Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350124 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-15 19:25 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-18 15:06 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 175 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-15 19:25 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-15 19:37 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-15 16:17 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 13:33 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-15 16:59 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 08:11 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 11:54 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 00:19 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-15 21:02 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 08:05 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 08:56 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-16 11:28 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 19:13 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-16 21:12 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 08:51 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 14:43 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 15:16 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 16:10 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 21:38 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 22:04 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 07:38 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 13:08 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 21:57 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 18:15 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 07:43 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 10:49 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 15:08 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 08:18 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 11:46 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 09:16 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 12:39 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 17:43 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 17:50 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 12:18 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 12:27 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 13:13 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 13:46 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 13:51 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:09 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:13 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 14:19 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:23 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 14:26 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:35 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 21:36 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:38 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 14:48 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:56 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 15:00 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 15:05 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:34 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:34 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-18 22:34 +0100
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:11 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:13 -0700
Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 21:38 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:42 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 05:51 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 08:24 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 16:37 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:49 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 16:53 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-19 12:04 -0500
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:15 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 13:08 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 21:14 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 21:39 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 22:03 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 16:21 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-19 17:07 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 20:36 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:19 -0400
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 12:44 -0400
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-19 18:27 -0400
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 16:15 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-19 19:32 -0400
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 03:39 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 04:01 +0000
Snit digest 211 / 2016-04-20 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-20 05:24 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 15:01 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 22:11 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 16:20 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 23:36 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 20:30 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 03:58 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 21:19 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 05:01 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 22:14 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 05:29 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 22:33 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 05:52 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 16:02 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 09:11 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-20 10:40 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-20 10:43 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 11:36 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-20 06:01 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 16:30 -0700
Snit digest 207 / 2016-04-19 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 05:52 +0000
Re: Snit digest 207 / 2016-04-19 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 23:25 -0700
Snit digest 208 / 2016-04-19 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 07:49 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 20:49 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 13:52 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 21:33 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 05:48 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 13:55 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 21:35 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 05:41 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 15:52 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 20:47 +0000
Re: Microsoft is the standard; Apple extends it; Ubuntu falls short. Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-18 22:59 +0000
Re: Microsoft is the standard; Apple extends it; Ubuntu falls short. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:19 -0400
Re: Microsoft is the standard; Apple extends it; Ubuntu falls short. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-19 00:03 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 13:19 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 16:25 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 15:08 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:15 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 15:26 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:35 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 15:51 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:10 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 08:13 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 12:10 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 09:12 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 09:02 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 13:31 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 21:59 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 20:06 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:24 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 07:46 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 05:41 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 11:01 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 17:04 +0200
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 11:08 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 15:23 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:16 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-20 18:22 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 14:03 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 08:38 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 07:27 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 13:03 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 21:55 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:26 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 08:59 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 09:40 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 14:14 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 15:07 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 15:51 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 21:39 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 22:09 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 07:40 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Silver Slimer <linux@shit.is> - 2016-04-15 17:18 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-15 19:12 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 08:57 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-16 11:29 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:28 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-15 23:03 +0200
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 08:57 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Silver Slimer <linux@shit.is> - 2016-04-15 17:17 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-15 21:39 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 08:58 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-15 18:24 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 08:59 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-16 06:34 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-16 11:32 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-16 09:01 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 14:02 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-16 11:16 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 14:02 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 19:12 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 14:05 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 08:40 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 10:48 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 15:06 +0000
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 15:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33BF8B5.705AC%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350880 |
On 4/19/16, 2:14 PM, in article ghjvmbkd093.aji@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 4/19/16, 9:37 AM, in article
>> sandman-88d314ef8094c6dc9e554aec5db88a7a@individual.net, "Sandman"
>> <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <2425e59c-c1d7-4bd3-a37a-d588272b224d@googlegroups.com>, Steve
>>> Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Steve Carroll:
>>>>>>>> [1449] Nah... take a look, you unquestionably replied (217)
>>>>>>>> [1449] to me: Directly addressing my comment in reply to a
>>>>>>>> [1449] post I had written is a pretty good indicator that I
>>>>>>>> [1449] should 'leap' to that assumption ;) Make up your
>>>>>>>> [1449] mind, you either recognize you responded to me or you
>>>>>>>> [1449] don't. If I want this level of incoherency I can get
>>>>>>>> [1449] it from Snit. Raise the bar, man. LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's my post.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>> Look again... :)
>>>>
>>>> I stand corrected. I didn't even look, I had just written that post
>>>> and assumed it was mine. Geez, Snit is quick when it's important to
>>>> him ;)
>>>
>>> Yeah, and the tactic is to copy something you actually wrote and then repost
>>> it
>>> with his forged account to spread the confusion.
>>
>> Another lie from you. But at this point you are just lying and trolling for
>> attention. You have NO point to make... just false accusations.
>>
>> I cannot imagine acting as pathetic as you are acting.
>>
>
> Because Carroll would forge himself...
>
> A) To discredit himself
He discredits himself repeatedly, but in this case he is playing victim...
and blaming me. And because apparently Google has a limit on the number of
posts that can come from an account per day or per hour or whatever.
> B) To implicate you, even though doing so muddies the waters
> and risks discrediting himself.
He cares only about attacking me and blaming me for all that is wrong in his
life. By his own admission he has been harassing me and following me from
forum to forum for over a decade.
> Makes sense to me. Not.
What makes sense to you is not relevant. But in case you care about
evidence:
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM:
-----
Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being,
don't trust anything from it.
-----
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM:
-----
Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account
so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume
anything that's coming from it was written by me.
-----
Why would he repeatedly specify WHICH of his accounts if he only had one?
These posts were in relation to his lies about being hacked (he likely was
not hacked at all, but even if he was he lied horribly about it... and I
documented that well... happy to share if you care).
And a list I created some time ago. And, no, I have no desire to rehash the
whole thing again... but it is proof that Carroll uses both accounts:
* The "forger" is psychic and knows when Carroll is going to start and
stop posting.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/carroll-forger>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/carroll-forger2>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/carroll-forger3>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/carroll-forger4>
This pattern repeats itself over and over... those are just some examples.
* Carroll twists and lies to say it is merely a sign of a "forger" posting
at about the same time. Why lie if he is not hiding something?
* Carroll has (at least apparently) done the same nonsense before with
socks: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/stevedward>.
* Carroll repeatedly blamed me for forging him but has also admitted he
lied and "doubts" it is me doing so.
* Carroll has used multiple accounts to accuse people of forging him.
* Carroll clearly has been watching what IPs the "forger" is using and
listed them.
* Carroll pointed to <https://www.torproject.org> which makes it trivial
to use multiple IP addresses with their Tor Browser.
Message-ID: <8d63dbfb-5739-4011-9abf-ff21dd740281@googlegroups.com>
<https://goo.gl/z9K3SI> 15 Dec 2013
Message-ID: <4b9bd515-8322-460f-bd73-c644eee672c1@googlegroups.com>
<https://goo.gl/NYzbDi> 23 Apr 2015
* Carroll lies and says he had no idea there was a TOR browser:
Message-ID: <97308f52-7005-4924-b182-d100162db757@googlegroups.com>
<https://goo.gl/h4dsD6> 5 Jan 2015
* Carroll lies about being able to use that software, claiming he has "no
idea how this can be done".
* Carroll himself pointed out that even his "normal" email address has
been posted through proxies, just like his "forger" has been doing,
but he says this is because Google or his ISP somehow forces this.
* Carroll claimed he thought using the Tor Browser would make Google
Groups look completely different. Absurd. Why tell such a lie if he
is not trying to obfuscate the issue?
12 Apr 2015
But if you choose to believe Carroll is not doing as he is, whatever. Not
going to be sucked into a long debate about the idiot who has been stalking
me for years and his longest standing co-troll.
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 22:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <hgjjfu830a.j3ifa@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350885 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/19/16, 2:14 PM, in article ghjvmbkd093.aji@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/19/16, 9:37 AM, in article >>> sandman-88d314ef8094c6dc9e554aec5db88a7a@individual.net, "Sandman" >>> <mr@sandman.net> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <2425e59c-c1d7-4bd3-a37a-d588272b224d@googlegroups.com>, Steve >>>> Carroll wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve Carroll: >>>>>>>>> [1449] Nah... take a look, you unquestionably replied (217) >>>>>>>>> [1449] to me: Directly addressing my comment in reply to a >>>>>>>>> [1449] post I had written is a pretty good indicator that I >>>>>>>>> [1449] should 'leap' to that assumption ;) Make up your >>>>>>>>> [1449] mind, you either recognize you responded to me or you >>>>>>>>> [1449] don't. If I want this level of incoherency I can get >>>>>>>>> [1449] it from Snit. Raise the bar, man. LOL! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's my post. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sandman: >>>>>> Look again... :) >>>>> >>>>> I stand corrected. I didn't even look, I had just written that post >>>>> and assumed it was mine. Geez, Snit is quick when it's important to >>>>> him ;) >>>> >>>> Yeah, and the tactic is to copy something you actually wrote and then repost >>>> it >>>> with his forged account to spread the confusion. >>> >>> Another lie from you. But at this point you are just lying and trolling for >>> attention. You have NO point to make... just false accusations. >>> >>> I cannot imagine acting as pathetic as you are acting. >>> >> >> Because Carroll would forge himself... >> >> A) To discredit himself > > He discredits himself repeatedly, but in this case he is playing victim... > and blaming me. And because apparently Google has a limit on the number of > posts that can come from an account per day or per hour or whatever. > So that's why he posts the same body text two minutes later from the fretwizzen account? >> B) To implicate you, even though doing so muddies the waters >> and risks discrediting himself. > > He cares only about attacking me and blaming me for all that is wrong in his > life. By his own admission he has been harassing me and following me from > forum to forum for over a decade. > I don't care. It's still you forging him as fretwizzen. >> Makes sense to me. Not. > > What makes sense to you is not relevant. Don't you wish. > But in case you care about > evidence: > > Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM: > ----- > Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being, > don't trust anything from it. > ----- > > Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM: > ----- > Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account > so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume > anything that's coming from it was written by me. > ----- > > Why would he repeatedly specify WHICH of his accounts if he only had one? Do you have message-ids for thoses posts by "Carroll"? No doubt they were made from your fretwizzen account.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 16:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33C0B52.705D8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350888 |
On 4/19/16, 3:11 PM, in article hgjjfu830a.j3ifa@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: ... >>> Because Carroll would forge himself... >>> >>> A) To discredit himself >> >> He discredits himself repeatedly, but in this case he is playing victim... >> and blaming me. And because apparently Google has a limit on the number of >> posts that can come from an account per day or per hour or whatever. > > So that's why he posts the same body text two minutes later from > the fretwizzen account? Ask him. My guess: to play victim or he realized he posted from the wrong account and tried to cancel but it was too late. But, again, ask Carroll why he does what he does. Just be aware he will lie to you. ... >> But in case you care about evidence: >> >> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM: >> ----- >> Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being, >> don't trust anything from it. >> ----- >> >> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM: >> ----- >> Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account >> so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume >> anything that's coming from it was written by me. >> ----- >> >> Why would he repeatedly specify WHICH of his accounts if he only had one? > > Do you have message-ids for thoses posts by "Carroll"? No doubt they were > made from your fretwizzen account. We can look them up. But if one or both are from the fretwizzer account will you admit he has been busted? If so I will see if I can find them. If not, what is the value of looking them up for you? Remember: you are asking me to do you a favor to help you get educated about his dishonesty... I already know he is lying... and it would be shocking to find you did not already know as well (I suspect you are just trolling). -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 23:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgie0.a3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350898 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/19/16, 3:11 PM, in article hgjjfu830a.j3ifa@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>> Because Carroll would forge himself... >>>> >>>> A) To discredit himself >>> >>> He discredits himself repeatedly, but in this case he is playing victim... >>> and blaming me. And because apparently Google has a limit on the number of >>> posts that can come from an account per day or per hour or whatever. >> >> So that's why he posts the same body text two minutes later from >> the fretwizzen account? > > Ask him. My guess: to play victim or he realized he posted from the wrong > account and tried to cancel but it was too late. But, again, ask Carroll why > he does what he does. Just be aware he will lie to you. > How is he a victim? The forger is the one who looks like an insane moron who actually thinks that email addresses are invisible to the reader. The "Steve Carroll" nick already is well-known to have a forger, so it is automatically flagged for inspection, and ignored if it's from the fretwizzen account. > ... >>> But in case you care about evidence: >>> >>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM: >>> ----- >>> Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being, >>> don't trust anything from it. >>> ----- >>> >>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM: >>> ----- >>> Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account >>> so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume >>> anything that's coming from it was written by me. >>> ----- >>> >>> Why would he repeatedly specify WHICH of his accounts if he only had one? >> >> Do you have message-ids for thoses posts by "Carroll"? No doubt they were >> made from your fretwizzen account. > > We can look them up. But if one or both are from the fretwizzer account will > you admit he has been busted? > No, because he could have been momentarily fooled by the similarity of email addresses. > If so I will see if I can find them. If not, what is the value of looking > them up for you? Remember: you are asking me to do you a favor to help you > get educated about his dishonesty... I already know he is lying... and it > would be shocking to find you did not already know as well (I suspect you > are just trolling). > The value is that if they are indeed from the fretwizzen account, then they are your posts. And if you don't wish to find them for the benefit of our inspection, then the quotes have no value whatsoever. I don't care one way or another. This is your "evidence." Defending it is on you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 20:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33C45E8.70617%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350903 |
On 4/19/16, 4:36 PM, in article fhjgie0.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/19/16, 3:11 PM, in article hgjjfu830a.j3ifa@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>> Because Carroll would forge himself... >>>>> >>>>> A) To discredit himself >>>> >>>> He discredits himself repeatedly, but in this case he is playing victim... >>>> and blaming me. And because apparently Google has a limit on the number of >>>> posts that can come from an account per day or per hour or whatever. >>> >>> So that's why he posts the same body text two minutes later from >>> the fretwizzen account? >> >> Ask him. My guess: to play victim or he realized he posted from the wrong >> account and tried to cancel but it was too late. But, again, ask Carroll why >> he does what he does. Just be aware he will lie to you. >> > > How is he a victim? He is not. He likes to play one, though, and accuse me of all the wrongs in his life. ... >>>> But in case you care about evidence: >>>> >>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM: >>>> ----- >>>> Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being, >>>> don't trust anything from it. >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM: >>>> ----- >>>> Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account >>>> so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume >>>> anything that's coming from it was written by me. >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> Why would he repeatedly specify WHICH of his accounts if he only had one? >>> >>> Do you have message-ids for thoses posts by "Carroll"? No doubt they were >>> made from your fretwizzen account. >> >> We can look them up. But if one or both are from the fretwizzer account will >> you admit he has been busted? > > No, because he could have been momentarily fooled by the similarity > of email addresses. He could have been fooled into thinking he had to specify which of his accounts he was referencing if he was being forged? WTF? Really, how does this make ANY sense to you? And why did you ask for a link to the originals if you will not accept them as proof he was referencing which of his accounts he uses? How can you even pretend that makes any sense. Comes down to you now know he uses both accounts. Fine. >> If so I will see if I can find them. If not, what is the value of looking >> them up for you? Remember: you are asking me to do you a favor to help you >> get educated about his dishonesty... I already know he is lying... and it >> would be shocking to find you did not already know as well (I suspect you >> are just trolling). > > The value is that if they are indeed from the fretwizzen account, then > they are your posts. This is a direct lie from you. > And if you don't wish to find them for the benefit of our inspection, then the > quotes have no value whatsoever. I don't care one way or another. This is > your "evidence." Defending it is on you. You already said that even on being shown absolute proof that Carroll, even from his non-TOR account, references which of his accounts he is using is not going to get you to admit to the truth. In other words: you have admitted you will lie. Once you make this admission your view is of no value. Now if you want to re-think your comment and admit that if one or both of those quotes comes from Carroll's fretwizzer account this proves he uses both I am happy to do you the favor of digging them up if I can. If not, well, then do your own work. Not worth spending time doing you a favor when you have already admitted you will just continue to lie. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 03:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgie802.qfa03@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350921 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/19/16, 4:36 PM, in article fhjgie0.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/19/16, 3:11 PM, in article hgjjfu830a.j3ifa@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> Because Carroll would forge himself... >>>>>> >>>>>> A) To discredit himself >>>>> >>>>> He discredits himself repeatedly, but in this case he is playing victim... >>>>> and blaming me. And because apparently Google has a limit on the number of >>>>> posts that can come from an account per day or per hour or whatever. >>>> >>>> So that's why he posts the same body text two minutes later from >>>> the fretwizzen account? >>> >>> Ask him. My guess: to play victim or he realized he posted from the wrong >>> account and tried to cancel but it was too late. But, again, ask Carroll why >>> he does what he does. Just be aware he will lie to you. >>> >> >> How is he a victim? > > He is not. He likes to play one, though, and accuse me of all the wrongs in > his life. > > > ... >>>>> But in case you care about evidence: >>>>> >>>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM: >>>>> ----- >>>>> Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being, >>>>> don't trust anything from it. >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM: >>>>> ----- >>>>> Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account >>>>> so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume >>>>> anything that's coming from it was written by me. >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> Why would he repeatedly specify WHICH of his accounts if he only had one? >>>> >>>> Do you have message-ids for thoses posts by "Carroll"? No doubt they were >>>> made from your fretwizzen account. >>> >>> We can look them up. But if one or both are from the fretwizzer account will >>> you admit he has been busted? >> >> No, because he could have been momentarily fooled by the similarity >> of email addresses. > > He could have been fooled into thinking he had to specify which of his > accounts he was referencing if he was being forged? WTF? > > Really, how does this make ANY sense to you? > Easy, moron. If I saw a post by ow1@rooftop.invalid, and did not read it carefully to see the l/1 swap, I might be forgiven for posting a warning that my owl account had been hacked. Now if someone posting as ow1@rooftop invalid claimed "my owl account has been hacked," then you have the same situation that we have here if the post claiming "fretwizzer has been hacked" were made by fretwizzen. fretwizzer could be forgiven for thinking that his own fretwizzer account had been hacked if he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own. > And why did you ask for a link to the originals if you will not accept them > as proof he was referencing which of his accounts he uses? How can you even > pretend that makes any sense. > > Comes down to you now know he uses both accounts. Fine. > >>> If so I will see if I can find them. If not, what is the value of looking >>> them up for you? Remember: you are asking me to do you a favor to help you >>> get educated about his dishonesty... I already know he is lying... and it >>> would be shocking to find you did not already know as well (I suspect you >>> are just trolling). >> >> The value is that if they are indeed from the fretwizzen account, then >> they are your posts. > > This is a direct lie from you. > Fuck off. >> And if you don't wish to find them for the benefit of our inspection, then the >> quotes have no value whatsoever. I don't care one way or another. This is >> your "evidence." Defending it is on you. > > You already said that even on being shown absolute proof that Carroll, even > from his non-TOR account, references which of his accounts he is using is > not going to get you to admit to the truth. This is a direct lie from you. > In other words: you have > admitted you will lie. This is a direct lie from you. > Once you make this admission your view is of no > value. > > Now if you want to re-think your comment and admit that if one or both of > those quotes comes from Carroll's fretwizzer account this proves he uses > both I am happy to do you the favor of digging them up if I can. > Dig them up, bitch. I already explained it. > If not, well, then do your own work. Not worth spending time doing you a > favor when you have already admitted you will just continue to lie. > So you can't back your lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 21:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33C5173.7062E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350924 |
On 4/19/16, 8:58 PM, in article fhjgie802.qfa03@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
...
>>>>>> But in case you care about evidence:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM:
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being,
>>>>>> don't trust anything from it.
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM:
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account
>>>>>> so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume
>>>>>> anything that's coming from it was written by me.
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would he repeatedly specify WHICH of his accounts if he only had one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have message-ids for thoses posts by "Carroll"? No doubt they were
>>>>> made from your fretwizzen account.
>>>>
>>>> We can look them up. But if one or both are from the fretwizzer account
>>>> will
>>>> you admit he has been busted?
>>>
>>> No, because he could have been momentarily fooled by the similarity
>>> of email addresses.
>>
>> He could have been fooled into thinking he had to specify which of his
>> accounts he was referencing if he was being forged? WTF?
>>
>> Really, how does this make ANY sense to you?
>
> Easy, moron. If I saw a post by ow1@rooftop.invalid, and did not read
> it carefully to see the l/1 swap, I might be forgiven for posting a
> warning that my owl account had been hacked. Now if someone posting
> as ow1@rooftop invalid claimed "my owl account has been hacked," then
> you have the same situation that we have here if the post claiming
> "fretwizzer has been hacked" were made by fretwizzen. fretwizzer could
> be forgiven for thinking that his own fretwizzer account had been hacked
> if he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own.
So he merely made a mistake when he went on and on and on about how his
account was hacked. Let us show just some of the posts from his "mistake":
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carroll, 4/10/2015 4:04 PM:
-----
Cute trick... To the guy who hacked my Google account.
-----
No details. Seems to treat it as a joke.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:02 PM:
-----
Email Hacking Is A Serious Crime
-----
No longer "cute"... now it is a serious crime. OK.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:07 PM:
By now he is posting more links to how serious this crime against him is.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 7:25 PM:
-----
I didn't write that.
-----
Now he is denying the posts from his own account. OK, he was "hacked".
Someone else posted this. Hard to hack a gmail account given how they use
two-step authentication and someone would need access to his phone or the
like... but at least POSSIBLE.
Even then, though, if someone tries to guess your password Google alerts you
and lets you know what IP address and other info. I know because someone in
a Denver internet cafe has tried mine on several occasions.
Google even forces you to change your password when this happens. Very hard
to hack these days.
So already Carroll's story is unlikely.
But let us accept it... someone somehow hacked his account bypassing the two
step verification. This person did not, however, change his password and
Carroll posted within an hour of the "hacker". Before that, unless he is an
idiot, he changed his password and the "hacker" was locked out. The "hacker"
got one post in.
But Carroll could not leave his story there.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM:
-----
Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being,
don't trust anything from it.
-----
Wait. What? Even after Carroll figured out this "hacker" who was too stupid
to change his password had broken into his account and Carroll *surely* must
have changed his own password, he is saying the "hacker" might still have
access. Might be able to break Google's two-step verification process
*again*.
This is *very* unlikely... to the point of being unbelievable.
Even worse for him: he notes which of his accounts he is claiming was hacked
- but in the past he has denied even using the other accounts! LOL! He
screwed up and made it very clear he has multiple accounts and felt the need
to note which one. He made the same mistake in the next quote where he
speaks of WHICH of his gmail accounts he is claiming was hacked. Oops! If he
only posts with one there would be no need to specify which one!
He has completely screwed up in his game to pretend he posts with only one
gmail account. Completely idiotic of him, too!
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM:
-----
Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account
so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume
anything that's coming from it was written by me.
-----
He is still saying that he may have to kill the account instead of just
changing the password which anyone with half a brain would have already done
(and Google *forces* you to do when someone even tries to hack your
account... I know because someone in the Denver area has tried to hack mine
multiple times... likely Carroll but I have no proof of this). And he
specifies WHICH of his accounts! He is directly admitting he uses more than
one account! His claim of being "forged" with his second account is a lie.
Proved.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:40 PM:
-----
Looks like it's still being hacked despite me taking precautions,
I may have to kill the account.
-----
What makes it look like its still being hacked? And what precautions other
than changing the two-step verification options does he need? And how would
someone bypass this... is he really on the NSA watch list? Seems you would
need someone at that level to be doing this. He watches too much TV where
they computer hackers spend thirty seconds and bypass all security.
Just nonsense.
Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:05 PM:
-----
Apparently Google is having issues with their accounts to the
point where they're ready to undertake some additional measures.
-----
But, of course, no evidence of this... and what measures? They already alert
users if someone else tries to guess your password and use two-step
authentication and even force you to make a new password if it seems someone
is trying to hack you.
-----
They're now involving several federal agencies in things they
didn't bother with previously in an effort to deal with people who
hack into accounts. They've asked me to leave the account open.
-----
So now Google is letting Carroll know how they are handling these things -
and asking him to leave a *hacked* account open... one someone can be using
to steal his identity. No. This does not pass the sniff test in any way.
Even if they were doing this for some bizarre sting operation, which is in
itself far fetched, they would have told Carroll to not make it public
information so the hacker would not know.
Just insanity. His own story is so idiotic and full of idiotic claims it
simply cannot be true. Carroll uses his secondary Google account - the one
he accesses via Tor and is referred to as his Tor account - to have
plausible deniability for things he says there. Now he is working to do the
same thing with his main account. Maybe Carroll read a report like this:
<http://cnnmon.ie/111QeT8> [money.com]. If so he missed the part where they
note if you are *really* hacked, which is rare, the hackers change your
password and lock you out. Why would they not?
-----
There's some new legislation that will help them deal with this
issue... which probably means more BS for us ;)
-----
Yes, new legislation to make sure Carroll does not have to deal with
"hackers" and "forgers" which do not even exist.
The funny part is, this happened shortly after someone in the Denver area,
likely Carroll, tried to guess *my* passwords and they did it from an
Internet café (Google tells you the IP and that can be used to trace back).
My guess: Carroll is the one who was working to guess my password and
figured this new lie of his was a good way to deny his own words even more
than he does with his Tor account *and* a way to make it so if I had talked
about him trying to hack my account he could say I was just copying his
comments. "Proving" I read his posts... which for now I am to see how absurd
his lies are. :)
Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:25 PM:
-----
The person who hacked into my Gmail acct. changed the wording on
this post. I've removed the others but Google asked me to leave
one standing for some odd reason.
-----
Here Carroll claims the hacker changed the wording on a post of his from
*before* he had even claimed he was hacked. So this hacker not only can
*post* for him but edit his old Usenet posts.
I call utter bullshit on this. Out and out lie from Carroll. And then
Carroll says Google asked him to not delete these "hacked" posts... this is
nonsense. Why would Google want him to leave forged posts in the public and
why would Google not just keep their own copy? Even Carroll notes it is for
"some odd reason" - yeah, because Carroll is telling stories that make *no*
sense at all.
Carroll is lying. Maybe there is some kernel of truth to his stories? Even
if so - and frankly it is unlikely he will ever show any evidence to back
his claims - the details he is posting are absurd.
Carroll, 4/11/2015 2:10 PM:
-----
And he's so high he thinks people still have to manually enter all
their passwords in whenever they want to use anything that's been
password protected ;)
-----
Nobody had suggested, hinted, implied, or said anything like what Carroll
says they did.
Maybe his story will be someone stole his laptop (or mobile device) and he
had his passwords saved? If so why not have the device deactivated remotely?
Why has he not said anything about this?
My guess: he realizes he screwed up when trying to guess my passwords and is
now building a story so he can say his computer was stolen and it was not
him. Or, LOL, maybe someone broke into his house and did it.
This unknown hacker knew he was obsessed with me and carried on acting like
him. Makes complete sense, eh?
Carroll, 4/12/2015 8:45 AM:
-----
The first one, that has since been deleted. My bad for having such
a feeble password on this account.
-----
Now he suggests it was merely from someone guessing his password - which
contradicts his above insinuations that it could have been from a saved
password on a device he had.
His story changes with the telling.
But as noted, when someone tries to guess your password Google has ways to
deal with it. I know - Carroll or someone in his neck of the woods recently
tried it with me.
Carroll, 4/12/2015 9:29 AM:
-----
The account in question here is a gmail account. Contrary to
Snit's delusions, I have no idea what a TOR account looks like but
it's a good bet it doesn't bear much of a resemblance to a gmail
account.
-----
Here Carroll plays stupid and pretends that if when he or anyone uses the
Tor browser *Carroll* pointed to this somehow changes the way the gmail
interface looks. Um, no. Worse it might do is make Google think you are in
another country and you would have to set it back to English. But the basic
look stays the same.
He is playing stupid and pretending to not know how the Tor browser he
pointed to works. Just idiotic of him.
-----
That idiocy aside, I love how Snit has repeatedly, for years,
feigned ignorance about gmail accounts, yet, he keeps disclosing
info that proves he knows about them. Some fools do stuff like
this when they believe people are as stupid as the fool needs them
to be ;)
-----
I do not think Google would allow you to edit your Usenet / groups posts but
I do not use it much and do not know for sure. Seems absurd that they
would... and others have now said they do not. But given how I do not use
Google Groups for posting why would I know the details of their system for
certain?
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:47 PM:
-----
Your obsession with me is insane. Working with Google I now have
proof you and ebot worked together to hack me. Clever. If I press
charges against you I have to also include her so you remain safe
for now.
Do not think this is over.
-----
No evidence of working with Google on this (and all out and out lies).
Carroll is making public threats based on lies.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:50 PM:
-----
I promised COLA your trolling days were over so you contacted ebot
and worked with her to hack my account. I might not be able to get
your ass handed to you in court over this but wait until your boss
at Yavapai College contacts you.
Maybe you should make that call first. Ask about your comments on
incest.
See if those can not be quoted.
-----
Direct lies and threats by Carroll.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:51 PM:
-----
You went too far this time Snit. We have trolled each other for
years but to contact ebot and get her to help you hack my account
was over a line.
-----
A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:52 PM:
-----
The above post is Snit hacking my account.
-----
A complete and utter lie... more false accusations from him.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:53 PM:
-----
You edited those posts when you hacked my account. Do not trust
anything from my fretwizzer account now that Snit and ebot have
access to it.
-----
More unsupported claims and attacks by Carroll.
Carroll, 4/16/2015 8:56 PM:
-----
Working with Google I now have proof Snit and ebot hacked the
account. Many of the older posts were edited. You can see evidence
of this by Snit pointing to "old" posts which have been modifid to
say I claimed I was his "personal newsgroup rapist", a phrase I
have never used.
-----
No evidence of Carroll working with Google. No evidence of any older posts
being edited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And all of that is excused that Carroll just made a little mistake! LOL!
Really... that is insane.
>> And why did you ask for a link to the originals if you will not accept them
>> as proof he was referencing which of his accounts he uses? How can you even
>> pretend that makes any sense.
>>
>> Comes down to you now know he uses both accounts. Fine.
>>
>>>> If so I will see if I can find them. If not, what is the value of looking
>>>> them up for you? Remember: you are asking me to do you a favor to help you
>>>> get educated about his dishonesty... I already know he is lying... and it
>>>> would be shocking to find you did not already know as well (I suspect you
>>>> are just trolling).
>>>
>>> The value is that if they are indeed from the fretwizzen account, then
>>> they are your posts.
>>
>> This is a direct lie from you.
>
> Fuck off.
Ah, you tell direct lies about me, or at best make accusations you cannot
support, and I call you out on them and you cry. Boo hoo for you.
I mean, really, why don't you grow up a little?
>>> And if you don't wish to find them for the benefit of our inspection, then
>>> the quotes have no value whatsoever. I don't care one way or another. This
>>> is your "evidence." Defending it is on you.
>>>
>> You already said that even on being shown absolute proof that Carroll, even
>> from his non-TOR account, references which of his accounts he is using is not
>> going to get you to admit to the truth.
>
> This is a direct lie from you.
Ah, so if you see that one of both of those posts where Carroll speaks of
which of his accounts he means you *will* accept he uses both. Cool!
If you can verify that I will do what I can to dig them up for you.
But I bet you will NOT stick to that, either. You will act like Trump or
Clinton when they are asked questions. You will dodge, change, move goal
posts, and just whine.
...
>> Now if you want to re-think your comment and admit that if one or both of
>> those quotes comes from Carroll's fretwizzer account this proves he uses
>> both I am happy to do you the favor of digging them up if I can.
>
> Dig them up, bitch. I already explained it.
For someone begging me to do him a favor you sure do not have good people
skills!
>> If not, well, then do your own work. Not worth spending time doing you a
>> favor when you have already admitted you will just continue to lie.
>
> So you can't back your lies.
You are making accusations of lying... but you have no support.
Meanwhile I have posted proof of my claims about Carroll using multiple
accounts. It is not like you really doubt it - you are just trolling and
begging for attention.
I am giving you that attention - you should be thanking me.
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 05:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350927 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/19/16, 8:58 PM, in article fhjgie802.qfa03@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>>>> But in case you care about evidence: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM: >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being, >>>>>>> don't trust anything from it. >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM: >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account >>>>>>> so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume >>>>>>> anything that's coming from it was written by me. >>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why would he repeatedly specify WHICH of his accounts if he only had one? >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you have message-ids for thoses posts by "Carroll"? No doubt they were >>>>>> made from your fretwizzen account. >>>>> >>>>> We can look them up. But if one or both are from the fretwizzer account >>>>> will >>>>> you admit he has been busted? >>>> >>>> No, because he could have been momentarily fooled by the similarity >>>> of email addresses. >>> >>> He could have been fooled into thinking he had to specify which of his >>> accounts he was referencing if he was being forged? WTF? >>> >>> Really, how does this make ANY sense to you? >> >> Easy, moron. If I saw a post by ow1@rooftop.invalid, and did not read >> it carefully to see the l/1 swap, I might be forgiven for posting a >> warning that my owl account had been hacked. Now if someone posting >> as ow1@rooftop invalid claimed "my owl account has been hacked," then >> you have the same situation that we have here if the post claiming >> "fretwizzer has been hacked" were made by fretwizzen. fretwizzer could >> be forgiven for thinking that his own fretwizzer account had been hacked >> if he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own. > > So he merely made a mistake when he went on and on and on about how his > account was hacked. Let us show just some of the posts from his "mistake": > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Carroll, 4/10/2015 4:04 PM: > ----- > Cute trick... To the guy who hacked my Google account. > ----- > No details. Seems to treat it as a joke. > > Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:02 PM: > ----- > Email Hacking Is A Serious Crime > ----- > No longer "cute"... now it is a serious crime. OK. > > Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:07 PM: > By now he is posting more links to how serious this crime against him is. > > Carroll, 4/10/2015 7:25 PM: > ----- > I didn't write that. > ----- > Now he is denying the posts from his own account. OK, he was "hacked". > Someone else posted this. Hard to hack a gmail account given how they use > two-step authentication and someone would need access to his phone or the > like... but at least POSSIBLE. > > Even then, though, if someone tries to guess your password Google alerts you > and lets you know what IP address and other info. I know because someone in > a Denver internet cafe has tried mine on several occasions. > > Google even forces you to change your password when this happens. Very hard > to hack these days. > > So already Carroll's story is unlikely. > > But let us accept it... someone somehow hacked his account bypassing the two > step verification. This person did not, however, change his password and > Carroll posted within an hour of the "hacker". Before that, unless he is an > idiot, he changed his password and the "hacker" was locked out. The "hacker" > got one post in. > > But Carroll could not leave his story there. > > Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM: > ----- > Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being, > don't trust anything from it. > ----- > Wait. What? Even after Carroll figured out this "hacker" who was too stupid > to change his password had broken into his account and Carroll *surely* must > have changed his own password, he is saying the "hacker" might still have > access. Might be able to break Google's two-step verification process > *again*. > > This is *very* unlikely... to the point of being unbelievable. > > Even worse for him: he notes which of his accounts he is claiming was hacked > - but in the past he has denied even using the other accounts! LOL! He > screwed up and made it very clear he has multiple accounts and felt the need > to note which one. He made the same mistake in the next quote where he > speaks of WHICH of his gmail accounts he is claiming was hacked. Oops! If he > only posts with one there would be no need to specify which one! > > He has completely screwed up in his game to pretend he posts with only one > gmail account. Completely idiotic of him, too! > > Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM: > ----- > Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account > so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume > anything that's coming from it was written by me. > ----- > He is still saying that he may have to kill the account instead of just > changing the password which anyone with half a brain would have already done > (and Google *forces* you to do when someone even tries to hack your > account... I know because someone in the Denver area has tried to hack mine > multiple times... likely Carroll but I have no proof of this). And he > specifies WHICH of his accounts! He is directly admitting he uses more than > one account! His claim of being "forged" with his second account is a lie. > Proved. > > Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:40 PM: > ----- > Looks like it's still being hacked despite me taking precautions, > I may have to kill the account. > ----- > What makes it look like its still being hacked? And what precautions other > than changing the two-step verification options does he need? And how would > someone bypass this... is he really on the NSA watch list? Seems you would > need someone at that level to be doing this. He watches too much TV where > they computer hackers spend thirty seconds and bypass all security. > > Just nonsense. > > Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:05 PM: > ----- > Apparently Google is having issues with their accounts to the > point where they're ready to undertake some additional measures. > ----- > But, of course, no evidence of this... and what measures? They already alert > users if someone else tries to guess your password and use two-step > authentication and even force you to make a new password if it seems someone > is trying to hack you. > ----- > They're now involving several federal agencies in things they > didn't bother with previously in an effort to deal with people who > hack into accounts. They've asked me to leave the account open. > ----- > So now Google is letting Carroll know how they are handling these things - > and asking him to leave a *hacked* account open... one someone can be using > to steal his identity. No. This does not pass the sniff test in any way. > Even if they were doing this for some bizarre sting operation, which is in > itself far fetched, they would have told Carroll to not make it public > information so the hacker would not know. > > Just insanity. His own story is so idiotic and full of idiotic claims it > simply cannot be true. Carroll uses his secondary Google account - the one > he accesses via Tor and is referred to as his Tor account - to have > plausible deniability for things he says there. Now he is working to do the > same thing with his main account. Maybe Carroll read a report like this: > <http://cnnmon.ie/111QeT8> [money.com]. If so he missed the part where they > note if you are *really* hacked, which is rare, the hackers change your > password and lock you out. Why would they not? > ----- > There's some new legislation that will help them deal with this > issue... which probably means more BS for us ;) > ----- > Yes, new legislation to make sure Carroll does not have to deal with > "hackers" and "forgers" which do not even exist. > > The funny part is, this happened shortly after someone in the Denver area, > likely Carroll, tried to guess *my* passwords and they did it from an > Internet café (Google tells you the IP and that can be used to trace back). > > My guess: Carroll is the one who was working to guess my password and > figured this new lie of his was a good way to deny his own words even more > than he does with his Tor account *and* a way to make it so if I had talked > about him trying to hack my account he could say I was just copying his > comments. "Proving" I read his posts... which for now I am to see how absurd > his lies are. :) > > Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:25 PM: > ----- > The person who hacked into my Gmail acct. changed the wording on > this post. I've removed the others but Google asked me to leave > one standing for some odd reason. > ----- > Here Carroll claims the hacker changed the wording on a post of his from > *before* he had even claimed he was hacked. So this hacker not only can > *post* for him but edit his old Usenet posts. > > I call utter bullshit on this. Out and out lie from Carroll. And then > Carroll says Google asked him to not delete these "hacked" posts... this is > nonsense. Why would Google want him to leave forged posts in the public and > why would Google not just keep their own copy? Even Carroll notes it is for > "some odd reason" - yeah, because Carroll is telling stories that make *no* > sense at all. > > Carroll is lying. Maybe there is some kernel of truth to his stories? Even > if so - and frankly it is unlikely he will ever show any evidence to back > his claims - the details he is posting are absurd. > > Carroll, 4/11/2015 2:10 PM: > ----- > And he's so high he thinks people still have to manually enter all > their passwords in whenever they want to use anything that's been > password protected ;) > ----- > Nobody had suggested, hinted, implied, or said anything like what Carroll > says they did. > > Maybe his story will be someone stole his laptop (or mobile device) and he > had his passwords saved? If so why not have the device deactivated remotely? > Why has he not said anything about this? > > My guess: he realizes he screwed up when trying to guess my passwords and is > now building a story so he can say his computer was stolen and it was not > him. Or, LOL, maybe someone broke into his house and did it. > > This unknown hacker knew he was obsessed with me and carried on acting like > him. Makes complete sense, eh? > > Carroll, 4/12/2015 8:45 AM: > ----- > The first one, that has since been deleted. My bad for having such > a feeble password on this account. > ----- > Now he suggests it was merely from someone guessing his password - which > contradicts his above insinuations that it could have been from a saved > password on a device he had. > > His story changes with the telling. > > But as noted, when someone tries to guess your password Google has ways to > deal with it. I know - Carroll or someone in his neck of the woods recently > tried it with me. > > Carroll, 4/12/2015 9:29 AM: > ----- > The account in question here is a gmail account. Contrary to > Snit's delusions, I have no idea what a TOR account looks like but > it's a good bet it doesn't bear much of a resemblance to a gmail > account. > ----- > Here Carroll plays stupid and pretends that if when he or anyone uses the > Tor browser *Carroll* pointed to this somehow changes the way the gmail > interface looks. Um, no. Worse it might do is make Google think you are in > another country and you would have to set it back to English. But the basic > look stays the same. > > He is playing stupid and pretending to not know how the Tor browser he > pointed to works. Just idiotic of him. > ----- > That idiocy aside, I love how Snit has repeatedly, for years, > feigned ignorance about gmail accounts, yet, he keeps disclosing > info that proves he knows about them. Some fools do stuff like > this when they believe people are as stupid as the fool needs them > to be ;) > ----- > I do not think Google would allow you to edit your Usenet / groups posts but > I do not use it much and do not know for sure. Seems absurd that they > would... and others have now said they do not. But given how I do not use > Google Groups for posting why would I know the details of their system for > certain? > > Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:47 PM: > ----- > Your obsession with me is insane. Working with Google I now have > proof you and ebot worked together to hack me. Clever. If I press > charges against you I have to also include her so you remain safe > for now. > > Do not think this is over. > ----- > > No evidence of working with Google on this (and all out and out lies). > Carroll is making public threats based on lies. > > Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:50 PM: > ----- > I promised COLA your trolling days were over so you contacted ebot > and worked with her to hack my account. I might not be able to get > your ass handed to you in court over this but wait until your boss > at Yavapai College contacts you. > > Maybe you should make that call first. Ask about your comments on > incest. > > See if those can not be quoted. > ----- > > Direct lies and threats by Carroll. > > Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:51 PM: > ----- > You went too far this time Snit. We have trolled each other for > years but to contact ebot and get her to help you hack my account > was over a line. > ----- > > A complete and utter lie from Carroll. > > Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:52 PM: > ----- > The above post is Snit hacking my account. > ----- > A complete and utter lie... more false accusations from him. > > Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:53 PM: > ----- > You edited those posts when you hacked my account. Do not trust > anything from my fretwizzer account now that Snit and ebot have > access to it. > ----- > More unsupported claims and attacks by Carroll. > > Carroll, 4/16/2015 8:56 PM: > ----- > Working with Google I now have proof Snit and ebot hacked the > account. Many of the older posts were edited. You can see evidence > of this by Snit pointing to "old" posts which have been modifid to > say I claimed I was his "personal newsgroup rapist", a phrase I > have never used. > ----- > > No evidence of Carroll working with Google. No evidence of any older posts > being edited. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > And all of that is excused that Carroll just made a little mistake! LOL! > > Really... that is insane. > Miles and miles of blah blah blah and not one Message-ID. Must have been fretwizzen posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 22:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33C5E2A.70638%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350928 |
On 4/19/16, 10:01 PM, in article nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/19/16, 8:58 PM, in article fhjgie802.qfa03@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>>>> But in case you care about evidence: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM: >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being, >>>>>>>> don't trust anything from it. >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM: >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account >>>>>>>> so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume >>>>>>>> anything that's coming from it was written by me. >>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would he repeatedly specify WHICH of his accounts if he only had >>>>>>>> one? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you have message-ids for thoses posts by "Carroll"? No doubt they >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> made from your fretwizzen account. >>>>>> >>>>>> We can look them up. But if one or both are from the fretwizzer account >>>>>> will >>>>>> you admit he has been busted? >>>>> >>>>> No, because he could have been momentarily fooled by the similarity >>>>> of email addresses. >>>> >>>> He could have been fooled into thinking he had to specify which of his >>>> accounts he was referencing if he was being forged? WTF? >>>> >>>> Really, how does this make ANY sense to you? >>> >>> Easy, moron. If I saw a post by ow1@rooftop.invalid, and did not read >>> it carefully to see the l/1 swap, I might be forgiven for posting a >>> warning that my owl account had been hacked. Now if someone posting >>> as ow1@rooftop invalid claimed "my owl account has been hacked," then >>> you have the same situation that we have here if the post claiming >>> "fretwizzer has been hacked" were made by fretwizzen. fretwizzer could >>> be forgiven for thinking that his own fretwizzer account had been hacked >>> if he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own. >> >> So he merely made a mistake when he went on and on and on about how his >> account was hacked. Let us show just some of the posts from his "mistake": >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Carroll, 4/10/2015 4:04 PM: >> ----- >> Cute trick... To the guy who hacked my Google account. >> ----- >> No details. Seems to treat it as a joke. >> >> Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:02 PM: >> ----- >> Email Hacking Is A Serious Crime >> ----- >> No longer "cute"... now it is a serious crime. OK. >> >> Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:07 PM: >> By now he is posting more links to how serious this crime against him is. >> >> Carroll, 4/10/2015 7:25 PM: >> ----- >> I didn't write that. >> ----- >> Now he is denying the posts from his own account. OK, he was "hacked". >> Someone else posted this. Hard to hack a gmail account given how they use >> two-step authentication and someone would need access to his phone or the >> like... but at least POSSIBLE. >> >> Even then, though, if someone tries to guess your password Google alerts you >> and lets you know what IP address and other info. I know because someone in >> a Denver internet cafe has tried mine on several occasions. >> >> Google even forces you to change your password when this happens. Very hard >> to hack these days. >> >> So already Carroll's story is unlikely. >> >> But let us accept it... someone somehow hacked his account bypassing the two >> step verification. This person did not, however, change his password and >> Carroll posted within an hour of the "hacker". Before that, unless he is an >> idiot, he changed his password and the "hacker" was locked out. The "hacker" >> got one post in. >> >> But Carroll could not leave his story there. >> >> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM: >> ----- >> Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being, >> don't trust anything from it. >> ----- >> Wait. What? Even after Carroll figured out this "hacker" who was too stupid >> to change his password had broken into his account and Carroll *surely* must >> have changed his own password, he is saying the "hacker" might still have >> access. Might be able to break Google's two-step verification process >> *again*. >> >> This is *very* unlikely... to the point of being unbelievable. >> >> Even worse for him: he notes which of his accounts he is claiming was hacked >> - but in the past he has denied even using the other accounts! LOL! He >> screwed up and made it very clear he has multiple accounts and felt the need >> to note which one. He made the same mistake in the next quote where he >> speaks of WHICH of his gmail accounts he is claiming was hacked. Oops! If he >> only posts with one there would be no need to specify which one! >> >> He has completely screwed up in his game to pretend he posts with only one >> gmail account. Completely idiotic of him, too! >> >> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM: >> ----- >> Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account >> so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume >> anything that's coming from it was written by me. >> ----- >> He is still saying that he may have to kill the account instead of just >> changing the password which anyone with half a brain would have already done >> (and Google *forces* you to do when someone even tries to hack your >> account... I know because someone in the Denver area has tried to hack mine >> multiple times... likely Carroll but I have no proof of this). And he >> specifies WHICH of his accounts! He is directly admitting he uses more than >> one account! His claim of being "forged" with his second account is a lie. >> Proved. >> >> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:40 PM: >> ----- >> Looks like it's still being hacked despite me taking precautions, >> I may have to kill the account. >> ----- >> What makes it look like its still being hacked? And what precautions other >> than changing the two-step verification options does he need? And how would >> someone bypass this... is he really on the NSA watch list? Seems you would >> need someone at that level to be doing this. He watches too much TV where >> they computer hackers spend thirty seconds and bypass all security. >> >> Just nonsense. >> >> Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:05 PM: >> ----- >> Apparently Google is having issues with their accounts to the >> point where they're ready to undertake some additional measures. >> ----- >> But, of course, no evidence of this... and what measures? They already alert >> users if someone else tries to guess your password and use two-step >> authentication and even force you to make a new password if it seems someone >> is trying to hack you. >> ----- >> They're now involving several federal agencies in things they >> didn't bother with previously in an effort to deal with people who >> hack into accounts. They've asked me to leave the account open. >> ----- >> So now Google is letting Carroll know how they are handling these things - >> and asking him to leave a *hacked* account open... one someone can be using >> to steal his identity. No. This does not pass the sniff test in any way. >> Even if they were doing this for some bizarre sting operation, which is in >> itself far fetched, they would have told Carroll to not make it public >> information so the hacker would not know. >> >> Just insanity. His own story is so idiotic and full of idiotic claims it >> simply cannot be true. Carroll uses his secondary Google account - the one >> he accesses via Tor and is referred to as his Tor account - to have >> plausible deniability for things he says there. Now he is working to do the >> same thing with his main account. Maybe Carroll read a report like this: >> <http://cnnmon.ie/111QeT8> [money.com]. If so he missed the part where they >> note if you are *really* hacked, which is rare, the hackers change your >> password and lock you out. Why would they not? >> ----- >> There's some new legislation that will help them deal with this >> issue... which probably means more BS for us ;) >> ----- >> Yes, new legislation to make sure Carroll does not have to deal with >> "hackers" and "forgers" which do not even exist. >> >> The funny part is, this happened shortly after someone in the Denver area, >> likely Carroll, tried to guess *my* passwords and they did it from an >> Internet café (Google tells you the IP and that can be used to trace back). >> >> My guess: Carroll is the one who was working to guess my password and >> figured this new lie of his was a good way to deny his own words even more >> than he does with his Tor account *and* a way to make it so if I had talked >> about him trying to hack my account he could say I was just copying his >> comments. "Proving" I read his posts... which for now I am to see how absurd >> his lies are. :) >> >> Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:25 PM: >> ----- >> The person who hacked into my Gmail acct. changed the wording on >> this post. I've removed the others but Google asked me to leave >> one standing for some odd reason. >> ----- >> Here Carroll claims the hacker changed the wording on a post of his from >> *before* he had even claimed he was hacked. So this hacker not only can >> *post* for him but edit his old Usenet posts. >> >> I call utter bullshit on this. Out and out lie from Carroll. And then >> Carroll says Google asked him to not delete these "hacked" posts... this is >> nonsense. Why would Google want him to leave forged posts in the public and >> why would Google not just keep their own copy? Even Carroll notes it is for >> "some odd reason" - yeah, because Carroll is telling stories that make *no* >> sense at all. >> >> Carroll is lying. Maybe there is some kernel of truth to his stories? Even >> if so - and frankly it is unlikely he will ever show any evidence to back >> his claims - the details he is posting are absurd. >> >> Carroll, 4/11/2015 2:10 PM: >> ----- >> And he's so high he thinks people still have to manually enter all >> their passwords in whenever they want to use anything that's been >> password protected ;) >> ----- >> Nobody had suggested, hinted, implied, or said anything like what Carroll >> says they did. >> >> Maybe his story will be someone stole his laptop (or mobile device) and he >> had his passwords saved? If so why not have the device deactivated remotely? >> Why has he not said anything about this? >> >> My guess: he realizes he screwed up when trying to guess my passwords and is >> now building a story so he can say his computer was stolen and it was not >> him. Or, LOL, maybe someone broke into his house and did it. >> >> This unknown hacker knew he was obsessed with me and carried on acting like >> him. Makes complete sense, eh? >> >> Carroll, 4/12/2015 8:45 AM: >> ----- >> The first one, that has since been deleted. My bad for having such >> a feeble password on this account. >> ----- >> Now he suggests it was merely from someone guessing his password - which >> contradicts his above insinuations that it could have been from a saved >> password on a device he had. >> >> His story changes with the telling. >> >> But as noted, when someone tries to guess your password Google has ways to >> deal with it. I know - Carroll or someone in his neck of the woods recently >> tried it with me. >> >> Carroll, 4/12/2015 9:29 AM: >> ----- >> The account in question here is a gmail account. Contrary to >> Snit's delusions, I have no idea what a TOR account looks like but >> it's a good bet it doesn't bear much of a resemblance to a gmail >> account. >> ----- >> Here Carroll plays stupid and pretends that if when he or anyone uses the >> Tor browser *Carroll* pointed to this somehow changes the way the gmail >> interface looks. Um, no. Worse it might do is make Google think you are in >> another country and you would have to set it back to English. But the basic >> look stays the same. >> >> He is playing stupid and pretending to not know how the Tor browser he >> pointed to works. Just idiotic of him. >> ----- >> That idiocy aside, I love how Snit has repeatedly, for years, >> feigned ignorance about gmail accounts, yet, he keeps disclosing >> info that proves he knows about them. Some fools do stuff like >> this when they believe people are as stupid as the fool needs them >> to be ;) >> ----- >> I do not think Google would allow you to edit your Usenet / groups posts but >> I do not use it much and do not know for sure. Seems absurd that they >> would... and others have now said they do not. But given how I do not use >> Google Groups for posting why would I know the details of their system for >> certain? >> >> Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:47 PM: >> ----- >> Your obsession with me is insane. Working with Google I now have >> proof you and ebot worked together to hack me. Clever. If I press >> charges against you I have to also include her so you remain safe >> for now. >> >> Do not think this is over. >> ----- >> >> No evidence of working with Google on this (and all out and out lies). >> Carroll is making public threats based on lies. >> >> Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:50 PM: >> ----- >> I promised COLA your trolling days were over so you contacted ebot >> and worked with her to hack my account. I might not be able to get >> your ass handed to you in court over this but wait until your boss >> at Yavapai College contacts you. >> >> Maybe you should make that call first. Ask about your comments on >> incest. >> >> See if those can not be quoted. >> ----- >> >> Direct lies and threats by Carroll. >> >> Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:51 PM: >> ----- >> You went too far this time Snit. We have trolled each other for >> years but to contact ebot and get her to help you hack my account >> was over a line. >> ----- >> >> A complete and utter lie from Carroll. >> >> Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:52 PM: >> ----- >> The above post is Snit hacking my account. >> ----- >> A complete and utter lie... more false accusations from him. >> >> Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:53 PM: >> ----- >> You edited those posts when you hacked my account. Do not trust >> anything from my fretwizzer account now that Snit and ebot have >> access to it. >> ----- >> More unsupported claims and attacks by Carroll. >> >> Carroll, 4/16/2015 8:56 PM: >> ----- >> Working with Google I now have proof Snit and ebot hacked the >> account. Many of the older posts were edited. You can see evidence >> of this by Snit pointing to "old" posts which have been modifid to >> say I claimed I was his "personal newsgroup rapist", a phrase I >> have never used. >> ----- >> >> No evidence of Carroll working with Google. No evidence of any older posts >> being edited. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> And all of that is excused that Carroll just made a little mistake! LOL! >> >> Really... that is insane. >> > > Miles and miles of blah blah blah and not one Message-ID. > Must have been fretwizzen posts. > Miles and miles of Carroll crying about how he was hacked... but you say he only claimed he was hacked because "he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." All of that... what you call "miles and miles" - because he made a mistake. LOL! Face it: your story is beyond idiotic. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 05:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <ngmvjud93.afjkie@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350929 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/19/16, 10:01 PM, in article nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > ... >> >> Miles and miles of blah blah blah and not one Message-ID. >> Must have been fretwizzen posts. >> > Miles and miles of Carroll crying about how he was hacked... but you say he > only claimed he was hacked because "he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and > mistook the address for his own." All of that... what you call "miles and > miles" - because he made a mistake. LOL! > > Face it: your story is beyond idiotic. > Since you have no Message-ID to support any of those supposed quotes, I'm just going to assume that none of it ever happened and you made it all up. Aren't you the guy who supposedly always backs up your claims with links? What happened this time? I guess it's hard to link to posts that never happened, eh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 22:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33C62D1.7063F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350933 |
On 4/19/16, 10:29 PM, in article ngmvjud93.afjkie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/19/16, 10:01 PM, in article nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> > ... > >>> >>> Miles and miles of blah blah blah and not one Message-ID. >>> Must have been fretwizzen posts. >>> >> Miles and miles of Carroll crying about how he was hacked... but you say he >> only claimed he was hacked because "he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and >> mistook the address for his own." All of that... what you call "miles and >> miles" - because he made a mistake. LOL! >> >> Face it: your story is beyond idiotic. >> > > Since you have no Message-ID to support any of those supposed > quotes, I'm just going to assume that none of it ever happened > and you made it all up. Aren't you the guy who supposedly always > backs up your claims with links? What happened this time? > I guess it's hard to link to posts that never happened, eh? > You are the one who claimed all of those were because "he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." Why not just admit you claim is beyond idiotic. You also admitted that even if shown message IDs you would keep insisting it was not proof Carroll is doing what he has already been proved to be doing. Now you want to pretend I OWE you more proof. Nope. You have had it proved to you. If you want to lie that is on you. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 05:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdie80.3f3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350934 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/19/16, 10:29 PM, in article ngmvjud93.afjkie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/19/16, 10:01 PM, in article nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >> ... >> >>>> >>>> Miles and miles of blah blah blah and not one Message-ID. >>>> Must have been fretwizzen posts. >>>> >>> Miles and miles of Carroll crying about how he was hacked... but you say he >>> only claimed he was hacked because "he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and >>> mistook the address for his own." All of that... what you call "miles and >>> miles" - because he made a mistake. LOL! >>> >>> Face it: your story is beyond idiotic. >>> >> >> Since you have no Message-ID to support any of those supposed >> quotes, I'm just going to assume that none of it ever happened >> and you made it all up. Aren't you the guy who supposedly always >> backs up your claims with links? What happened this time? >> I guess it's hard to link to posts that never happened, eh? >> > > You are the one who claimed all of those were because "he glanced at a post > by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." > Nope. You asked for an explanation of the reasoning that permits fretwizzer to post claiming this fretwizzer account has been hacked. As for "all of those" posts, I don't claim anything about them. So far you've provided no proof that they ever took place. > Why not just admit you claim is beyond idiotic. > > You also admitted that even if shown message IDs you would keep insisting it > was not proof Carroll is doing what he has already been proved to be doing. > > Now you want to pretend I OWE you more proof. Nope. You have had it proved > to you. If you want to lie that is on you. > I don't care what you do. None of it means anything to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 16:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <dnpnh3Ff3j2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #350936 |
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 05:52:18 +0000, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/19/16, 10:29 PM, in article ngmvjud93.afjkie@rooftop.invalid, >> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/19/16, 10:01 PM, in article nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid, >>>> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>> ... >>> >>> >>>>> Miles and miles of blah blah blah and not one Message-ID. >>>>> Must have been fretwizzen posts. >>>>> >>>> Miles and miles of Carroll crying about how he was hacked... but you >>>> say he only claimed he was hacked because "he glanced at a post by >>>> fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." All of that... what >>>> you call "miles and miles" - because he made a mistake. LOL! >>>> >>>> Face it: your story is beyond idiotic. >>>> >>>> >>> Since you have no Message-ID to support any of those supposed quotes, >>> I'm just going to assume that none of it ever happened and you made it >>> all up. Aren't you the guy who supposedly always backs up your claims >>> with links? What happened this time? >>> I guess it's hard to link to posts that never happened, eh? >>> >>> >> You are the one who claimed all of those were because "he glanced at a >> post by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." >> >> > Nope. You asked for an explanation of the reasoning that permits > fretwizzer to post claiming this fretwizzer account has been hacked. > As for "all of those" posts, I don't claim anything about them. > So far you've provided no proof that they ever took place. > >> Why not just admit you claim is beyond idiotic. >> >> You also admitted that even if shown message IDs you would keep >> insisting it was not proof Carroll is doing what he has already been >> proved to be doing. >> >> Now you want to pretend I OWE you more proof. Nope. You have had it >> proved to you. If you want to lie that is on you. >> >> > I don't care what you do. None of it means anything to me. Here's the MID's for your own forensic perusal. I've always thought this was a very strange incident. This is probably not a complete list, but here goes: April 10, 2015: Message-ID: <fc9f39fe-fb12-4465-ae81-5bd346a0f8cc@googlegroups.com> From: Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> Subject: Cute trick... Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:04:46 -0700 (PDT) To the guy who hacked my Google account. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Message-ID: <7a8ea789-75e0-4534-a85f-3930cfc6d15b@googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <a2c97e62-6e38-4581-a8e6-e10ae75adb55@googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <7fcdcc82-10d0-4a7a-b8f0-7d760106411c@googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <afce5850-0c58-4fe0-ab14-822b6c57c914@googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <4f766dd7-f214-4e37-8141-1add59ce9d73@googlegroups.com> From: Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> Subject: Hacked Gmail account Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 20:38:21 -0700 (PDT) Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume anything that's coming from it was written by me. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ April 11, 2015: Message-ID: <3890818f-c56f-45d8-b159-dc188a919365@googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <f9fcf9ae-9579-4f0f-a138-889c87270672@googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <0a13da5a-161e-4078-874e-0c8c303520af@googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <a86221f7-733b-4fce-be00-dd5d10131725@googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <6394f397-903e-4a96-a5a2-d641a85cfaae@googlegroups.com> From: Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Steven Petruzzellis / Steve Carroll busted lying about his multiple Google accounts again Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 14:10:52 -0700 (PDT) And he's so high he thinks people still have to manually enter all their pa= sswords in whenever they want to use anything that's been password protecte= d ;) BTW... how does Linux handle what keychain does in OSX? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 09:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <9729374f-7de3-48d9-8c42-26413d900da5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #351007 |
On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:02:47 AM UTC-6, vallor wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 05:52:18 +0000, owl wrote: > > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/19/16, 10:29 PM, in article ngmvjud93.afjkie@rooftop.invalid, > >> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/16, 10:01 PM, in article nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid, > >>>> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>> ... > >>> > >>> > >>>>> Miles and miles of blah blah blah and not one Message-ID. > >>>>> Must have been fretwizzen posts. > >>>>> > >>>> Miles and miles of Carroll crying about how he was hacked... but you > >>>> say he only claimed he was hacked because "he glanced at a post by > >>>> fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." All of that... what > >>>> you call "miles and miles" - because he made a mistake. LOL! > >>>> > >>>> Face it: your story is beyond idiotic. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Since you have no Message-ID to support any of those supposed quotes, > >>> I'm just going to assume that none of it ever happened and you made it > >>> all up. Aren't you the guy who supposedly always backs up your claims > >>> with links? What happened this time? > >>> I guess it's hard to link to posts that never happened, eh? > >>> > >>> > >> You are the one who claimed all of those were because "he glanced at a > >> post by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." > >> > >> > > Nope. You asked for an explanation of the reasoning that permits > > fretwizzer to post claiming this fretwizzer account has been hacked. > > As for "all of those" posts, I don't claim anything about them. > > So far you've provided no proof that they ever took place. > > > >> Why not just admit you claim is beyond idiotic. > >> > >> You also admitted that even if shown message IDs you would keep > >> insisting it was not proof Carroll is doing what he has already been > >> proved to be doing. > >> > >> Now you want to pretend I OWE you more proof. Nope. You have had it > >> proved to you. If you want to lie that is on you. > >> > >> > > I don't care what you do. None of it means anything to me. > > Here's the MID's for your own forensic perusal. I've always thought this > was a very strange incident. I agree but it happened. Unlike what Snit lies about, I was not using two step at that point and I had a rather weak password so I could remember it. I regularly (*many* times a day) dump my entire cache and the passwords go with it, so I needed something easy to remember. I now use only Safari to access Google Groups and I don't dump the cache ( I don't use it for web dev stuff other than to look at a web page after it's been finished).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 10:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33D0D11.706F8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #351007 |
On 4/20/16, 9:02 AM, in article dnpnh3Ff3j2U1@mid.individual.net, "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 05:52:18 +0000, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/19/16, 10:29 PM, in article ngmvjud93.afjkie@rooftop.invalid, >>> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/19/16, 10:01 PM, in article nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid, >>>>> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Miles and miles of blah blah blah and not one Message-ID. >>>>>> Must have been fretwizzen posts. >>>>>> >>>>> Miles and miles of Carroll crying about how he was hacked... but you >>>>> say he only claimed he was hacked because "he glanced at a post by >>>>> fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." All of that... what >>>>> you call "miles and miles" - because he made a mistake. LOL! >>>>> >>>>> Face it: your story is beyond idiotic. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Since you have no Message-ID to support any of those supposed quotes, >>>> I'm just going to assume that none of it ever happened and you made it >>>> all up. Aren't you the guy who supposedly always backs up your claims >>>> with links? What happened this time? >>>> I guess it's hard to link to posts that never happened, eh? >>>> >>>> >>> You are the one who claimed all of those were because "he glanced at a >>> post by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." >>> >>> >> Nope. You asked for an explanation of the reasoning that permits >> fretwizzer to post claiming this fretwizzer account has been hacked. >> As for "all of those" posts, I don't claim anything about them. >> So far you've provided no proof that they ever took place. >> >>> Why not just admit you claim is beyond idiotic. >>> >>> You also admitted that even if shown message IDs you would keep >>> insisting it was not proof Carroll is doing what he has already been >>> proved to be doing. >>> >>> Now you want to pretend I OWE you more proof. Nope. You have had it >>> proved to you. If you want to lie that is on you. >>> >>> >> I don't care what you do. None of it means anything to me. > > Here's the MID's for your own forensic perusal. I've always thought this > was a very strange incident. > > This is probably not a complete list, but here goes: > > April 10, 2015: > > Message-ID: <fc9f39fe-fb12-4465-ae81-5bd346a0f8cc@googlegroups.com> > From: Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> > Subject: Cute trick... > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:04:46 -0700 (PDT) > > To the guy who hacked my Google account. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > Message-ID: <7a8ea789-75e0-4534-a85f-3930cfc6d15b@googlegroups.com> > Message-ID: <a2c97e62-6e38-4581-a8e6-e10ae75adb55@googlegroups.com> > Message-ID: <7fcdcc82-10d0-4a7a-b8f0-7d760106411c@googlegroups.com> > Message-ID: <afce5850-0c58-4fe0-ab14-822b6c57c914@googlegroups.com> > > Message-ID: <4f766dd7-f214-4e37-8141-1add59ce9d73@googlegroups.com> > From: Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> > Subject: Hacked Gmail account > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 20:38:21 -0700 (PDT) > > Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account so I > may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume anything that's > coming from it was written by me. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > April 11, 2015: > > Message-ID: <3890818f-c56f-45d8-b159-dc188a919365@googlegroups.com> > Message-ID: <f9fcf9ae-9579-4f0f-a138-889c87270672@googlegroups.com> > Message-ID: <0a13da5a-161e-4078-874e-0c8c303520af@googlegroups.com> > Message-ID: <a86221f7-733b-4fce-be00-dd5d10131725@googlegroups.com> > > Message-ID: <6394f397-903e-4a96-a5a2-d641a85cfaae@googlegroups.com> > From: Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Steven Petruzzellis / Steve Carroll busted lying about his > multiple Google accounts again > Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 14:10:52 -0700 (PDT) > And he's so high he thinks people still have to manually enter all their > pa= > sswords in whenever they want to use anything that's been password > protecte= > d ;) > > BTW... how does Linux handle what keychain does in OSX? > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Carroll has blown it so many times with his multiple accounts and claims of being "hacked" and "forged", and the evidence has been posted so many times, that anyone who has paid any attention and still claims he is not lying about it is simply trolling. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 10:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33D0DD4.706FB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350936 |
On 4/19/16, 10:52 PM, in article ghjdie80.3f3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/19/16, 10:29 PM, in article ngmvjud93.afjkie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/19/16, 10:01 PM, in article nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>> ... >>> >>>>> >>>>> Miles and miles of blah blah blah and not one Message-ID. >>>>> Must have been fretwizzen posts. >>>>> >>>> Miles and miles of Carroll crying about how he was hacked... but you say he >>>> only claimed he was hacked because "he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and >>>> mistook the address for his own." All of that... what you call "miles and >>>> miles" - because he made a mistake. LOL! >>>> >>>> Face it: your story is beyond idiotic. >>>> >>> >>> Since you have no Message-ID to support any of those supposed >>> quotes, I'm just going to assume that none of it ever happened >>> and you made it all up. Aren't you the guy who supposedly always >>> backs up your claims with links? What happened this time? >>> I guess it's hard to link to posts that never happened, eh? >>> >> >> You are the one who claimed all of those were because "he glanced at a post >> by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." > > Nope. That is a direct quote from you. > You asked for an explanation of the reasoning that permits > fretwizzer to post claiming this fretwizzer account has been hacked. I know the reason: he lies and plays victim. I need NOTHNG from you to understand how pathetic and dishonest he is. > As for "all of those" posts, I don't claim anything about them. They are absolute proof of his lying about being hacked. What you say about them is of no importance. > So far you've provided no proof that they ever took place. What you believe is of no importance. >> Why not just admit you claim is beyond idiotic. >> >> You also admitted that even if shown message IDs you would keep insisting it >> was not proof Carroll is doing what he has already been proved to be doing. >> >> Now you want to pretend I OWE you more proof. Nope. You have had it proved >> to you. If you want to lie that is on you. > > I don't care what you do. None of it means anything to me. So stop begging. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 11:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <0f542cce-6fa3-48e1-bce8-96287697cc8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #351026 |
On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 11:43:40 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/19/16, 10:52 PM, in article ghjdie80.3f3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/19/16, 10:29 PM, in article ngmvjud93.afjkie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> On 4/19/16, 10:01 PM, in article nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>> ... > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Miles and miles of blah blah blah and not one Message-ID. > >>>>> Must have been fretwizzen posts. > >>>>> > >>>> Miles and miles of Carroll crying about how he was hacked... but you say he > >>>> only claimed he was hacked because "he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and > >>>> mistook the address for his own." All of that... what you call "miles and > >>>> miles" - because he made a mistake. LOL! > >>>> > >>>> Face it: your story is beyond idiotic. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Since you have no Message-ID to support any of those supposed > >>> quotes, I'm just going to assume that none of it ever happened > >>> and you made it all up. Aren't you the guy who supposedly always > >>> backs up your claims with links? What happened this time? > >>> I guess it's hard to link to posts that never happened, eh? > >>> > >> > >> You are the one who claimed all of those were because "he glanced at a post > >> by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." > > > > Nope. > > That is a direct quote from you. > > > You asked for an explanation of the reasoning that permits > > fretwizzer to post claiming this fretwizzer account has been hacked. > > I know the reason: he lies and plays victim. How am I playing victim with this when you are the only person that ever brings it up? Pretty weird considering you're the guy who claimed things like forging posting IDs is not a big or even a small deal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 06:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-bbd176be44c6de7bc125c60cdee58d28@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #350888 |
In article <hgjjfu830a.j3ifa@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:
> > Snit:
> > But in case you care about
> > evidence:
>
> > Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM:
> > Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being,
> > don't trust anything from it.
>
> > Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM:
> > Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account
> > so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume
> > anything that's coming from it was written by me.
>
> > Why would he repeatedly specify WHICH of his accounts if he only
> > had one?
>
> Do you have message-ids for thoses posts by "Carroll"? No doubt they
> were made from your fretwizzen account.
The first is Message-ID:
<afce5850-0c58-4fe0-ab14-822b6c57c914@googlegroups.com>
and the second is Message-ID:
<4f766dd7-f214-4e37-8141-1add59ce9d73@googlegroups.com>
Snit has propagated it with his forged fretwizzen account on several
occasions, like here:
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.126.110.113
Message-ID: <bbbac204-430e-41fb-bd96-73fd3c2fc89f@googlegroups.com>
From: Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com>
"Working with Google I now have proof Snit and ebot hacked the
account. Many of the older posts were edited. You can see evidence
of this by Snit pointing to "old" posts which have been modifid to
say I claimed I was his "personal newsgroup rapist", a phrase I
have never used."
But this is what the actual Steve Carroll had to say about it, using his
fretwizzer account posting from his IP in Colorado:
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:1:a680:1ac7:3841:4a5a:8c3d:168c
Message-ID: <e6f62f14-41e6-42aa-a33b-7e2456f95da0@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 19:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
"I have one gmail account that I use to post to usenet with
('fretwizzer')... that I have *ever* only posted to usenet with. I
recently obtained another gmail acct that I use for testing of web
related things but it doesn't contain fret-anything in the handle.
I had just found out I'd been hacked when I wrote what's quoted
above.
For some strange reason things like forgeries and hacking are on
your mind when you've been forged or hacked into. Go figure ;) I
specified it to differentiate it from the 'fretwizzen' forgeries
(that still appear in COLA)... I was pointing out that, for the
time being, don't trust the 'fretwizzer' posts, either. I don't
expect liars like Snit to think of this sort of thing because he
lives where the lies live, but I was merely trying to extend a
common courtesy. For his part, Snit is trying to get the light
pointing elsewhere."
--
Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 16:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33ABC40.7049A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350749 |
On 4/18/16, 2:38 PM, in article sandman-5935864366c89ff5b0577a25f93f929d@individual.net, "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > In article <340e1ab6-de01-4d24-9934-d69478bec32e@googlegroups.com>, Snit > wrote: > >> [1449] Nah... take a look, you unquestionably replied (217) to me: > >> [1450] Directly addressing my comment in reply to a post I had written is a >> [1450] pretty good indicator that I should 'leap' to that assumption ;) > >> [1451] Make up your mind, you either recognize you responded to me or you >> [1451] don't. If I want this level of incoherency I can get it from Snit. >> [1451] Raise the bar, man. LOL! > > [X] Forging posts and material (http://tinyurl.com/nuadwmn) > > > > Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09): > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > troll 0 89 | lying/lie 1 217 | incest 0 2 > sex 0 0 | honorable 0 7 | honest 0 32 > run 0 6 | css 0 13 | tilde 0 0 > Why do you keep attributing Carroll's trolling to me? Why do you insist on trolling COLA at all? -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 05:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Snit digest 207 / 2016-04-19 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-daf653418a84bd8f4beb95a7fd0eae1e@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #350766 |
In article <D33ABC40.7049A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote: > [1453] Why do you keep attributing Carroll's trolling (90) to me? Why do > [1453] you insist on trolling (91) COLA at all? [X] Unsubstantiated accusations (http://tinyurl.com/pojrtxt) [X] Lying (http://tinyurl.com/ncvfhl2) [X] Diversion (http://tinyurl.com/o63ee7l) Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- troll 2 91 | lying/lie 0 217 | incest 0 2 sex 0 0 | honorable 0 7 | honest 0 32 run 0 6 | css 0 13 | tilde 0 0 -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web