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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.advocacy > #136912 > unrolled thread

Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment.

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Contents

  Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment. "Sgt. Joe Friday" <sgtjf1965@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-27 20:56 +0000
    Re: Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 22:18 +0000
      Re: Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment. Octal <octalfortitude@binary.net> - 2025-08-28 00:03 +0000
        Re: Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-28 00:59 +0000
      Re: Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 20:15 -0400
        Re: Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-28 00:55 +0000
          Re: Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment. Octal <octalfortitude@binary.net> - 2025-08-28 22:01 +0000
            Re: Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-29 02:02 +0000
              Re: Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment. Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-08-29 15:06 -0400
                Re: Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment. Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-08-29 19:42 +0000

#136912 — Ok Mr. Governor Swill. You Asked For It. So Here It Is. Snit's Arrest For Public Harassment.

You keep claiming that you see no evidence of snit's criminal record
other than people mentioning it. So here is a screen grab of the
government site before snit settled with the prosecutor and the entry
was rightfully removed.
Now instead of supporting this lying asshole snit why don't you ask him
to explain.
He can't because numerous people saw the same thing and also took
screen grabs.His only defense is to claim why isn't it still on the
site and that's been explained. Of course that excuse was used by snit
after he claimed usenet isn't reliable despite the data being a direct
link to the site, when it was listed there. And of course the ever
popular it's a fake which is of course another snit lie.

There are plenty more where that came from.

https://imgur.com/a/tQxsmym

-- 
All we want are the facts ma'am

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#136915

On Aug 27, 2025 at 1:56:41 PM MST, ""Sgt. Joe Friday"" wrote
<108nre9$u03e$1@dont-email.me>:

> You keep claiming that you see no evidence of snit's criminal record
> other than people mentioning it. So here is a screen grab of the
> government site before snit settled with the prosecutor and the entry
> was rightfully removed.
> Now instead of supporting this lying asshole snit why don't you ask him
> to explain.
> He can't because numerous people saw the same thing and also took
> screen grabs.His only defense is to claim why isn't it still on the
> site and that's been explained. Of course that excuse was used by snit
> after he claimed usenet isn't reliable despite the data being a direct
> link to the site, when it was listed there. And of course the ever
> popular it's a fake which is of course another snit lie.
> 
> There are plenty more where that came from.
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/tQxsmym

* Inconsistent with other claimed "screenshots".

* How can something be illegal but "rightfully removed"?

* The claim was a dozen or more charges. That does not back the accusations.

I am sure there are other holes in your story, but that is a good start. LOL!

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136919

Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in
news:68af8440$2$20$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com: 

> On Aug 27, 2025 at 1:56:41 PM MST, ""Sgt. Joe Friday"" wrote
> <108nre9$u03e$1@dont-email.me>:
> 
>> You keep claiming that you see no evidence of snit's criminal record
>> other than people mentioning it. So here is a screen grab of the
>> government site before snit settled with the prosecutor and the entry
>> was rightfully removed.
>> Now instead of supporting this lying asshole snit why don't you ask
>> him to explain.
>> He can't because numerous people saw the same thing and also took
>> screen grabs.His only defense is to claim why isn't it still on the
>> site and that's been explained. Of course that excuse was used by
>> snit after he claimed usenet isn't reliable despite the data being a
>> direct link to the site, when it was listed there. And of course the
>> ever popular it's a fake which is of course another snit lie.
>> 
>> There are plenty more where that came from.
>> 
>> https://imgur.com/a/tQxsmym
> 
> * Inconsistent with other claimed "screenshots".
WTF does that mean?
There are plenty of other screenshots posted in this group.
Some are different cases from what I can see.

> * How can something be illegal but "rightfully removed"?
Reading comprehension seems to be difficult for you.
The OP explained it.


> * The claim was a dozen or more charges. That does not back the
> accusations. 
That's a different topic. I don't see a dozen or more charges mentioned 
in the post. Could be true, but irrelevant to this thread.
The governor is claiming no proof of your criminal activity has been 
posted. The OP posted proof.
 
> I am sure there are other holes in your story, but that is a good
> start. LOL! 
You are crazy. You proved nothing. Zero. Nada.
Other than you are a terrible liar.
That you did prove beyond doubt.


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136922

On Aug 27, 2025 at 5:03:09 PM MST, "Octal" wrote
<XnsB348CC13E8F81jijq@209.160.120.38>:

> Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:68af8440$2$20$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
> 
>> On Aug 27, 2025 at 1:56:41 PM MST, ""Sgt. Joe Friday"" wrote
>> <108nre9$u03e$1@dont-email.me>:
>> 
>>> You keep claiming that you see no evidence of snit's criminal record
>>> other than people mentioning it. So here is a screen grab of the
>>> government site before snit settled with the prosecutor and the entry
>>> was rightfully removed.
>>> Now instead of supporting this lying asshole snit why don't you ask
>>> him to explain.
>>> He can't because numerous people saw the same thing and also took
>>> screen grabs.His only defense is to claim why isn't it still on the
>>> site and that's been explained. Of course that excuse was used by
>>> snit after he claimed usenet isn't reliable despite the data being a
>>> direct link to the site, when it was listed there. And of course the
>>> ever popular it's a fake which is of course another snit lie.
>>> 
>>> There are plenty more where that came from.
>>> 
>>> https://imgur.com/a/tQxsmym
>> 
>> * Inconsistent with other claimed "screenshots".

> WTF does that mean?

It means you need to learn English.

> There are plenty of other screenshots posted in this group.
> Some are different cases from what I can see.

No you don't.
> 
>> * How can something be illegal but "rightfully removed"?

> Reading comprehension seems to be difficult for you.
> The OP explained it.

Nope. And the reality is they generally cannot be, and even when they
technically can be it takes years, and even then it almost never happens.

  https://snaderlawgroup.com/expungement-diversion-dismissal/
     -----
     And, although I am asked many times every week, sealing one’s
     record is extremely rare. In 25 years, I have never had a
     request granted.
     -----

>> * The claim was a dozen or more charges. That does not back the
>> accusations.

> That's a different topic.

So the topic is NOT the alleged charges? LOL!

> I don't see a dozen or more charges mentioned
> in the post. Could be true, but irrelevant to this thread.
> The governor is claiming no proof of your criminal activity has been
> posted. The OP posted proof.

Nope. And even Carroll, the one who started this nonsense as he protected his
own legal issues, posted proof:

Carroll <v7m64o$ll5a$22@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
  -----
  https://i.ibb.co/3ScqzLJ/not-everything-is-gone.png
  -----

>> I am sure there are other holes in your story, but that is a good
>> start. LOL!

> You are crazy. You proved nothing. Zero. Nada.
> Other than you are a terrible liar.
> That you did prove beyond doubt.

You tried to make a point and failed. :)

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136920

On 27 Aug 2025 22:18:40 GMT, Brock McNuggets
<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 27, 2025 at 1:56:41?PM MST, ""Sgt. Joe Friday"" wrote
><108nre9$u03e$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> You keep claiming that you see no evidence of snit's criminal record
>> other than people mentioning it. So here is a screen grab of the
>> government site before snit settled with the prosecutor and the entry
>> was rightfully removed.
>> Now instead of supporting this lying asshole snit why don't you ask him
>> to explain.
>> He can't because numerous people saw the same thing and also took
>> screen grabs.His only defense is to claim why isn't it still on the
>> site and that's been explained. Of course that excuse was used by snit
>> after he claimed usenet isn't reliable despite the data being a direct
>> link to the site, when it was listed there. And of course the ever
>> popular it's a fake which is of course another snit lie.
>> 
>> There are plenty more where that came from.
>> 
>> https://imgur.com/a/tQxsmym
>
>* Inconsistent with other claimed "screenshots".
>
>* How can something be illegal but "rightfully removed"?
>
>* The claim was a dozen or more charges. That does not back the accusations.
>
>I am sure there are other holes in your story, but that is a good start. LOL!

Top of the page:  "Complaint dismissed by prosecutor"
-- 
I do not think that horse is completely dead yet. 
Whip it some more. -   Siri Cruz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136921

On Aug 27, 2025 at 5:15:39 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<ps7vak5hh2h8lv60epjcpuic0f7ph9jkfl@4ax.com>:

> On 27 Aug 2025 22:18:40 GMT, Brock McNuggets
> <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 27, 2025 at 1:56:41?PM MST, ""Sgt. Joe Friday"" wrote
>> <108nre9$u03e$1@dont-email.me>:
>> 
>>> You keep claiming that you see no evidence of snit's criminal record
>>> other than people mentioning it. So here is a screen grab of the
>>> government site before snit settled with the prosecutor and the entry
>>> was rightfully removed.
>>> Now instead of supporting this lying asshole snit why don't you ask him
>>> to explain.
>>> He can't because numerous people saw the same thing and also took
>>> screen grabs.His only defense is to claim why isn't it still on the
>>> site and that's been explained. Of course that excuse was used by snit
>>> after he claimed usenet isn't reliable despite the data being a direct
>>> link to the site, when it was listed there. And of course the ever
>>> popular it's a fake which is of course another snit lie.
>>> 
>>> There are plenty more where that came from.
>>> 
>>> https://imgur.com/a/tQxsmym
>> 
>> * Inconsistent with other claimed "screenshots".
>> 
>> * How can something be illegal but "rightfully removed"?
>> 
>> * The claim was a dozen or more charges. That does not back the accusations.
>> 
>> I am sure there are other holes in your story, but that is a good start. LOL!
> 
> Top of the page:  "Complaint dismissed by prosecutor"

Overly long response warning:

So in this version of the screenshot: Contrary to the claims of a dozen or so
charges I was found guilty of, or plea bargained down, now it is one charge
and it was dismissed. So not guilty. But why would it not show in public
records? Even dismissed charges show UNLESS they are sealed or expunged. That
can take YEARS -- which does not fit with the timeline given:

https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00911.htm
    -----
    1. Ten years for a class 2 or 3 felony.
    2. Five years for a class 4, 5 or 6 felony.
    3. Three years for a class 1 misdemeanor.
    4. Two years for a class 2 or 3 misdemeanor.
    -----

But that is just what is theoretically possible. What is likely:

https://snaderlawgroup.com/expungement-diversion-dismissal/
    -----
    And, although I am asked many times every week, sealing one’s
    record is extremely rare. In 25 years, I have never had a
    request granted.
    -----

So sealing or expunging is pretty much impossible. The record must still be
there. But looking for the above I found this:

Carroll <v7m64o$ll5a$22@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
    -----
    https://i.ibb.co/3ScqzLJ/not-everything-is-gone.png
    -----

Hmmm, NOT there. Why would the OLD screenshot not show it (look quick before
Carroll takes it down). So which of their many different stories is true?

Carroll makes these claims and other trolls latch onto them and expand them.
But his every accusation is an admission:

  Snit:
     -----
     Are you denying that the police contacted you over your harassment?
     -----

  Steve Carroll <782ad182-b975-4be4-a1c0-49cb57ea2855@googlegroups.com>:
     -----
     They did! Didn't they? And it appears to still be working ;)
     -----

To be fair, Carroll later claimed he did not mean what he said and meant to
reply to something else in the post. Riiiiiight. LOL!

Say that is even true... the bigger point: the insane accusations against me,
going on for years, have been contradictory to each other, contrary to the
law, contrary to what is likely to happen even if legally possible, and
utterly unsupported.

But maybe they were just "some state-level bureaucrat making erroneous
entries" (Carroll also made that claim).

Anyway, so now the claim is I had a charge that was dismissed. Not found
guilty. No plea bargain.

Why aren't the trolls calling out the false accusations Carroll made:

    "Why did you stalk her? What did you think would happen?!"

    "I was mainly interested in why you stalked her..."

    "Why did you stalk her?"
   
    "> Given how I never stalked anyone,
    I say you did..."
   
    "you were arrested for stalking after having a court order
    issued for you to not stalk"
   
    "what you did, is a crime"
   
    "Said the projecting, dishonest hypocrite who stalked his wife"
   
    "I was mainly interested in why you stalked her"
   
    "To Goofy: Why did you stalk her? What did you think would
    happen?!"
   
    "My concerns clearly were, and are:
    1. Why you stalked her"
   
    "you're a wife-stalking man-child"
   
    "Why did you stalk her?"

I never stalked anyone. Carroll has. Notice the trolls are not obsessing over
his actions.



-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136944

Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in
news:68afa91d$0$10360$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com: 

> On Aug 27, 2025 at 5:15:39 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
> <ps7vak5hh2h8lv60epjcpuic0f7ph9jkfl@4ax.com>:
> 
>> On 27 Aug 2025 22:18:40 GMT, Brock McNuggets
>> <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Aug 27, 2025 at 1:56:41?PM MST, ""Sgt. Joe Friday"" wrote
>>> <108nre9$u03e$1@dont-email.me>:
>>> 
>>>> You keep claiming that you see no evidence of snit's criminal
>>>> record other than people mentioning it. So here is a screen grab of
>>>> the government site before snit settled with the prosecutor and the
>>>> entry was rightfully removed.
>>>> Now instead of supporting this lying asshole snit why don't you ask
>>>> him to explain.
>>>> He can't because numerous people saw the same thing and also took
>>>> screen grabs.His only defense is to claim why isn't it still on the
>>>> site and that's been explained. Of course that excuse was used by
>>>> snit after he claimed usenet isn't reliable despite the data being
>>>> a direct link to the site, when it was listed there. And of course
>>>> the ever popular it's a fake which is of course another snit lie.
>>>> 
>>>> There are plenty more where that came from.
>>>> 
>>>> https://imgur.com/a/tQxsmym
>>> 
>>> * Inconsistent with other claimed "screenshots".
>>> 
>>> * How can something be illegal but "rightfully removed"?
>>> 
>>> * The claim was a dozen or more charges. That does not back the
>>> accusations. 
>>> 
>>> I am sure there are other holes in your story, but that is a good
>>> start. LOL! 
>> 
>> Top of the page:  "Complaint dismissed by prosecutor"
> 
> Overly long response warning:
> 
> So in this version of the screenshot: Contrary to the claims of a
> dozen or so charges I was found guilty of, or plea bargained down, now
> it is one charge and it was dismissed. So not guilty. But why would it
> not show in public records? Even dismissed charges show UNLESS they
> are sealed or expunged. That can take YEARS -- which does not fit with
> the timeline given: 
> 
> https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/1
> 3/00911.htm 
>     -----
>     1. Ten years for a class 2 or 3 felony.
>     2. Five years for a class 4, 5 or 6 felony.
>     3. Three years for a class 1 misdemeanor.
>     4. Two years for a class 2 or 3 misdemeanor.
>     -----
> 
> But that is just what is theoretically possible. What is likely:
> 
> https://snaderlawgroup.com/expungement-diversion-dismissal/
>     -----
>     And, although I am asked many times every week, sealing one’s
>     record is extremely rare. In 25 years, I have never had a
>     request granted.
>     -----
> 
> So sealing or expunging is pretty much impossible. The record must
> still be there. But looking for the above I found this:
> 
> Carroll <v7m64o$ll5a$22@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
>     -----
>     https://i.ibb.co/3ScqzLJ/not-everything-is-gone.png
>     -----
> 
> Hmmm, NOT there. Why would the OLD screenshot not show it (look quick
> before Carroll takes it down). So which of their many different
> stories is true? 
> 
> Carroll makes these claims and other trolls latch onto them and expand
> them. But his every accusation is an admission:
> 
>   Snit:
>      -----
>      Are you denying that the police contacted you over your
>      harassment? -----
> 
>   Steve Carroll
>   <782ad182-b975-4be4-a1c0-49cb57ea2855@googlegroups.com>: 
>      -----
>      They did! Didn't they? And it appears to still be working ;)
>      -----
> 
> To be fair, Carroll later claimed he did not mean what he said and
> meant to reply to something else in the post. Riiiiiight. LOL!
> 
> Say that is even true... the bigger point: the insane accusations
> against me, going on for years, have been contradictory to each other,
> contrary to the law, contrary to what is likely to happen even if
> legally possible, and utterly unsupported.
> 
> But maybe they were just "some state-level bureaucrat making erroneous
> entries" (Carroll also made that claim).
> 
> Anyway, so now the claim is I had a charge that was dismissed. Not
> found guilty. No plea bargain.
> 
> Why aren't the trolls calling out the false accusations Carroll made:
> 
>     "Why did you stalk her? What did you think would happen?!"
> 
>     "I was mainly interested in why you stalked her..."
> 
>     "Why did you stalk her?"
>    
>     "> Given how I never stalked anyone,
>     I say you did..."
>    
>     "you were arrested for stalking after having a court order
>     issued for you to not stalk"
>    
>     "what you did, is a crime"
>    
>     "Said the projecting, dishonest hypocrite who stalked his wife"
>    
>     "I was mainly interested in why you stalked her"
>    
>     "To Goofy: Why did you stalk her? What did you think would
>     happen?!"
>    
>     "My concerns clearly were, and are:
>     1. Why you stalked her"
>    
>     "you're a wife-stalking man-child"
>    
>     "Why did you stalk her?"
> 
> I never stalked anyone. Carroll has. Notice the trolls are not
> obsessing over his actions.
> 

Who said you stalked anyone?
The charge is "Public Harassment" not staking and just because you worked
out some deal with the state does not negate the fact, and it is a fact, 
that you were indeed arrested for public harassment, booked, 
fingerprinted and let out on bail pending a hearing.
You can't deny this.

Oh, and did you know there was an order of protection filed against you 
as well?
A few years before your public harassment charge but there just the same.

You like to play word games snit however the deck is stacked against you 
and you will be unable to weasel your way out of your criminal record.
There are methods of acquiring the cases which have been removed from the 
public sites and the fact that people have taken screen prints makes it
so much easier.
So do you still want to play, loser?

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136952

On Aug 28, 2025 at 3:01:35 PM MST, "Octal" wrote
<XnsB349B75F65565jijq@62.164.182.22>:

> Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:68afa91d$0$10360$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
> 
>> On Aug 27, 2025 at 5:15:39 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>> <ps7vak5hh2h8lv60epjcpuic0f7ph9jkfl@4ax.com>:
>> 
>>> On 27 Aug 2025 22:18:40 GMT, Brock McNuggets
>>> <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 27, 2025 at 1:56:41?PM MST, ""Sgt. Joe Friday"" wrote
>>>> <108nre9$u03e$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>> 
>>>>> You keep claiming that you see no evidence of snit's criminal
>>>>> record other than people mentioning it. So here is a screen grab of
>>>>> the government site before snit settled with the prosecutor and the
>>>>> entry was rightfully removed.
>>>>> Now instead of supporting this lying asshole snit why don't you ask
>>>>> him to explain.
>>>>> He can't because numerous people saw the same thing and also took
>>>>> screen grabs.His only defense is to claim why isn't it still on the
>>>>> site and that's been explained. Of course that excuse was used by
>>>>> snit after he claimed usenet isn't reliable despite the data being
>>>>> a direct link to the site, when it was listed there. And of course
>>>>> the ever popular it's a fake which is of course another snit lie.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are plenty more where that came from.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://imgur.com/a/tQxsmym
>>>> 
>>>> * Inconsistent with other claimed "screenshots".
>>>> 
>>>> * How can something be illegal but "rightfully removed"?
>>>> 
>>>> * The claim was a dozen or more charges. That does not back the
>>>> accusations.
>>>> 
>>>> I am sure there are other holes in your story, but that is a good
>>>> start. LOL!
>>> 
>>> Top of the page:  "Complaint dismissed by prosecutor"
>> 
>> Overly long response warning:
>> 
>> So in this version of the screenshot: Contrary to the claims of a
>> dozen or so charges I was found guilty of, or plea bargained down, now
>> it is one charge and it was dismissed. So not guilty. But why would it
>> not show in public records? Even dismissed charges show UNLESS they
>> are sealed or expunged. That can take YEARS -- which does not fit with
>> the timeline given:
>> 
>> https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/1
>> 3/00911.htm
>>     -----
>>     1. Ten years for a class 2 or 3 felony.
>>     2. Five years for a class 4, 5 or 6 felony.
>>     3. Three years for a class 1 misdemeanor.
>>     4. Two years for a class 2 or 3 misdemeanor.
>>     -----
>> 
>> But that is just what is theoretically possible. What is likely:
>> 
>> https://snaderlawgroup.com/expungement-diversion-dismissal/
>>     -----
>>     And, although I am asked many times every week, sealing one’s
>>     record is extremely rare. In 25 years, I have never had a
>>     request granted.
>>     -----
>> 
>> So sealing or expunging is pretty much impossible. The record must
>> still be there. But looking for the above I found this:
>> 
>> Carroll <v7m64o$ll5a$22@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
>>     -----
>>     https://i.ibb.co/3ScqzLJ/not-everything-is-gone.png
>>     -----
>> 
>> Hmmm, NOT there. Why would the OLD screenshot not show it (look quick
>> before Carroll takes it down). So which of their many different
>> stories is true?
>> 
>> Carroll makes these claims and other trolls latch onto them and expand
>> them. But his every accusation is an admission:
>> 
>>   Snit:
>>      -----
>>      Are you denying that the police contacted you over your
>>      harassment? -----
>> 
>>   Steve Carroll
>>   <782ad182-b975-4be4-a1c0-49cb57ea2855@googlegroups.com>:
>>      -----
>>      They did! Didn't they? And it appears to still be working ;)
>>      -----
>> 
>> To be fair, Carroll later claimed he did not mean what he said and
>> meant to reply to something else in the post. Riiiiiight. LOL!
>> 
>> Say that is even true... the bigger point: the insane accusations
>> against me, going on for years, have been contradictory to each other,
>> contrary to the law, contrary to what is likely to happen even if
>> legally possible, and utterly unsupported.
>> 
>> But maybe they were just "some state-level bureaucrat making erroneous
>> entries" (Carroll also made that claim).
>> 
>> Anyway, so now the claim is I had a charge that was dismissed. Not
>> found guilty. No plea bargain.
>> 
>> Why aren't the trolls calling out the false accusations Carroll made:
>> 
>>     "Why did you stalk her? What did you think would happen?!"
>> 
>>     "I was mainly interested in why you stalked her..."
>> 
>>     "Why did you stalk her?"
>> 
>>     "> Given how I never stalked anyone,
>>     I say you did..."
>> 
>>     "you were arrested for stalking after having a court order
>>     issued for you to not stalk"
>> 
>>     "what you did, is a crime"
>> 
>>     "Said the projecting, dishonest hypocrite who stalked his wife"
>> 
>>     "I was mainly interested in why you stalked her"
>> 
>>     "To Goofy: Why did you stalk her? What did you think would
>>     happen?!"
>> 
>>     "My concerns clearly were, and are:
>>     1. Why you stalked her"
>> 
>>     "you're a wife-stalking man-child"
>> 
>>     "Why did you stalk her?"
>> 
>> I never stalked anyone. Carroll has. Notice the trolls are not
>> obsessing over his actions.
>> 
> 
> Who said you stalked anyone?

Carroll. As quoted above.

   "Why did you stalk her? What did you think would happen?!"

   "I was mainly interested in why you stalked her..."

   "Why did you stalk her?"
 
   "> Given how I never stalked anyone,
   I say you did..."
 
   "you were arrested for stalking after having a court order
   issued for you to not stalk"
 
   "what you did, is a crime"
 
   "Said the projecting, dishonest hypocrite who stalked his wife"
 
   "I was mainly interested in why you stalked her"
 
   "To Goofy: Why did you stalk her? What did you think would
   happen?!"
 
   "My concerns clearly were, and are:
   1. Why you stalked her"
 
   "you're a wife-stalking man-child"
 
   "Why did you stalk her?"

Your comprehension is weak.

> The charge is "Public Harassment"

What charge?

>  not staking and just because you worked
> out some deal with the state does not negate the fact, and it is a fact,
> that you were indeed arrested for public harassment, booked,
> fingerprinted and let out on bail pending a hearing.
> You can't deny this.

If this was true the evidence would be public. It is not.
> 
> Oh, and did you know there was an order of protection filed against you
> as well?

I did not. Nor did you. And if I had the evidence would be public.

> A few years before your public harassment charge but there just the same.
> 
> You like to play word games snit however the deck is stacked against you
> and you will be unable to weasel your way out of your criminal record.
> There are methods of acquiring the cases which have been removed from the
> public sites and the fact that people have taken screen prints makes it
> so much easier.
> So do you still want to play, loser?
> 
> 

You just lied. You lost. Oh well.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136964

On 29 Aug 2025 02:02:46 GMT, Brock McNuggets
<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 28, 2025 at 3:01:35?PM MST, "Octal" wrote
><XnsB349B75F65565jijq@62.164.182.22>:

<snip>

Ignoring trolls works in both directions.

Just sayin'.
-- 
I do not think that horse is completely dead yet. 
Whip it some more. -   Siri Cruz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136966

On Aug 29, 2025 at 12:06:11 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<ofu3bk9rp9m6v6qfdlpau522rfvbset370@4ax.com>:

> On 29 Aug 2025 02:02:46 GMT, Brock McNuggets
> <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 28, 2025 at 3:01:35?PM MST, "Octal" wrote
>> <XnsB349B75F65565jijq@62.164.182.22>:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Ignoring trolls works in both directions.
> 
> Just sayin'.

I openly admit I respond to trolling more than I can defend.
-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.advocacy

csiph-web