Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #31232
| From | "Steve Carroll" <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| References | (6 earlier) <isja8n$en0$2@dont-email.me> <4ded8f9c$1@news.x-privat.org> <isljgk$au5$2@dont-email.me> <80f187c7-5cbc-496b-ba7e-2b723f2202ab@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <ism709$f6f$4@dont-email.me> |
| Subject | OT: DFS admits to being a Snit shill |
| Date | 2011-06-07 15:26 -0700 |
| Organization | Troll Hunters Inc |
| Message-ID | <4deea5ab@news.x-privat.org> (permalink) |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
DFS wrote: > On 6/7/2011 4:14 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Jun 7, 10:26 am, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote: >>> On 6/6/2011 10:40 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> >>>> DFS wrote: >>>>> On 6/6/2011 10:51 AM, cc wrote: >>> >>>>>> Snit's biggest problem is not that he's a liar. It's that >>>>>> he's a whiney little netnannying douchebag that can never own up >>>>>> to being incorrect. >>> >>>>> Netnannies are annoying, no doubt about it, but Snit's no worse >>>>> than any others. In fact, Hadron has netnannied me much more >>>>> than Snit. >>> >>>> After reading what I have shown you how can you say Snit is no >>>> worse? >>> >>> Like I said, he's been straight with me as far as I know. I don't >>> follow any of his csma stuff, and just some of his cola posts. >>> >>> Your endless bullshit in the 'OT: This is for DFS' posts is NOT >>> convincing in the least. Not saying Snit is 100% innocent of what >>> you charge him with, but it's you that comes across as the obsessed and >>> dishonest lunatic. >>> >>> Your list of "Snit's 7 Deadly Sins" is just pathetic: >>> >>> 1 - he falsely alleged you had a girlfriend >>> 2 - he forged NNTP posting IDs >>> 3 - he created disparaging webpages designed to humiliate people >>> 4 - he made 2-3 private emails available to the public without the >>> permission of the other party >>> 5 - he misinterprets people's words to make it appear like they've >>> said something they haven't >>> 6 - he forged a PDF while trying to pin it on someone else >>> 7 - he managed to align scores of people against him based on >>> behavior like the above and much more >>> >>> Say it ain't so! >> >> Feel free to explain to the reader how those things are not >> 'wrongdoings' (especially since they're riddled with Snit lying, if >> they are not outright lies themselves) any time you'd like to. > > There are degrees of "wrongdoing" of course. Except for the sexual > harrassment charge you keep running away from, and possibly betraying > Ed's confidence with the mythical emails, nothing you complain about > is more than child's play. If I can prove those two to you will you accept Snit is the lying gluesniffer he is? >>> But wait, there's even more Snit "lies and wrongdoing": >> >> You have no idea, that much is obvious. >> >>> * he posted more than once as Brock McNuggets (I found 16 total) >>> >>> * he contacted your ISP numerous times. >> >> Correct. >> >>> How do you know? >> >> Other than the fact that he admitted it and they contacted me over >> it, you mean? Have you been talking to Snit about the 'head in a vat' >> experiment? He's quite fond of it, you know... you sound like you >> might be, too. >> >> My prediction: Snit will now show you a post (where I had not yet >> been contacted by my ISP over his BS, so it'll show me saying I >> haven't been contacted) and he'll claim I lied when I said I hadn't >> been contacted. You will fall for it hook line and sinker like you >> did below because you're not only not smart enough to not listen to >> Snit in the first place... but the simple concept of a timeline on >> usenet doesn't occur to you. >> >> See... your main problem is that you think you're arguing with me... >> but your real argument here is with reality. > > And I don't believe your *version of reality* nearly as much as I > believe my own. I am talking about reality. Do you believe it or not? >> Google shows what it >> shows. Some things can be interpreted more than one way, some things >> can't. Snit uses the former to base his trolling MO on... > > And you use the latter, so what makes you any better? > > > >> he hasn't >> figured out that the latter makes him look like a total idiot. > > He has never looked like an idiot to me, but you certainly have. Are you his sock or his shill? >> I just >> netnanny Snit to death trying to get him to learn this simple >> concept... but he fights me every step of the way:) > > It's very sad how he controls you. Snit does not even control himself. >>> Regardless, >>> given what you threatened him with, he was very likely justified. >>> >>> * he claimed you paid/opened an account at his ISP. You claim you >>> didn't. Those 10 offenses seem to be the sum total of everything you >>> hold >>> against him. Even if he did everything you allege - and I don't >>> believe he did - do you really find it worth hundreds of posts over a >>> 5-year period? >> >> You think Snit has limited his actions to the above? LOL! > > That's all you've talked about with me for days now. If you have > more, I don't want to hear it, because it can't be any more petty and > whiny > than it is so far. You do not want to hear the truth about Snit because you are his sock or his shill. Which is it? >>> Regardless, your repeated threats to contact his employer in an >>> effort to get him fired makes you the jerk. >> >> Lying about what I did won't change the fact that you're Snit's bitch >> this month (OK, it might take you longer than a month) > > It's no lie. You repeatedly threatened to contact his employer, and > your intention was to get him fired. Period. > > You can deny it all you want - you're just a liar. I never did that. You are listening to Snit and he is a liar. >>> If you had the courage of your >>> convictions, you would've made good on the threat. >> >> It wasn't a threat. > > It was a wimpy threat, repeated over and over in slight variations of: > > "I'm promising you that, unless you, or someone, can give me a sound > reason not to, I intend on providing certain parties with information > they can use to determine if there is a case of identity theft (a > thing you have engaged in online) involving a person that represents them > in > their community." > > or > > "Providing Snit is telling the truth about working there, can *anyone* > tell me why Yavapai college shouldn't be given the opportunity to see > who is representing them on the internet by using their name on his > website? Anyone? I think the taxpayers of AZ might also be very > interested in this sort of a potential problem." > > > > You suck, Steve Carroll. Is there any reason why Yavapai College should not know about an imposter? >> In any event, even you must be smart enough to >> know that you can't possibly have any knowledge on whether I, or >> anyone else, contacted this college. Snit may not even know, for that >> matter. Or he may know but would never admit to it. He alos may know >> of things that have happened to him regarding his work, some of which >> may be attributed to this school having their eyes opened (and he may >> or may not be aware this is the reason). >> >> Do I think Snit would be honest about any of it? HELL no! >> >>> Bottom line: I would trust and believe Snit long before I would >>> trust and believe you. >> >> Sure doesn't seem like it... I'm providing you with Snit's own words >> form Google. >> >>> He has NEVER "represented his employer on Usenet" (that I've seen) >>> as you claimed yesterday. >>> >>> I don't believe for a second he sexually harrassed a woman online - >>> and so far you've failed to provide any proof of this very serious >>> claim. > > > And here you go again, for the 3rd time at least, running away from > proving Snit sexually harrassed someone online. He emailed my wife with comments I made online taken out of context and made her think I might be having an affair. How is that not sexual harrasment? > This claim of yours is far more serious than anything he said or did > to you (that I'm aware of). This makes you the liar and the wrongdoer. > > > >>> You claimed his webpages were "disparaging" (curiously you again >>> have no proof) >> >> Other than the "proof" that I pointed to Snit's admission (that even >> shows him claiming he was "happy" to know his webpages annoyed me), >> you mean? >> >> (Snit is a bit of a better liar than you... but you're getting >> closer) >>> but even if they did exist I'm 100% sure they weren't nearly as >>> insulting as the things you've said about him. Snit's not a nasty >>> person - though you and some of the others on csma are very nasty >>> towards him. >> >> Some? How many are you trying to limit "some" to? I suspect, by this >> point, Snit has began emailing you and showing you what he wants to >> see, > > Now I see you're not just a plain old idiot, you're a paranoid idiot. Seeing truth does not make one paranoid. I know all about his emails to people in CSMA. >> he's done this with those who listens to him for any length of >> time or support him in any way. Then, eventually, they have their >> eyes opened to reality. Do you think there aren't people on that >> quotes list who didn't used to support Snit and 'back' him? Think >> again;) > > He can't email me - he doesn't have my email address. Prove it. You want me to prove my claims so prove yours. I think you are lying. >>> You falsely claimed Snit emailed your wife/girlfriend (so says >>> Snit). When he asked you to admit to this lie, you ran away in this >>> threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_thread/th... >> >> Lie? Geezus has Snit got you fooled, or what? >> >> Here is the original post I wrote, (written 5 days prior to the one >> Snit handed you): >> >> "Sending the e-mail to my significant other with all that bullcrap in >> it about Elizabot only made her laugh. I know you're pissed that your >> 'sweet tomato' dropped a dime on you, but seriously, can't you do any >> better than this? No, I can't prove it was you but who else would >> bother? Who else would show such a limited imagination;)" >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/44ec480452a20add?hl=en& >> >> >> Reality check: You can't claim I did it "falsely" any more than I can >> prove Snit penned that email. This is a simple fact. > > You can't prove your SO received an email from Snit? How about the > email itself, shown in a screenshot? > > Let me guess - she deleted it. Over here on cola we have another > idiot (Tattoo Vampire) saying Snit contacted him by phone, and guess > what? He has no proof, either. > > Snit, did you send an email to Steve Carroll's girlfriend/wife? Who else would? >> The difference between you and I (that the Google archive now shows)? >> >> Unlike you, right off the bat I flatly admitted I couldn't prove it >> was Snit who wrote the email. > > I missed that. So if you can't prove it was him, why did you accuse > him? Who else would? >> On the other hand, here you are, with nothing but Snit's version of >> the "real world" (where he shows you only part of what happened, the >> part he writes) and you're using that to state I "falsely claimed" >> something. >> >> So what does that make you? Stupid? Dishonest? The combo-pack? > > I haven't seen Snit lie to me, but I have seen you lie to me. > > You're not trustworthy - why do you delude yourself that you are. > > > >>> So let's hear it: did he email your wife/girlfriend? Where's the >>> email? >> >> >> What's the difference if I can't prove it and said as much *before* >> Snit led a fool like you on a fool's errand? Face it, you were duped >> by Snit... until you wise up I suggest you get used to it;) > > Maybe I was duped by Snit. Who cares? You were duped in the emails he sent you. >>> While you're at it, where are the 2-3 "private" emails that Snit >>> reposted without ed's permission? >> >> Why are you focusing on the content again? I pointed to Snit's >> admission of having done so and ed making it clear Snit did it >> without his permission/ Do you think people will be fooled by this >> red herring? Geez, you're really not any smarter than Snit. > > And here we go again: no proof of these emails. Who else would send them? If you think it was not Snit then who? And where is the proof? >> Hint: The email content doesn't change the fact that Snit betrayed a >> trust (this is true even if you try to convince people otherwise) >> >> I suggest you don't openly display your poor character like this, >> especially while you're so busy trying to convince readers that *I* >> am the bad guy here... it really doesn't look good. > > Bad isn't the word: nasty, wimpy, threatening jerk is more like it. You are Snit's shill. >>>> Snit >>>> has been pulling this shit for years and nobody has stopped him. Yet. >>>> If we all call him on his shit and let the college he claims to >>>> work at know and contact his wife maybe he will finally stop lying >>>> about me and making claims about me having an ex. >>> >>> I'll call him out if it's something I'm interested in and I happen >>> to see it. >> >> Yes, readers have seen what you're "interested" in... and, thus far >> it has little, if anything, to do with honesty. I'm really not sure >> what other point you think you're making by continuing. You've proven >> you will overlook concrete proof from Google that I've refuted Snit's >> claim that no one ever shows evidence of his lies and wrongdoings. >> You keep tossing red herring while (apparently) believing that they >> are not spotted as red herrings. You've even taken to changing a >> claim Snit made to what (as you would have readers believe) I was >> "hoping" for (a thing I wrote about in a thread you were quoting >> from). > > Jeez. I see now you're far more obsessed and nutty than I thought > Snit was. > Get over yourself. Stop sucking Snit's dick. >>> I'm not about to mess with his home or work life, unless he messes >>> with mine. So there's no "we" here, Steve Carroll. >> >> This is a public forum... there is always a "we" involved... in the >> form of anyone reading. >> >>> By the way: is that your real name - got any proof you're not a >>> forger/ID thief/liar/sex harrasser yourself? >> >> Sounds like Snit: > > No, it sounds like you. You are Snit's shill and probably do what he does. >> 'Let's just forget about all the proof that Snit IS what Carroll >> claims... YOU, Carroll, must prove you're NOT like Snit. >> >> LOL! >> >> Thinks this tactic will fool anyone with a brain that actually works? >> >> Hey! All you have to do now is find a website that I've written where >> I am pointing to a community college and/or other businesses and >> convince them that it's not a good idea to have my name associated >> with them. Tell me you're going to do this on usenet and note my >> response. Then compare it with Snit's responses. >> >> We can then talk about any differences ;) >> >> (dude. give this up, my truck isn't with you. What's worse is that I >> feel like I'm battling a crippled person here, you forget that I have >> the advantage of knowing all about Snit's history. > > Is that so? Why so much difficulty proving all this Snit "lying and > wrongdoing"? > > > >> You have the disadvantage of learning about it the hard way;) > > There's nothing to learn. > > > >>>> Nothing else short of that will get him to stop. >>> >>> Why do you worry so much about Snit, >> >> You're using words like "worry" and "care"... to no avail. > > You're sniveling and dodging and running, to no avail. > > > >> As I said, I am here to challenge Snit's claim that no one ever shows >> evidence of his lies and wrongdoings. > > You are here to spread your Snit obsession all over the place, and try > to recruit others to it. > > It's bullshit. > > > > > >> Notably, there are very few people that are supporting this claim of >> Snit's (that I've seen it's just you and Hadron - who is a total >> idiot IMO)... so you're the guy that has his name on the marquee for >> the time being ;) >> >>> instead of Mac advocacy or technical flaming/debate? >> >> Like you're confining yourself to here in Linuxville? You don't >> think that's a tad hypocritical (an understatement if there ever was >> one)? > > > If there's anything I'm not, it's a hypocrite. > > > > >>> Wouldn't a killfile entry be much more >>> effective? Oh, then you wouldn't have a reason to read csma. >>> >>> That Snit so dominates your Usenet life is not an indictment of him >>> - it's an indictment of you. >> >> I don't give Snit's 'psych degree' much credence, either;) > > > He completely controls and dominates your time online. What does that > say about you?
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-06 15:36 -0400
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-06 12:42 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-06 13:08 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-06 13:24 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 13:46 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? "Steve Carroll" <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 19:40 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-07 12:26 -0400
OT: Has Snit's claim been refuted? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 11:41 -0700
Re: Has Snit's claim been refuted? "Steve Carroll" <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 11:49 -0700
Re: OT: Has Snit's claim been refuted? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-07 17:08 -0400
Re: OT: Has Snit's claim been refuted? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-07 14:54 -0700
Re: OT: Has Snit's claim been refuted? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 18:54 -0700
OT: (troll related content) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 18:53 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? "Steve Carroll" <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 11:46 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? "Steve Carroll" <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 11:49 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 13:14 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 13:37 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 21:00 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? "Seaendithas Chorster" <Seaendithas@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 21:07 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-07 17:59 -0400
OT: DFS admits to being a Snit shill "Steve Carroll" <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 15:26 -0700
Re: DFS admits to being a Snit shill "Steve Carroll" <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 15:31 -0700
Re: DFS admits to being a Snit shill "Seaendithas Chorster" <Seaendithas@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 18:11 -0700
Re: OT: DFS admits to being a Snit shill DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-07 18:51 -0400
Re: OT: DFS admits to being a Snit shill "Seaendithas Chorster" <Seaendithas@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 18:15 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-07 16:19 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? "Seaendithas Chorster" <Seaendithas@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 18:12 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-07 21:29 -0400
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-07 21:29 -0400
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-07 19:04 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-07 22:52 -0400
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-07 20:12 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2011-06-08 07:17 -0400
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 13:27 +0200
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-08 07:16 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 08:14 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-06-08 08:30 -0400
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-08 06:16 -0700
Re: Snit an "effete candy-ass" High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> - 2011-06-08 09:19 -0600
Re: Snit an "effete candy-ass" Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 09:44 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2011-06-08 19:15 -0400
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-08 12:30 -0400
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-08 09:33 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2011-06-08 19:17 -0400
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-08 16:30 -0700
OT: A Chance for Snit Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 07:47 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 09:56 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? "Seaendithas Chorster" <Seaendithas@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 21:12 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-08 12:43 -0400
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest "Seaendithas Chorster" <Seaendithas@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 10:18 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-08 10:50 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest "Seaendithas Chorster" <Seaendithas@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 12:34 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 05:48 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 15:15 +0200
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-09 07:18 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 08:26 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 17:34 +0200
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-09 08:48 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 09:28 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-09 10:04 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 10:24 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-09 10:40 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 11:21 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 11:23 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-09 11:49 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 12:01 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 12:05 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-09 13:26 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-09 11:48 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 12:03 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-09 13:51 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 08:33 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-09 08:45 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 09:01 -0700
Re: DFS supports Snit's incest Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-09 06:47 -0700
OT: More bitchy, whiny Snit crap... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 13:06 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-06-07 21:23 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? "Seaendithas Chorster" <Seaendithas@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 22:21 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-09 07:36 -0700
OT: Why does DFS ignore reality? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 20:49 -0700
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 13:08 +0200
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-07 12:00 -0400
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-07 13:07 -0400
Re: Linosuck labels Snit an "effete candy-ass"? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-07 13:18 -0400
csiph-web