What is this Snit that he should take over an entire Newsgroup?
Sonnova
about? He seems to have taken over this NG and has engendered the most
violent hatred from other posters that I think I have ever seen. Most
disconcerting.
Rhino Plastee
Snit is the most vile creature to roam Usenet. He is a liar, a bigot, a
homophobe, and a sexist. Do not be fooled by the complete and total lack of
proof of this! No, no! This is 2009 and Usenet is the Wild Wild West of
the Internets. Steve Carroll has many quotes from people saying bad things
about Snit and that is all the evidence one needs! He is the anti-christ
and is worthy of your contempt and your hatred. Do not ever speak a good
word of him or you will face the wrath of the masses, and the masses make
the truth in this New World Order. Fuck evidence, POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
High Plains Thumper
Snit is an unwelcomed guest in the advocacy groups
comp.sys.mac.advocacy and comp.os.linux.advocacy.
He is a known pathological liar, who does his selective deep
snippages, then spins a tirade mixture of accusations, denials
when shown the errors of his ways.
When he gets miffed, he simply goes nuts. He is an ultra
prolific poster, to which has caused some to question whether he
really has a job. Some have hinted that his wife does all the
work and he all the play, 24/7.
Then, he starts into a childish nymshift into personas such as
Rhino Plastee, who then disassociates with Snit whom he also
supports.
These tirades are called the "Snit Circus".
One is best off not replying to him. Even when exposed, he
continues down a path of denial, accusing his opponent of lying,
failing to show proof, etc. even though it is right before all to
see.
To give an idea of how he has created an entire army of enemies
by his circus of pathological lies, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/b4d15a13ee3dd7cf
Both Apple and Linux are competitors to Microsoft. Seeing how he
supports other known trolls whilst denigrating legitmate posters
smacks of:
'Use [...] the Internet, etc. to heighten the impression that the
enemy is desperate, demoralized, defeated, [...] associated with
mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny". Just keep rubbing it in, via the [...] newsgroups, [...]
make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of
the mythology of the computer industry.'
(reference PDF pages 45 & 55 on
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf - Comes vs Microsoft
lawsuit, Microsoft Evangelism document)
--
HPT
Rhino Plastee
> Sonnova wrote:
>
>> I haven't been here long, could somebody please tell me what
>> this Snit is about? He seems to have taken over this NG and
>> has engendered the most violent hatred from other posters that
>> I think I have ever seen. Most disconcerting.
>
> Snit is an unwelcomed guest in the advocacy groups
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy and comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Correct. Everyone hates him, and with good reasons as you show below.
> He is a known pathological liar, who does his selective deep
> snippages, then spins a tirade mixture of accusations, denials
> when shown the errors of his ways.
Exactly. Look at all the evidence High Plains Thumper just THUMPED Snit
with. The fuckface will not know what hit him!
> When he gets miffed, he simply goes nuts. He is an ultra
> prolific poster, to which has caused some to question whether he
> really has a job. Some have hinted that his wife does all the
> work and he all the play, 24/7.
Hinted? No, it is a fact! People say it on USENET so it must be true.
> Then, he starts into a childish nymshift into personas such as
> Rhino Plastee, who then disassociates with Snit whom he also
> supports.
Yes, I am Snit. So is everyone else. There are only six people on the
whole of Usenet and I who am Snit are the rest of the people. We know this
because High Plains Thumper just said so. That is right. He SAID SO.
What more evidence do you need? That is PROOF, man, fucking proof!
> These tirades are called the "Snit Circus".
>
> One is best off not replying to him. Even when exposed, he
> continues down a path of denial, accusing his opponent of lying,
> failing to show proof, etc. even though it is right before all to
> see.
Yes! And he gets exposed so often, like the time when. No. Then there was
the time. No. Well, fuck! There must be some time though because High
Plains Thumper is THUMPING! Why would he THUMP if it were not fucking true!
You go THUMPER!
> To give an idea of how he has created an entire army of enemies
> by his circus of pathological lies, see:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/b4d15a13ee3dd7cf
>
> Both Apple and Linux are competitors to Microsoft. Seeing how he
> supports other known trolls whilst denigrating legitmate posters
> smacks of:
>
> 'Use [...] the Internet, etc. to heighten the impression that the
> enemy is desperate, demoralized, defeated, [...] associated with
> mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
> Bunny". Just keep rubbing it in, via the [...] newsgroups, [...]
> make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of
> the mythology of the computer industry.'
>
> (reference PDF pages 45 & 55 on
> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf - Comes vs Microsoft
> lawsuit, Microsoft Evangelism document)
Oh man! All those links to Snit's posts! All those quotes showing him to
be a liar and a bigot and a goat fucker! Man, High Plains Thumper, you
THUMPED Snit and good! This is the new age of 2009 and facts are of no
importance! What matters is what people say. Fuck facts, POWER TO THE
PEOPLE! That is the power of THUMPING!
Rhino Plastee
> Rhino Plastee wrote:
>
>> Snit is the most vile creature to roam Usenet.
>
> words so he can win an argument against a straw man.
>
> That's enough to killfile him.
You go! Fuck showing where Snit has done this! Fuck facts! You SAID he
did so he DID! That is the power of Usenet in this New World Order of 2009!
Snit is a fuck nugget because you SAY he is a fuck nugget. POWER TO THE
PEOPLE!
Alan Baker
Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
I killfiled him ages ago, and all posts that include references to his
posts.
Works for me!
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Rhino Plastee
> In article <0001HW.C582E5CE...@news.giganews.com>,
> Sonnova <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>
>> I haven't been here long, could somebody please tell me what this
>> Snit is about? He seems to have taken over this NG and has
>> engendered the most violent hatred from other posters that I think I
>> have ever seen. Most disconcerting.
>
> I killfiled him ages ago, and all posts that include references to his
> posts.
>
> Works for me!
Everyone should kill file Snit. Never speak to him and he will go away!
Never speak to his SOCK puppets and remember that includes everyone but SIX
people in the whole fucking Usenet. Never mind that Alan Baker did not
provide a single link or quote? Who cares in this New World Order of 2009?
Do you think facts are important any more? NO! Facts are useless. Vote
with your posts and do not post to Snit. Kill file him NOW! POWER TO THE
PEOPLE!
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> Then, he starts into a childish nymshift into personas such
>> as Rhino Plastee, who then disassociates with Snit whom he
>> also supports.
>
> Yes, I am Snit.
True.
> So is everyone else.
Lie.
> There are only six people on the whole of Usenet and I who am
> Snit are the rest of the people.
Lie.
> We know this because High Plains Thumper just said so. That
> is right. He SAID SO.
Lie. Proof is only a Google away, in plain view. Besides, even
if one posts the truth, Michael and his sock puppets snip and
run. Michael can run, but Michael can't hide.
> What more evidence do you need? That is PROOF, man, fucking
> proof!
Continued Snit Circus.
>> These tirades are called the "Snit Circus".
>>
>> One is best off not replying to him. Even when exposed, he
>> continues down a path of denial, accusing his opponent of
>> lying, failing to show proof, etc. even though it is right
>> before all to see.
>
> Yes! And he gets exposed so often, like the time when. No.
Make up your mind.
> Then there was the time. No. Well, fuck! There must be some
> time though because High Plains Thumper is THUMPING! Why
> would he THUMP if it were not fucking true! You go THUMPER!
Snit Circus continuum.
>> To give an idea of how he has created an entire army of
>> enemies by his circus of pathological lies, see:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/b4d15a13ee3dd7cf
>>
>>
>> Both Apple and Linux are competitors to Microsoft. Seeing
>> how he supports other known trolls whilst denigrating
>> legitmate posters smacks of:
>>
>> 'Use [...] the Internet, etc. to heighten the impression
>> that the enemy is desperate, demoralized, defeated, [...]
>> associated with mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in
>> Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny". Just keep rubbing it in, via
>> the [...] newsgroups, [...] make the complete failure of the
>> competition's technology part of the mythology of the
>> computer industry.'
>>
>> (reference PDF pages 45 & 55 on
>> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf - Comes vs
>> Microsoft lawsuit, Microsoft Evangelism document)
>
> Oh man! All those links to Snit's posts! All those quotes
> showing him to be a liar and a bigot and a goat fucker! Man,
> High Plains Thumper, you THUMPED Snit and good! This is the
> new age of 2009 and facts are of no importance! What matters
> is what people say. Fuck facts, POWER TO THE PEOPLE! That is
> the power of THUMPING!
This is called:
http://www.webservertalk.com/message1474739.html
[quote]
Subject: 4.1 Drivel
Posts without interesting content are simple to produce. Cascades
have a long history on usenet, usually containing wordplays round
a specific theme. The Trolls version is a cascade of drivel. two
persons working online to the same newsserver can throw a thread
between themselves and create very large numbers of posts. One
person can throw a thread between two or more sockpuppets.
[/quote]
--
HPT
Sandman
Snit is the most hated and killfiled person to ever post in csma, and
I am one of the oldies, so I should know.
You can read some about the definition of a troll and how he fits it
here:
http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Troll+Criteria
And you can read some of the opinion about him here:
http://csma.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit
You can read about this scoring here:
http://csma.sandman.net/pages/RelationalTrollScoring
It is no longer being updated since I have had him killfiled since at
least a year.
Here are some interesting posts about Snits behaviour that you can
read:
Some of the threads Snit started during *one month* in 2006:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e2781eb884593
e92>
Snit has been trolling me about my website since the dinosaurs walkd
the earth, here are some examples of his obsession:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/2f2f7c9cea03a
ec1>
Snit floods my site almost three hundred thousand times
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/f3e7a466cef56
3a9>
(for more examples of Snits obsession of me - see his reply to this
post)
Here are some of his threads that mention some of the usual suspects,
to further illustrate his obsession:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3c40ee58b6d32
58d>
This is a script I put together a long time ago, and the numbers were
a lot higher back then, but even now when I have him killfiled and
don't talk to him, it's interesting how often he mentions my name in
threads:
<http://csma.sandman.net/misc/snitsandman.php>
Well, to sum it up - he's the biggest troll in this group ever. The
most hated, the most killfiled person in the history of csma. Note how
he will call these "unsubstantiated accusations" even with all this
substantiation. Denial is his biggest weapon of choice :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> Snit is the most hated and killfiled person to ever post in csma,
I don't doubt you are right, But, "killfiled" I can understand, "hated"? I
have never understood that!
We know what he is and what he is capable of, and why he does it, personally
I at times .. dislike, pity, feel sorry for, ridicule, am amazed at, feel
sympathy for, laugh at, am entertained by, Snit and his sock puppets, but I
can never take him serious enough to hate him! YMMV.
Sandman
Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> > Snit is the most hated and killfiled person to ever post in csma,
>
> I don't doubt you are right, But, "killfiled" I can understand, "hated"? I
> have never understood that!
>
> We know what he is and what he is capable of, and why he does it, personally
> I at times .. dislike, pity, feel sorry for, ridicule, am amazed at, feel
> sympathy for, laugh at, am entertained by, Snit and his sock puppets, but I
> can never take him serious enough to hate him! YMMV.
Well, hate is an ambiguous word anyway. I feel that "most disliked
person" is for low-level trolls like zara and Muahman. The sheer
amount of dislike aimed towards Michael Glasser makes me feel like
"dislike" is too timid of a word. If you find something that fits
better than "hate", then be my guess.
Also, "most hated" may not be the same as "hated by most". From a
scale of love <-> hate, Snit is the person on the far right of that
scale, which that huge void of no people between him and
Edwin/zara/Muahman et all. Even Tholen. So "most hated" may just be a
reflection of that.
--
Sandman[.net]
Wally
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <C5842054.F048%Wa...@wally.world.net>,
> Wally <Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
>
>>> Snit is the most hated and killfiled person to ever post in csma,
>>
>> I don't doubt you are right, But, "killfiled" I can understand, "hated"? I
>> have never understood that!
>>
>> We know what he is and what he is capable of, and why he does it, personally
>> I at times .. dislike, pity, feel sorry for, ridicule, am amazed at, feel
>> sympathy for, laugh at, am entertained by, Snit and his sock puppets, but I
>> can never take him serious enough to hate him! YMMV.
>
> Well, hate is an ambiguous word anyway.
Maybe if I was to use it to describe something inanimate, but not a person!
> I feel that "most disliked person" is for low-level trolls like zara and
> Muahman.
"low-level trolls" does it for me, as such I neither like nor dislike them
on a constant basis, Muahman can be amusing, and I like being amused!
Zara has not shown any redeeming traits as far as I can tell so I very
rarely read those posts.
> The sheer amount of dislike aimed towards Michael Glasser makes me feel like
> "dislike" is too timid of a word.
Crap is still crap no matter how high it's piled!
> If you find something that fits better than "hate", then be my guess.
Hates fine if that works for you, as I said YMMV.
>
> Also, "most hated" may not be the same as "hated by most".
As far as the emotion involved is concerned I do not see the distinction
between "most hated" and "hated by most", if I feel hatred toward a person
then generally I feel hostility toward them also, how that hostility
manifests itself could be anywhere between the physical or just simply
ignoring them!
> From a
> scale of love <-> hate, Snit is the person on the far right of that
> scale, which that huge void of no people between him and
> Edwin/zara/Muahman et all.
I guess that highlights why I can't really accept the idea of hate being the
correct term, how do you hate someone just a little bit which would occur
just off to the right of centre on that scale?
Snit has been known to make lucid comments on certain subjects, and people
have engaged him on those occasions, so do people pop in and out of hate wrt
Snit?
I think that in general people may hate what he does and how he behaves, and
I would consider myself one of those, but to hate Snit himself? I just don't
see it.
But hey what the hell, it would be a boring place if we all thought the same
way!
> Even Tholen. So "most hated" may just be a
> reflection of that.
OK.
Sandman
<Wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
> > > Wally:
> > > I don't doubt you are right, But, "killfiled" I can understand,
> > > "hated"? I have never understood that!
> > >
> > > We know what he is and what he is capable of, and why he does
> > > it, personally I at times .. dislike, pity, feel sorry for,
> > > ridicule, am amazed at, feel sympathy for, laugh at, am
> > > entertained by, Snit and his sock puppets, but I can never take
> > > him serious enough to hate him! YMMV.
> > Sandman:
> > Well, hate is an ambiguous word anyway.
> Wally:
> Maybe if I was to use it to describe something inanimate, but not a
> person!
Yeah, maybe ambiguous is the wrong word here. I merely meant that hate
is not a constant, it's an abstract feeling described as "intense or
passionate dislike". You seem to take issue with the "passionate"
part, while I am more aimed towards the "intense" :)
> > Sandman:
> > I feel that "most disliked person" is for low-level trolls like
> > zara and Muahman.
> Wally:
> "low-level trolls" does it for me, as such I neither like nor
> dislike them on a constant basis, Muahman can be amusing, and I like
> being amused! Zara has not shown any redeeming traits as far as I
> can tell so I very rarely read those posts.
Low-level trolls when compared to Snit, I mean.
> > Sandman:
> > The sheer amount of dislike aimed towards Michael Glasser makes me
> > feel like "dislike" is too timid of a word.
> Wally:
> Crap is still crap no matter how high it's piled!
But dislike isn't dislike the intenser it gets. Somewhere it might
just be called hate :)
> > Sandman:
> > Also, "most hated" may not be the same as "hated by most".
> Wally:
> As far as the emotion involved is concerned I do not see the
> distinction between "most hated" and "hated by most", if I feel
> hatred toward a person then generally I feel hostility toward them
> also, how that hostility manifests itself could be anywhere between
> the physical or just simply ignoring them!
No, I meant mathematically. "most hated" could be that one person
hates him, but not a single other poster is hated by any other. That
would make Snit the most hated. "Hated by most" is a percentage.
> > Sandman:
> > From a scale of love <->hate, Snit is the person on the far right
> > of that scale, which that huge void of no people between him and
> > Edwin/zara/Muahman et all.
> Wally:
> I guess that highlights why I can't really accept the idea of hate
> being the correct term, how do you hate someone just a little bit
> which would occur just off to the right of centre on that scale?
I don't think the opinions from people about Snit puts him "just off
to the right of the center" of that scale, really. If pure hatred is a
10 on the center->hate scale, Snit surely is a 9, if not 10.
LOVE <10---0---10> HATE
> Snit has been known to make lucid comments on certain subjects, and
> people have engaged him on those occasions, so do people pop in and
> out of hate wrt Snit?
Sure, why not? Or do you think it would be different if the sentence
read "do people pop in and out of intensly disliking wrt Snit?"
> I think that in general people may hate what he does and how he
> behaves, and I would consider myself one of those, but to hate Snit
> himself? I just don't see it.
Oh well, then we're in agreement. I feel no hate, nor dislike for
Michael Glasser - whoever he may be. But Snit, the online persona and
all that he stands for is "intensly disliked" by me and most of the
group.
> But hey what the hell, it would be a boring place if we all thought
> the same way!
It would, indeed. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
John
"Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C582E5CE...@news.giganews.com...
You must not be paying attention closely. The real problem creators are
Netkooks Steve Carroll, Wally, Tim Adams.
-hh
> I haven't been here long, could somebody please [explain]?
Briefly, trolls misbehave so as to bring attention to himself, because
they crave attention.
Trolls can use various underhanded and dishonest techniques in their
attempt to try to manipulate you into doing what they wants - - to
post a reply.
What sort of reply doesn't matter, since the game is that any reply is
an acknowledgment of their existence.
This means that even an insult, or proof of his duplicity - is still
an acknowledgment of his existence, so it is interpreted as a reward,
not a punishment.
As such, it is a greater punishment to ignore the troll completely.
When people catch on to this game, the troll can become more
outrageous in order to prompt a response. Similarly, the troll can
pretend to be someone else, by creating multiple personnas, and use
these "sock puppets" to try continue to engage with people who have
put them in their killfile, or even to talk to himself, as bait to try
to pull someone else in.
It takes awhile, but one can generally figure out the particular
habits of a particular troll. And because the troll relies on
deception, one will invariably get "tripped up" and find that an
individual who you thought was merely a new reader was actually one of
the troll's sockpuppets. The troll will of course believe that this
simple manipulation is some huge 'victory' even though its not, since
it is based in his own duplicity.
FWIW, one 'Nuclear Option' would be to telephone or otherwise notify
the troll's family/spouse, to let them know of the troll's
misbehavior. Since this is generally a real world threat to the
troll's online entertainment playground, one can generally expect all
sorts of fiery loud protests and insults to result at the mere mention
of 'snitching': all of a sudden, the pathological liar tries to claim
some moral high ground, which is pure ironic hypocrisy.
Ultimately, you'll have to decide for yourself, and then what (if
anything) to do about it.
-hh
Wally
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
No doubt!
>
>>> Sandman:
>>> Also, "most hated" may not be the same as "hated by most".
>
>> Wally:
>> As far as the emotion involved is concerned I do not see the
>> distinction between "most hated" and "hated by most", if I feel
>> hatred toward a person then generally I feel hostility toward them
>> also, how that hostility manifests itself could be anywhere between
>> the physical or just simply ignoring them!
>
> No, I meant mathematically. "most hated" could be that one person
> hates him, but not a single other poster is hated by any other. That
> would make Snit the most hated. "Hated by most" is a percentage.
Fair comment!
>>> Sandman:
>>> From a scale of love <->hate, Snit is the person on the far right
>>> of that scale, which that huge void of no people between him and
>>> Edwin/zara/Muahman et all.
>
>> Wally:
>> I guess that highlights why I can't really accept the idea of hate
>> being the correct term, how do you hate someone just a little bit
>> which would occur just off to the right of centre on that scale?
>
> I don't think the opinions from people about Snit puts him "just off
> to the right of the center" of that scale, really.
No I agree, but for the scale to work it must be able to cater for the fact
that peoples hatred (for want of a better word) will vary in accordance with
their interaction with Snit, very few IMO interact with him to the extent
that warrants the extreme right of scale, so if I am right it's actually the
minority that would hate Snit and the majority would experience varying
degrees approaching that level dependant on there experiences with him.
> If pure hatred is a
> 10 on the center->hate scale, Snit surely is a 9, if not 10.
>
> LOVE <10---0---10> HATE
As I say that may well be the case, but not I feel toward Snit himself
rather toward what he does, why he does it, the effect on CSMA (which is
often mentioned) and a myriad of other reasons that I have not thought of.
>
>> Snit has been known to make lucid comments on certain subjects, and
>> people have engaged him on those occasions, so do people pop in and
>> out of hate wrt Snit?
>
> Sure, why not? Or do you think it would be different if the sentence
> read "do people pop in and out of intensly disliking wrt Snit?"
No not at all, that is really my point, I apologize I didnšt make it very
clear earlier ... Think of it this way...
I may hate what Snit does when he does what he does (you don't need me to
say what that is), but when he is not doing it there is no reason to hate
him, even when he is doing what he does I can only hate *that* whilst for
him I can only feel pity, etc.
Some call Snit a troll, I don't see him as that, he certainly exhibits
certain troll like traits so perhaps wanna be troll?, anyway he is nowhere
near clever enough to be called a troll, he is way too obvious, the simple
fact that we are discussing just how many have identified Snit for what he
is proves how obvious he has been.
Do you remember the "argument" sketch by Monty Python?
Snit is the guy behind the desk (A) and we are the customer (M) just hoping
for a good argument, one day ... Ahhhhh! ...one day it may just happen!
:-)
>
>> I think that in general people may hate what he does and how he
>> behaves, and I would consider myself one of those, but to hate Snit
>> himself? I just don't see it.
>
> Oh well, then we're in agreement. I feel no hate, nor dislike for
> Michael Glasser - whoever he may be. But Snit, the online persona and
> all that he stands for is "intensly disliked" by me and most of the
> group.
Absolute agreement from me there!
High Plains Thumper
A best explanation is that he is disliked even by trolls, LOL!
Here's a recent from cc, a known COLA troll:
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/cc-troll_29.html
This is what cc has to say about Snit:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/85c90976fe66fb80
[quote]
He, I'm Snit.
You have made accusation X against me.
You have failed to support the accusation yet again.
Here are a list of previous accusations that you failed to support:
Irrelevant Argument from the past #1
Irrelevant Argument from the past #2
Time you accused me of being wrong, when I was
Time you accused me of being wrong, when I wasn't
Irrelevant Argument from the past #3
Please provide evidence to back up all accusations including
those made years ago by someone else. I will now cut and paste
this as my response to everything you write.
Repetitively Yours,
Snit
[/quote]
List of quoters from CSMA Moderator, continued by others:
18- Edwin: "You've got to be out of your mind, Snit. You're the
worst troll this group has ever seen. You're a liar and a forger,
and you've almost destroyed this group single-handedly. For you
to post a list of out of context arguments, and lies, and
forgeries about your enemies labled as a "peace effort" has to be
one of the craziest stunts you've pulled. It's all about your
sick need for attention, your need to be center stage at all
times. You'd publicly eat dog turd if you thought it would make
people look at you."
101- zara: "Look - I'm not into combing through thousands of
posts, to prove what was said or not said - I leave stuff like
that to people without lives, like Snit. But it is assuredly, in
the record. Ping Snit to do a search - you will flatter him, and
give meaning to his tawdry little life."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/a1d4fc7120a6a538
59- Muahman: "Ummm, dude you post 1000 posts a day. 999 of them
are trolls, if anyone here has issues it's not me."
--
HPT
zara
"Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C582E5CE...@news.giganews.com...
I like Snit. He is one of the best and most creative trolls here. I like
how he gets you all chasing your own tails.
BTW: the KF is for pussys who cannot compete - like just about all of you.
Now BARK!!! Come on, BARK!!!! ROLL OVER!!! ROLL OVER!!! SIT!!! SIT!!!!
FUCKING MUTTS!!!
Steve Carroll
I prefer the punishment of helping Glasser ruin his online persona and
then watching him whine about it, in effect, punishing himself;)
I believe that if confrontation was done en masse (20 or more at a
crack) often enough Snit would quickly tire of trying to address so
many people. This tactic worked extremely well with the John... who
once complained that there were so many people hounding him that he
didn't have the time to cope. IMO there's not much funnier than seeing
a ng nitwit complain about not having the time to deal with the
repercussions of his BS. The thing that convinces me it will work is
Snit's inflated sense of self importance, he's *far* worse than John
in this respect. You may have noticed that Snit addresses virtually
every post that is addressed to him. Snit needn't be a liability to
this ng, he could be an extremely funny asset if you just focus on his
positions and snip away his dishonest obfuscations. If you've learned
anything at all about Snit you know that it's impossible for him to
leave things unanswered. When pushed by even a few he starts cutting
and pasting the same drivel and it does him no good... but it is
hilarious. Why do all of the people who have complained about Snit
still respond to folks like zara, Pratt and Edwin if not for laughs?
What's funnier than being able to point to a guy claiming to be an
adult... a "teacher"... who is constantly throwing the equivalent of a
usenet tantrum by reposting the same crap over and over? What's
funnier than pointing to such a person who claims that no one is
supporting the idea he's dishonest and dishonorable when the evidence
is clear to all? Oh well... It's been ~ 5 years now with Snit, perhaps
my suggestion will be taken seriously 5 years from now.
Snit
mr-7FFD09.10...@News.Individual.NET on 1/2/09 2:28 AM:
You "forgot" to actually post any comments by me. Just your claims. All
unsupported.
Hey, just as I predicted!
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
Snit
0001HW.C582E5CE...@news.giganews.com on 1/1/09 10:27 PM:
Prediction: you will get a *lot* of accusations tossed back and forth... but
nobody will actually quote *me* doing whatever horrid things they attribute
to me.
For an example, look at Wally's recent posts where he freaks out because I,
gasp!, deny that incest and sex are the same thing or so close as to be
considered "synonymous." I hold out that incest is a subset of sex - and
hopefully a very small subset.
Now read Wally's volumes of counter claims and make up your own mind. :)
--
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?
Snit
You "forgot" to actually post any comments by me that show any wrong doing.
Just your claims. All unsupported.
Hey, just as I predicted!
--
"Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/gates/>
Snit
You "forgot" to actually post any comments by me that show any wrong doing.
Just your claims. All unsupported.
Hey, just as I predicted!
--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman
Snit
C5842054.F048%Wa...@wally.world.net on 1/2/09 3:49 AM:
You "forgot" to actually post any comments by me that show any wrong doing.
Just your claims. All unsupported.
Hey, just as I predicted!
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Snit
You "forgot" to actually post any comments by me that show any wrong doing.
Just your claims. All unsupported.
Hey, just as I predicted!
--
But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price, who is not too
concerned about freedom, I don't think we can say the Linux desktop offers
the very best experience.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Snit
You "forgot" to actually post any comments by me that show any wrong doing.
Just your claims. All unsupported.
Hey, just as I predicted!
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472
Chance Furlong
"zara" <zara...@aol.com> wrote:
> I like Snit. He is one of the best and most creative trolls here. I like
> how he gets you all chasing your own tails.
You and Snit can get together for some quality time, Twink.
> BTW: the KF is for pussies who cannot compete like just about all of you.
I corrected "pussys" to "pussies" for you, Pussy.
> Now bark! Come on, bark! Roll over! Roll over! Sit! Sit!
> Fucking mutts!
Trying to be a Barbara Woodhouse wannabe?
Snit
8kq7l.1614$rF5...@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 1/2/09 8:26 AM:
Note how I predicted, in terms of this thread:
Prediction: you will get a *lot* of accusations tossed back
and forth... but nobody will actually quote *me* doing
whatever horrid things they attribute to me.
And I have been proved 100% correct.
So what is the real reason there are those who clearly lash out against me?
Here are some of the worst offenders:
Wally:
Well, I showed with Wally in this thread where he has been making up stories
about me... and I was able to refute him. Easily. He created all sorts of
gobbledygook and I was able to refute him with about two sentences - facts
that are irrefutable. Here are some posts where I refute Wally, fully and
completely:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9219ac208c31e234>
Steve Carroll:
Well, that is easy, too. I said some things about Bush *years* ago which
set him off. Even now I can easily point to arguments that he cannot
refute. For most this would be neither here nor there, but with Steve
Carroll he freaked out. Some recent posts where I respond to others
responding to him (I no longer generally read his posts... and do not
respond, he got too freaky and started targeting my business and recently
has been emailing me):
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/775a9b4055bc4cad>
Also ask Steve Carroll for his refutations against the following:
<http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf>
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/>
He will not be able to stop himself from posting his oft-repeated argument
from ignorance where he insists a lack of proof is a refutation... but worse
than that he will not be able to stop himself from lying about me. I can
point to posts that show this if you want.
Steve repeatedly speaks "for" me, making up quotes he attributes to me...
then claims this is an honest thing for him to do. Just ask for examples...
I am happy to provide some.
Sandman:
He became enraged when I caught him lying about, of all things, his CSS. I
noted his CSS and HTML did not validate - and he freaked out and started
making accusations about me flooding his site and other BS he could never
support. I easily supported my claims about him:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/77b6b176a99d4ad5>
In the end I proved, via quotes from Sandman and references to sources such
as the WayBackMachine and the Google Archive that Sandman lied... really
about something rather trivial but something that lead to him freaking out.
So I spent the time to prove him wrong. Even though there was *no* evidence
to support Sandman's claims and even though I proved my claims 100%, there
were several folks in CSMA who "sided" with Sandman: Carroll, Adams, and
Wally specifically. Steve Mackay and Alan Baker, too...
So what does this all lead to: easy. I spend the time to prove my points,
am willing to support my claims and - when Carroll, Adams, Sandman and Wally
lash out - to prove them to be making dishonest claims. Notice that each of
my links, above, while being to my own posts, shows direct quotes from these
folks... and points to the Google record so you can easily look at the post
I was responding to. They will *claim* I have somehow twisted their words -
but they will not offer any examples of my doing so (or if they do, it would
be in direct response to them doing so to me and my noting that is what I am
doing... I have done that from time to time).
--
I think we [the folks who make Linux desktops] don't yet deliver a good
enough user experience.
Snit
C58398CE.E7DE8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 1/2/09 10:11 AM:
Whoops... I said "some posts" and posted only one. Here are some others:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/28d94f71269df8fe>
In that one I show Wally jumping to bigoted views to troll someone... and
then I also quote Tim Adams jumping in to lie on Wally's behalf.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/1cbcf6e4ee60b8ab>
There Wally makes up stories about how I do trouble shooting of computers.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c0b4b48dd2ee79e>
There Wally shows he is not just ignorant about the basics of Set Theory,
but that he feels the need to lash out over his ignorance... spewing
accusations because I had the audacity to tell him that {} and {0} do not
mean the same thing.
On and on... none of these debates are about anything that really matters...
but Wally, Carroll, Adams, and Sandman lash out over them and take things
very, very personally. Sandman has tracked down my wife's email and started
sending him bizarre accusations, Steve Carroll hunted down posts of mine
from a health support group and started posting his attacks there, Tim Adams
works to tie my business name (or parts of the name, now, he has gotten
better) with his attacks.
There is simply no excuse for their behavior. And, unlike them, I am happy
to show where they do as I say. If there is any accusation I have made
where I have not supported it then just ask and I will find the post where
they have done so.
You will *not* get a similar offer from any of them. They run when asked to
support their claims.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
Snit
0001HW.C582E5CE...@news.giganews.com on 1/1/09 10:27 PM:
> I haven't been here long, could somebody please tell me what this Snit is
> about? He seems to have taken over this NG and has engendered the most
> violent hatred from other posters that I think I have ever seen. Most
> disconcerting.
Just another example, easily shown, where Steve Carroll and Wally try to
twist thing. They both have quoted this exchange:
Tim Adams:
Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
Snit:
Of course it is... can you find *any* quote where
*anyone* has questioned that?"
And from this they take it to mean I agree with Tim Adams that there is an
*equivalence* between incest and sex, that the two are the exact same thing.
Their game here is to play semantic games with the word is:
Two plus two *is* four.
In that case "is" indicated equivalence.
A dog *is* a mammal.
In that case "is" indicates a reference to a subset.
They pretend - dishonestly and contrary to multiple corrections - that I
used the word "is" to indicate equivalence and not to reference a subset.
They will *accuse* me of twisting their words. They find no examples. I
easily am finding examples of theirs.
Again: they simply cannot point to any wrong doing on my part... just
accusations. They do not provide support. I happily do.
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
Steve Carroll
> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> stated in post
> 0001HW.C582E5CE002B7163F0184...@news.giganews.com on 1/1/09 10:27 PM:
>
> > I haven't been here long, could somebody please tell me what this Snit is
> > about? He seems to have taken over this NG and has engendered the most
> > violent hatred from other posters that I think I have ever seen. Most
> > disconcerting.
>
> Just another example, easily shown, where Steve Carroll and Wally try to
> twist thing. They both have quoted this exchange:
>
> Tim Adams:
> Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
> Snit:
> Of course it is... can you find *any* quote where
> *anyone* has questioned that?"
>
> And from this they take it to mean I agree with Tim Adams that there is an
> *equivalence* between incest and sex, that the two are the exact same thing.
> Their game here is to play semantic games with the word is:
>
> Two plus two *is* four.
>
> In that case "is" indicated equivalence.
>
> A dog *is* a mammal.
>
> In that case "is" indicates a reference to a subset.
>
> They pretend - dishonestly and contrary to multiple corrections - that I
> used the word "is" to indicate equivalence and not to reference a subset.
Whined the liar who keeps trying to use math when he think it will
help him obfuscate his lies.
Snit
> I haven't been here long, could somebody please tell me what this Snit is
> about? He seems to have taken over this NG and has engendered the most
> violent hatred from other posters that I think I have ever seen. Most
> disconcerting.
And *another* example, from just a couple minutes ago. Steve just posted
this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/bfc8a67de3949071>
He repeats a game he has been playing for *years*. This goes back to the
absurd ongoing argument about Bush. As I noted, Steve cannot refute my
argument so he plays absurd games. In this case, the semantic game Steve is
playing is based on the word "proof." Proof can mean a binary element - as
in something being proved or not, no in between (the more technical
definition). It can also mean, in informal language, that something supports
a claim but does not absolutely (technically) prove it.
Steve used some quotes where I use the term "proof" in the more technical
binary way and then twists it by claiming I *must* have meant it in the
informal sense. This is a game he has played, literally, for *years*. It
is one of his favorites and one he plays based on his inability to defend
Bush from these arguments:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/>
And here:
<http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf>
Notice Steve will not be able to refute those... just repeat his Argument
from Ignorance where he pretends a lack of proof is a refutation. It is
dishonest of him, sure, but that does not dissuade him in the slightest.
As I have noted, Steve Carroll and Wally work to try to twist words:
Is:
I used it to mean subset, they insist it can only mean equivalence.
Proof:
I used it in the formal sense, Steve insists I meant it in the
informal sense
Absurd word play they cannot let go of. It is bizarre they hold on to these
games no matter how many times they are pointed out and proved to be wrong.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
Of course his own 'math example' has proved him a pervert.
Michael, the prescott computer pervert glasser has written that "All elements in
a subset are found in the set (and the set, of course, contains all the elements
of the subset)"
Michael, the prescott computer pervert glasser has also written that "incest is
a subset of sex'.
As such ALL of the elements of the subset incest must also be contained within
the set sex!
Pointing that out it Michael, the prescott computer pervert glasser in the past
has caused him to blow a gasket, but then, that is his claim.
--
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
zara
"Chance Furlong" <T-B...@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
news:T-Bone-3B0631....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
So you barked, you rolled over and sat - now lets see what else you can do,
Mutt.
LAY DOWN !! LAY DOWN!!!! PLAY DEAD!!! GIMMIE YOUR PAW!! FUCKING MUTT.
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-FA2600.13...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on
1/2/09 11:31 AM:
Tim, not only do you reference terms similar to my business name to show you
are a cretin, you make it sound like I ever contended the fact that all
items in a subset are, by definition, in the set... or that acts of incest
are a subset of acts of sex.
These things are common sense. What is *not* common sense, though, is when
you claim that sex and incest are *identical*, which you have done, and when
you claim it matters what order you list things in when you talk about them
being identical, as if A=B but B might not equal A. This shows you do not
understand even grade school logic concepts. And, yes, I am happy to quote
you:
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words. Therefore
they ARE identical when presented in that order."
- Tim Adams
How do you possibly defend that statement of yours? Keep in mind you are
also the one who said:
Snit:
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
This is not just some arbitrary "rule" I created - this is a well
established part of *logic*.
Tim Adams:
How many times do I need to point our you total lack of support for you
bogus rule ...
It is not as if you understand even the most basic aspects of logic!
--
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
Steve Carroll
> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> stated in post
>
> > I haven't been here long, could somebody please tell me what this Snit is
> > about? He seems to have taken over this NG and has engendered the most
> > violent hatred from other posters that I think I have ever seen. Most
> > disconcerting.
>
> And *another* example, from just a couple minutes ago. Steve just posted
> this post:
>
>
> He repeats a game he has been playing for *years*.
The "game" consists of you saying something stupid and I point out how
stupid it is.
> This goes back to the
> absurd ongoing argument about Bush. As I noted, Steve cannot refute my
> argument so he plays absurd games.
HInt: An "argument" that alleges guilt requires *some* form of
"proof". What you offered wasn't an argument, it was an opinion (that
you parroted off the net).
> In this case, the semantic game Steve is
> playing is based on the word "proof." Proof can mean a binary element - as
> in something being proved or not, no in between (the more technical
> definition). It can also mean, in informal language, that something supports
> a claim but does not absolutely (technically) prove it.
Why do you think he doesn't know what the word "proof" CAN mean? Poor
Snit... he obviously believes he's setting up another fool;)
> Steve used some quotes where I use the term "proof" in the more technical
> binary way and then twists it by claiming I *must* have meant it in the
> informal sense.
That's a total lie and the following quote by you will prove it. The
fact is I merely went by the definition *you* gave me for the word
"proof"... which was written at the same time you said your evidence
didn't contain any. You wrote:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a
formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument
points to
the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/abc91b0d42e3899b?dmode=source
Notice that there is nothing there about a "binary way"... all it
mentions is the concept of truth... something that is required for
*any* kind of proof (a thing you not only defined but flatly stated
you had none of). So... now we have "proof" that you just lied to
Sonnova about this issue... we can add it to the pile of people you
have lied to about this.
The bottom line here is that you're still throwing a tantrum and
trying to blame me because you stated that your evidence didn't
contain one true thing from which something else could necessarily
follow. Sorry, blaming me just won't work.
(snip the remainder of Snit's lies and BS).
Steve Carroll
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> stated in post
> C58398CE.E7DE8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 1/2/09 10:11 AM:
>
>
>
> > 8kq7l.1614$rF5....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 1/2/09 8:26 AM:
>
> >> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> >>news:0001HW.C582E5CE...@news.giganews.com...
> >>> I haven't been here long, could somebody please tell me what this Snit is
> >>> about? He seems to have taken over this NG and has engendered the most
> >>> violent hatred from other posters that I think I have ever seen. Most
> >>> disconcerting.
>
> >> I like Snit. He is one of the best and most creative trolls here. I like
> >> how he gets you all chasing your own tails.
>
> >> BTW: the KF is for pussys who cannot compete - like just about all of you.
>
> >> Now BARK!!! Come on, BARK!!!! ROLL OVER!!! ROLL OVER!!! SIT!!! SIT!!!!
> >> FUCKING MUTTS!!!
>
> > Note how I predicted, in terms of this thread:
>
> > Prediction: you will get a *lot* of accusations tossed back
> > and forth... but nobody will actually quote *me* doing
> > whatever horrid things they attribute to me.
>
> > And I have been proved 100% correct.
>
> > So what is the real reason there are those who clearly lash out against me?
> > Here are some of the worst offenders:
>
> > Wally:
> > Well, I showed with Wally in this thread where he has been making up stories
> > about me... and I was able to refute him. Easily. He created all sorts of
> > gobbledygook and I was able to refute him with about two sentences - facts
> > that are irrefutable. Here are some posts where I refute Wally, fully and
> > completely:
>
>
> Whoops... I said "some posts" and posted only one. Here are some others:
>
>
> In that one I show Wally jumping to bigoted views to troll someone... and
> then I also quote Tim Adams jumping in to lie on Wally's behalf.
>
>
> There Wally makes up stories about how I do trouble shooting of computers.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c0b4b48dd2ee79e>
>
> There Wally shows he is not just ignorant about the basics of Set Theory,
> but that he feels the need to lash out over his ignorance... spewing
> accusations because I had the audacity to tell him that {} and {0} do not
> mean the same thing.
>
> On and on... none of these debates are about anything that really matters...
> but Wally, Carroll, Adams, and Sandman lash out over them and take things
> very, very personally. Sandman has tracked down my wife's email and started
> sending him bizarre accusations
Your "wife" is a man? So... you lied about being married to a woman...
figures.
Snit
Steve Carroll just replied to this post... or parts of it.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5a65d420812e18c7>
He then quotes how I used the word "proof":
Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is:
"a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is
true something else necessarily follows from it". While the
evidence in my argument points to the conclusion and strongly
supports it, it is not, technically, in a logical sense,
proof.
Notice how even Steve *quotes* me showing I am using the more technical
definition and how I am offering strong support but not technically proof.
He then goes back to his game of insisting I used the word contrary to how
he *quoted* me using it, in the informal sense, as if I was saying I had no
evidence.
That is right: Steve *quotes* me noting my evidence "strongly supports" my
conclusion, he plays the *exact* game I note he does - and pretends I was
saying I did not offer strong support.
Humorously, though I doubt he intended to be funny, he also derides me for
noting the different ways the word "Proof" can be used. Seriously:
Why do you think he doesn't know what the word "proof" CAN
mean? Poor Snit... he obviously believes he's setting up
another fool;)
He then uses his twisting to claim that if I am not offering proof then this
is a disproof.... that logical fallacy is known as an Argument from
Ignorance. And, of course, he never bothers to try to refute the evidence
against Bush.
Same games from Steve Carroll... for *years*. And when I do not respond to
him he claims I am running, as if I have an obligation to point out his BS
every time he posts it.
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
Steve Carroll
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> stated in post
> C583AA76.E7E26%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 1/2/09 11:26 AM:
>
>
>
>
> >> I haven't been here long, could somebody please tell me what this Snit is
> >> about? He seems to have taken over this NG and has engendered the most
> >> violent hatred from other posters that I think I have ever seen. Most
> >> disconcerting.
>
> > And *another* example, from just a couple minutes ago. Steve just posted
> > this post:
>
>
> He then quotes how I used the word "proof":
>
> Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is:
> "a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is
> true something else necessarily follows from it". While the
> evidence in my argument points to the conclusion and strongly
> supports it, it is not, technically, in a logical sense,
> proof.
>
> Notice how even Steve *quotes* me showing I am using the more technical
> definition and how I am offering strong support but not technically proof.
proof [proof] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce
belief in its truth.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Snit will now explain these gigantic differences he obviously wants
people to believe exist between what *he* is calling "the more
technical definition" of the word "proof" and the 'less technical'
definition I just provided from dictionary.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Snit's explanation goes here:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
ROFLMAO! Poor Snit;)
> He then goes back to his game of insisting I used the word contrary to how
> he *quoted* me using it, in the informal sense, as if I was saying I had no
> evidence.
The informal sense? What are you babbling about now? I said you had
no proof, you said you had no proof... we are in agreement. So why,
after 5 years, are you still whining about this? LOL!
> That is right: Steve *quotes* me noting my evidence "strongly supports" my
> conclusion
Yes, that's a weird delusion you were (are) having... one that I
quoted you claiming... complete with a link to the google archive
proving you claimed it.
>, he plays the *exact* game I note he does - and pretends I was
> saying I did not offer strong support.
The "game" is that I pointed out that even *you* said your evidence
offered no proof, with "proof" being defined as a something true from
which something else can necessarily follow. It's weird that you
somehow seen to believe "informal" types of "proof" aren't similar to
the "technical" types when it comes to something like truth... but
then, you don't know much about truth;)
Do you really think all your word weaseling here is convincing anyone,
Mr. Tautology?
> Humorously, though I doubt he intended to be funny, he also derides me for
> noting the different ways the word "Proof" can be used. Seriously:
> Why do you think he doesn't know what the word "proof" CAN
> mean? Poor Snit... he obviously believes he's setting up
> another fool;)
>
> He then uses his twisting to claim that if I am not offering proof then this
> is a disproof
I'm claiming that a guilt allegation requires some form of proof.
> .... that logical fallacy is known as an Argument from
> Ignorance. And, of course, he never bothers to try to refute the evidence
> against Bush.
>
Yours is the "Argument from Ignorance".
> Same games from Steve Carroll... for *years*. And when I do not respond to
> him he claims I am running,
Of course you're running... you're holding a 3rd party conversation
with me where the 3rd party isn't even in it. LOL!
> as if I have an obligation to point out his BS every time he posts it.
It appears the only "obligation" you have is to continue to back your
silly positions... at any cost;)
Snit
> I haven't been here long, could somebody please tell me what this Snit is
> about? He seems to have taken over this NG and has engendered the most
> violent hatred from other posters that I think I have ever seen. Most
> disconcerting.
Ok, I just saw Steve replied with the *same* games I had refuted. Yup, he
quotes me saying I have strong support but not technical proof (as in
absolute proof, a binary condition), and then works to twist this to say I
denied I had supported my claims. He then insists that a lack of proof is a
refutation, the very definition of an Argument from Ignorance. And in all
of that he avoids actually even trying to do what he claims to have done,
refute the arguments against Bush:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/>
And here:
<http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf>
Steve Carroll, Tim Adams, Wally, Sandman, and - to a lesser degree - Steve
Mackay and Alan Baker have played these types of games for *years*. The
reason for their obvious hatred of me is I called them on their games and
have stuck with it... most people just walk away (one can hardly argue with
someone making that choice!).
As this thread has shown, they cannot support their accusations against me.
They do not even try, with, perhaps, the exception of Sandman, and his
"support" is in the form of links to his own site where he does not even
quote me. None of them can quote me doing the things they say I do.
Their best "bet" is to dig through my every word and pray for a typo or an
accidental inconsistency, something that find on rare occasion. And when
they do I acknowledge it and move on.
In other words: I am honest and honorable, *and* I do not back down easily
from bullies. The bullies of CSMA *hate* that... and as you have noted they
clearly hate me for having stood up to their BS.
And with this I am back to not reading Steve's posts. Frankly it is not
possible for him to change his colors and stop being dishonest and utterly
consumed with his hatred.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> stated in post
> 0001HW.C582E5CE...@news.giganews.com on 1/1/09 10:27 PM:
>
>> I haven't been here long, could somebody please tell me what this Snit is
>> about? He seems to have taken over this NG and has engendered the most
>> violent hatred from other posters that I think I have ever seen. Most
>> disconcerting.
>
> Just another example, easily shown, where Steve Carroll and Wally try to
> twist thing. They both have quoted this exchange:
>
> Tim Adams:
> Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words.
> Snit:
> Of course it is... can you find *any* quote where
> *anyone* has questioned that?"
>
> And from this they take it to mean I agree with Tim Adams that there is an
> *equivalence* between incest and sex, that the two are the exact same thing.
> Their game here is to play semantic games with the word is:
>
> Two plus two *is* four.
>
> In that case "is" indicated equivalence.
>
> A dog *is* a mammal.
>
> In that case "is" indicates a reference to a subset.
>
> They pretend - dishonestly and contrary to multiple corrections - that I
> used the word "is" to indicate equivalence and not to reference a subset.
How you used it is immaterial, how Tim used it is the point, and just to
make sure that point wasnšt lost on you Tim capitalized the word "IS" his
intention was perfectly clear as was his usage.
"Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words."-Tim Adams
And you agreed
"Of course it is... can you find *any* quote where *anyone* has questioned
that?"-Snit
.... End of story!
> They will *accuse* me of twisting their words.
Not at all, it is Tim's word (IS) that you are trying to twist.
> They find no examples. I
> easily am finding examples of theirs.
By not even being able to understand just whose word you are trying to
twist? Yer that's bound to work Snit! <eye roll>
> Again: they simply cannot point to any wrong doing on my part... just
> accusations. They do not provide support. I happily do.
LOL
Wally
c5dbaebe-2b97-4948...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "Steve
Carroll" <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> On and on... none of these debates are about anything that really matters...
>> but Wally, Carroll, Adams, and Sandman lash out over them and take things
>> very, very personally. Sandman has tracked down my wife's email and started
>> sending him bizarre accusations
>
>
> Your "wife" is a man? So... you lied about being married to a woman...
> figures.
>
LOL
High Plains Thumper
> Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>>> On and on... none of these debates are about anything that
>>> really matters... but Wally, Carroll, Adams, and Sandman
>>> lash out over them and take things very, very personally.
>>> Sandman has tracked down my wife's email and started
>>> sending him bizarre accusations
>>
>> Your "wife" is a man? So... you lied about being married to
>> a woman... figures.
>
> LOL
Or a grammatical error? Adds new meaning to "those who can do,
those who can't teach" ... :-)
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
Snit
Ok, Tim Adams claimed sex is *equivalent* to sex and I missed it. Got me on
that. I missed it... I tend to assume people are *not* complete and total
perverts... and I was wrong in this case. Tim Adams is a complete and total
pervert, as you made clear, and I missed it at the time, at least when I
replied to that sentence.
So both of you are perverts. And you both fail to understand grade school
logic: the concept of what it means for items to be synonymous (covered
generally starting in 1st grade) and why figurative language is different
than literal (such as when you two repeatedly run to the figurative use of
the word "synonymous")
Seriously, you both are at or even below third grade level in this debate.
Shouldn't you at least try to get a bit of an education. Remember, the
concepts are simple here:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something most third graders would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
You two struggle with this... and Steve Carroll does, too. For you three to
be at a third grade level (or below) indicates severe lack of education or,
and I use the term in a technically correct and not insulting way here, a
sign of mental retardation or, at best, severe learning disabilities.
Please, Wally, seek help.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Snit
495ef681$0$17068$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org on 1/2/09 10:24 PM:
> Wally wrote:
>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>>> On and on... none of these debates are about anything that
>>>> really matters... but Wally, Carroll, Adams, and Sandman
>>>> lash out over them and take things very, very personally.
>>>> Sandman has tracked down my wife's email and started
>>>> sending him bizarre accusations
>>>
>>> Your "wife" is a man? So... you lied about being married to
>>> a woman... figures.
>>
>> LOL
>
> Or a grammatical error? Adds new meaning to "those who can do,
> those who can't teach" ... :-)
A grammatical error from re-writing the sentence and not updating a pronoun.
But, hey, Steve Carroll caught me in a mistake! Seriously, that is a very
rare thing and is sure to make them celebrate for some time. I congratulate
them on actually catching me in an error. Bravo!
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Wally
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
What?
"sex is *equivalent* to sex"-Snit
Who would have thought it? LOL
Not only did you *not* miss what Tim meant Snit, but you challenged Tim in
an effort to emphasize your agreement! ROTFL
Look at the top of this post (before you snip it) ...
"And from this they take it to mean I agree with Tim Adams that there is an
*equivalence* between incest and sex,"-Snit
You knew all along how Tim meant what he said, you agreed, realized that it
was at odds with the rest of your nonsense and then tried to wriggle out of
it!
"Two plus two *is* four.........."-Snit
Etc, etc.
No dice Snit, you were sprung the moment you agreed with Tim!
Snit
...
>> Ok, Tim Adams claimed sex is *equivalent* to sex and I missed it.
>
> What?
I was re-iterating what you said. You made it clear Tim was using the word
"is" to show his belief that sex and incest have an equivalent relationship
as opposed to the set / subset relationship they really have.
How did you miss that?
...
> Not only did you *not* miss what Tim meant Snit, but you challenged Tim in
> an effort to emphasize your agreement! ROTFL
>
> Look at the top of this post (before you snip it) ...
>
> "And from this they take it to mean I agree with Tim Adams that there is an
> *equivalence* between incest and sex,"-Snit
That is the game you are playing.
> You knew all along how Tim meant what he said, you agreed, realized that it
> was at odds with the rest of your nonsense and then tried to wriggle out of
> it!
As I told you, and you snipped:
Ok, Tim Adams claimed sex is *equivalent* to sex and I missed
it. Got me on that. I missed it... I tend to assume people
are *not* complete and total perverts... and I was wrong in
this case. Tim Adams is a complete and total pervert, as you
made clear, and I missed it at the time, at least when I
replied to that sentence.
So, no, I mistakenly assumed Tim was using the word in the way that would
*not* mean he was claiming to be a pervert. I was wrong. I admit to my
error - I should have assumed, given that it was Tim Adams I was responding
to, that he meant it in the way that would show he *is* a pervert.
My mistake.
You also snipped the concept you repeatedly have failed to grasp:
Incest and sex are not synonymous, no matter what order
you list them in.
Incest is subset of sex... hopefully a very, very small
subset.
The logic is something most third graders would understand:
Squares and Rectangles are not synonymous, no matter what
order you list them in.
Squares are a subset of rectangles.
You two struggle with this... and Steve Carroll does, too. For you three to
be at a third grade level (or below) indicates severe lack of education or,
and I use the term in a technically correct and not insulting way here, a
sign of mental retardation or, at best, severe learning disabilities.
Please, Wally, seek help.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Snit
>> How you used it is immaterial, how Tim used it is the point, and just to
>> make sure that point wasnšt lost on you Tim capitalized the word "IS" his
>> intention was perfectly clear as was his usage.
>>
>> "Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words."-Tim Adams
>>
>> And you agreed
>>
>> "Of course it is... can you find *any* quote where *anyone* has questioned
>> that?"-Snit
>>
>> .... End of story!
>>
>>
>>> They will *accuse* me of twisting their words.
>>
>> Not at all, it is Tim's word (IS) that you are trying to twist.
My view was that Tim Adams was *not* using the word "is" to indicate
equivalence... for him to do so would mean he was pushing a clearly
perverted idea.
And you have convinced me I was wrong. Tim Adams *was* pushing the
perverted idea that incest is equivalent, in his mind, to sex. No
difference at all. Heck, you two have repeatedly this same concept many
times:
"I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
- Wally
"I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
synonymous!" - Wally
"Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex" - Wally
"Yet incest IS synonymous with sex." - Tim Adams
"Incest is synonymous with sex because the definitions
clearly prove it." - Tim Adams
"incest IS synonymous with sex, yet you argue against that
FACT." - Tim Adams
It was foolish of me to assume that Tim Adams was not pushing the perverted
claim you have noted he did... and noted I should have been able to see at
the time. Yup, my mistake: I assumed Tim Adams was not stating something
perverted.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Tim Adams
wrote:
Wally - don't confuse michael, the prescott computer pervert, glasser with
reality.
>
> "Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words."-Tim Adams
>
> And you agreed
>
> "Of course it is... can you find *any* quote where *anyone* has questioned
> that?"-Snit
>
> .... End of story!
it really is the end of the story but michael, the prescott computer pervert,
glasser will continue posting his bs anyway.
>
> > They will *accuse* me of twisting their words.
>
> Not at all, it is Tim's word (IS) that you are trying to twist.
>
> > They find no examples. I
> > easily am finding examples of theirs.
>
> By not even being able to understand just whose word you are trying to
> twist? Yer that's bound to work Snit! <eye roll>
>
> > Again: they simply cannot point to any wrong doing on my part... just
> > accusations. They do not provide support. I happily do.
>
> LOL
--
Snit
1/3/09 6:48 AM:
>> How you used it is immaterial, how Tim used it is the point, and just to
>> make sure that point wasnšt lost on you Tim capitalized the word "IS" his
>> intention was perfectly clear as was his usage.
>
> Wally - don't confuse michael, the prescott computer pervert, glasser with
> reality.
>
>>
>> "Incest IS sex by the very definition of the words."-Tim Adams
>>
>> And you agreed
>>
>> "Of course it is... can you find *any* quote where *anyone* has questioned
>> that?"-Snit
>>
>> .... End of story!
>
> it really is the end of the story but michael, the prescott computer pervert,
> glasser will continue posting his bs anyway.
I conceded the point to Wally... I should have known *you* were using the
word "is" to express your perverted, repulsive view where you were equating
sex and incest. My mistake.
I assumed, incorrectly, that you were not being repulsively perverted.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
Steve Carroll
<highplainsthum...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Wally wrote:
> > Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> >>> On and on... none of these debates are about anything that
> >>> really matters... but Wally, Carroll, Adams, and Sandman
> >>> lash out over them and take things very, very personally.
> >>> Sandman has tracked down my wife's email and started
> >>> sending him bizarre accusations
>
> >> Your "wife" is a man? So... you lied about being married to
> >> a woman... figures.
>
> > LOL
>
> Or a grammatical error? Adds new meaning to "those who can do,
> those who can't teach" ... :-)
>
It was obviously an error... I just like to ride Snit the way he rides
others.
High Plains Thumper
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Steve used some quotes where I use the term "proof" in the
>> more technical binary way and then twists it by claiming I
>> *must* have meant it in the informal sense.
>
> That's a total lie and the following quote by you will prove
> it. The fact is I merely went by the definition *you* gave me
> for the word "proof"... which was written at the same time
> you said your evidence didn't contain any. You wrote:
Steve, Snit is just not worth replying to. Feed him, and he
incessantly continues his ridiculous Snit Circus rants of
pathological lies and manipulations.
His rants have done nothing more than to detract from the sole
purpose of this newsgroup per charter, "a place to carry out
discussion about the Macintosh computer family and software in
comparison with computers and software from other companies".
He has similarly posted his trash in other forums, treating their
community in similar manner.
His only purpose serves to drive away any non-Microsoft advocacy
from all forums he frequents. The only support he gives are to
the off-topic trolls, which reveals his heinous motives.
One might even conclude that he subscribes to the following party
line:
'Use [...] the Internet, etc. to heighten the impression that the
enemy is desperate, demoralized, defeated, [...] associated with
mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
Bunny". Just keep rubbing it in, via the [...] newsgroups, [...]
make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of
the mythology of the computer industry.'
(reference PDF pages 45 & 55 on
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf - Comes vs Microsoft
lawsuit, Microsoft Evangelism document)
Snit
Gee, your post is not on topic... and, oddly enough, you "forgot" to point
out any lie by me.
Man, you are completely incompetent... after all, you claim I am a
"pathological liar" and yet you are completely incapable of finding a single
lie by me. How sad for you to be such a loser.
Frankly it is amazing how much I can taunt you and still have you fail.
Face it, you would rip your liver out and eat it if that would give you a
chance to actually not look like a *complete* fool here and actually find
these alleged lies of mine.
Steve Carroll
<highplainsthum...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Steve Carroll wrote:
> > Snit wrote:
>
> >> Steve used some quotes where I use the term "proof" in the
> >> more technical binary way and then twists it by claiming I
> >> *must* have meant it in the informal sense.
>
> > That's a total lie and the following quote by you will prove
> > it. The fact is I merely went by the definition *you* gave me
> > for the word "proof"... which was written at the same time
> > you said your evidence didn't contain any. You wrote:
>
> Steve, Snit is just not worth replying to.
I feel that helping Snit permanently ruin his online credibility is
worth it. Snit is Michael Glasser... if anyone does an internet search
to find out about him they will see a large group of people who are
all calling him a liar, troll or worse... while Snit is foaming at the
mouth about all of them. Pretty funny stuff.
> Feed him, and he
> incessantly continues his ridiculous Snit Circus rants of
> pathological lies and manipulations.
Pointing out his lies isn't really feeding him... it's helping him
ruin himself. Snit is not like the normal troll, he lets people know
his real name, claims he is a teacher and that he has a business. Only
an idiot would post that kind of info while conducting himself
disingenuously and dishonestly the way Snit... which is why we find
Snit doing it. I love it;)
> His rants have done nothing more than to detract from the sole
> purpose of this newsgroup per charter, "a place to carry out
> discussion about the Macintosh computer family and software in
> comparison with computers and software from other companies".
This place will always have that... Snit's antics don't really affect
it at all. You're giving him far too much credit. As people can ignore
him... the *only* thing he is doing here is ruining his name and I'm
glad to help him do it.
> He has similarly posted his trash in other forums, treating their
> community in similar manner.
Yup... he's really spreading the news about his disingenuous antics
far and wide since most of csma and cola now ignores him.
> His only purpose serves to drive away any non-Microsoft advocacy
> from all forums he frequents. The only support he gives are to
> the off-topic trolls, which reveals his heinous motives.
>
> One might even conclude that he subscribes to the following party
> line:
>
> 'Use [...] the Internet, etc. to heighten the impression that the
> enemy is desperate, demoralized, defeated, [...] associated with
> mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
> Bunny". Just keep rubbing it in, via the [...] newsgroups, [...]
> make the complete failure of the competition's technology part of
> the mythology of the computer industry.'
The crap he writes proves what a dishonest turd he is... and I, for
one, am glad to help him cement this into the mind's of any readers
who search on his name. Think about it... Snit can *never* recover
from what he's done... and never is a LONG time;)
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Wally wrote:
>>> Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On and on... none of these debates are about anything
>>>>> that really matters... but Wally, Carroll, Adams, and
>>>>> Sandman lash out over them and take things very, very
>>>>> personally. Sandman has tracked down my wife's email
>>>>> and started sending him bizarre accusations
>>>>
>>>> Your "wife" is a man? So... you lied about being married
>>>> to a woman... figures.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>
>> Or a grammatical error? Adds new meaning to "those who can
>> do, those who can't teach" ... :-)
>
> It was obviously an error... I just like to ride Snit the way
> he rides others.
That is rather sad indictment of him. I have never met someone
so prolific a liar. He makes Hadron Quark in COLA look like a
saint in comparison, IYKWIM.