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 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 16:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-88d314ef8094c6dc9e554aec5db88a7a@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #350846 |
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. -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 09:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <8e6085fa-80a2-437c-b441-049526fa4d96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350863 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 10:37:30 AM UTC-6, Sandman 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. I know, he's done it for awhile. Weird, isn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 16:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-5c0f470f80508589cb9a577bd3c605fa@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #350865 |
In article <8e6085fa-80a2-437c-b441-049526fa4d96@googlegroups.com>, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > > > > Steve Carroll (Snit): > > > > > > > [1449] Nah... take a look, you unquestionably replied > > > > > > > [1449] (217) to me: Directly addressing my comment in > > > > > > > [1449] reply to a post I had written is a pretty good > > > > > > > [1449] indicator that I should 'leap' to that assumption > > > > > > > [1449] ;) Make up your mind, you either recognize you > > > > > > > [1449] responded to me or you [1449] don't. If I want > > > > > > > [1449] this level of incoherency I can get it from Snit. > > > > > > > [1449] Raise the bar, man. LOL! > > > > > > > > > > > Steve Carroll: > > > > > That's my post. > > > > > > > > Sandman: > > > > Look again... :) > > > > > > Steve Carroll: > > > 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 ;) > > > > Sandman: > > Yeah, and the tactic is to copy something you actually wrote and > > then repost it with his forged account to spread the confusion. > > I know, he's done it for awhile. Weird, isn't it? I have my news client set up to mark his sock puppets accordingly, I'll make sure to set my quote attribution correctly as well (see above). -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 12:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <95pchb9dlfq85lkac2dpqchlhl2tm8am3q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #350863 |
Sandman wrote: > 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. What a *kook*. -- "chrisv claims I tell lies but cannot quote any" - some thing, lying shamelessly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 10:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <5c477ab0-16d8-48f9-95c3-d18b6727f931@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350871 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 11:04:59 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > Sandman wrote: > > > 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. > > What a *kook*. How dare you call a "busy teacher" a kook! ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 13:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33BDE64.70598%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350863 |
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. -- * 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 21:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <ghjvmbkd093.aji@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350878 |
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 B) To implicate you, even though doing so muddies the waters and risks discrediting himself. Makes sense to me. Not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 21:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-e09865bbcc1d6be74f8173d56038625b@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #350880 |
In article <ghjvmbkd093.aji@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote: > Because Carroll would forge himself... > A) To discredit himself > B) To implicate you, even though doing so muddies the waters > and risks discrediting himself. > Makes sense to me. Not. I believe Snit's tactic here is just to create confusion. I.e. he posts new threads as Steve Carroll about Snit, to make it appear that cola is so desperate about Snit that new threads are created now and then. Usually this happens when there hasn't been any Snit-related material for a while. What I don't understand is how his logic is operating (which isn't new) when it comes to justifying this as something Steve is doing... Basically Snit's claim is that Steve Carroll posts under the name Steve Carroll, and for some reason Steve Carroll has the need to post using another account at times... using the name... Steve Carroll... and with one letter changed in his email address. I'm note sure what this is supposed to achieve in Snit's rather bizarre logic. Because the funny part is that Snit keeps his forged Steve articles as closely as possible to what Steve might actually post. At least ambiguously enough. -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 22:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <ghfjdi03ra.ar3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350881 |
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > In article <ghjvmbkd093.aji@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote: > >> Because Carroll would forge himself... > >> A) To discredit himself > >> B) To implicate you, even though doing so muddies the waters >> and risks discrediting himself. > >> Makes sense to me. Not. > > I believe Snit's tactic here is just to create confusion. I.e. he posts new > threads as Steve Carroll about Snit, to make it appear that cola is so > desperate about Snit that new threads are created now and then. Usually this > happens when there hasn't been any Snit-related material for a while. > > What I don't understand is how his logic is operating (which isn't new) when it > comes to justifying this as something Steve is doing... Basically Snit's claim > is that Steve Carroll posts under the name Steve Carroll, and for some reason > Steve Carroll has the need to post using another account at times... using the > name... Steve Carroll... and with one letter changed in his email address. I'm > note sure what this is supposed to achieve in Snit's rather bizarre logic. > > Because the funny part is that Snit keeps his forged Steve articles as closely > as possible to what Steve might actually post. At least ambiguously enough. > What Snit is doing is very simple. He's forging Steve. When called on the forgeries, he says that it is Steve forging himself. He knows that google truncates the email address, so that it won't be clear from a search whether it's a fretwizzer (Steve) or fretwizzen (Snit) post. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/LSBFYbzYm1g/7F6glDclLgAJ <quote> From: Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> </quote> It's a special kind of pathetic, but then I don't pretend to understand insanity. I think that all people with this kind of mental illness should be exterminated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 16:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33C0B73.705D9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350887 |
On 4/19/16, 3:03 PM, in article ghfjdi03ra.ar3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: >> In article <ghjvmbkd093.aji@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote: >> >>> Because Carroll would forge himself... >> >>> A) To discredit himself >> >>> B) To implicate you, even though doing so muddies the waters >>> and risks discrediting himself. >> >>> Makes sense to me. Not. >> >> I believe Snit's tactic here is just to create confusion. I.e. he posts new >> threads as Steve Carroll about Snit, to make it appear that cola is so >> desperate about Snit that new threads are created now and then. Usually this >> happens when there hasn't been any Snit-related material for a while. >> >> What I don't understand is how his logic is operating (which isn't new) when >> it >> comes to justifying this as something Steve is doing... Basically Snit's >> claim >> is that Steve Carroll posts under the name Steve Carroll, and for some reason >> Steve Carroll has the need to post using another account at times... using >> the >> name... Steve Carroll... and with one letter changed in his email address. >> I'm >> note sure what this is supposed to achieve in Snit's rather bizarre logic. >> >> Because the funny part is that Snit keeps his forged Steve articles as >> closely >> as possible to what Steve might actually post. At least ambiguously enough. >> > > What Snit is doing is very simple. He's forging Steve. When called > on the forgeries, he says that it is Steve forging himself. He knows > that google truncates the email address, so that it won't be clear from > a search whether it's a fretwizzer (Steve) or fretwizzen (Snit) post. > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/LSBFYbzYm1g/ > 7F6glDclLgAJ > <quote> > From: Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> > </quote> > > It's a special kind of pathetic, but then I don't pretend to understand > insanity. I think that all people with this kind of mental illness should > be exterminated. This is the type of unsupported accusation which reduces your credibility. -- * 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 | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 17:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <m4OdnWbhm8KwVYvKnZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #350899 |
On 2016-04-19, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > This is the type of unsupported accusation which reduces your credibility. None of you have any credibility. Snit, I'm not going to bother posting messages you have posted in the past. Take this for whatever it is worth. If it is worthless to you, then so it is. I've watched you argue with others. When they don't want to follow you down some rabbit hole you say they are running... There is no high ground with you. Once you lie it's all over in my opinion. I watched Sandman and this other fellow do the same thing. Sandman in particular. You guys are all part of the same clown show. The minute you lied or tried to paint someone in a negative way you already blew all your credibility. When you lie in court what happens to your testimony? It is tainted is it not? No one can trust a liar because...well...You're a liar. None of you have a reputation to protect... You're all just trolls that don't belong here. You guys are all bottom of the barrel scum. You with your bullshit about just wanting to talk about technology. From your own lens perhaps. Your own warped point of view. You like Macs so much, go to a Mac group and talk all day long about the virtues of the Mac. And please, don't waste my time with your horse shit about using all the platforms. I've been using the PC since DOS. Apple since 1977. And UNIX since 1994 with AT&T UNIX system V r4.2, then Solaris and now Linux. I'm a user of all three. How many computers do you own? One or two Macs? I personally own several Macs, several Windows machines and several Linux and BSD machines. I'm not screwing around with a VM to check out Linux so I can make claims against it. I actually use it. I write some code in it. I compile in it. It is my daily driver. You glance at it. Enough to find any flaw you can so you can make a bigger ass of yourself. You're not a user, you're a loser. Sorry to be picking on you. I just had to laugh when I read your post about credibility. As if you have any. As if most of you turds have ANY credibility at all. You each have an agenda here. You don't particularly care for Linux. So I have to wonder, why the fuck are here... And I know your idiotic answers. That's why it is so easy to call you all lairs. Because the first answer you wish to speak, is itself a lie. You're trolling assholes. Sandman, Carroll or whatever the hell your name is, is equally full of shit. Refusing to acknowledge being wrong. Keep lying over and over again about what was said and not said. Pretty much the same shit Snit does. Silver, you hate liars, but that's what you do. You don't care if someone on your side of the fence lies. If it is a Linux lie, all hell breaks loose. A lie is a lie is a lie. It doesn't matter what side of the fence it stems from. What you're doing is simply looking to blame someone for your anger. There is nothing anyone here can do about your anger. It's your problem and you should deal with it in a socially acceptable way. It's your problem. DFS, your so-called superior VB Script got eating alive by a Perl script. Funny how you just come out making claims about how superior it is without having even tested anything else. Luckily Sandman was willing to try it with Perl. Anyway, you're all interlopers as far as I am concerned. To hear one of speak of credibility is insane. None of you belong here in the first place. None of you have any credibility at all. -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 20:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33C4733.7061B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350908 |
On 4/19/16, 5:07 PM, in article m4OdnWbhm8KwVYvKnZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny" <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote: > On 2016-04-19, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> This is the type of unsupported accusation which reduces your credibility. > > None of you have any credibility. Snit, I'm not going to bother posting > messages you have posted in the past. Take this for whatever it is > worth. If it is worthless to you, then so it is. I've watched you argue > with others. When they don't want to follow you down some rabbit hole > you say they are running... There is no high ground with you. Once you > lie it's all over in my opinion. Hence why I rarely if ever lie. Look at Carroll: he has spent literally a decade and more of his life seeking to find an example of me lying. His big accomplishment: to fail, give up, and posts quotes ABOUT me, many from his own socks. > I watched Sandman and this other fellow do the same thing. Sandman in > particular. You guys are all part of the same clown show. The minute you > lied or tried to paint someone in a negative way you already blew all > your credibility. > > When you lie in court what happens to your testimony? It is tainted is > it not? No one can trust a liar because...well...You're a liar. What do you think I have lied about? Be specific. > None of you have a reputation to protect... You're all just trolls that > don't belong here. You guys are all bottom of the barrel scum. You with > your bullshit about just wanting to talk about technology. From your > own lens perhaps. Your own warped point of view. > > You like Macs so much, go to a Mac group and talk all day long about the > virtues of the Mac. I like OS X, Windows, and Linux. I use all three (though Desktop Linux less than I used to... and I post here less). > And please, don't waste my time with your horse shit about using all the > platforms. Why not remind you that I use all three? You seemed to have forgotten. > I've been using the PC since DOS. As have I. > Apple since 1977. Me: about 1984 or so. > And UNIX since 1994 with AT&T UNIX system V r4.2, then Solaris and now Linux. I started using UNIX in 1987. Actually started using DOS, MacOS, and UNIX all on the same day in 1987... though I had used Apple IIe computers before then. > I'm a user of all three. How many computers do you own? One or two Macs? I > personally own several Macs, several Windows machines and several Linux and > BSD machines. I'm not screwing around with a VM to check out Linux so I can > make claims against it. I actually use it. I write some code in it. I compile > in it. It is my daily driver. You glance at it. Enough to find any flaw you > can so you can make a bigger ass of yourself. You're not a user, you're a > loser. What I own is not relevant. > Sorry to be picking on you. I am used to those who troll targeting me. Whatever. > I just had to laugh when I read your post about credibility. As if you have > any. As if most of you turds have ANY credibility at all. You each have an > agenda here. You don't particularly care for Linux. Yet I note it is wonderful and world changing (for the better). > So I have to wonder, why > the fuck are here... And I know your idiotic answers. That's why it is so easy > to call you all lairs. Because the first answer you wish to speak, is itself a > lie. You're trolling assholes. If you think truth is a lie then that is your issue, not mine. > Sandman, Carroll or whatever the hell your name is, is equally full of shit. > Refusing to acknowledge being wrong. Keep lying over and over again about what > was said and not said. Pretty much the same shit Snit does. Note you have no example of me doing so. Nor will you. Not a question - a simple fact. > Silver, you hate liars, but that's what you do. You don't care if someone on > your side of the fence lies. If it is a Linux lie, all hell breaks loose. A > lie is a lie is a lie. It doesn't matter what side of the fence it stems from. > What you're doing is simply looking to blame someone for your anger. There is > nothing anyone here can do about your anger. It's your problem and you should > deal with it in a socially acceptable way. It's your problem. > > DFS, your so-called superior VB Script got eating alive by a Perl script. > Funny how you just come out making claims about how superior it is without > having even tested anything else. Luckily Sandman was willing to try it with > Perl. > > Anyway, you're all interlopers as far as I am concerned. To hear one of speak > of credibility is insane. None of you belong here in the first place. None of > you have any credibility 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 | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 10:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <nf8305$56c$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350908 |
On 4/19/2016 8:07 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: > DFS, your so-called superior VB Script got eating alive by a Perl > script. Funny how you just come out making claims about how superior it > is without having even tested anything else. Luckily Sandman was willing > to try it with Perl. But it didn't get eaten alive by Fabian's script, and that was the issue. It's also superior because it's easily understood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 12:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <nf8bej$6bj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350908 |
On 4/19/2016 8:07 PM, Marek Novotny wrote: > Anyway, you're all interlopers as far as I am concerned. To hear one > of speak of credibility is insane. None of you belong here in the > first place. None of you have any credibility at all. Like most Linux "advocates" on cola, you also lack credibility. <quote> It's a good direction for them (MS). I think they had to do this. They are in a tricky spot. And that to me is the nature of their business. It's difficult to sell CALs when I can just install Linux. And that point really hits home when a tech can show it actually working. And we're free to do so. There is no restriction on me. I don't have to ask anyone's permission to create a Linux server. I can do so at any time and say, hey, look at this. We can use this at no cost. Want to use this? And just like that I took revenue away from Microsoft. I just don't need them. </quote> Various statements of pure lies or idiocy: * "I just don't need them". Other side of your mouth - in the same post: "I personally own... several Windows machines" * MS "had to do" Bash on Windows? Ridiculous. They did it as a gesture to developers, which is a tiny percent of Windows users. * MS is having a hard time selling CALs (for Windows Server)? Horseshit "Our server products revenue grew $1.1 billion or 7%, primarily driven by higher premium mix of Microsoft SQL Server, Windows Server, and System Center." Commercial Licensing Q415 https://www.microsoft.com/Investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/SegmentResults/S4/FY15/Q4/Performance.aspx "Server products and cloud services revenue grew 10% in constant currency." Q216 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2016-Q2/press-release-webcast Also see the table 'SEGMENT REVENUE AND OPERATING INCOME' * "I took revenue away from Microsoft." Not unless you replaced an existing Windows Server and terminated a support contract. Neither of which you did. You talk out your ass like every Linux advocate who ever shat out another unused distro.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 18:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <nf6b62$3d3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350881 |
On 19 Apr 2016 21:39:18 GMT, Sandman wrote: > In article <ghjvmbkd093.aji@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote: > >> Because Carroll would forge himself... > >> A) To discredit himself > >> B) To implicate you, even though doing so muddies the waters >> and risks discrediting himself. > >> Makes sense to me. Not. > > I believe Snit's tactic here is just to create confusion. Your tactic is to just make things up. For example in another post you accuse me of being snit and give a list of other names you accuse of being snit because you claim all, including that post, originate from the same IP. So what might that IP be?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 16:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <D33C0A21.705D3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350892 |
On 4/19/16, 3:27 PM, in article nf6b62$3d3$1@dont-email.me, "Richard King" <kingsley651@webby.org> wrote: > On 19 Apr 2016 21:39:18 GMT, Sandman wrote: > >> In article <ghjvmbkd093.aji@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote: >> >>> Because Carroll would forge himself... >> >>> A) To discredit himself >> >>> B) To implicate you, even though doing so muddies the waters >>> and risks discrediting himself. >> >>> Makes sense to me. Not. >> >> I believe Snit's tactic here is just to create confusion. > > Your tactic is to just make things up. For example in another post you > accuse me of being snit and give a list of other names you accuse of > being snit because you claim all, including that post, originate from > the same IP. > So what might that IP be? Sandman is not so technically incompetent that he does not understand multiple people can use the same proxy... he is merely pretending to be this ignorant to help boost Carroll's trolling. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-19 19:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <nf6f0s$dli$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350896 |
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:15:29 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 4/19/16, 3:27 PM, in article nf6b62$3d3$1@dont-email.me, "Richard King" > <kingsley651@webby.org> wrote: > >> On 19 Apr 2016 21:39:18 GMT, Sandman wrote: >> >>> In article <ghjvmbkd093.aji@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote: >>> >>>> Because Carroll would forge himself... >>> >>>> A) To discredit himself >>> >>>> B) To implicate you, even though doing so muddies the waters >>>> and risks discrediting himself. >>> >>>> Makes sense to me. Not. >>> >>> I believe Snit's tactic here is just to create confusion. >> >> Your tactic is to just make things up. For example in another post you >> accuse me of being snit and give a list of other names you accuse of >> being snit because you claim all, including that post, originate from >> the same IP. >> So what might that IP be? > > Sandman is not so technically incompetent that he does not understand > multiple people can use the same proxy... he is merely pretending to be this > ignorant to help boost Carroll's trolling. See my post in the other thread. -- RK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 03:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <ghjdie9.jiae@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350892 |
Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> wrote: > On 19 Apr 2016 21:39:18 GMT, Sandman wrote: > >> In article <ghjvmbkd093.aji@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote: >> >>> Because Carroll would forge himself... >> >>> A) To discredit himself >> >>> B) To implicate you, even though doing so muddies the waters >>> and risks discrediting himself. >> >>> Makes sense to me. Not. >> >> I believe Snit's tactic here is just to create confusion. > > Your tactic is to just make things up. For example in another post you > accuse me of being snit and give a list of other names you accuse of > being snit because you claim all, including that post, originate from > the same IP. > So what might that IP be? I'm running a script that md5sum's every possible IP address. It should be finished sometime tomorrow. (the file will be about 200GB). It may or may not show something interesting. anon@lowtide:~$ head /media/anon/5331134e-f853-4f49-876b-863d26af6261/out 1.1.1.1 a56bdbb2cc577c3eb01b8575c9241d51 - 1.1.1.2 d79e1566ae16cc3ab5060b74df13c9a4 - 1.1.1.3 117786110e867993f7d584b6097f2203 - 1.1.1.4 254e7213914e76fa50811e5fd46e5dc5 - 1.1.1.5 954b258b29028c2c250ecd3dd7b0c5da - anon@lowtide:~$ Here's what I have so far for matches: anon@lowtide:~$ grep ^1ab71 /media/anon/5331134e-f853-4f49-876b-863d26af6261/out 1ab7192f76a4239c058e3f7b24b89ad1 - 1ab71fdafe6f64ec8e0d0f5f26491e5b - 1ab718b695cf3799d16bfac262da1810 - 1ab716aebc3fe7137b7b293694cff3ed - 1ab7152235ec1836d2f2a57f2e53ed78 - 1ab71bf10e464272848cfe0d62d09875 - 1ab7152c27c2060e7627036487758ffd - anon@lowtide:~$ grep ^1ab71f /media/anon/5331134e-f853-4f49-876b-863d26af6261/out 1ab71fdafe6f64ec8e0d0f5f26491e5b - anon@lowtide:~$ anon@lowtide:~$ ls -lh /media/anon/5331134e-f853-4f49-876b-863d26af6261/out -rw-r--r-- 1 anon anon 287M Apr 19 23:30 /media/anon/5331134e-f853-4f49-876b-863d26af6261/out anon@lowtide:~$
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 04:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgiud03.arfa3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350923 |
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> wrote: >> On 19 Apr 2016 21:39:18 GMT, Sandman wrote: >> >>> In article <ghjvmbkd093.aji@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote: >>> >>>> Because Carroll would forge himself... >>> >>>> A) To discredit himself >>> >>>> B) To implicate you, even though doing so muddies the waters >>>> and risks discrediting himself. >>> >>>> Makes sense to me. Not. >>> >>> I believe Snit's tactic here is just to create confusion. >> >> Your tactic is to just make things up. For example in another post you >> accuse me of being snit and give a list of other names you accuse of >> being snit because you claim all, including that post, originate from >> the same IP. >> So what might that IP be? > > I'm running a script that md5sum's every possible IP address. It should > be finished sometime tomorrow. (the file will be about 200GB). It may > or may not show something interesting. > > anon@lowtide:~$ head /media/anon/5331134e-f853-4f49-876b-863d26af6261/out > 1.1.1.1 > a56bdbb2cc577c3eb01b8575c9241d51 - > 1.1.1.2 > d79e1566ae16cc3ab5060b74df13c9a4 - > 1.1.1.3 > 117786110e867993f7d584b6097f2203 - > 1.1.1.4 > 254e7213914e76fa50811e5fd46e5dc5 - > 1.1.1.5 > 954b258b29028c2c250ecd3dd7b0c5da - > anon@lowtide:~$ > > Here's what I have so far for matches: > > anon@lowtide:~$ grep ^1ab71 /media/anon/5331134e-f853-4f49-876b-863d26af6261/out > 1ab7192f76a4239c058e3f7b24b89ad1 - > 1ab71fdafe6f64ec8e0d0f5f26491e5b - > 1ab718b695cf3799d16bfac262da1810 - > 1ab716aebc3fe7137b7b293694cff3ed - > 1ab7152235ec1836d2f2a57f2e53ed78 - > 1ab71bf10e464272848cfe0d62d09875 - > 1ab7152c27c2060e7627036487758ffd - > anon@lowtide:~$ grep ^1ab71f /media/anon/5331134e-f853-4f49-876b-863d26af6261/out > 1ab71fdafe6f64ec8e0d0f5f26491e5b - > anon@lowtide:~$ > anon@lowtide:~$ ls -lh /media/anon/5331134e-f853-4f49-876b-863d26af6261/out > -rw-r--r-- 1 anon anon 287M Apr 19 23:30 /media/anon/5331134e-f853-4f49-876b-863d26af6261/out > anon@lowtide:~$ > Oh, BTW, if I get a match, and the IP originates in NY, I'm not posting it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-20 05:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Snit digest 211 / 2016-04-20 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-a846bbc96a5acb5ce1b542882e4aa357@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #350892 |
In article <nf6b62$3d3$1@dont-email.me>, Snit wrote: > [1464] Your tactic is to just make things up. For example in another post > [1464] you accuse me of being snit and give a list of other names you > [1464] accuse of being snit because you claim all, including that post, > [1464] originate from the same IP. So what might that IP be? It's in the headers of your posts. Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- troll 0 94 | lying/lie 0 218 | 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 4 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