Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #452930 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-31 22:42 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-06-03 23:23 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 143 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 22:42 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 17:01 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 01:12 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 01:49 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 14:19 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 07:35 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 14:49 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 08:04 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 09:16 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 09:35 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 16:24 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 09:53 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 10:06 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit says unsupported claims are lies <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 12:42 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 20:32 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 14:38 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit ignores the 9th amendment <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 14:48 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit says unsupported claims are lies <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 14:01 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-02 04:58 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-01 22:03 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 22:32 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:48 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 18:05 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:26 -0400
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 01:36 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:50 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 22:07 -0400
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 04:05 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 08:18 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-03 08:58 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 03:07 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 10:14 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:29 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:54 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:15 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 12:32 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 12:37 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 14:27 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 16:34 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 18:13 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 18:19 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 18:36 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 11:01 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:18 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:12 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:38 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:46 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:28 -0400
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:50 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 22:04 -0400
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 19:08 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 02:24 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 20:12 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 01:50 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. simon singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 22:50 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Horace <skinnydude@a1c.org> - 2018-06-02 21:32 -0400
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 18:50 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 19:10 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:35 -0500
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 07:21 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 09:21 -0500
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 13:48 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Fuck Snit <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 08:03 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 08:35 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-02 10:33 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 11:07 -0700
Re: Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-04 06:51 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 00:02 -0700
Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-04 14:16 +0000
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 07:48 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 09:20 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 09:33 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 09:59 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:10 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 10:12 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:52 -0700
Re: Snit digest 448 / 2018-06-04 Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:35 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:42 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:54 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-08 07:43 -0500
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 07:21 -0700
Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-14 08:58 +0000
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 08:44 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 09:07 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 11:59 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 13:07 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 13:24 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 14:56 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 16:21 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 17:12 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-14 18:03 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 09:30 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-15 11:24 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 09:54 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 10:06 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 10:15 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 10:31 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 10:47 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 11:05 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 11:22 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 11:32 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 12:02 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 12:13 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 12:24 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 12:34 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 13:56 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 14:31 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 16:12 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 17:44 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-16 20:30 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 21:03 -0700
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-16 21:41 +0000
Re: Snit digest 449 / 2018-06-14 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-16 14:51 -0700
Re: Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-04 06:07 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-03 23:42 -0700
Re: Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-04 12:53 +0000
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 08:41 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 08:46 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 10:00 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 10:06 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 11:58 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 10:10 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 11:56 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 12:01 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 12:22 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 13:08 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 13:24 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 16:03 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 16:32 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 17:00 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 17:23 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:17 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-05 16:17 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-04 10:00 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 07:45 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 08:00 -0700
Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 08:16 -0700
Re: Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2018-06-04 06:04 +0000
Re: Re: Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 23:23 -0700
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 22:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Snit: Please explain Steve Carrol and the police. |
| Message-ID | <pepton$74s$1@dont-email.me> |
Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not to bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous statement?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 17:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnbgmvFafd0U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #452930 |
On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: > Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not to > bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous statement? > There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by the police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting they spoke to him about what lines he has crossed. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 01:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <peq6ii$ldv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #452947 |
On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: >> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not to >> bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous >> statement? >> > There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by the > police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting they spoke to > him about what lines he has crossed. Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you have any proof of your claims. So do you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 01:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <peq8o3$ldv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #452960 |
On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: >>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not to >>> bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous >>> statement? >>> >> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by the >> police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting they spoke >> to him about what lines he has crossed. > > Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a little > basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you have any > proof of your claims. > So do you? Cat got your tongue snit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-31 21:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnc0ipFd15mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #452963 |
On 5/31/18 6:49 PM, Simon Singh wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not to >>>> bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous >>>> statement? >>>> >>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by the >>> police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting they spoke >>> to him about what lines he has crossed. >> >> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a little >> basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you have any >> proof of your claims. >> So do you? > > Cat got your tongue snit? > No. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 14:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <perkmd$ldv$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #452963 |
On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:49:55 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not to >>>> bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous >>>> statement? >>>> >>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by the >>> police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting they spoke >>> to him about what lines he has crossed. >> >> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a >> little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you have >> any proof of your claims. >> So do you? > > Cat got your tongue snit? Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was contacted by the police the only conclusion that can be made is that snit has been caught in yet another one of his lies. Why are you such a dishonest person snit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnd3t1Fjm3eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453020 |
On 6/1/18 7:19 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:49:55 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not to >>>>> bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous >>>>> statement? >>>>> >>>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by the >>>> police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting they spoke >>>> to him about what lines he has crossed. >>> >>> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a >>> little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you have >>> any proof of your claims. >>> So do you? >> >> Cat got your tongue snit? > > Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was contacted by > the police the only conclusion that can be made is that snit has been > caught in yet another one of his lies. > > Why are you such a dishonest person snit? > It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to. You can believe. You can fail to believe it. You can simply not care. It is of no consequence. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <permdt$sk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #453022 |
On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:35:13 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/1/18 7:19 AM, Simon Singh wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:49:55 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not to >>>>>> bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous >>>>>> statement? >>>>>> >>>>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by >>>>> the police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting they >>>>> spoke to him about what lines he has crossed. >>>> >>>> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a >>>> little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you >>>> have any proof of your claims. >>>> So do you? >>> >>> Cat got your tongue snit? >> >> Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was contacted by >> the police the only conclusion that can be made is that snit has been >> caught in yet another one of his lies. >> >> Why are you such a dishonest person snit? >> > It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his > harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to. Then it should be trivial for you to prove this. > You can believe. You can fail to believe it. You can simply not care. It > is of no consequence. What I believe is not pertinent to this discussion which concerns you making a statement for which you have no evidence to substantiate. So you can either provide some form of documentation to prove your statement, continue your dishonesty or retract the statement and apologize to Steve Carroll. The choice is yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fnd5jkFk0r9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453028 |
On 6/1/18 7:49 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:35:13 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/1/18 7:19 AM, Simon Singh wrote: >>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:49:55 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not to >>>>>>> bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous >>>>>>> statement? >>>>>>> >>>>>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by >>>>>> the police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting they >>>>>> spoke to him about what lines he has crossed. >>>>> >>>>> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a >>>>> little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you >>>>> have any proof of your claims. >>>>> So do you? >>>> >>>> Cat got your tongue snit? >>> >>> Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was contacted by >>> the police the only conclusion that can be made is that snit has been >>> caught in yet another one of his lies. >>> >>> Why are you such a dishonest person snit? >>> >> It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his >> harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to. > > Then it should be trivial for you to prove this. Not really, but also not really of any importance. Your belief or lack of belief is of no real concern. As I said, it is merely a fact that Carroll was contacted by the police for his harassment. This is something even Carroll has noted. You can accept, reject, or have no opinion about it -- does not make one whit of difference. What is interesting is how many non-regular posters will now be jumping in to insist it is not true. LOL! No wonder Carroll focuses on "socks" and "shills" so much... that is his life! By all means, explain your connection to this whole idiotic sega of his! >> You can believe. You can fail to believe it. You can simply not care. It >> is of no consequence. > > What I believe is not pertinent to this discussion which concerns you > making a statement for which you have no evidence to substantiate. > So you can either provide some form of documentation to prove your > statement, continue your dishonesty or retract the statement and > apologize to Steve Carroll. The choice is yours. You assume your belief or lack of it is of some value, and you assume that a lack of proof is a form of disproof (a logical error Carroll has made in the past). Interesting. Prediction: you will continue to push the logical fallacy that a lack of proof is a form of disproof, AND you will continue to insist you are owed ANYTHING by me, AND You will continue to pretend your view is at all relevant here, as if your denial could change the fact that Carroll was, of course, contacted by the police over his harassment. All 100% predictable. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <acdf240d-67d9-45dd-accd-227fa3efd4bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453034 |
On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/1/18 7:49 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:35:13 -0700, Snit wrote: > > > >> On 6/1/18 7:19 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > >>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:49:55 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: > >>>>>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not to > >>>>>>> bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous > >>>>>>> statement? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by > >>>>>> the police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting they > >>>>>> spoke to him about what lines he has crossed. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a > >>>>> little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you > >>>>> have any proof of your claims. > >>>>> So do you? > >>>> > >>>> Cat got your tongue snit? > >>> > >>> Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was contacted by > >>> the police the only conclusion that can be made is that snit has been > >>> caught in yet another one of his lies. > >>> > >>> Why are you such a dishonest person snit? > >>> > >> It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his > >> harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to. > > > > Then it should be trivial for you to prove this. > > Not really It's "interesting" that you'd casually dismiss how easy it is to obtain a police report now... as you expect readers to be as stupid as you need them to be. What causes such a belief in your tiny, diseased mind? >, but also not really of any importance. LOL! So... "proof" is "not really of any importance"? Of course not, you're Snit, "proof" has never been 'important' to you because you don't care whether you're believed. It's notable that the few times you've tried to provide any you 'generated' false proof and were rightfully labeled what everyone knows you to be. > As I said, it is merely a fact that > Carroll was contacted by the police for his harassment. By your same "logic" it's a "fact" that you beat your wife and kids. >This is something even Carroll has noted. I haven't "noted" any of your delusions. > Prediction: you will continue to push the logical fallacy that a lack of > proof is a form of disproof A lack of "proof" isn't proof but thank you for you admission, finally, that you believe God exists, a thing you have stated many times, to the contrary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit calls the cops when he steps on his dick <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01ef3927-d7e5-4b73-b345-7b7dbf823309@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453054 |
On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 9:16:12 AM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 9:04:24 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > On 6/1/18 7:49 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:35:13 -0700, Snit wrote: > > > > > >> On 6/1/18 7:19 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > > >>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:49:55 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: > > >>>>>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not to > > >>>>>>> bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous > > >>>>>>> statement? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by > > >>>>>> the police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting they > > >>>>>> spoke to him about what lines he has crossed. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a > > >>>>> little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you > > >>>>> have any proof of your claims. > > >>>>> So do you? > > >>>> > > >>>> Cat got your tongue snit? > > >>> > > >>> Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was contacted by > > >>> the police the only conclusion that can be made is that snit has been > > >>> caught in yet another one of his lies. > > >>> > > >>> Why are you such a dishonest person snit? > > >>> > > >> It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his > > >> harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to. > > > > > > Then it should be trivial for you to prove this. > > > > Not really > > It's "interesting" that you'd casually dismiss how easy it is to obtain a > police report now... as you expect readers to be as stupid as you need > them to be. What causes such a belief in your tiny, diseased mind? > > >, but also not really of any importance. > > LOL! So... "proof" is "not really of any importance"? Of course not, > you're Snit, "proof" has never been 'important' to you because you > don't care whether you're believed. It's notable that the few times > you've tried to provide any you 'generated' false proof and were > rightfully labeled what everyone knows you to be. > > > As I said, it is merely a fact that > > Carroll was contacted by the police for his harassment. > > By your same "logic" it's a "fact" that you beat your wife and kids. > > >This is something even Carroll has noted. > > I haven't "noted" any of your delusions. > > > Prediction: you will continue to push the logical fallacy that a lack of > > proof is a form of disproof > > A lack of "proof" isn't proof but thank you for you admission, > finally, that you believe God exists, a thing you have stated > many times, to the contrary. I shan't ask Takuya Saitoh how any part of Steven Petruzzellis's anatomy tastes no matter how many times Takuya Saitoh kisses it. In fact Takuya Saitoh's lies got bigger. So naturally I regret being civil to Takuya Saitoh. While I am sure the trolls approved of it, being nice to him made things worse. When I was being honest, I wanted to be trusting and unbiased. I gave Takuya Saitoh more than a reasonable person should. Did he think that was clever? Proof Takuya Saitoh accuses everyone of being Snit http://sandman.net/files/snit_circus.png. -- I Left My Husband & Daughter At Home And THIS happened https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZNxaaKD7-c Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 16:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <perrvb$4e9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #453034 |
On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:04:20 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/1/18 7:49 AM, Simon Singh wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:35:13 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/18 7:19 AM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:49:55 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>>>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not >>>>>>>> to bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous >>>>>>>> statement? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by >>>>>>> the police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting >>>>>>> they spoke to him about what lines he has crossed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a >>>>>> little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you >>>>>> have any proof of your claims. >>>>>> So do you? >>>>> >>>>> Cat got your tongue snit? >>>> >>>> Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was contacted >>>> by the police the only conclusion that can be made is that snit has >>>> been caught in yet another one of his lies. >>>> >>>> Why are you such a dishonest person snit? >>>> >>> It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his >>> harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to. >> >> Then it should be trivial for you to prove this. > > Not really, but also not really of any importance. Your belief or lack > of belief is of no real concern. As I said, it is merely a fact that > Carroll was contacted by the police for his harassment. This is > something even Carroll has noted. You can accept, reject, or have no > opinion about it -- does not make one whit of difference. It's always about the other person isn't it snit? You project far too much. Facts are indisputable and since you offer no evidence that your claim ever happening, it is not a fact. It is a statement and without evidence a false statement. > What is interesting is how many non-regular posters will now be jumping > in to insist it is not true. LOL! Which has no bearing on the validity of your statement. I see your bot has inserted itself in the thread in order to confuse people who might read the thread. > No wonder Carroll focuses on "socks" and "shills" so much... that is his > life! By all means, explain your connection to this whole idiotic sega > of his! Irrelevant. What Steve Carroll does or doesn't do has nothing to do with your statement that Steve was contacted by the police and asked to stop "harassing" you. A statement that you are at this point unable to back up. >>> You can believe. You can fail to believe it. You can simply not care. >>> It is of no consequence. >> >> What I believe is not pertinent to this discussion which concerns you >> making a statement for which you have no evidence to substantiate. So >> you can either provide some form of documentation to prove your >> statement, continue your dishonesty or retract the statement and >> apologize to Steve Carroll. The choice is yours. > > You assume your belief or lack of it is of some value, and you assume > that a lack of proof is a form of disproof (a logical error Carroll has > made in the past). Interesting. Projection again. My beliefs having nothing to do with your statement regarding Steve Carroll and the police. I dispute your statement due to lack of evidence. The only thing that is indisputable snit is that you are a liar and a dishonest person. That is indisputable. > Prediction: you will continue to push the logical fallacy that a lack of > proof is a form of disproof, AND you will continue to insist you are > owed ANYTHING by me, AND You will continue to pretend your view is at > all relevant here, as if your denial could change the fact that Carroll > was, of course, contacted by the police over his harassment. Projection again. This is very simple snit. You made a statement that you are unable to prove. That is known by most people as a lie. Something you do profusely. > All 100% predictable. Indeed you are. You think people are as ignorant as you need them to be. What never seems to occur to you is that your own lack of intelligence impedes you from a cognitive thought process which becomes your downfall. It happens in every single thread you inject yourself into. And yes, it is 100% predictable and unlike your false statement about Steve Carroll it is easily substantiated, indisputable and thus a fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fndbvtFl9ccU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453056 |
On 6/1/18 9:24 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:04:20 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 6/1/18 7:49 AM, Simon Singh wrote: >>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:35:13 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/1/18 7:19 AM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:49:55 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>>>>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not >>>>>>>>> to bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous >>>>>>>>> statement? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by >>>>>>>> the police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting >>>>>>>> they spoke to him about what lines he has crossed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a >>>>>>> little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you >>>>>>> have any proof of your claims. >>>>>>> So do you? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cat got your tongue snit? >>>>> >>>>> Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was contacted >>>>> by the police the only conclusion that can be made is that snit has >>>>> been caught in yet another one of his lies. >>>>> >>>>> Why are you such a dishonest person snit? >>>>> >>>> It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his >>>> harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to. >>> >>> Then it should be trivial for you to prove this. >> >> Not really, but also not really of any importance. Your belief or lack >> of belief is of no real concern. As I said, it is merely a fact that >> Carroll was contacted by the police for his harassment. This is >> something even Carroll has noted. You can accept, reject, or have no >> opinion about it -- does not make one whit of difference. > > It's always about the other person isn't it snit? > You project far too much. > Facts are indisputable and since you offer no evidence that your claim > ever happening, it is not a fact. It is a statement and without evidence > a false statement. > > >> What is interesting is how many non-regular posters will now be jumping >> in to insist it is not true. LOL! > > Which has no bearing on the validity of your statement. > I see your bot has inserted itself in the thread in order to confuse > people who might read the thread. > >> No wonder Carroll focuses on "socks" and "shills" so much... that is his >> life! By all means, explain your connection to this whole idiotic sega >> of his! > > Irrelevant. What Steve Carroll does or doesn't do has nothing to do with > your statement that Steve was contacted by the police and asked to stop > "harassing" you. > A statement that you are at this point unable to back up. > > >>>> You can believe. You can fail to believe it. You can simply not care. >>>> It is of no consequence. >>> >>> What I believe is not pertinent to this discussion which concerns you >>> making a statement for which you have no evidence to substantiate. So >>> you can either provide some form of documentation to prove your >>> statement, continue your dishonesty or retract the statement and >>> apologize to Steve Carroll. The choice is yours. >> >> You assume your belief or lack of it is of some value, and you assume >> that a lack of proof is a form of disproof (a logical error Carroll has >> made in the past). Interesting. > > Projection again. > My beliefs having nothing to do with your statement regarding Steve > Carroll and the police. I dispute your statement due to lack of evidence. > The only thing that is indisputable snit is that you are a liar and a > dishonest person. That is indisputable. > > >> Prediction: you will continue to push the logical fallacy that a lack of >> proof is a form of disproof, AND you will continue to insist you are >> owed ANYTHING by me, AND You will continue to pretend your view is at >> all relevant here, as if your denial could change the fact that Carroll >> was, of course, contacted by the police over his harassment. > > Projection again. > This is very simple snit. You made a statement that you are unable to > prove. That is known by most people as a lie. > Something you do profusely. > >> All 100% predictable. > > Indeed you are. > You think people are as ignorant as you need them to be. What never seems > to occur to you is that your own lack of intelligence impedes you from a > cognitive thought process which becomes your downfall. > > It happens in every single thread you inject yourself into. > > And yes, it is 100% predictable and unlike your false statement about > Steve Carroll it is easily substantiated, indisputable and thus a fact. > You claim I have made false statement about Carroll being contacted by the police for his harassment. You offer no support for this. And, in fact, your claim is unsupportable because it is incorrect. Fair enough. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4553cd57-6603-4fe5-80a0-3e996b705c32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453061 |
On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 10:53:21 AM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > You claim I have made false statement about Carroll being contacted by > the police for his harassment. According to your "logic" that's all anyone needs to do to "prove" something is a "fact", so you *must* believe him in order for you to be consistent. > You offer no support for this. Nor did you, but you've already said that it's "not really of any importance", so why do you bring it up, Mr. Hypocrite? > And, in fact, your claim is unsupportable because it is incorrect. And lemme guess... *your* claim is 'supportable' because it's "correct"? If anyone can allege what they're saying is "correct", what's the point of evidence? Lock that cabinet, pinhead;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit says unsupported claims are lies <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 12:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a786c5b2-8dbb-4646-b39f-e9c1c7ee8407@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453061 |
On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 9:53:21 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 6/1/18 9:24 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:04:20 -0700, Snit wrote: > > > >> On 6/1/18 7:49 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > >>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:35:13 -0700, Snit wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 6/1/18 7:19 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:49:55 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll not > >>>>>>>>> to bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially libelous > >>>>>>>>> statement? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted by > >>>>>>>> the police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with noting > >>>>>>>> they spoke to him about what lines he has crossed. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a > >>>>>>> little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you > >>>>>>> have any proof of your claims. > >>>>>>> So do you? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cat got your tongue snit? > >>>>> > >>>>> Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was contacted > >>>>> by the police the only conclusion that can be made is that snit has > >>>>> been caught in yet another one of his lies. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why are you such a dishonest person snit? > >>>>> > >>>> It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his > >>>> harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to. > >>> > >>> Then it should be trivial for you to prove this. > >> > >> Not really, but also not really of any importance. Your belief or lack > >> of belief is of no real concern. As I said, it is merely a fact that > >> Carroll was contacted by the police for his harassment. This is > >> something even Carroll has noted. You can accept, reject, or have no > >> opinion about it -- does not make one whit of difference. > > > > It's always about the other person isn't it snit? > > You project far too much. > > Facts are indisputable and since you offer no evidence that your claim > > ever happening, it is not a fact. It is a statement and without evidence > > a false statement. > > > > > >> What is interesting is how many non-regular posters will now be jumping > >> in to insist it is not true. LOL! > > > > Which has no bearing on the validity of your statement. > > I see your bot has inserted itself in the thread in order to confuse > > people who might read the thread. > > > >> No wonder Carroll focuses on "socks" and "shills" so much... that is his > >> life! By all means, explain your connection to this whole idiotic sega > >> of his! > > > > Irrelevant. What Steve Carroll does or doesn't do has nothing to do with > > your statement that Steve was contacted by the police and asked to stop > > "harassing" you. > > A statement that you are at this point unable to back up. > > > > > >>>> You can believe. You can fail to believe it. You can simply not care. > >>>> It is of no consequence. > >>> > >>> What I believe is not pertinent to this discussion which concerns you > >>> making a statement for which you have no evidence to substantiate. So > >>> you can either provide some form of documentation to prove your > >>> statement, continue your dishonesty or retract the statement and > >>> apologize to Steve Carroll. The choice is yours. > >> > >> You assume your belief or lack of it is of some value, and you assume > >> that a lack of proof is a form of disproof (a logical error Carroll has > >> made in the past). Interesting. > > > > Projection again. > > My beliefs having nothing to do with your statement regarding Steve > > Carroll and the police. I dispute your statement due to lack of evidence. > > The only thing that is indisputable snit is that you are a liar and a > > dishonest person. That is indisputable. > > > > > >> Prediction: you will continue to push the logical fallacy that a lack of > >> proof is a form of disproof, AND you will continue to insist you are > >> owed ANYTHING by me, AND You will continue to pretend your view is at > >> all relevant here, as if your denial could change the fact that Carroll > >> was, of course, contacted by the police over his harassment. > > > > Projection again. > > This is very simple snit. You made a statement that you are unable to > > prove. That is known by most people as a lie. > > Something you do profusely. > > > >> All 100% predictable. > > > > Indeed you are. > > You think people are as ignorant as you need them to be. What never seems > > to occur to you is that your own lack of intelligence impedes you from a > > cognitive thought process which becomes your downfall. > > > > It happens in every single thread you inject yourself into. > > > > And yes, it is 100% predictable and unlike your false statement about > > Steve Carroll it is easily substantiated, indisputable and thus a fact. > > > You claim I have made false statement about Carroll being contacted by > the police for his harassment. You offer no support for this. And, in > fact, your claim is unsupportable because it is incorrect. > > Fair enough. > > -- > Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They > cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel > somehow superior by attacking the messenger. > > They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. > > <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308> Sadly this is what happens when really poor self confidence takes over Sockboy's psyche. Steve Carroll clearly has a ton of experience to show and he wishes to give back to the community. Unfortunately, this is without a doubt the worst medium for doing that because the majority of what he will get back is insulting, misleading, and other malarky. Virtually everything Sockboy says about Steve Carroll is false. He has yet to realize people are not as stupid as he needs them to be. -- Curious how these posts are made? Email: fretwizzer@gmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Singh <ss1988singh980@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 20:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pesahc$8oh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #453061 |
On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 09:53:17 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/1/18 9:24 AM, Simon Singh wrote: >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:04:20 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/18 7:49 AM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:35:13 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/1/18 7:19 AM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:49:55 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll >>>>>>>>>> not to bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially >>>>>>>>>> libelous statement? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted >>>>>>>>> by the police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with >>>>>>>>> noting they spoke to him about what lines he has crossed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a >>>>>>>> little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you >>>>>>>> have any proof of your claims. >>>>>>>> So do you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cat got your tongue snit? >>>>>> >>>>>> Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was contacted >>>>>> by the police the only conclusion that can be made is that snit has >>>>>> been caught in yet another one of his lies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why are you such a dishonest person snit? >>>>>> >>>>> It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his >>>>> harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to. >>>> >>>> Then it should be trivial for you to prove this. >>> >>> Not really, but also not really of any importance. Your belief or lack >>> of belief is of no real concern. As I said, it is merely a fact that >>> Carroll was contacted by the police for his harassment. This is >>> something even Carroll has noted. You can accept, reject, or have no >>> opinion about it -- does not make one whit of difference. >> >> It's always about the other person isn't it snit? >> You project far too much. >> Facts are indisputable and since you offer no evidence that your claim >> ever happening, it is not a fact. It is a statement and without >> evidence a false statement. >> >> >>> What is interesting is how many non-regular posters will now be >>> jumping in to insist it is not true. LOL! >> >> Which has no bearing on the validity of your statement. >> I see your bot has inserted itself in the thread in order to confuse >> people who might read the thread. >> >>> No wonder Carroll focuses on "socks" and "shills" so much... that is >>> his life! By all means, explain your connection to this whole idiotic >>> sega of his! >> >> Irrelevant. What Steve Carroll does or doesn't do has nothing to do >> with your statement that Steve was contacted by the police and asked to >> stop "harassing" you. >> A statement that you are at this point unable to back up. >> >> >>>>> You can believe. You can fail to believe it. You can simply not >>>>> care. >>>>> It is of no consequence. >>>> >>>> What I believe is not pertinent to this discussion which concerns you >>>> making a statement for which you have no evidence to substantiate. So >>>> you can either provide some form of documentation to prove your >>>> statement, continue your dishonesty or retract the statement and >>>> apologize to Steve Carroll. The choice is yours. >>> >>> You assume your belief or lack of it is of some value, and you assume >>> that a lack of proof is a form of disproof (a logical error Carroll >>> has made in the past). Interesting. >> >> Projection again. >> My beliefs having nothing to do with your statement regarding Steve >> Carroll and the police. I dispute your statement due to lack of >> evidence. >> The only thing that is indisputable snit is that you are a liar and a >> dishonest person. That is indisputable. >> >> >>> Prediction: you will continue to push the logical fallacy that a lack >>> of proof is a form of disproof, AND you will continue to insist you >>> are owed ANYTHING by me, AND You will continue to pretend your view is >>> at all relevant here, as if your denial could change the fact that >>> Carroll was, of course, contacted by the police over his harassment. >> >> Projection again. >> This is very simple snit. You made a statement that you are unable to >> prove. That is known by most people as a lie. >> Something you do profusely. >> >>> All 100% predictable. >> >> Indeed you are. >> You think people are as ignorant as you need them to be. What never >> seems to occur to you is that your own lack of intelligence impedes you >> from a cognitive thought process which becomes your downfall. >> >> It happens in every single thread you inject yourself into. >> >> And yes, it is 100% predictable and unlike your false statement about >> Steve Carroll it is easily substantiated, indisputable and thus a fact. >> > You claim I have made false statement about Carroll being contacted by > the police for his harassment. You offer no support for this. And, in > fact, your claim is unsupportable because it is incorrect. Projection again. Your logic is faulty snit. You made the statement that the police asked Steve Carroll to stop "harassing you" so the burden of proof rests solely with you. You went on to claim the statement was a fact and that even Steve Carroll admitted this happened. Those are your statements. To date you have not provided any documentation to substantiate your claims so the only conclusion that can be reached is that you lied once again and have demonstrated that you are indeed a dishonest person. I merely challenged you to provide that proof The burden of proof is on you to prove > Fair enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 13:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fndp71FnqocU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #453084 |
On 6/1/18 1:32 PM, Simon Singh wrote: ... >> You claim I have made false statement about Carroll being contacted by >> the police for his harassment. You offer no support for this. And, in >> fact, your claim is unsupportable because it is incorrect. > > Projection again. > Your logic is faulty snit. > > You made the statement that the police asked Steve Carroll to stop > "harassing you" so the burden of proof rests solely with you. > You went on to claim the statement was a fact and that even Steve Carroll > admitted this happened. > > > Those are your statements. You made the claim I made a FALSE statement. This is a direct accusation against me. As such, if you are a moral person, you do owe evidence. Or you can just admit you have none to share. If that is the case then there is no issue here. As far as the police speaking with Carroll about his harassment, that is merely a fact. You can believe it. You can reject it. You can be unsure. I do not care one whit either way. I do not owe you a support of any support. None. Your sense of entitlement is amazing. > To date you have not provided any documentation to substantiate your > claims so the only conclusion that can be reached is that you lied once > again and have demonstrated that you are indeed a dishonest person. Again you accuse me of lying and you speak of other instances you also fail to quote. When making a direct accusation you should provide evidence. > I merely challenged you to provide that proof > The burden of proof is on you to prove > > >> Fair enough. You want attention. I am giving it. As you push to get attention you are lying about me. So be it. While I do not approve of your dishonesty, and would not join you in it, it is not like it is a big deal or you are making claims any reasonable person would believe. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 14:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3292ad30-0d8b-499d-8806-c34aadfbd4f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453085 |
On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/1/18 1:32 PM, Simon Singh wrote: > ... > >> You claim I have made false statement about Carroll being contacted by > >> the police for his harassment. You offer no support for this. And, in > >> fact, your claim is unsupportable because it is incorrect. > > > > Projection again. > > Your logic is faulty snit. > > > > You made the statement that the police asked Steve Carroll to stop > > "harassing you" so the burden of proof rests solely with you. > > You went on to claim the statement was a fact and that even Steve Carroll > > admitted this happened. > > > > > > Those are your statements. > > You made the claim I made a FALSE statement. This is a direct accusation > against me. As such, if you are a moral person, you do owe evidence. LOL! But you don't owe any, right? Because you're 'special' ;) > As far as the police speaking with Carroll about his harassment, that is > merely a fact. Um... no, "teacher"... merely stating something, even repeatedly, doesn't make it a "fact" (no matter how many meds you've mixed): fact something that actually exists; reality; truth <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact> Definition of fact a : something that has actual existence <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact> fact A thing that is known or proved to be true. <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact> fact something known to have happened or to exist <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fact> fact 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences <https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact> Now that you've been 'schooled' again, can you prove 'existence'? Easily done with the police report... that *had* to be part of the process. Why are you pretending you're even in this 'argument'? All you're doing is providing fodder for people who want to point to it later to underscore the "fact" that you have no idea what a "fact" even is. Doing that makes sense to you?!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit ignores the 9th amendment <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15ec108a-5b02-4089-8321-912131f30e6d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453095 |
On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 2:38:53 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > > On 6/1/18 1:32 PM, Simon Singh wrote: > > ... > > >> You claim I have made false statement about Carroll being contacted by > > >> the police for his harassment. You offer no support for this. And, in > > >> fact, your claim is unsupportable because it is incorrect. > > > > > > Projection again. > > > Your logic is faulty snit. > > > > > > You made the statement that the police asked Steve Carroll to stop > > > "harassing you" so the burden of proof rests solely with you. > > > You went on to claim the statement was a fact and that even Steve Carroll > > > admitted this happened. > > > > > > > > > Those are your statements. > > > > You made the claim I made a FALSE statement. This is a direct accusation > > against me. As such, if you are a moral person, you do owe evidence. > > LOL! But you don't owe any, right? Because you're 'special' ;) > > > As far as the police speaking with Carroll about his harassment, that is > > merely a fact. > > Um... no, "teacher"... merely stating something, even repeatedly, doesn't > make it a "fact" (no matter how many meds you've mixed): > > fact > something that actually exists; reality; truth > <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact> > > Definition of fact > a : something that has actual existence > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact> > > fact > A thing that is known or proved to be true. > <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact> > > fact > something known to have happened or to exist > <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fact> > > fact > 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences > <https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact> > > Now that you've been 'schooled' again, can you prove 'existence'? > > Easily done with the police report... that *had* to be part of the process. > > Why are you pretending you're even in this 'argument'? All you're doing > is providing fodder for people who want to point to it later to underscore > the "fact" that you have no idea what a "fact" even is. Doing that makes > sense to you?! It was Peter the Klöwn who forged me and did not even try to hide it. Protected code is not enough to protect you. Peter the Klöwn shows at least some of the posts are hand generated because some of them are direct responses in very specific ways with clear thought behind them, not just crap. IOW, while some could be automated others are definitely not. With no proof at all, as is expected for Peter the Klöwn. If you have 'a.doc' open in a program such as gedit and Peter the Klöwn wants to change its name to 'linux.doc' via a proxy icon, Snit (a real advocate)'s method might be useful. Dropping support for DOS programs is what it comes down to. -- Top Six Ways Peter the Klöwn Trolls http://www.5z8.info/mydick_x6g9hr_nakedgrandmas.jpg Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit says unsupported claims are lies <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-01 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eaf3c142-e7c4-4285-9aaa-f1b8b942d7f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #453084 |
On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 1:32:46 PM UTC-7, Simon Singh wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 09:53:17 -0700, Snit wrote: > > > On 6/1/18 9:24 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:04:20 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> > >>> On 6/1/18 7:49 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:35:13 -0700, Snit wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 6/1/18 7:19 AM, Simon Singh wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:49:55 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 01:12:51 +0000, Simon Singh wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2018 17:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 5/31/18 3:42 PM, Simon Singh wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Snit, you have claimed that the police advised Steve Carroll > >>>>>>>>>> not to bother you. Do you have any proof of this potentially > >>>>>>>>>> libelous statement? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There is nothing wrong with my noting how Carroll was contacted > >>>>>>>>> by the police over his harassment, nor anything wrong with > >>>>>>>>> noting they spoke to him about what lines he has crossed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Nobody said there is anything wrong with it. Please try and use a > >>>>>>>> little basic reading comprehension skills, the question is do you > >>>>>>>> have any proof of your claims. > >>>>>>>> So do you? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cat got your tongue snit? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Since snit apparently has no proof that Steve Carroll was contacted > >>>>>> by the police the only conclusion that can be made is that snit has > >>>>>> been caught in yet another one of his lies. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why are you such a dishonest person snit? > >>>>>> > >>>>> It is merely a fact Carroll was contacted by the police over his > >>>>> harassment, a fact even Carroll has admitted to. > >>>> > >>>> Then it should be trivial for you to prove this. > >>> > >>> Not really, but also not really of any importance. Your belief or lack > >>> of belief is of no real concern. As I said, it is merely a fact that > >>> Carroll was contacted by the police for his harassment. This is > >>> something even Carroll has noted. You can accept, reject, or have no > >>> opinion about it -- does not make one whit of difference. > >> > >> It's always about the other person isn't it snit? > >> You project far too much. > >> Facts are indisputable and since you offer no evidence that your claim > >> ever happening, it is not a fact. It is a statement and without > >> evidence a false statement. > >> > >> > >>> What is interesting is how many non-regular posters will now be > >>> jumping in to insist it is not true. LOL! > >> > >> Which has no bearing on the validity of your statement. > >> I see your bot has inserted itself in the thread in order to confuse > >> people who might read the thread. > >> > >>> No wonder Carroll focuses on "socks" and "shills" so much... that is > >>> his life! By all means, explain your connection to this whole idiotic > >>> sega of his! > >> > >> Irrelevant. What Steve Carroll does or doesn't do has nothing to do > >> with your statement that Steve was contacted by the police and asked to > >> stop "harassing" you. > >> A statement that you are at this point unable to back up. > >> > >> > >>>>> You can believe. You can fail to believe it. You can simply not > >>>>> care. > >>>>> It is of no consequence. > >>>> > >>>> What I believe is not pertinent to this discussion which concerns you > >>>> making a statement for which you have no evidence to substantiate. So > >>>> you can either provide some form of documentation to prove your > >>>> statement, continue your dishonesty or retract the statement and > >>>> apologize to Steve Carroll. The choice is yours. > >>> > >>> You assume your belief or lack of it is of some value, and you assume > >>> that a lack of proof is a form of disproof (a logical error Carroll > >>> has made in the past). Interesting. > >> > >> Projection again. > >> My beliefs having nothing to do with your statement regarding Steve > >> Carroll and the police. I dispute your statement due to lack of > >> evidence. > >> The only thing that is indisputable snit is that you are a liar and a > >> dishonest person. That is indisputable. > >> > >> > >>> Prediction: you will continue to push the logical fallacy that a lack > >>> of proof is a form of disproof, AND you will continue to insist you > >>> are owed ANYTHING by me, AND You will continue to pretend your view is > >>> at all relevant here, as if your denial could change the fact that > >>> Carroll was, of course, contacted by the police over his harassment. > >> > >> Projection again. > >> This is very simple snit. You made a statement that you are unable to > >> prove. That is known by most people as a lie. > >> Something you do profusely. > >> > >>> All 100% predictable. > >> > >> Indeed you are. > >> You think people are as ignorant as you need them to be. What never > >> seems to occur to you is that your own lack of intelligence impedes you > >> from a cognitive thought process which becomes your downfall. > >> > >> It happens in every single thread you inject yourself into. > >> > >> And yes, it is 100% predictable and unlike your false statement about > >> Steve Carroll it is easily substantiated, indisputable and thus a fact. > >> > > You claim I have made false statement about Carroll being contacted by > > the police for his harassment. You offer no support for this. And, in > > fact, your claim is unsupportable because it is incorrect. > > Projection again. > Your logic is faulty snit. > > You made the statement that the police asked Steve Carroll to stop > "harassing you" so the burden of proof rests solely with you. > You went on to claim the statement was a fact and that even Steve Carroll > admitted this happened. > > > Those are your statements. > > To date you have not provided any documentation to substantiate your > claims so the only conclusion that can be reached is that you lied once > again and have demonstrated that you are indeed a dishonest person. > I merely challenged you to provide that proof > The burden of proof is on you to prove > > > > Fair enough. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 One thing that I have never seen spoofed is the Google acct. number so perhaps you can use it as a filtering criteria, too. Here's mine: posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 My gmail posts go back to 2009 (that I've seen, crackhead's forgeries using gmail only go back to 2012). Notice the posting acct. number on this response matches this post from 2009: <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/C9FwjiytRoA/ftc2GG7-37AJ> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX5+9UAAoJELnOYK54exUCqOMP/AiBMj7DVoep+aTZfsYEwg7h tTwqKInwpmHwUjkZYu2m+kBBuXOZR47OwKWZpUCfnloN4pfL2cgTqmAHeDilVI+L 9sUw15rPd95n/5BDXezZnxzoL6n/8/GzHYmFqUJoKScaOxab4Odf97PDqVfEqiml G86egbR85z7deWiUNcl8Bq1zLtP17eSGy0sUmPMMDrbw/7lbGQ4ayA/ZqjfzXadx qmf3+WYUEvquDgXN4b6x9Ig+EzlIME0Ylp3I6COEFJ69Ozu3ZjwWDp1RWI0Eq4XP vV2I1GFq19AO02hAvJ/qZcWAHgYwhhlFmVWzoqbA1dSnDsCjLr0+xGaAUVcLuwjd qNdLSd1wrunCfUuotc6kUGyvj2Vy3zA5oWmLpHA4utjOrm5RlSyTaJHESOV08CAS X0YO+7LjGBxZ87U//Jfo0vB5u+ij91l7Zdsphf+eSNWvJ+DoUtimlvcP5o4Te1D9 rKNmZ1QUMkl/Kjl9x70Q58XH8etkp9d2NHE1vVth5c9vsfAaNkJVHn7TIC79h4NE Kny8Zp0r+QCsKnqs+NYd9GPyhvGsGmoBzEneAOgs7l509EoCOB3+Lfam3D7OmdvD 97FL/nbKbmDE8n9H8gs1sAua3Yfwz8S7IpHN19GTh9GNCKU8F+orXTSzAPUaKNyp mMihyxG5fd2CFFGEQV8a =sC4v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention" Steven Petruzzellis, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web