Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #712497
| Date | 2026-05-08 17:53 -0400 |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. |
| Newsgroups | alt.computer.workshop, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| References | (1 earlier) <10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me> <69fd6584$1$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <10tk0p2$2m7cd$1@dont-email.me> <69fd8cea$0$25$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <XnsB446A7AD7FA9FHT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5> |
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
| Message-ID | <69fe5b54$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 2026-05-08 4:29 p.m., Gremlin wrote: > Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> > news:69fd8cea$0$25$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Fri, 08 May 2026 07:12:42 > GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: > >> On May 7, 2026 at 11:44:49 PM MST, "Alan" wrote >> <10tk0p2$2m7cd$1@dont-email.me>: >> >>> On 2026-05-07 21:24, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>> On May 7, 2026 at 7:24:13 PM MST, "Alan" wrote >>>> <10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me>: >>>> >>>>> On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote: >>>>>> On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote >>>>>> <MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409 >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> - The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – >>>>>> it’s an adversarial write-up from a long-running feud, built >>>>>> mostly on selective posts and interpretation of PDFs. >>>>> >>>>> It is utterly reliable. >>>>> >>>>> I was the one who uncovered your forgery. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Main problems: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis >>>>>> * No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party >>>>>> validation * Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps >>>>>> are not proof of forgery >>>>>> * Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof >>>>>> * Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and >>>>>> counterarguments >>>>>> >>>>>> Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not >>>>>> who created or altered it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bottom line: >>>>>> There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises >>>>>> questions; it doesn’t establish conclusions. >>>>> >>>>> Steve Mackay posted a PDF. >>>>> >>>>> You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website >>>>> claiming it was still Steve's original. >>>>> >>>>> You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address >>>>> is original showed, and overlaying with the same information >>>>> deliberately in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he >>>>> was lying. >>>>> >>>>> Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved >>>>> from beneath your alteration... >>>>> >>>>> ...and the number was no different. >>>>> >>>>> The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making >>>>> people believe Steve had changed the IP... >>>>> >>>>> ...would be you. >>>> >>>> You claim: >>>> >>>> 1) Mackay posted a PDF, >>> >>> Because he did. >> >> OK. Perhaps true but no evidence shown. If I recall correctly, and based >> on Sandman's trolling page I skimmed, it was an email of some sort. I do >> see where Sandman hilariously uses the WayBackMachine as his evidence >> when elsewhere he has insisted the WayBackMachine saying he had faulty >> CSS is not valid. It clearly showed he used: >> >> <div style="padding: 3px; align: center;"> >> >> So why is the WayBackMachine not valid for that but somehow a magic >> source of truth merely for quoting what someone had on their site >> (something which is not in question as far as I know). >> >> Mackay apparently had a number of different PDFs on his site... or at >> least Sandman claims that! >> >>>> 2) Someone "forged" a PDF by having the same IP being on top of it. >>> >>> That was you. >> >> Not true and does not even make sense. >>> >>>> 3) They sued OmniGraffle (which is not for that). >>> >>> I never claimed anything about OmniGraffle. >> >> Ah, that was Sandman who made that up: >> https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery >> >> If you are going to use his lies you might as well try to know what they >> are. >> :) >> >>>> That makes no sense. >>>> >>>> But even if they did, how would a the same text on top of the text >>>> help them? A layer on top of the text which said the same? Is that >>>> what you mean? >>> >>> Because the argument they were trying to make was that the IP address >>> was forged in the original, and you wanted to "discover" that. >> >> If the same IP was over itself how does that show it is a forged IP? >> >>> Your aim was to discredit the original. >> >> Speak for yourself, not others. I have no such aim. >> >> My aim here is to note how insane your accusation is and show you are >> trolling me over something you claim happened in 2004, and have fun >> showing you do not even know your own accusation! You know, like your >> ignorance of the OmniGraffle part of it. But your logic error, discussed >> below, was more fun. >> >>>> >>>> And you were the mastermind who uncovered if but only after Sandman >>>> did? Or what? >>>> >>>> Seriously, I have vague memories of this nonsense from 2004 but moved >>>> on LONG ago. Not sure why you are still stuck there. >>> >>> I thought you didn't remember it at all. >>> >>> Interesting >> >> You're clearly playing games here. This was an ongoing trolling bit of >> nonsense from folks in COLA for some time. I do not recall all who -- >> knew it was Sandman and Carroll but did not even recall you were a part >> of it. Don't care. But I do have vague meaningless memories of it. >> >> So why are you hung up on an unsupported accusation from 2004 that did >> not even involve you? Heck, did not involve me, either, other than being >> the target of trolling. >> >> But note you have not shown a single quote or MID or shred of evidence >> against me. And you will not. > > I'm tired of that bullshit excuse of yours. So, I'm going to show everyone > a nice quote from you with MID and then the proof that you were lying. I'd > very much like to see how you try to weasel out of this one: > > From: Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop > Subject: Re: Ha! Ads be gone! > Date: 18 Aug 2020 17:06:20 GMT > Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology > Message-ID: <hq2g4c...@mid.individual.net> > References: <op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass> > <XnsAC17C66BDB815HT1@4uMkH0FFER6s72gSy7J8N4B67.Mht3WTC373bt67J31gn> > <hpjh75F...@mid.individual.net> > <XnsAC1D794DE5AD5HT1@889n4Sx8GWE.MNnkz50hZNVS.fh0SYyRp> > > On Aug 18, 2020 at 8:49:01 AM MST, "Gremlin" <nob...@haph.org> wrote: >>> David has asked you to check it against phone book urls he shared >>> with you. > > This is a direct lie from you. He did no such thing. > > *** end copy > > a direct lie from me, right? That he did no such thing, right? That's what > you wrote, right, bud? > > So, how do you explain this: > Message-ID: <9KMYG.136546$hs5.63426@fx05.ams1> > From: David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> > Message-ID: <9KMYG.136546$hs5.63426@fx05.ams1> > X-Complaints-To: abuse@blocknews.net > NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 07:19:33 UTC > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:19:32 +0100 > >> I am well aware that those who seek to attack do so out of their own >> weaknesses and insecurities. Even with those I disagree with, say >> Gremlin and Carroll, I try to note good things about them... and am >> sincere when I do so. And even when I am not nice in responding to >> trolling I am honest, and I try to not sink to their level. > > Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can > read about here? > > https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores > > Message-ID: <hphkj5Fkie0U3@mid.individual.net> > From: Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop > Subject: Re: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !! > Date: 12 Aug 2020 07:38:13 GMT > Message-ID: <hphkj5Fkie0U3@mid.individual.net> > References: <MPG.399afb30dee85d4b989691@nntp.aioe.org> > <XaMYG.135634$Ai5.61414@fx30.ams1> <hphicvFkie0U1@mid.individual.net> > <9KMYG.136546$hs5.63426@fx05.ams1> > >> Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can >> read about here? >> >> https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores > > Not there. > > Message-ID: <XJQYG.264806$dTb.89649@fx41.ams1> > From: David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> > X-Complaints-To: abuse@blocknews.net > NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:52:23 UTC > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:52:23 +0100 > > On 12/08/2020 08:38, Snit wrote: >> On Aug 12, 2020 at 12:19:32 AM MST, "David_B" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> >> wrote: >>> Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can >>> read about here? >>> >>> https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores >> >> Not there. > > OK. Thanks for looking. > > Please try here:- https://www.yellowpages.com/kingsport-tn/computer-stores > > Message-ID: <hpio33Fkie0U14@mid.individual.net> > From: Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop > Subject: Re: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !! > Date: 12 Aug 2020 17:44:03 GMT > Message-ID: <hpio33Fkie0U14@mid.individual.net> > References: <MPG.399afb30dee85d4b989691@nntp.aioe.org> > <hphkj5Fkie0U3@mid.individual.net> <XJQYG.264806$dTb.89649@fx41.ams1> > <F7RYG.69875$8b2.3773@fx07.ams1> > > On Aug 12, 2020 at 5:19:49 AM MST, "David_B" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> > wrote: > >>> OK. Thanks for looking. >>> >>> Please try here:- >>> https://www.yellowpages.com/kingsport-tn/computer-stores >> >> 121 results! Sorry there are so many to check. > > Not a big deal -- just five pages. Did a search for the last four > digits... no matches. > > *** end share > > Would you like to see a copy of the most generic as possible 'apology' to > nobody specifically concerning this that you wrote? I don't care if you do > or not, I'm sharing it too. <G> > > From: Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> > Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows- > 10,alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy > ,talk.politics.guns > Subject: Re: Ha! Ads be gone! > Date: 27 Aug 2020 16:00:24 GMT > Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology > Message-ID: <hqq3ko...@mid.individual.net> > References: <op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass> > <XnsAC1D794DE5AD5HT1@889n4Sx8GWE.MNnkz50hZNVS.fh0SYyRp> > <hq2g4c...@mid.individual.net> > <XnsAC1EBCDBAAD5EHT1@0ydV5Cg6OLqWT90unHZ34QVT6yqk8KnKb.nd> > > I did incorrectly say he had not asked me to "research" or whatever > -- not considering such a quick look to really count. But from your > perspective, I suppose, where doing a quick search on a list is not > completely trivial, it counts. Sorry for my error on that. > > *** > > Need any more MIDs or quotes to show what a liar you are, bud? I've got > tons of them. <G> > > Fuck it, I'm in a sharing mood. So, I'm going to share a chat you had with > Apd over my comments concerning the floodbot and coding in general. For > those who don't know why I have such a problem with you. > > First, we'll start with this post: > > Message-ID: <rco0an$2fj$1@apd.eternal-september.org> > From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,alt.2600 > Subject: Re: Ping: SNIT - Can you help with this? (was - Discord spam > bot?) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:02:20 +0100 > Organization: ad hoc > Lines: 32 > Message-ID: <rco0an$2fj$1@apd.eternal-september.org> > References: <5eb897f6.20813375@istillthinkyousuckatthis.com> > <nm8uG.60584$_u3.46641@fx15.ams1> <M9duG.283624$Xk.106760@fx46.iad> > <dcajbf5uupc11m012gd8g3lhjum26br01e@4ax.com> > <5eb9aaba.91153156@istillthinkyousuckatthis.com> > <2bcjbftgpbc87utl85q7tcgfqifu0bar42@4ax.com> > <5eb9b5cc.93987078@istillthinkyousuckatthis.com> > <5ebabb49.95392359@istillthinkyousuckatthis.com> > <cRjuG.142916$xV.52220@fx29.ams1> > <XnsABBB3E7B14CB8HT1@cv40pa2k83n4lW661EB2igwB7T5C5100SR32r.01xgMdbspTJ45ZPB > APui> <9sAuG.72323$vu3.19412@fx21.ams1> <hi0bbfFgvvhU1@mid.individual.net> > <OQEuG.43321$wn3.4338@fx36.ams1> > <XnsABBD1D814D05DHT1@DxtA1R8p9C89N.q7CRqg> > <XnsABDE37AE038ABHT1@HHBBpXUm053.y616suD5Ccbu.g32pu7d> > <Wk4GG.31189$o16.15958@fx14.ams1> <XnsABDF2D4255359HT1@R9wCnNq03.wp> > <hkv1hmFgvrpU9@mid.individual.net> > <XnsABE3303B9947DHT1@XXqx6Asi5bL2viHcUglZ2heL72.Ik98aioxvx58w20xQ.Jl7> > Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 16:02:31 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: > apd.eternal-september.org; > posting-host="390b4206c8be54d3993aca276015eb24"; logging-data="2547"; > mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; > posting-account="U2FsdGVk > X1/edSFKkBA1ANZoSEJmuviW" Cancel-Lock: sha1:txNLmfaLQnKh/oYYr3SjvzvIEIU= > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512 > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org alt.computer.workshop:49105 > alt.2600:84899 > > "Diesel" wrote: >> Again, to clarify for FTR and Apd, it's not a little white lie that >> everybody tells. This was a fully concocted bullshit story that he >> actually spent more than a few seconds to write up. I'm not going to >> let that slide as a little white lie we all tell from time to time. >> I'm not calling Snit a liar for stupid silly shit, I'm calling him >> out as a liar for the story he wrote: >> >> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100 > > Agree with what you say. > >> While i'm not surprised that neither of you think it's a big deal, >> because he hasn't focused his lies on either of you, > > I'm not saying that here. Obviously it's important for you and it's > your business to challenge what's said about you. I havent't been > saying it's no big deal because it's not me and I have backed your > comment about code, as you know. > >> I do consider it >> a bit more than a 'your hair looks great honey!" kind of a lie. > > Absolutely. > >> And I don't appreciate, what appeared to me, to downplay what he >> did here, by either of you. > > Certainly not downplaying what he said to you. Sorry for giving that > impression. > > Message-ID: <rbvkfm$vrq$2@apd.eternal-september.org> > http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549554500 > From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop > Subject: Re: FORGERY > Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:11:58 +0100 > > "Snit" wrote: >> On 6/11/20 5:19 PM, Apd wrote: >>> "Steve Carroll - fretwizzer" wrote: >>>> [...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel >>>> right now. >>> >>> Yup. >> >> Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some code >> other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK. Maybe I missed >> the context -- but if so then what code did he mean. He never says. That >> shoots down his own argument. > > He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece of > software. He said as much. > >> [...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I >> rescind that. > > You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that. > >> [...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so >> much to Diesel. > > None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not. > > *** end evidence submission 1 :) > > Message-ID: <rc7i2q$an4$1@apd.eternal-september.org> > http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549611800 > > From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop > Subject: Re: FORGERY > Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:20:02 +0100 > Message-ID: <rc7i2q$an4$1@apd.eternal-september.org> > > "Snit" wrote: >> Diesel wrote: >>> Snit wrote: >>>> On 6/12/20 3:11 AM, Apd wrote: >>>>> He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece >>>>> of software. He said as much. >>>> >>>> I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's >>>> Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts. >>> >>> You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying >>> to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it? >> >> It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's >> flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me. > > No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was > directly related to the topic of the bot code itself. > > For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our > run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has no access > to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the accusation and thus > he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd still believe he has no > access because of what he's been writing about the thing. If I were a > gambling man I'd place a very large bet on him having no involvement. > > ** end of evidence submission 2 > > Message-ID: <rcbqfm$pj4$1@apd.eternal-september.org> > http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549668500 > > From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop > Subject: Re: FORGERY > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 02:08:02 +0100 > Message-ID: <rcbqfm$pj4$1@apd.eternal-september.org> > > "Snit" wrote: >> Apd wrote: >>> "Snit" wrote: >>>> Diesel wrote: >>>>> Snit wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/20 3:11 AM, Apd wrote: >>>>>>> He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece >>>>>>> of software. He said as much. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's >>>>>> Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts. >>>>> >>>>> You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying >>>>> to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it? >>>> >>>> It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's >>>> flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me. >>> >>> No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was >>> directly related to the topic of the bot code itself. >> >> How? > > You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said > one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source > code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs > output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code' > example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like its > source, will reveal what the program is doing. > > I would probably have used a different example to do with examining > the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no > topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source. > > See Diesel's post: > <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd> > http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300 > > ** end of evidence submission 3 > > Message-ID: <rccv08$qch$1@apd.eternal-september.org> > http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549688000 > > From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop > Subject: Re: FORGERY > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:31:14 +0100 > Organization: ad hoc > Message-ID: <rccv08$qch$1@apd.eternal-september.org> > > "Snit" wrote: >> On 6/16/20 6:08 PM, Apd wrote: >>> "Snit" wrote: >>>> Apd wrote: >>>>> No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was >>>>> directly related to the topic of the bot code itself. >>>> >>>> How? >>> >>> You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said >>> one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source >>> code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs >>> output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code' >>> example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like >>> its source, will reveal what the program is doing. >> >> And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not have >> the executable program). That is what I think happened, too... he just >> moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood bot code to >> speaking about general methods even ones that were not relevant. > > It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover > things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the > original source. > >>> I would probably have used a different example to do with examining >>> the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no >>> topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source. >> >> But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I was, >> then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its code. > > It was relevant to the topic which was not changed. > >>> See Diesel's post: >>> <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd> >>> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300 >> >> He split things up a bit there. Here it is with more complete context: > > You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in > the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text > (yours) and more. > >> <hbjcp6F4eckU1@mid.individual.net> >> ----- >> I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to >> have the bot break apart sentences and respond to >> keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do >> it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot, >> yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even >> want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding... >> and it does that well. >> >> Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the >> output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see >> the code to know that. >> ----- >> >> I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code >> alone. No other. I am being specific. > > Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be seen > in order to say if the code is up to scratch. > >> Diesel responded with (in part) -- the post you pointed to: > > Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen, he > wrote: > > "One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine > what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be > sampled". > > Then he provided the example of not seeing the source... > >> <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd> >> ----- >> Do you think when you disassemble something that you're >> provided the original source code that was >> compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're >> given looks nothing like the original source code, but it >> still tells you *everything* about the program. >> ----- > > ....which is an example of determining what the program does without > having the source code. > >> Assuming Diesel did not have the executable to disassemble, he is NOT >> speaking of of the topic I was: Carroll's Usenet flood bot. He has >> changed the topic. > > The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying the > code has to be seen. > > ** end of evidence submission 4 > > Message-ID: <rce2o7$1000$1@gioia.aioe.org> > http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549710300 > > From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop > Subject: Re: FORGERY > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 22:40:26 +0100 > Message-ID: <rce2o7$1000$1@gioia.aioe.org> > > "Snit" wrote: >> Apd wrote: >>> "Snit" wrote: >>>> On 6/16/20 6:08 PM, Apd wrote: >>>>> You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said >>>>> one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the >>>>> source code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the >>>>> program's output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the- >>>>> source-code' example of how a program disassembly, despite looking >>>>> nothing like its source, will reveal what the program is doing. >>>> >>>> And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not >>>> have the executable program). That is what I think happened, too... >>>> he just moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood >>>> bot code to speaking about general methods even ones that were not >>>> relevant. >>> >>> It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover >>> things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the >>> original source. >> >> Specificity, at least in part, with having the executable to >> disassemble. Sure. Diesel was quite clear on that. In reference to >> the bot code I did not think he had the executable, but his comments >> suggested otherwise. > > They didn't suggest that to me. And there's no reason to think there's > an executable. It's more likely to be a script. > >> Why else bring up the executable in reference to Carroll's bot? > > As an analysis example. > >> I think he just went off topic and wanted to brag a bit about what he >> thought I would not know. Now while I might not be able to disassemble >> code I do understand the basic concept. >> >>>>> I would probably have used a different example to do with examining >>>>> the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was >>>>> no topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source. >>>> >>>> But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I >>>> was, then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its >>>> code. >>> >>> It was relevant to the topic which was not changed. >> >> The topic of Carroll's flood bot code. That was what I was speaking >> of. > > I know. > >> Maybe the whole misunderstanding is he missed that? Not really that >> important to me but clearly it is to him. > > I don't believe he misunderstood. > >>>>> See Diesel's post: >>>>> <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd> >>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300 >>>> >>>> He split things up a bit there. Here it is with more complete >>>> context: >>> >>> You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in >>> the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text >>> (yours) and more. >> >> My point if he snipped my comments and that may have led to him not >> seeing >> the context. > > I saw no snippage. He commented on all you quoted and more. > >>>> <hbjcp6F4eckU1@mid.individual.net> >>>> ----- >>>> I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to >>>> have the bot break apart sentences and respond to >>>> keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do >>>> it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot, >>>> yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even >>>> want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding... >>>> and it does that well. >>>> >>>> Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the >>>> output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see >>>> the code to know that. >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code >>>> alone. No other. I am being specific. >>> >>> Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be >>> seen in order to say if the code is up to scratch. >> >> Close. One needs more then JUST the output for that specific code. One >> must know the goals. If one does not know the goals one cannot know if >> the output reaches those goals or how well or how poorly it does so. >> >> But, sure, if you know the goals you can speak to how well it works to >> match them. And if you have the code or even the executable you can >> learn more. I think we all agree on that. Maybe not. > > I'll accept knowing the goal(s) is one consideration. > >> But the focus by me was solely on Carroll's flood bot. With that we >> can infer the goals: >> >> * Google seeding >> * Carroll playing victim >> * Carroll trolling me >> * Carroll manipulating others to argue with me >> * Carroll controlling conversations and pushing discord. > > Substitute "someone" for "Carroll". > >> I listed others elsewhere. And on those I think his bot is rather >> successful. If those are the goals then it works. >> >> If the goals are otherwise then perhaps it does not. >> >>>> Diesel responded with (in part) -- the post you pointed to: >>> >>> Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen, >>> he wrote: >> >> Wait: what quote where I said the code had to be seen? > > The quoted text in this very post where you said: > "One has to see the code to know that". > >>> "One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine >>> what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be >>> sampled". >>> >>> Then he provided the example of not seeing the source... >> >> Where he spoke of disassembling the code... with the context being in >> response to me speaking of Carroll's flood bot code. >> >> One cannot disassemble code one does not have the executable for, as >> far as I know. > > Correct. It was an example of seeing how something works without having > the original source code. > >>>> <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd> >>>> ----- >>>> Do you think when you disassemble something that you're >>>> provided the original source code that was >>>> compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're >>>> given looks nothing like the original source code, but it >>>> still tells you *everything* about the program. >>>> ----- >>> >>> ...which is an example of determining what the program does without >>> having the source code. >> >> Specifically in response to Carroll's code. And disassembly. > > Just as an example of analysis. > >>> The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying >>> the code has to be seen. >> >> Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else. > > Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How > well he addressed it is another matter. > > ** end of evidence submission5 > > Message-ID: <rcfmha$rjs$1@apd.eternal-september.org> > http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549737900 > > From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop > Subject: Re: FORGERY > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:26:18 +0100 > Message-ID: <rcfmha$rjs$1@apd.eternal-september.org> > References: <hkv1hpFgvrpU15@mid.individual.net> > <rce2o7$1000$1@gioia.aioe.org> <hkvjrpFknq3U1@mid.individual.net> "Snit" > wrote: >> On 6/17/20 2:40 PM, Apd wrote: >>> "Snit" wrote: > [...] > >> I *would* like to hear from Diesel and you and others on any RELEVANT >> analysis of Carroll's bot code. What can we tell from it (I have >> written some about that). > > I haven't done any, other than to note the text is copied from other > posts usually with name changes, and probably wont. > >>> I don't believe he misunderstood. >> >> Fair enough. I have said my piece. We can disagree. > > I'll leave it at that. > >> But if you agree "someone" has those goals -- fine. If you think the >> goals are otherwise, that is also fine. I am curious as to what you >> think the goals are and how well you think the bot meets those goals. > > I see no point to it apart from annoying people who use Google Groups, > like Carroll does. That's something that makes you a suspect. It doesn't > really meet that goal since he is able to work around it. Most people > can't filter in GG. > >>>> Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else. >>> >>> Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How >>> well he addressed it is another matter. >> >> Right: I think he has been clear he does not have the code. I accept >> there is no evidence he does (if the misunderstanding I speak of above >> is true, or something akin to it, his comments in relation to it are >> not evidence of him having the code). > > I've snipped most of your comprehensive reply where you've explained > why the context appeared different to you and other matters. I won't > argue about it but there's enough there for Diesel to get his teeth > into if he wishes. > > *** > > I did tell you that my client saves posts, entire threads, and all of my > replies, right, bud? Well, now you know. :) > > I am looking forward to your effort to spin a response to this. It should > be greatly amusing. Great job. There is no way for Snit Brock McNuggers Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy to defend this behaviour, but you know that whether with socks, a barrage of lies or manipulation, he'll try. -- CrudeSausage M4 MacBook Air
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-01 19:31 -0400
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-01 17:46 -0700
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-01 20:59 -0400
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-01 18:58 -0700
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-02 07:30 -0400
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-02 08:06 -0700
Re: Imagine this John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-05-02 13:51 +0200
Re: Imagine this John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-05-02 14:28 +0200
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-02 12:22 -0400
Re: Imagine this John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-05-02 18:28 +0200
Re: Imagine this Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-02 23:24 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-02 17:10 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 01:35 +0000
Re: Imagine this Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-03 06:48 +0000
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 13:39 +0000
Re: Imagine this Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-05 22:03 +0000
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 22:57 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-07 19:19 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 01:29 +0000
Re: Imagine this Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-03 02:56 +0000
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 05:46 +0000
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-03 07:00 -0400
Re: Imagine this John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-05-03 13:03 +0200
Re: Imagine this John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-05-03 13:00 +0200
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-02 19:58 -0400
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-02 13:10 -0700
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-02 20:16 -0400
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-02 18:14 -0700
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-02 21:43 -0400
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-02 18:46 -0700
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-02 22:08 -0400
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-02 19:17 -0700
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-03 06:57 -0400
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-03 11:07 -0700
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-04 08:56 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 16:31 +0000
Re: Imagine this Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> - 2026-05-04 15:47 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 19:59 +0000
Re: Imagine this Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> - 2026-05-04 16:06 -0400
Re: Imagine this "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 17:07 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 22:35 +0000
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-04 19:31 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 23:59 +0000
Re: Imagine this "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 20:43 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 00:50 +0000
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-05 08:52 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 13:54 +0000
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-04 18:21 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 22:34 +0000
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-04 19:29 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 23:59 +0000
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-05 08:53 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 13:54 +0000
Re: Imagine this chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-05-05 15:16 -0500
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 20:39 +0000
Re: Imagine this % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 13:44 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 20:59 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-05 14:04 -0700
Re: Imagine this pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2026-05-05 23:09 +0000
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 23:33 +0000
Re: Imagine this Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> - 2026-05-05 19:48 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 02:13 +0000
Re: Imagine this pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2026-05-06 20:52 +0000
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 21:05 +0000
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-06 19:23 -0400
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-07 19:19 -0700
Re: Imagine this Glock <glock@localhost.com> - 2026-05-06 23:36 +0000
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-07 00:53 +0000
Re: Imagine this % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 15:21 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 22:44 +0000
Re: Imagine this Moshe Fishman <copykat4@insite.net> - 2026-05-05 18:56 -0400
Re: Imagine this % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 20:52 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 04:16 +0000
Re: Imagine this % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 06:59 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 14:35 +0000
Re: Imagine this % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 08:17 -0700
Re: Imagine this "David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> - 2026-05-06 16:39 +0100
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 16:20 +0000
Re: Imagine this % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 09:36 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 19:16 +0000
Re: Imagine this % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 12:39 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 20:03 +0000
Re: Imagine this % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 14:20 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 22:12 +0000
Re: Imagine this % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 19:11 -0700
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-05 13:51 -0700
Re: Imagine this chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-05-05 15:55 -0500
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-05 13:56 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 21:07 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-05 14:16 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 21:29 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-05 14:43 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 22:40 +0000
Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Moshe Fishman <copykat4@insite.net> - 2026-05-05 18:54 -0400
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 23:08 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> - 2026-05-05 19:23 -0400
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 23:34 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> - 2026-05-05 19:43 -0400
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 02:11 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-07 19:24 -0700
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 04:24 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-07 23:44 -0700
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 07:12 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2026-05-08 20:29 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 21:07 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-08 17:53 -0400
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 21:57 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 21:37 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. "Kerwin" <noemail2speakof@nono.org> - 2026-05-08 21:45 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 21:56 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 19:02 -0400
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 23:15 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 19:37 -0400
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 23:44 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Chris <Christech@prgotonmail.com> - 2026-05-09 00:10 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-08 20:39 -0400
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 02:37 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 02:46 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 02:56 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 02:42 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-05-09 08:16 -0500
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 14:51 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-05-09 12:39 -0500
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 17:49 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 04:36 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-07 23:48 -0700
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 07:24 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 21:37 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-05-08 07:08 -0500
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 13:55 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. "Sgt. Joe Friday" <sgtjf1965@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-08 14:13 -0400
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 19:14 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2026-05-08 04:47 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 05:30 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2026-05-08 08:02 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 08:36 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2026-05-08 20:29 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 21:04 +0000
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-05-05 20:07 -0500
Re: Snit Caught Lying Once Again. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 02:12 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-07 19:20 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 04:17 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-07 23:50 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 07:28 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-08 14:01 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 21:36 +0000
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 07:33 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-08 14:01 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 21:36 +0000
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 20:58 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-05 13:59 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 21:06 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-05 14:17 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 21:29 +0000
Re: Imagine this Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-05-05 14:44 -0700
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 22:43 +0000
Re: Imagine this Moshe Fishman <copykat4@insite.net> - 2026-05-05 18:56 -0400
Re: Imagine this Moshe Fishman <copykat4@insite.net> - 2026-05-05 18:57 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 23:01 +0000
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-05 18:40 -0400
Re: Imagine this Moshe Fishman <copykat4@insite.net> - 2026-05-05 18:55 -0400
Re: Imagine this pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2026-05-05 23:07 +0000
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 23:09 +0000
Re: Imagine this pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2026-05-06 20:38 +0000
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 21:05 +0000
Re: Imagine this chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-05-06 16:21 -0500
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 22:12 +0000
Re: Imagine this CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-05-06 19:03 -0400
Re: Imagine this Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 23:05 +0000
Re: Imagine this pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2026-05-06 20:28 +0000
Re: Imagine this "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 20:40 -0400
Re: Imagine this chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2026-05-03 09:06 -0500
Re: Imagine this "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 14:27 -0400
macOS terminals (was Re: Imagine this) John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-05-02 15:58 +0200
Re: macOS terminals (was Re: Imagine this) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-05-02 14:15 -0400
Re: Imagine this John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-05-02 14:33 +0200
csiph-web