Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #560771

Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/15/20 5:43 PM, Diesel wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> news:hn93pvFgktsU7@mid.individual.net Wed, 15 Jul 2020 19:30:07 GMT
> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> 
>> On 7/15/20 3:18 AM, Diesel wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> news:hn4eniFh1rkU3@mid.individual.net Tue, 14 Jul 2020 01:05:54
>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, you have been throwing the most bizarre tantrum
>>>>>> over a silly disagreement. And now you say because you cannot
>>>>>> let go of it you are too weak to be kind. Well, that was
>>>>>> already clear -- you are not able to be kind with this you
>>>>>> disagree with. That is YOUR weakness.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a silly disagreement, to me, Snit.
>>>>
>>>> Right... you are so deeply immature you cannot let go of it even
>>>> after I gave you the gift of explaining things to you at least
>>>> 14 times.
>>>>
>>>> <hn16fgFqpkdU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hlg1f8F3peeU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hkorg5F7ivaU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hkoro0F7ke2U1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hkorriF7ke2U2@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hkosqkF7r1kU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hlesegFr27hU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hkvjrpFknq3U1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hlesl4Fr27hU3@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hkot94F7v4jU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hlg18dF3o3gU1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hlg0tvF3md8U1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hl9gepFn1v5U1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> <hlesuhFr5d6U1@mid.individual.net>
>>>>
>>>> A shame you cannot even understand that (which is not to say
>>>> agree).
>>>
>>> I understand things just fine. The problem is, I know you lied
>>> about my having any access to the bot aside from what you and
>>> everyone else here does. At no time did you explain anything you
>>> wrote as anything besides what it is. Which was a series of lies
>>> on your part, intended to link me to the bot which is flooding
>>> various usenet newsgroups. A bot, I have nothing to do with and
>>> never, despite your claims otherwise, claimed I had any access to
>>> it's code, either in source or compiled form.
>>>
>>> in full context:
>>> MID: <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 responded to you with this:
>>>
>>> How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting
>>> output (most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly
>>> does give an individual a very good idea of the coding behind it.
>>> Ie: how it's being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> ** end paste
>>>
>>> As anyone, even you, can clearly see, the third paragraph was
>>> related directly to the two previous ones. It contained another
>>> question, specifically to you. It had nothing whatsoever to do
>>> with any bot code. You've been intentionally removing the first
>>> two paragraphs that go with it, ignoring the questions presented
>>> in them, and trying to pass the third paragraph off as something
>>> else entirely, while again, ignoring ALL of the questions asked
>>> of you, specifically, of you, concerning your actual knowledge of
>>> programming.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>    
>>>>> You are responsible for having written this:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
>>>>>
>>>>> "Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of
>>>>> the bot but to the code itself. When called out on this he
>>>>> clarified it was merely the compiled code he had"
>>>>>
>>>>> *** end snippit
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Where are the post(s) showing I made anything clear about
>>>>> access to more than the output of the bot? The output as you
>>>>> know, or should, are the posts it makes. Where is the post by
>>>>> someone calling me out for what I wrote? Where is the post
>>>>> where I clarified it was "merely" the compiled code I had?
>>>>>
>>>>> Provide MIDs to backup those *lies*, Snit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where are the MIDs to backup the statements you made in that
>>>>> post, Snit? There's never been any misunderstanding about this
>>>>> on my end. Fact is, you quoted something I wrote out of context
>>>>> and tried to use it to back the lies you wrote above. I want to
>>>>> see the MIDs of the posts that called me out, and the ones
>>>>> where I clarified, (these are your words, your very words in
>>>>> that post snit) that I had the bot in compiled code form.
>>>>>
>>>>> Provide those MIDs, lying toadie, or be an adult for once in
>>>>> your sorry miserable life, take responsibility for the lies you
>>>>> wrote about me, and apologize for it.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Well Snit? Are you an adult, or a small child who will continue
>>> telling the adults in the room he didn't touch any chocolate bar
>>> as his fingers are covered in melted chocolate AND it's all over
>>> your face too. Which is it then?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are you STILL denying how much Carroll manipulates you? Read your
>> post. Is that type nonsense your usual level of immaturity? If
>> not, well, then you can thank Carroll for helping to push you
>> there. Can't say I did not warn you.
> 
> Repeating yourself?
> 
> MID: <hn93tuFgktsU10@mid.individual.net>
>   
> That's not going to work either, Snit. Re-read what I wrote and
> provide the MIDs to support the accusations you went out of your way
> to make against me here:
> 
> MID: <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
> 
> You wrote:
> 
>> 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 responded to you with this:
> 
> How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
> (most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
> individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
> being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ** end paste
> 
> As anyone, even you, can clearly see, the third paragraph was related
> directly to the two previous ones. It contained another question,
> specifically to you. It had nothing whatsoever to do with any bot
> code. You've been intentionally removing the first two paragraphs
> that go with it, ignoring the questions presented in them, and trying
> to pass the third paragraph off as something else entirely, while
> again, ignoring ALL of the questions asked of you, specifically, of
> you, concerning your actual knowledge of programming.
> 
> [snip]
>   
> Quit trying to deny what you did, quit trying to project your own
> miserable life and the results of it on me, Snit. I'm not you, I
> don't have trouble understanding what I read. I've provided all sorts
> of evidence supporting myself there, Snit.
> 
> You aren't going to be able to spin your way out of this. You went
> out of your way to troll me, when you were informed I had you kf'd.
> It's blown up on you; I quoted you, and asked you to defend the
> statements you wrote. You aren't able to do so, because (drum roll)
> you LIED about all of it.
> 
> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
>   
> "Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the
> bot but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified
> it was merely the compiled code he had"
> 
> *** end snippit
> 
> I ask again:
>   
> Where are the post(s) showing I made anything clear about access
> to more than the output of the bot? The output as you know, or
> should, are the posts it makes. Where is the post by someone
> calling me out for what I wrote? Where is the post where I
> clarified it was "merely" the compiled code I had?
> 
> Provide MIDs to backup those *lies*, Snit. I'm not going to let you
> off the hook. I'm not going to forget about it. You aren't going to
> bore me into leaving the subject alone, either. You lied on me, and I
> want an apology for it. It's as simple as that. And, I'll continue
> reminding you as I see fit.
> 
> 
> 

Please TRY to gain some comprehension. Just a little. Thanks!

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: P: David - the backdoor source code Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 05:54 +0000
  Re: P: David - the backdoor source code Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-04 23:02 -0700
    Re: P: David - the backdoor source code Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 09:06 +0000
    Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2020-07-06 08:36 +0000
      Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-07 08:42 +0100
        Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-07 14:00 +0000
          Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-07 09:11 -0500
            Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-07 14:29 +0000
              Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-07 09:45 -0500
                Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-07 07:48 -0700
                Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-07 14:56 +0000
          Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-08 06:41 +0000
            Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-08 13:02 +0000
              Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-10 05:27 +0000
                Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-10 14:06 +0000
                Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 04:27 +0000
                Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-12 06:46 +0000
                Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-16 00:43 +0000
                Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-16 00:43 +0000
                Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-15 19:03 -0700
                Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-16 10:51 +0100
                Re: Snit digest 454 / 2020-07-06 Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-16 10:59 +0000

csiph-web