Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples.

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups	alt.computer.workshop, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.system, talk.politics.guns
Subject	Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples.
Date	2020-07-03 09:28 -0700
Message-ID	<hm94m6Fop1fU11@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<XnsABEF2ADF62E8AHT1@rSNu6VvwL.gxU66>

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/3/20 1:08 AM, Diesel wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> news:hm4qgsFrcn9U1@mid.individual.net Thu, 02 Jul 2020 01:10:51 GMT
> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> 
>> On 7/1/20 5:45 PM, Diesel wrote:
>>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>>> news:ThHIG.67536$iXb1.4658@fx03.ams1 Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:02:58
>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>>> I think you mean that you'd like to beat me - like your parents
>>>> did to you as a child?
>>>
>>> David, I won't deny the thought has crossed my mind on several
>>> occasions; what I'd do if I ever met you in person. Sure. That
>>> being said, I always found myself coming back to the reasonable
>>> decision; the only reasonable decision, talk to you, try to
>>> explain things to you in person. I think alot of our initial
>>> problem stemmed from a misunderstanding, or a series of them.
>>
>> The same is true with you and I. We had some misunderstandings.
> 
> No, it's not. There's no misunderstanding on my part concerning what
> you wrote here:
> 
> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
> 
> Diesel made it clear he could find the IP of the person running the
> bot. And he made it clear it would be easy for him to make a
> Sandman-like time table of posting, but showing Carroll and the bot
> and myself.
> 
> Was he lying when he said that? Maybe. But I do not think so. And if
> he was merely lying he would not have access to the program itself,
> which he makes VERY clear he did.
> 
> Diesel and Carroll were trolling together. The bot goes silent.
> Diesel then says if the bot is just turned off he will let it slide.
> Does that sound like Diesel to you? And he also say this:
> 
>     -----
>       It needs to be recoded anyway, it's a seriously piss poor
>       example of writing software.
>       -----
> 
> Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
> but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
> merely the compiled code he had:
> 
> <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
>       -----
>       Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
>       provided the original source code that was
>       compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
>       given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
>       still tells you *everything* about the program.
>       -----
> 
> So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
> guess: he will NEVER say.
> 
> *** end of your post that I even care enough about to respond to.
> It's all LIES. Nothing you wrote there is true. Not a single fucking
> word of it.
>   
>> I want to move forward in peace.
> 
> For some reason, I seriously doubt you do. First, we're not at war,
> so there's no real reason for the peace requirement here. Second,
> you still haven't provided an apology for making the false
> accusations against me above. You aren't able to backup the claims
> you wrote about me above, Snit, because, they are a combination of
> lies and your own personal unfounded opinions. Nothing of which is
> truthful, nor factual.
> 
> You lied about my involvement with the bot, you lied about me
> clarifying that I had the compiled code version. Dude, you straight
> up, lied about it all. There's no misunderstanding on my part about
> that.
>   
>> To you it is of paramount importance that I "admit", whether I
>> agree or not, to your view of things. And since I do not agree
>> this means you need to me to lie. When this is pointed out you go
>> back to you merely need me to agree to your view. Which is what I
>> keep saying.
> 
> Stop trying to twist things around to get out of or otherwise try to
> explain away what you did with that post there. for whatever reason,
> you have some kind of problem with me...This has nothing to do with
> my view of things. It has everything to do with a totally bullshit
> story you took the time and effort to construct AND THEN try to pass
> off here as the truth. What you wrote doesn't contain anything
> truthful. it's nothing more than untruthful comments concerning me
> and Carroll. I don't need you to agree to the fact you lied, what
> dishonest individual is going to do that, Duh. If they were going to
> do that, they wouldn't have lied in the first place!
> 
> You *already lied*, so I don't need you to do it again, No. What I
> need from you is an apology for the bullshit you wrote here:
> 
> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
> 
> Diesel made it clear he could find the IP of the person running the
> bot. And he made it clear it would be easy for him to make a
> Sandman-like time table of posting, but showing Carroll and the bot
> and myself.
> 
> Was he lying when he said that? Maybe. But I do not think so. And if
> he was merely lying he would not have access to the program itself,
> which he makes VERY clear he did.
> 
> Diesel and Carroll were trolling together. The bot goes silent.
> Diesel then says if the bot is just turned off he will let it slide.
> Does that sound like Diesel to you? And he also say this:
> 
>     -----
>       It needs to be recoded anyway, it's a seriously piss poor
>       example of writing software.
>       -----
> 
> Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
> but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
> merely the compiled code he had:
> 
> <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
>       -----
>       Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
>       provided the original source code that was
>       compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
>       given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
>       still tells you *everything* about the program.
>       -----
> 
> So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
> guess: he will NEVER say.
> 
> *** end
> 
> And then, you can apologize for falsely claiming that I've been
> manipulating, or attempting to manipulate anyone here concerning
> you. Infact, you quoted me again (but it once again, doesn't support
> your claim) to try and support that bullshit story too, Snit.
> 
> After getting called out for the lies you wrote in the post above,
> you went and tried to pass this one off to distract from the first
> one, AND, prepare your 'defense' for what you suspect is coming down
> the pipe already here. Even you have to realize that your bullshit
> isn't working. You picked the wrong one to go and tell stories like
> that about, and the wrong newsgroup to take for a bunch of idiots.
> 
> You're quite arrogant, dishonest, and rather stupid in the way in
> which you go about playing around, Snit. And by playing around, I
> mean, trying to con people. To snow them, or otherwise, bullshit
> them into believing whatever story it is you're trying to sell. You
> picked the wrong target with me, Snit.
> 
> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159375554900
> MID: <hls8l8F67fkU1@mid.individual.net>
> 
> 
>> You then went back to a favorite topic of yours where you asked me
>> to find the quote where you spoke of your primary goal NOT being
>> to really have me apologize to you for a wrong you thought I did
>> to you, but was instead a secondary goal... with your primary one
>> to manipulate how others see me:
>>     <XnsABDF2D3B2B020HT1@R9wCnNq03.wp>
>>       -----
>>       I simply wanted to know if you'd man up and apologize for
>>       the lies you wrote about me. It's quite clear that you
>>       will not be doing that anytime soon, and as I told you
>>       yesterday, the apology itself was always a secondary goal.
>>       The primary goal was to show what you are to the rest of
>>       the regulars of this newsgroup. And by show them what you
>>       are, let them see you for you, without any prodding or
>>       help from your detractors. Nobody told you to lie about
>>       me, you went and did that entirely on your own.
>>       -----
> 
> For the record Snit, I couldn't manipulate anyone who's a regular on
> (acw) if I tried. And I seriously doubt the other newsgroups would
> be so easily conned. Fact is, you've noticed (I'm sure you've read
> Apd and Ftrs comments concerning this post of mine):
> 
> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159375562200
> MID: <XnsABE3303B9947DHT1@XXqx6Asi5bL2viHcUglZ2heL72.Ik98aioxvx58w20xQ.Jl7>
>   
>> You have a story you tell yourself about how you are some amazing
>> hero... and key to your story is you need a villain. A capable and
>> worthy villain. In that way you flatter David and I by selecting
>> us as the villains in your personal story, but it is not a role I
>> want, nor one I think David wants.
> 
> Your need to project and otherwise makeup stories to explain away
> why someone, such as myself, has a problem with you is childish,
> Snit. My problem is quite simple, I don't appreciate the effort you
> spent to write up a totally bullshit story about my involvement with
> the usenet bot. I have nothing to do with it, and I didn't claim
> otherwise, get called out, or clarify anything besides that. You
> *LIED* about me. And you spent a little time to write the story to
> do it with, going so far as to cherry pick a single paragraph from a
> reply I wrote (correcting you concerning what one needs/doesn't need
> to learn about a program) to support your fabricated story claiming
> I had anything to do with the bot.
> 
>> Why not just move forward?
> 
> That would require me to let you off the hook for what you did,
> without holding you accountable for having done it. That wouldn't be
> an honest thing of me to do, and it wouldn't be right for you to get
> away with lying about me.
> 
>> OK, we disagreed in the past.
> 
> This isn't a matter of a disagreement, no matter how many times you
> try to spin it as one. It's a matter of you telling lies and not
> accepting responsibility for having written them:
> 
> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
> 
> First lie:
> Diesel made it clear he could find the IP of the person running the
> bot. And he made it clear it would be easy for him to make a
> Sandman-like time table of posting, but showing Carroll and the bot
> and myself.
> 
> ****
> Nothing you wrote is truthful. You can't find a single MID from me
> to support it. I made it quite clear, it was possible, but not for
> certain that the bots actual IP address could be found. That is NOT
> the same as what you wrote there, Snit.
> 
> Second lie:
> 
> Was he lying when he said that? Maybe. But I do not think so. And if
> he was merely lying he would not have access to the program itself,
> which he makes VERY clear he did.
> 
> ***
> 
> Since I didn't write what you falsely claimed I had, I couldn't very
> well be lying about it. And what MID can you provide that shows I
> made it "VERY" clear I had access to the program itself? You can't
> provide one, because no such MID exists. You LIED.
> 
> Third lie:
> Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
> but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
> merely the compiled code he had:
> 
> <XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
>       -----
>       Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
>       provided the original source code that was
>       compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
>       given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
>       still tells you *everything* about the program.
>       -----
> 
> So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
> guess: he will NEVER say.
> 
> ***
> 
> There's no 'misunderstanding' here, Snit. You FALSELY accused me of
> having the bot in compiled code form no less, you falsely accused me
> of clarifying it, and you falsely accused me of being called out for
> this, because you erroneously assume (and hope others fall for your
> bullshit story you wrote about me) that I made it clear I had more
> than just the bots output. I made nothing of the sort, clear. You
> can't find an MID to back that accusation up either.
> 
>> We each think the other was wrong, even dishonest.
> 
> Bullshit, Snit. You aren't going to be able to pull that routine off
> here, either. There's no "we think" this or that. You wrote
> statements to be taken as fact when they were nothing of the sort.
> There's absolutely no mistaking what you tried to do here.
> 
>> I have asked repeatedly -- but you so far have not accepted that
>> as a possibility.
> 
> You have to use your own word, pretended that you didn't do anything
> wrong, repeatedly. You've pretended that a misunderstanding took
> place, and of course, the misunderstanding is on my end. You've been
> doing alot of pretending.
> 
> It's time you grow up and accept responsibility for the things you
> do, and the things you say and write online, Snit. You took the time
> to write more than a little white lie here, and I want what's
> rightfully mine. An apology.
>   
>> Do you know what it would take for you to grow to the point you
>> could? If so perhaps I can help you get there (or not -- I
>> certainly make no promises).
> 
> Snit, after all you've been caught doing in the short period of time
> you've been here, you are the last person who should even be
> suggesting another grow up. Nor should you be attempting to offer
> yourself as a teaching aid in that department, considering you still
> act very childish by going out of your way to write lies, and when
> caught, you go out of your way to avoid having to admit that's what
> you did. Just how stupid do you think people reading these posts
> actually are, Snit?
> 
> You're quite arrogant, the problem is, you don't have the brain
> power to back the ego - and that could become a very real and quite
> serious problem for you down the road. Someone may not be nearly as
> patient with you as I've already been when you lie on them.
> 
> Besides, in your particular case, I don't have to do much of
> anything to sink you. You're doing all the hard work for me with the
> replies you consistently respond with. If anyone is being
> manipulated here, and that's really stretching, it would be you; by
> me.
> 
> And, it would only be in the sense that I've manipulated you into
> lowering your guard and exposing your true nature; by engaging with,
> challenging you and becoming the target you needed.
> 
> So when I noticed you wrote the story you did about me concerning
> the bot, I saw the opportunity to run a test. My thinking on that is
> as follows:
> 
> Rather than any of us here take your detractors words for anything,
> including the so called Snit list, let's see if anything on it is
> true, and I'll be the guinea pig for the experiment. I know you lied
> on me, I'm going to call you out on it, and ask for an apology. If
> what's written by your detractors is true, you won't be providing
> one, Instead, you'll avoid it, you'll claim I misunderstood, but you
> won't admit any wrong doing, and you won't apologize. IF.. what
> they've been writing was true. If there's a chance it's not, even a
> small one, you'll own upto what you did, and apologize for it.
> 
> You may have also issued an apology just to keep the ruse going for
> a bit longer, in the event you caught onto what I was doing when I
> asked for the apology - you didn't, so there's no concern of a fake
> one having been issued to cover your ass now, either.
> 
> I didn't manipulate anyone else, and as I wrote, it would be a real
> stretch to say I actually manipulated you into doing anything you
> didn't already want to do. You mistakenly assumed those degrees
> would be your friend; that you are superior to anyone else you run
> across online. Well, that's "clearly" not the case here, Snit.
> 
> 

See: a great example of a post where it would make perfect sense to joke 
about a bot being able to respond to it. I merely skimmed, but it seems 
you spend hundreds of words just repeating your same tantrum.

In theory someone could write a bot to look for specific words and 
phrases you use in this particular tantrum of yours, and then just 
respond with the same reply each time. Or a randomized one to make it a 
bit harder to see it is a bot.

THAT is the type joke you claim you failed to understand... but your 
tantrum gives a great example of how the joke can be used.

For that, I guess, thanks.



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

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

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-03 08:08 +0000
  Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-03 09:06 +0000
    Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-03 11:39 +0100
      Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-03 09:33 -0700
        Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-03 20:30 +0100
          Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-03 19:54 +0000
            Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-03 21:53 +0100
              Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-03 21:00 +0000
              Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 05:54 +0000
                Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-04 23:01 -0700
                Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-05 08:32 +0100
                Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-05 08:16 +0000
                Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 09:06 +0000
                Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 09:06 +0000
                Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 09:06 +0000
                Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-10 05:27 +0000
      Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 05:54 +0000
    Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 05:54 +0000
      Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-04 23:46 -0700
        Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 09:06 +0000
  Re: Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-03 09:28 -0700

csiph-web