then I
did not lie!
Everything in that quote above was written by *you* and is about *you*, if
you can't be believed when describing your own actions Snit then clearly
anything that you may have claimed or will claim wrt anyone else is rendered
unbelievable!
> Snit:
> If I do not, you whine I run.
>
> Wally's bastardization he attributed to me:
> If I do not, ..... I run.
You have failed to point out any part of that quote, a quote that is
concerned *solely* with your own actions in your own words, that was not
authored by you Snit!
> Your false attribution was a lie.
If true you should be able to point out which part you did not author Snit,
why can't you?
Which part of that quote that describes your own behavior in your own words
did you not author? Why is that question not simple enough for you Snit?
> Notice how I happily support my accusations.
All that can be noticed here is that you claim not to have authored the
quote that describes what *you* do when *you* do not respond to a post
Snit...
"If I do not, ..... I run."-Snit
Yet you continually refuse to explain your accusations regarding my having
posted your very own words Snit!
I fully realize that that sort of evasion makes you "happy" Snit but it
simply does not constitute "support" at all!
Snit
When you defend your actions you are simply lying or unable to grasp a
concept a grade school student would be able to.
I do not care which.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5964443.FA04%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/15/09 10:03 PM:
>
>> On 16/1/09 9:41 AM, in article C59525CD.EAA5F%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> C59602C6.F9DA%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/15/09 5:24 PM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>> You lied and were busted, Wally. Get over it.
>>>>
>>>> Show where I lied!
>>>
>>> You attributed a claim to me I never made.
>>
>> Is there any part of ...
>>
>> "If I do not, ..... I run."-Snit
>>
>> ... that you claim not to have written Snit? if so which part, if not then I
>>
>> did not lie!
Clearly there was not, so there was no lie!
>> Everything in that quote above was written by *you* and is about *you*, if
>> you can't be believed when describing your own actions Snit then clearly
>> anything that you may have claimed or will claim wrt anyone else is rendered
>> unbelievable!
>>
>>> Snit:
>>> If I do not, you whine I run.
>>>
>>> Wally's bastardization he attributed to me:
>>> If I do not, ..... I run.
>>
>> You have failed to point out any part of that quote, a quote that is
>> concerned *solely* with your own actions in your own words, that was not
>> authored by you Snit!
A failure that will continue!
>>> Your false attribution was a lie.
>>
>> If true you should be able to point out which part you did not author Snit,
Which of course Snit can't!
>> why can't you?
We all know why!
>> Which part of that quote that describes your own behavior in your own words
>> did you not author? Why is that question not simple enough for you Snit?
>>
>>> Notice how I happily support my accusations.
>>
>> All that can be noticed here is that you claim not to have authored the
>> quote that describes what *you* do when *you* do not respond to a post
>> Snit...
>>
>> "If I do not, ..... I run."-Snit
>>
>> Yet you continually refuse to explain your accusations regarding my having
>> posted your very own words Snit!
>>
>> I fully realize that that sort of evasion makes you "happy" Snit but it
>> simply does not constitute "support" at all!
>>
>>
>>
> Snit:
> If I do not, you whine I run.
>
> Wally's bastardization he attributed to me:
> If I do not, ..... I run.
>
> When you defend your actions you are simply lying or unable to grasp a
> concept a grade school student would be able to.
So which is it this time Snit?
> I do not care which.
Of course not! you wouldnšt be you if you did!
Snit
>> Snit:
>> If I do not, you whine I run.
>>
>> Wally's bastardization he attributed to me:
>> If I do not, ..... I run.
>>
>> When you defend your actions you are simply lying or unable to grasp a
>> concept a grade school student would be able to.
>
> So which is it this time Snit?
>
>> I do not care which.
>
> Of course not! you wouldnšt be you if you did!
Ah, the old game of pretending it matters to your credibility if you are
being incompetent or dishonest. Yeah, it is clear you are being inaccurate
and should not be trusted... and not it is my job, you think, to play
guessing games to figure out why.
Go get some professional help. Really.
--
I think the Apple guys have a very good point when they say we should let
designers lead the definition of the user experience.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5964D6A.FA30%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/15/09 10:42 PM:
>
>>> Snit:
>>> If I do not, you whine I run.
>>>
>>> Wally's bastardization he attributed to me:
>>> If I do not, ..... I run.
>>>
>>> When you defend your actions you are simply lying or unable to grasp a
>>> concept a grade school student would be able to.
>>
>> So which is it this time Snit?
>>
>>> I do not care which.
>>
>> Of course not! you wouldnšt be you if you did!
>
> Ah, the old game of pretending it matters to your credibility if you are
> being incompetent or dishonest.
What! You think that incompetence or dishonesty has no effect on
credibility?
ROTFLMAO! ..... *That* really does explain a whole lot about you Snit! :)
Snit
Sigh... you just like playing idiotic semantic games. Re-read my sentence
and see if you can understand it.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C5965BB4.FA64%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/15/09 11:43 PM:
>
>> On 16/1/09 2:57 PM, in article C5956FCA.EAB6C%use...@gallopinginsanity.com,
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <Wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> C5964D6A.FA30%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/15/09 10:42 PM:
>>>
>>>>> Snit:
>>>>> If I do not, you whine I run.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wally's bastardization he attributed to me:
>>>>> If I do not, ..... I run.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you defend your actions you are simply lying or unable to grasp a
>>>>> concept a grade school student would be able to.
>>>>
>>>> So which is it this time Snit?
>>>>
>>>>> I do not care which.
>>>>
>>>> Of course not! you wouldnšt be you if you did!
>>>
>>> Ah, the old game of pretending it matters to your credibility if you are
>>> being incompetent or dishonest.
>>
>> What! You think that incompetence or dishonesty has no effect on
>> credibility?
>>
>> ROTFLMAO! ..... *That* really does explain a whole lot about you Snit! :)
>
> Sigh... you just like playing idiotic semantic games. Re-read my sentence
> and see if you can understand it.
Understand it as you do Snit? I pray that day never comes!
How's your "current reality" holding up? LOL
Snit
You sure beg for my attention a lot.