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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #133601 > unrolled thread

Re: Snit Michael Glasser has a new toy- Attacks Diesel--PING DIESEL

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Snit Michael Glasser has a new toy- Attacks Diesel--PING DIESEL Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-16 10:58 +0000

#133601 — Re: Snit Michael Glasser has a new toy- Attacks Diesel--PING DIESEL

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hn9u4sFlpucU1@mid.individual.net Thu, 16 Jul 2020 02:59:39 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> On 7/15/20 7:34 PM, Wolffan wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2020, Diesel wrote
>> (in article<XnsABFBD3B528035HT1@An1u9g9gm98HBNz2NdSOo4z.x>):
>> I've seen no evidence to support the hypothesis that Carroll
>> actually exists. He appears to be of your creation.
>> He is also killfiled. 
> 
> We all might be brains in vats.

Highly unlikely.
 
> Or just you are and nobody else exists.

Highly unlikely. Wolfs comment has some validity to it. I may have a 
way to determine if Carroll and yourself are one in the same person 
though; so we can get that issue out of the way and continue exposing 
you for the lying cretin scumbag you actually are, and obviously want 
more people to know this about you. 
 
>>> There's something known as a hard sell, and something known as
>>> an impossible sell. You seem to be leaning heavily on the latter
>>> now, Snit. You often make accusations towards Carroll but
>>> consistently lack the ability to provide evidence to support
>>> them. Just as you've done with myself, several times now. That's
>>> not a very good reputation to be having, Snit. You might want to
>>> consider the damage you're doing to yourself here as you
>>> continue with this ruse. 
>>>
>>> Wolf is another person who's not going to take your bs at face
>>> value, Snit. Don't even bother trying. They aren't as stupid as
>>> you need them to be, either.
>> 
>> I have him killfiled. I simply found that none of his statements
>> were believable. Difficult though it may be to believe, Snit is
>> even less truthful than troll-boy Brooks. This may be why they
>> get on so well. 
> 
> All those damned unquotable lies!

That's a lie in and of itself, Snit. It's easy to quote your lies 
right back to you, including the MIDs to your own posts.

For example, here's a few lies written by you, with nothing to 
support them.

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

"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"

*** end snippit

I ask again:
Where are the post(s) showing I made anything clear about
access to more than the output of the bot? The output as you
know, or should, are the posts it makes. Where is the post by
someone calling me out for what I wrote? Where is the post
where I clarified it was "merely" the compiled code I had?

You made several accusations in that paragraph. I went over them one 
by one with my replies, several times now. Provide the MIDs to the 
posts that backup what you wrote, Snit. If they exist, you shouldn't 
have any trouble providing the MIDs to them so we can all review the 
posts for ourselves. I maintain that you haven't provided any MIDs to 
support your claims above, because things aren't as you claimed they 
were.

If I'm wrong, Snit, provide the MIDs to the posts which backup all of 
yuor statements there. You claimed I made it clear I had access to 
not just the output of the bot, but to the code itself. Where's the 
MID(s) to support that statement? Post them.

Your second statement claims I was called out - Where are the MID(s) 
to those post(s) calling me out, Snit?

Your third statement claims I clarified it was merely the compiled 
code I had. Where are the MID(s) to those posts supporting that 
accusation, Snit?

See, right off the bat, I got you, dead to rights, telling three! 
seperate lies as part of your story you wrote up from your arse crack 
to try and link me to the bot that you have the most interest in 
here. So much interest in fact, you've been asking us to play 
spitball the idea with you. Do you really think we haven't noticed 
your effort to get what amounts to unwilling beta tester information, 
Snit? If you think you're that sneaky, think again. No, your 
questions don't provide evidence that you're behind the bot on their 
own. But, they clearly do show that you have the most interest in the 
bot, and a strong interest in learning from us what we can/or already 
have learned about it, again, by doing nothing more than examining 
it's output. We have access to the same information as yourself, the 
posts it pulls data from on usenet to come up with it's batshit crazy 
replies that often have nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

The bot, if it's even a program of any kind, script or otherwise, is 
very simplistic - it shows that the individual(s) behind it aren't 
very advanced programmers, and most likely, have equ hardware and 
networking knowledge at their disposal. A serious disadvantage for 
them here. 

Well, Snit, where are the MIDs to support what you claimed I'd 
written above? You went well out of your way to write that nonsense, 
it's beyond time you explain yourself and apologize for what you 
tried to do. In case it hasn't already occured to you, nobody took 
the bait, nobody turned on me. Nobody brought their focus concerning 
the bot onto me, Snit. Your plan, didn't work.





-- 
I've a cat in my lap and I can't get up!

[toc] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web