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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #133154 > unrolled thread

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

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

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#133154 — Snit: and the lies continue. See here for examples.

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. 


-- 
Dreaming frees the soul, energizes the spirit and allows you to do
things that would get your ass thrown in jail if you really tried
them. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#133156

Diesel <nobody@haph.org> 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. 

Then you are lying when you say we disagree. Interesting. 

...

>> I want to move forward in peace.
> 
> For some reason, I seriously doubt you do. 

Don’t use your challenges with trust to stop you from being civil. I am not
asking you to vouch for me or the like — just to be civil. But I think you
have dug your hole too deep to allow yourself to do so. A shame. You are
not overall a bad fellow as far as I can tell. 

>> 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. 

You clearly keep begging me to say I agree — even though you have been told
I do not. There is no twist there.

...

>> Why not just move forward? 
> 
> That would require me to let you off the hook for what you did,

I have let you off the hook for lying about me, such as when you made up
stories of my blindly trusting David about you. 

Interesting how you cannot move forward when you disagree with someone. 

> without holding you accountable for having done it. 

What “accountability” are you suggesting I hold you to over your poor
behavior? Personally, and no offense is meant here, you could say I was the
Queen of England and I could still be civil. Maybe if you mattered more to
me, as I clearly do to you, disagreements between us would bother me more.
Then again I disagree with those I am close to — so maybe not. 

> That wouldn't be
> an honest thing of me to do, 

There is nothing dishonest about moving forward in peace after a
disagreement, even when no agreement is reached. Curious how the very idea
of what it means to be honest is so unclear to you. No wonder you keep
begging me to lie for you. 

> and it wouldn't be right for you to get
> away with lying about me. 

What are you doing to atone for your lies? 

>> OK, we disagreed in the past. 
> 
> This isn't a matter of a disagreement, 

Great! If you no longer disagree then move forward in peace. Or civility.
But, contrary to your claim, you are still stuck on our disagreement. 

...

> 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. 

Ah, so Carroll succeeded in getting the list in your mind. A list that has
nothing from me in it. He manipulated you. I did warn you about that. Thank
you for noting how he successfully got it in you mind. 

> You mistakenly assumed those degrees
> would be your friend; 

I never brought them up. Again you show how you have been manipulated.
Curious. I very much wish I had been wrong. 

> that you are superior to anyone else you run
> across online. Well, that's "clearly" not the case here, Snit. 

Yet you spend your time setting me up as your main villain in your personal
story — using morally juvenile rankings to decide which of us is above the
other. You have no idea what that says about you and your views. No
inflection is needed, though, to see how you place me in such an important
role — as I have noted, while it is not flattery I seek from you it is
clearly a form of such. Also explains why you have spent so much time
trying to impress me with your skills — yet never really showing you can do
anything, even the moral things, you claim you can. 

You clearly want me to believe you and respond poorly when I show doubt or
disagreement. You fear letting me down — for example you spoke of what you
could find out about the Usenet flood bot, but then showed more excuses
then insight. That is fine — as I have said you owe me nothing, just as I
owe you nothing. 

Meanwhile I am just happy to be civil. I do not need your approval or
admiration, I need not beg you to agree with me or lie and say you do. I
need not do as you do and set myself up as a grand hero with you as my arch
enemy. I do not rank you as better or worse but 

Do you even see how much it clearly bothers you to have failed to earn such
a position with me? If not, well, before you read your inevitable reply to
this post pause and re-read it. See if you can catch how many times you
show yourself to be frustrated at a simple disagreement / misunderstanding.




-- 
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.

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

#133157

On 03/07/2020 10:06, Snit wrote:
> Diesel <nobody@haph.org> 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.
> 
> Then you are lying when you say we disagree. Interesting.
> 
> ...
> 
>>> I want to move forward in peace.
>>
>> For some reason, I seriously doubt you do.
> 
> Don’t use your challenges with trust to stop you from being civil. I am not
> asking you to vouch for me or the like — just to be civil. But I think you
> have dug your hole too deep to allow yourself to do so. A shame. You are
> not overall a bad fellow as far as I can tell.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> You clearly keep begging me to say I agree — even though you have been told
> I do not. There is no twist there.
> 
> ...
> 
>>> Why not just move forward?
>>
>> That would require me to let you off the hook for what you did,
> 
> I have let you off the hook for lying about me, such as when you made up
> stories of my blindly trusting David about you.
> 
> Interesting how you cannot move forward when you disagree with someone.
> 
>> without holding you accountable for having done it.
> 
> What “accountability” are you suggesting I hold you to over your poor
> behavior? Personally, and no offense is meant here, you could say I was the
> Queen of England and I could still be civil. Maybe if you mattered more to
> me, as I clearly do to you, disagreements between us would bother me more.
> Then again I disagree with those I am close to — so maybe not.
> 
>> That wouldn't be
>> an honest thing of me to do,
> 
> There is nothing dishonest about moving forward in peace after a
> disagreement, even when no agreement is reached. Curious how the very idea
> of what it means to be honest is so unclear to you. No wonder you keep
> begging me to lie for you.
> 
>> and it wouldn't be right for you to get
>> away with lying about me.
> 
> What are you doing to atone for your lies?
> 
>>> OK, we disagreed in the past.
>>
>> This isn't a matter of a disagreement,
> 
> Great! If you no longer disagree then move forward in peace. Or civility.
> But, contrary to your claim, you are still stuck on our disagreement.
> 
> ...
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Ah, so Carroll succeeded in getting the list in your mind. A list that has
> nothing from me in it. He manipulated you. I did warn you about that. Thank
> you for noting how he successfully got it in you mind.

I've never read that list!

I don't like being manipulated.

>> You mistakenly assumed those degrees
>> would be your friend;
> 
> I never brought them up. Again you show how you have been manipulated.
> Curious. I very much wish I had been wrong.
> 
>> that you are superior to anyone else you run
>> across online. Well, that's "clearly" not the case here, Snit.
> 
> Yet you spend your time setting me up as your main villain in your personal
> story — using morally juvenile rankings to decide which of us is above the
> other. You have no idea what that says about you and your views. No
> inflection is needed, though, to see how you place me in such an important
> role — as I have noted, while it is not flattery I seek from you it is
> clearly a form of such. Also explains why you have spent so much time
> trying to impress me with your skills — yet never really showing you can do
> anything, even the moral things, you claim you can.
> 
> You clearly want me to believe you and respond poorly when I show doubt or
> disagreement. You fear letting me down — for example you spoke of what you
> could find out about the Usenet flood bot, but then showed more excuses
> then insight. That is fine — as I have said you owe me nothing, just as I
> owe you nothing.
> 
> Meanwhile I am just happy to be civil. I do not need your approval or
> admiration, I need not beg you to agree with me or lie and say you do. I
> need not do as you do and set myself up as a grand hero with you as my arch
> enemy. I do not rank you as better or worse but
> 
> Do you even see how much it clearly bothers you to have failed to earn such
> a position with me? If not, well, before you read your inevitable reply to
> this post pause and re-read it. See if you can catch how many times you
> show yourself to be frustrated at a simple disagreement / misunderstanding.

Oh My!

You are *SO* much better at teasing him than I have EVER been! ;-)

You should stop though. It's not fair. :-(

Dustin has been punished long enough.

It's time to be nice to one another. OK?

-- 
Warm regards,
David

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

#133169

On 7/3/20 3:39 AM, David_B wrote:
...
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Ah, so Carroll succeeded in getting the list in your mind. A list
>> that has nothing from me in it. He manipulated you. I did warn you
>> about that. Thank you for noting how he successfully got it in you
>> mind.
> 
> I've never read that list!
> 
> I don't like being manipulated.

Feel free to -- just note that it has few if any quotes from me. It has, 
instead, quotes Carroll obsessively scavenged and forged because he 
could not actually show me doing the things he accuses me of.

>>> You mistakenly assumed those degrees would be your friend;
>> 
>> I never brought them up. Again you show how you have been
>> manipulated. Curious. I very much wish I had been wrong.
>> 
>>> that you are superior to anyone else you run across online. Well,
>>> that's "clearly" not the case here, Snit.
>> 
>> Yet you spend your time setting me up as your main villain in your
>>  personal story — using morally juvenile rankings to decide which
>> of us is above the other. You have no idea what that says about you
>> and your views. No inflection is needed, though, to see how you
>> place me in such an important role — as I have noted, while it is
>> not flattery I seek from you it is clearly a form of such. Also
>> explains why you have spent so much time trying to impress me with
>> your skills — yet never really showing you can do anything, even
>> the moral things, you claim you can.
>> 
>> You clearly want me to believe you and respond poorly when I show 
>> doubt or disagreement. You fear letting me down — for example you
>> spoke of what you could find out about the Usenet flood bot, but
>> then showed more excuses then insight. That is fine — as I have
>> said you owe me nothing, just as I owe you nothing.
>> 
>> Meanwhile I am just happy to be civil. I do not need your approval
>> or admiration, I need not beg you to agree with me or lie and say
>> you do. I need not do as you do and set myself up as a grand hero
>> with you as my arch enemy. I do not rank you as better or worse
>> but
>> 
>> Do you even see how much it clearly bothers you to have failed to
>> earn such a position with me? If not, well, before you read your
>> inevitable reply to this post pause and re-read it. See if you can
>> catch how many times you show yourself to be frustrated at a simple
>> disagreement / misunderstanding.
> 
> Oh My!
> 
> You are *SO* much better at teasing him than I have EVER been! ;-)

I have noted that those who troll me tend to not like the responses.

> You should stop though. It's not fair. :-(

He is in a wee bit over his head.

> Dustin has been punished long enough.
> 
> It's time to be nice to one another. OK?

I just posted how I was going to let him have his little foot stamping 
tantrum and I would not respond for a bit. He can declare himself victor 
and insist I ran or whatever games he wants.

When he posts about other topics I might respond to those... but I 
suspect for some time he will be unable to focus on anything other than 
how his trolling backfired as he responds to me.

If so I will just give him more time. I suspect his tantrum can only 
last so long, though he might surprise me on that.


-- 
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.

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

#133173

On 03/07/2020 17:33, Snit wrote:
> 
> On 7/3/20 3:39 AM, David_B wrote:
> ...
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Ah, so Carroll succeeded in getting the list in your mind. A list
>>> that has nothing from me in it. He manipulated you. I did warn you
>>> about that. Thank you for noting how he successfully got it in you
>>> mind.
>>
>> I've never read that list!
>>
>> I don't like being manipulated.
> 
> Feel free to -- just note that it has few if any quotes from me. It has, 
> instead, quotes Carroll obsessively scavenged and forged because he 
> could not actually show me doing the things he accuses me of.

Thanks, but no thanks.

>>>> You mistakenly assumed those degrees would be your friend;
>>>
>>> I never brought them up. Again you show how you have been
>>> manipulated. Curious. I very much wish I had been wrong.
>>>
>>>> that you are superior to anyone else you run across online. Well,
>>>> that's "clearly" not the case here, Snit.
>>>
>>> Yet you spend your time setting me up as your main villain in your
>>>  personal story — using morally juvenile rankings to decide which
>>> of us is above the other. You have no idea what that says about you
>>> and your views. No inflection is needed, though, to see how you
>>> place me in such an important role — as I have noted, while it is
>>> not flattery I seek from you it is clearly a form of such. Also
>>> explains why you have spent so much time trying to impress me with
>>> your skills — yet never really showing you can do anything, even
>>> the moral things, you claim you can.
>>>
>>> You clearly want me to believe you and respond poorly when I show 
>>> doubt or disagreement. You fear letting me down — for example you
>>> spoke of what you could find out about the Usenet flood bot, but
>>> then showed more excuses then insight. That is fine — as I have
>>> said you owe me nothing, just as I owe you nothing.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile I am just happy to be civil. I do not need your approval
>>> or admiration, I need not beg you to agree with me or lie and say
>>> you do. I need not do as you do and set myself up as a grand hero
>>> with you as my arch enemy. I do not rank you as better or worse
>>> but
>>>
>>> Do you even see how much it clearly bothers you to have failed to
>>> earn such a position with me? If not, well, before you read your
>>> inevitable reply to this post pause and re-read it. See if you can
>>> catch how many times you show yourself to be frustrated at a simple
>>> disagreement / misunderstanding.
>>
>> Oh My!
>>
>> You are *SO* much better at teasing him than I have EVER been! ;-)
> 
> I have noted that those who troll me tend to not like the responses.

I can see why! :-D

>> You should stop though. It's not fair. :-(
> 
> He is in a wee bit over his head.

There's no going back for him now!

>> Dustin has been punished long enough.
>>
>> It's time to be nice to one another. OK?
> 
> I just posted how I was going to let him have his little foot stamping 
> tantrum and I would not respond for a bit. He can declare himself victor 
> and insist I ran or whatever games he wants.
> 
> When he posts about other topics I might respond to those... but I 
> suspect for some time he will be unable to focus on anything other than 
> how his trolling backfired as he responds to me.
> 
> If so I will just give him more time. I suspect his tantrum can only 
> last so long, though he might surprise me on that.

He was hoping I'd be dead soon. With that in mind I asked for help (from 
above!) and suddenly - here you are. :-D With luck you can walk in my 
shoes for another 25+ years and teach Dustin the manners which I have so 
sadly failed to do. Good luck with this mission, Snit!

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

#133176

David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> On 03/07/2020 17:33, Snit wrote:
>> 
>> On 7/3/20 3:39 AM, David_B wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, so Carroll succeeded in getting the list in your mind. A list
>>>> that has nothing from me in it. He manipulated you. I did warn you
>>>> about that. Thank you for noting how he successfully got it in you
>>>> mind.
>>> 
>>> I've never read that list!
>>> 
>>> I don't like being manipulated.
>> 
>> Feel free to -- just note that it has few if any quotes from me. It has, 
>> instead, quotes Carroll obsessively scavenged and forged because he 
>> could not actually show me doing the things he accuses me of.
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks.

Just don’t want you to feel like I am dissuading you.  

>>>>> You mistakenly assumed those degrees would be your friend;
>>>> 
>>>> I never brought them up. Again you show how you have been
>>>> manipulated. Curious. I very much wish I had been wrong.
>>>> 
>>>>> that you are superior to anyone else you run across online. Well,
>>>>> that's "clearly" not the case here, Snit.
>>>> 
>>>> Yet you spend your time setting me up as your main villain in your
>>>>  personal story — using morally juvenile rankings to decide which
>>>> of us is above the other. You have no idea what that says about you
>>>> and your views. No inflection is needed, though, to see how you
>>>> place me in such an important role — as I have noted, while it is
>>>> not flattery I seek from you it is clearly a form of such. Also
>>>> explains why you have spent so much time trying to impress me with
>>>> your skills — yet never really showing you can do anything, even
>>>> the moral things, you claim you can.
>>>> 
>>>> You clearly want me to believe you and respond poorly when I show 
>>>> doubt or disagreement. You fear letting me down — for example you
>>>> spoke of what you could find out about the Usenet flood bot, but
>>>> then showed more excuses then insight. That is fine — as I have
>>>> said you owe me nothing, just as I owe you nothing.
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile I am just happy to be civil. I do not need your approval
>>>> or admiration, I need not beg you to agree with me or lie and say
>>>> you do. I need not do as you do and set myself up as a grand hero
>>>> with you as my arch enemy. I do not rank you as better or worse
>>>> but
>>>> 
>>>> Do you even see how much it clearly bothers you to have failed to
>>>> earn such a position with me? If not, well, before you read your
>>>> inevitable reply to this post pause and re-read it. See if you can
>>>> catch how many times you show yourself to be frustrated at a simple
>>>> disagreement / misunderstanding.
>>> 
>>> Oh My!
>>> 
>>> You are *SO* much better at teasing him than I have EVER been! ;-)
>> 
>> I have noted that those who troll me tend to not like the responses.
> 
> I can see why! :-D

:)

>>> You should stop though. It's not fair. :-(
>> 
>> He is in a wee bit over his head.
> 
> There's no going back for him now!

I am sincere in saying he can just move forward. I shan’t harass him over
his past. Well, some gentle teasing maybe — but I am sure he would do the
same to me. 

>>> Dustin has been punished long enough.
>>> 
>>> It's time to be nice to one another. OK?
>> 
>> I just posted how I was going to let him have his little foot stamping 
>> tantrum and I would not respond for a bit. He can declare himself victor 
>> and insist I ran or whatever games he wants.
>> 
>> When he posts about other topics I might respond to those... but I 
>> suspect for some time he will be unable to focus on anything other than 
>> how his trolling backfired as he responds to me.
>> 
>> If so I will just give him more time. I suspect his tantrum can only 
>> last so long, though he might surprise me on that.
> 
> He was hoping I'd be dead soon. With that in mind I asked for help (from 
> above!) and suddenly - here you are. :-D With luck you can walk in my 
> shoes for another 25+ years and teach Dustin the manners which I have so 
> sadly failed to do. Good luck with this mission, Snit!

Thanks. Do you know who else he has placed in the villain role as he sees
himself as a grand hero?



-- 
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.

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

#133179

On 03/07/2020 20:54, Snit wrote:
> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2020 17:33, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/3/20 3:39 AM, David_B wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, so Carroll succeeded in getting the list in your mind. A list
>>>>> that has nothing from me in it. He manipulated you. I did warn you
>>>>> about that. Thank you for noting how he successfully got it in you
>>>>> mind.
>>>>
>>>> I've never read that list!
>>>>
>>>> I don't like being manipulated.
>>>
>>> Feel free to -- just note that it has few if any quotes from me. It has,
>>> instead, quotes Carroll obsessively scavenged and forged because he
>>> could not actually show me doing the things he accuses me of.
>>
>> Thanks, but no thanks.
> 
> Just don’t want you to feel like I am dissuading you.

That's kind of you. :-)

>>>>>> You mistakenly assumed those degrees would be your friend;
>>>>>
>>>>> I never brought them up. Again you show how you have been
>>>>> manipulated. Curious. I very much wish I had been wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>> that you are superior to anyone else you run across online. Well,
>>>>>> that's "clearly" not the case here, Snit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you spend your time setting me up as your main villain in your
>>>>>   personal story — using morally juvenile rankings to decide which
>>>>> of us is above the other. You have no idea what that says about you
>>>>> and your views. No inflection is needed, though, to see how you
>>>>> place me in such an important role — as I have noted, while it is
>>>>> not flattery I seek from you it is clearly a form of such. Also
>>>>> explains why you have spent so much time trying to impress me with
>>>>> your skills — yet never really showing you can do anything, even
>>>>> the moral things, you claim you can.
>>>>>
>>>>> You clearly want me to believe you and respond poorly when I show
>>>>> doubt or disagreement. You fear letting me down — for example you
>>>>> spoke of what you could find out about the Usenet flood bot, but
>>>>> then showed more excuses then insight. That is fine — as I have
>>>>> said you owe me nothing, just as I owe you nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile I am just happy to be civil. I do not need your approval
>>>>> or admiration, I need not beg you to agree with me or lie and say
>>>>> you do. I need not do as you do and set myself up as a grand hero
>>>>> with you as my arch enemy. I do not rank you as better or worse
>>>>> but
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you even see how much it clearly bothers you to have failed to
>>>>> earn such a position with me? If not, well, before you read your
>>>>> inevitable reply to this post pause and re-read it. See if you can
>>>>> catch how many times you show yourself to be frustrated at a simple
>>>>> disagreement / misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>> Oh My!
>>>>
>>>> You are *SO* much better at teasing him than I have EVER been! ;-)
>>>
>>> I have noted that those who troll me tend to not like the responses.
>>
>> I can see why! :-D
> 
> :)
> 
>>>> You should stop though. It's not fair. :-(
>>>
>>> He is in a wee bit over his head.
>>
>> There's no going back for him now!
> 
> I am sincere in saying he can just move forward. I shan’t harass him over
> his past. Well, some gentle teasing maybe — but I am sure he would do the
> same to me.

Haha! :-D

>>>> Dustin has been punished long enough.
>>>>
>>>> It's time to be nice to one another. OK?
>>>
>>> I just posted how I was going to let him have his little foot stamping
>>> tantrum and I would not respond for a bit. He can declare himself victor
>>> and insist I ran or whatever games he wants.
>>>
>>> When he posts about other topics I might respond to those... but I
>>> suspect for some time he will be unable to focus on anything other than
>>> how his trolling backfired as he responds to me.
>>>
>>> If so I will just give him more time. I suspect his tantrum can only
>>> last so long, though he might surprise me on that.
>>
>> He was hoping I'd be dead soon. With that in mind I asked for help (from
>> above!) and suddenly - here you are. :-D With luck you can walk in my
>> shoes for another 25+ years and teach Dustin the manners which I have so
>> sadly failed to do. Good luck with this mission, Snit!
> 
> Thanks. Do you know who else he has placed in the villain role as he sees
> himself as a grand hero?

Yes. Forget about Eagle and Jenn. A poster called 'Jax' used to really 
wind him up but I did genuinely believe that Dustin was going to cause 
real-life harm to her. :-(

The persona who REALLY got through to Dustin was a Brit calling himself 
Pooh-the-cat in the alt.comp.freeware group

p-0''0-h the cat (coder) <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid>

You'll find all manner of posts in that newsgroup!

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

#133183

David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> On 03/07/2020 20:54, Snit wrote:
>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> On 03/07/2020 17:33, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 7/3/20 3:39 AM, David_B wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ah, so Carroll succeeded in getting the list in your mind. A list
>>>>>> that has nothing from me in it. He manipulated you. I did warn you
>>>>>> about that. Thank you for noting how he successfully got it in you
>>>>>> mind.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've never read that list!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't like being manipulated.
>>>> 
>>>> Feel free to -- just note that it has few if any quotes from me. It has,
>>>> instead, quotes Carroll obsessively scavenged and forged because he
>>>> could not actually show me doing the things he accuses me of.
>>> 
>>> Thanks, but no thanks.
>> 
>> Just don’t want you to feel like I am dissuading you.
> 
> That's kind of you. :-)
> 
>>>>>>> You mistakenly assumed those degrees would be your friend;
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I never brought them up. Again you show how you have been
>>>>>> manipulated. Curious. I very much wish I had been wrong.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> that you are superior to anyone else you run across online. Well,
>>>>>>> that's "clearly" not the case here, Snit.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yet you spend your time setting me up as your main villain in your
>>>>>>  personal story — using morally juvenile rankings to decide which
>>>>>> of us is above the other. You have no idea what that says about you
>>>>>> and your views. No inflection is needed, though, to see how you
>>>>>> place me in such an important role — as I have noted, while it is
>>>>>> not flattery I seek from you it is clearly a form of such. Also
>>>>>> explains why you have spent so much time trying to impress me with
>>>>>> your skills — yet never really showing you can do anything, even
>>>>>> the moral things, you claim you can.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You clearly want me to believe you and respond poorly when I show
>>>>>> doubt or disagreement. You fear letting me down — for example you
>>>>>> spoke of what you could find out about the Usenet flood bot, but
>>>>>> then showed more excuses then insight. That is fine — as I have
>>>>>> said you owe me nothing, just as I owe you nothing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Meanwhile I am just happy to be civil. I do not need your approval
>>>>>> or admiration, I need not beg you to agree with me or lie and say
>>>>>> you do. I need not do as you do and set myself up as a grand hero
>>>>>> with you as my arch enemy. I do not rank you as better or worse
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you even see how much it clearly bothers you to have failed to
>>>>>> earn such a position with me? If not, well, before you read your
>>>>>> inevitable reply to this post pause and re-read it. See if you can
>>>>>> catch how many times you show yourself to be frustrated at a simple
>>>>>> disagreement / misunderstanding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oh My!
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are *SO* much better at teasing him than I have EVER been! ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> I have noted that those who troll me tend to not like the responses.
>>> 
>>> I can see why! :-D
>> 
>> :)
>> 
>>>>> You should stop though. It's not fair. :-(
>>>> 
>>>> He is in a wee bit over his head.
>>> 
>>> There's no going back for him now!
>> 
>> I am sincere in saying he can just move forward. I shan’t harass him over
>> his past. Well, some gentle teasing maybe — but I am sure he would do the
>> same to me.
> 
> Haha! :-D

Hey, I don’t claim to be above that. I don’t thing Diesel would be above it
either. And that’s fine. 

>>>>> Dustin has been punished long enough.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's time to be nice to one another. OK?
>>>> 
>>>> I just posted how I was going to let him have his little foot stamping
>>>> tantrum and I would not respond for a bit. He can declare himself victor
>>>> and insist I ran or whatever games he wants.
>>>> 
>>>> When he posts about other topics I might respond to those... but I
>>>> suspect for some time he will be unable to focus on anything other than
>>>> how his trolling backfired as he responds to me.
>>>> 
>>>> If so I will just give him more time. I suspect his tantrum can only
>>>> last so long, though he might surprise me on that.
>>> 
>>> He was hoping I'd be dead soon. With that in mind I asked for help (from
>>> above!) and suddenly - here you are. :-D With luck you can walk in my
>>> shoes for another 25+ years and teach Dustin the manners which I have so
>>> sadly failed to do. Good luck with this mission, Snit!
>> 
>> Thanks. Do you know who else he has placed in the villain role as he sees
>> himself as a grand hero?
> 
> Yes. Forget about Eagle and Jenn. A poster called 'Jax' used to really 
> wind him up but I did genuinely believe that Dustin was going to cause 
> real-life harm to her. :-(

He presents it that way. 

> The persona who REALLY got through to Dustin was a Brit calling himself 
> Pooh-the-cat in the alt.comp.freeware group
> 
> p-0''0-h the cat (coder) <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid>
> 
> You'll find all manner of posts in that newsgroup!

I have seen that name. 

Not surprised I am not his first “villain” — he seems to need one. 



-- 
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.

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

#133277

David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> 
news:BVMLG.25900$pq3.627@fx25.ams1 Fri, 03 Jul 2020 20:53:53 GMT in 
alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> Yes. Forget about Eagle and Jenn. A poster called 'Jax' used to 
> really wind him up but I did genuinely believe that Dustin was 
> going to cause real-life harm to her. :-( 

ROFL. Why don't you want him to know about Eagle and Jenn, David?
He's following in their footsteps. And why don't you tell him what
happened with Jax? 
 
> The persona who REALLY got through to Dustin was a Brit calling 
> himself Pooh-the-cat in the alt.comp.freeware group p-0''0-h the
> cat (coder) <super.pooh@fluffyunderbelly.invalid> 

HAHAHA, Yea, here's all you need to know about pooh, and jax for that 
matter, all in one reply to them concerning something they, just like 
you, mistook pooh for being able to do. <G> Enjoy! 

Message-ID: <lltcih$n6$1@news2.open-news-network.org> 

From: FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.scorched-earth Subject: 
Re: Breaking News! Date: Sun,
25 May 2014 14:25:19 -0400 

Jax wrote on 5/25/2014 : 
> FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:llt35u$gvp$1 @news2.open-news-network.org: 
>
>> Jax expressed precisely : 
>> 
>> [...] 
>> 
>>> Spin it how you like but the fact remains that you paraded
>>> Exevalid as a wonder program and two weeks later several people
>>> conclusively showed that it was badly flawed. 
>> 
>> Actually, it worked flawlessly for the real reason he posted it. 
>
> Rafters.... Dustin posted Exevalid to see who could tell him what
> it did. 

That's not how I understood it. Dustin posted many times some
assembly language programs to see if certain select posters who
claim to be coders could tell him what they were doing. That bait
went untaken with his various 'hello world' type programs as well as
his CMOS checksum invalidator program. He apparently chose ASIC due
to its incomplete, by today's standards, implementation of HLL
constructs to trick these 'coders' into thinking that they
understood it enough to play along. Once sucked in by this ploy,
Pooh showed his hand. 

> Pooh cat was able to do that. 

No, in fact Pooh showed his misunderstanding. The rest was 'damage 
control' by deflection. 

> However Exevalid didn't do what he intended because it failed in 
> certain circumstances. 

> Pooh cat made some corrections. 

He sucked you in as well. Pooh broke the program by removing what he
thought, incorrectly, was unneeded. He also described two integer 
variables as representing 'true' and 'false' boolean values - those 
integers were stored in two bytes each whereas two boolean values
would only take two bits to store. Global variables? Missing and/or 
non-existent subroutines? Why not just tell Dustin what it was
doing? Hell, the name was EXEVALID (big clue there) and Pooh
extracted only the length calculation routine from it and called it
a *counter* and then proceeded to expand and overcomplicate it. 

That just doesn't sound like a coder to me. 

*** end pooh bash

I said it before, but it's worth repeating.. Snit and yourself have 
much more in common with each other than either of you do anyone else 
here. You're both dishonest as hell online and no doubt, in real 
life. And, there's no question about that. It's beyond the point of a 
theory or negative comment alone. There's more than enough evidence 
clearly showing the dishonest level you both have. Upto and including 
theft of intellectual property.


-- 
How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the
pillow? It has more feathers than the dove, and it doesn't have that
dangerous beak! 

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

#133282

On 7/4/20 10:54 PM, Diesel wrote:
> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
> news:BVMLG.25900$pq3.627@fx25.ams1 Fri, 03 Jul 2020 20:53:53 GMT in
> alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> 
>> Yes. Forget about Eagle and Jenn. A poster called 'Jax' used to
>> really wind him up but I did genuinely believe that Dustin was
>> going to cause real-life harm to her. :-(
> 
> ROFL. Why don't you want him to know about Eagle and Jenn, David?

Your failure to understand what you read is showing again. When he said 
to "forget" them it was not a literal statement -- it was to focus on 
someone else... someone names "Jax".

> He's following in their footsteps. And why don't you tell him what
> happened with Jax?

Did you throw even bigger tantrums? Did you wet yourself?

...
> I said it before, but it's worth repeating.. Snit and yourself have
> much more in common with each other than either of you do anyone else
> here.

I do not think we are the only two who are honest.
...

-- 
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.

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

#133288

On 05/07/2020 07:01, Snit wrote:
> On 7/4/20 10:54 PM, Diesel wrote:
>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>> news:BVMLG.25900$pq3.627@fx25.ams1 Fri, 03 Jul 2020 20:53:53 GMT in
>> alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. Forget about Eagle and Jenn. A poster called 'Jax' used to
>>> really wind him up but I did genuinely believe that Dustin was
>>> going to cause real-life harm to her. :-(
>>
>> ROFL. Why don't you want him to know about Eagle and Jenn, David?
> 
> Your failure to understand what you read is showing again. When he said 
> to "forget" them it was not a literal statement -- it was to focus on 
> someone else... someone names "Jax".
> 
>> He's following in their footsteps. And why don't you tell him what
>> happened with Jax?
> 
> Did you throw even bigger tantrums? Did you wet yourself?
> 
> ...
>> I said it before, but it's worth repeating.. Snit and yourself have
>> much more in common with each other than either of you do anyone else
>> here.
> 
> I do not think we are the only two who are honest.
> ...

I'm not going to reply to Dustin - I'm just laughing out loud at your 
response! :-D :-D :-D

If only he could see himself through OUR eyes! ;-)

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

#133289

David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> On 05/07/2020 07:01, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/4/20 10:54 PM, Diesel wrote:
>>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>>> news:BVMLG.25900$pq3.627@fx25.ams1 Fri, 03 Jul 2020 20:53:53 GMT in
>>> alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Yes. Forget about Eagle and Jenn. A poster called 'Jax' used to
>>>> really wind him up but I did genuinely believe that Dustin was
>>>> going to cause real-life harm to her. :-(
>>> 
>>> ROFL. Why don't you want him to know about Eagle and Jenn, David?
>> 
>> Your failure to understand what you read is showing again. When he said 
>> to "forget" them it was not a literal statement -- it was to focus on 
>> someone else... someone names "Jax".
>> 
>>> He's following in their footsteps. And why don't you tell him what
>>> happened with Jax?
>> 
>> Did you throw even bigger tantrums? Did you wet yourself?
>> 
>> ...
>>> I said it before, but it's worth repeating.. Snit and yourself have
>>> much more in common with each other than either of you do anyone else
>>> here.
>> 
>> I do not think we are the only two who are honest.
>> ...
> 
> I'm not going to reply to Dustin - I'm just laughing out loud at your 
> response! :-D :-D :-D
> 
> If only he could see himself through OUR eyes! ;-)
> 
> 

Hey, he not only used a computer without a mouse, he did THINGS with such
computers!

:)

-- 
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.

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

#133296

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hmdgi9Flu82U1@mid.individual.net Sun, 05 Jul 2020 08:16:09 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> On 05/07/2020 07:01, Snit wrote:
>>> On 7/4/20 10:54 PM, Diesel wrote:
>>>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>>>> news:BVMLG.25900$pq3.627@fx25.ams1 Fri, 03 Jul 2020 20:53:53
>>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Yes. Forget about Eagle and Jenn. A poster called 'Jax' used
>>>>> to really wind him up but I did genuinely believe that Dustin
>>>>> was going to cause real-life harm to her. :-(
>>>> 
>>>> ROFL. Why don't you want him to know about Eagle and Jenn,
>>>> David? 
>>> 
>>> Your failure to understand what you read is showing again. When
>>> he said to "forget" them it was not a literal statement -- it
>>> was to focus on someone else... someone names "Jax".
>>> 
>>>> He's following in their footsteps. And why don't you tell him
>>>> what happened with Jax?
>>> 
>>> Did you throw even bigger tantrums? Did you wet yourself?
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>> I said it before, but it's worth repeating.. Snit and yourself
>>>> have much more in common with each other than either of you do
>>>> anyone else here.
>>> 
>>> I do not think we are the only two who are honest.
>>> ...
>> 
>> I'm not going to reply to Dustin - I'm just laughing out loud at
>> your response! :-D :-D :-D
>> 
>> If only he could see himself through OUR eyes! ;-)
>> 
>> 
> 
> Hey, he not only used a computer without a mouse, he did THINGS
> with such computers!
> 
>:)

Yep, prior to 1987, infact. And unlike yourself, I already knew where 
the power buttons were located. I even knew which ones power buttons 
flipped 120/240volt AC vs the ones which switched a much much lower 
DC voltage. Did you even know they weren't all the same? :)


*** snit share
https://www.udemy.com/course/beginning-dreamweaver-creative-cloud/
#instructor-1
Online Instructor

In 1987 I started working toward my psychology degree in Las Vegas
(UNLV). While doing so, I wanted a job which would pay well, be
flexible around my college classes, and not require me to travel far
from school. The college computer labs were looking for people who
could help other students. I applied and, somehow, got the job. The
lab had about 50 PCs, 50 Macs, and 20 machines that were neither -
something called "UNIX". I was told it was my job to answer
questions when people asked them - great, I had only one question:
where was the "on" button? I had never used any of those computers
before! 

I know what it is like to struggle to learn a computer system. 

Within two years I was teaching classes to high school students on
weekends (through Upward Bound, a program for at-risk high school
students) where I continued to teach for the next six years. 
*** snit share

By the time 1987 rolled around, Snit, I had a computer at home. I'd 
already known where the power switch was, for some years prior to 
that. <G> See back then, Snit, you didn't always have a jumper or
dip switch you could put in another position to change something.
instead, you were expected to locate one or more specific, say,
resistors, clip them free, and either install new ones with
different values, or a simple pass thru to change one or more
aspects of the hardware. Anything from more video modes, to
supporting additional floppy drives. 

In some cases, that's still done today. One particular mini stand up 
video game console sold at most discount stores actually has two 
entirely seperate games inside of it. If you want to play the other 
one, clipping a resistor free is how you do it. And if you want the
original game the stickers on the case are for, you put the resistor
back. Or, just clip one end, run it thru a micro switch, resolder
the other end of the switch back to the board and now you can select
which game you want to play. True, hacking, no less, Snit. at the
hardware level. Have you ever done anything even close to this?

I know why the manufacturer did this, too. It makes it very easy to
sell you one for Bad dudes, and the other for another game, but
actually have both on the board; able to select which one the
customer gets. No need to actually make two seperate ones. reduce
manufacturing costs and time. None of which is passed onto you. 

Would you like more specifics so you can fact check me? You can get
your kids two games for the low price of one. I'll even provide you
step by step instructions to make the modification. You can even do
it with a cheap soldering iron, if you have nothing better to work
with. 


-- 
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

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

#133291

David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
news:bmfMG.66528$qj7.2155@fx04.ams1 Sun, 05 Jul 2020 07:32:23 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> On 05/07/2020 07:01, Snit wrote:
>> On 7/4/20 10:54 PM, Diesel wrote:
>>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>>> news:BVMLG.25900$pq3.627@fx25.ams1 Fri, 03 Jul 2020 20:53:53 GMT
>>> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. Forget about Eagle and Jenn. A poster called 'Jax' used to
>>>> really wind him up but I did genuinely believe that Dustin was
>>>> going to cause real-life harm to her. :-(
>>>
>>> ROFL. Why don't you want him to know about Eagle and Jenn,
>>> David? 
>> 
>> Your failure to understand what you read is showing again. When
>> he said to "forget" them it was not a literal statement -- it was
>> to focus on someone else... someone names "Jax".
>> 
>>> He's following in their footsteps. And why don't you tell him
>>> what happened with Jax?
>> 
>> Did you throw even bigger tantrums? Did you wet yourself?
>> 
>> ...
>>> I said it before, but it's worth repeating.. Snit and yourself
>>> have much more in common with each other than either of you do
>>> anyone else here.
>> 
>> I do not think we are the only two who are honest.
>> ...
> 
> I'm not going to reply to Dustin - I'm just laughing out loud at
> your response! :-D :-D :-D

No need. I know what you are, even if Snit would still rather make 
excuses for you:

Message-ID: <fPqYB.171658$u91.45539@fx02.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156316302300
 
> You've been caught lying your ass off multiple times. As well as
> intentionally violating copyrights of others when it
> suits/pleases you to do so. You've also been caught attempting
> to hire individuals to hack (crack actually) into various sites
> you'd already been banned from. You want others to commit
> felonies for your benefit and when they don't, you resort to
> trying to blackmail them.
 
 That's not QUITE true. *YOU* are the *ONLY* one AFAICR.
 
 *** end snippit

Message-ID: <fPqYB.171658$u91.45539@fx02.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156316302300

<2SfjE.144618$Nv5.134974@fx30.fr7>
On 16/03/2019 15:49, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> In article <NT3jE.139191$We4.47405@fx01.fr7> David in Devon 
> <BDonTJ@REMOVE.gmail.com> wrote: 
>>
>> On 16/03/2019 01:40, Diesel wrote: 
>>> I've never needed a 'friend' like you, David. Anymore so than I 
>>> need another hole in my fucking head. 
>>
>> Do explain, for others to better understand, *WHY* you didn't 
>> respond positively to my email, Dustin. >> 
> 
> Jax responded "positively" to your email and it got her/him 
> blackmailed from Usenet. You're a snake, BD. I'm sure that's how
> you became rather wealthy. You slither right in under people's
> guard. By the time they feel the stiletto between their shoulder
> blades, it's too late. 

I do endeavour to be good at everything I do, but feel I must correct 
you on one point.

Jax was blackmailed, sure enough, but not from Usenet - only from one 
specific group. That was 'scorched-earth' and that was for her 
protection -  Dustin was snipping at her heels and Jax didn't seem to 
recognise the danger she was in.

I miss my friendly chats with her and do hope she's recovering from
her stressful illness. If you are in touch with her, please give my
warm regards to Jax's sister. 

*** end snippit

Message-ID: <_KA9E.86455$Xl2.27908@fx20.fr7>
> I proceeded to answer other questions you provided in the same
> email asking about it. You indicated no issue with me, no
> accusation of my being a 'bad guy' until years later, here on
> usenet. 

That's correct. I didn't let on that you were a target and I'd
scored a bullseye. 

> Other than your known dishonesty, is there a particular reason you 
> aren't sharing the entire contents of your inquiry leading up to
> that paste? 

I'm totally honest with good guys. What else would you like me to
tell any newbies about you? 

*** end paste


Begin Davids efforts in rec photo:

MID: <UOlQA.740019$kC.233802@fx16.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149437329500

Request denied. David tries again:

MID:  <PZLQA.735267$Tn2.417645@fx02.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149461165500

Request denied, again. David doesn't give up easily.

MID: <wfTQA.574616$EW4.516451@fx18.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149461088500

Gets no where, again. So, David comes clean with the
group in public on his intentions towards me:

MID: <C87RA.739350$Mr1.566802@fx27.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100

Doesn't really get anywhere. Makes little progress.. Until...

MID: <xrAeC.774106$xP5.431837@fx08.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152201851200

Evidently goes nowhere on him, as I'm still here. But, yes, he did 
try turning things around and painting himself as a victim of some 
kind. Neat huh?

Another go at stalking me and asking others to help. He even keeps 
screenshots incriminating his own stalking behaviors. ROFL!

MID:  <og24t8$v6f$1@dont-email.me>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149603382000

He's basically told to pound sand, continues, releasing more 
'information' he thinks he knows about me to speed things up

MID: <og3ai1$3pk$1@dont-email.me>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152201858800

Perhaps this additional information regarding his date of birth will 
be helpful in identifying his ACTUAL address?

Davids real upset with me, asks rec.photo for help!
MID: <C87RA.739350$Mr1.566802@fx27.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100

David stalking a domain site owner
MID: <nnfp92$hld$1@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152201905200

David Stalking Paul Adare
MID: <nh19s7$dq9$1@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152201910900

David specifying an .exe malware file that he knew wasn't on
tekrider domain. After claiming it was previously.
MID: <YWYbC.758650$iM5.434140@fx05.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=151796841900

David trying to dox me again with a new signature
MID: <6KyeC.677082$hn.471484@fx07.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=151805918800

I can be trusted to 'shop' you and bring you to justice!
You really shouldn't have used a new signature. Perhaps you'll 
refrain from so doing now that I've got one too?

David threatens me with a bigger? doxing. 
MID: <E6GdneYsQ8Xw6p7JnZ2dnUVZ8rudnZ2d@bt.com>
al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152201932100

Would you like me to publish YOUR personal details Dustin? I have 
them. They were disclosed to me by a 'friend' who lives in the USA.
Genuine stuff - REAL LIFE info! Just say the word and I'll post same 
in all 110,000 plus Usenet groups  held by Giganews!

 
> If only he could see himself through OUR eyes! ;-)

Mine aren't rose colored, sorry.

-- 
Do not fumble with a woman's logic.

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

#133290

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hmd8mdFkccuU1@mid.individual.net Sun, 05 Jul 2020 06:01:48 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> On 7/4/20 10:54 PM, Diesel wrote:
>> David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
>> news:BVMLG.25900$pq3.627@fx25.ams1 Fri, 03 Jul 2020 20:53:53 GMT
>> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes. Forget about Eagle and Jenn. A poster called 'Jax' used to
>>> really wind him up but I did genuinely believe that Dustin was
>>> going to cause real-life harm to her. :-(
>> 
>> ROFL. Why don't you want him to know about Eagle and Jenn, David?
> 
> Your failure to understand what you read is showing again. When he
> said to "forget" them it was not a literal statement -- it was to
> focus on someone else... someone names "Jax".

Heh. I really hit home when I pointed out your gross reading 
comprehension problem, eh? Nearly every reply of yours tries to 
project your well known, and observed reading comprehension issue on 
me. 

And since when do you speak for David?
 
>> I said it before, but it's worth repeating.. Snit and yourself
>> have much more in common with each other than either of you do
>> anyone else here.
> 
> I do not think we are the only two who are honest.

Honest? LOL, So you're like David in these ways too? 

Message-ID: <fPqYB.171658$u91.45539@fx02.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156316302300
 
> You've been caught lying your ass off multiple times. As well as
> intentionally violating copyrights of others when it
> suits/pleases you to do so. You've also been caught attempting
> to hire individuals to hack (crack actually) into various sites
> you'd already been banned from. You want others to commit
> felonies for your benefit and when they don't, you resort to
> trying to blackmail them.
 
 That's not QUITE true. *YOU* are the *ONLY* one AFAICR.
 
 *** end snippit

Message-ID: <fPqYB.171658$u91.45539@fx02.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156316302300

<2SfjE.144618$Nv5.134974@fx30.fr7>
On 16/03/2019 15:49, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
> In article <NT3jE.139191$We4.47405@fx01.fr7> David in Devon 
> <BDonTJ@REMOVE.gmail.com> wrote: 
>>
>> On 16/03/2019 01:40, Diesel wrote: 
>>> I've never needed a 'friend' like you, David. Anymore so than I 
>>> need another hole in my fucking head. 
>>
>> Do explain, for others to better understand, *WHY* you didn't 
>> respond positively to my email, Dustin. >> 
> 
> Jax responded "positively" to your email and it got her/him 
> blackmailed from Usenet. You're a snake, BD. I'm sure that's how
> you became rather wealthy. You slither right in under people's
> guard. By the time they feel the stiletto between their shoulder
> blades, it's too late. 

I do endeavour to be good at everything I do, but feel I must correct 
you on one point.

Jax was blackmailed, sure enough, but not from Usenet - only from one 
specific group. That was 'scorched-earth' and that was for her 
protection -  Dustin was snipping at her heels and Jax didn't seem to 
recognise the danger she was in.

I miss my friendly chats with her and do hope she's recovering from
her stressful illness. If you are in touch with her, please give my
warm regards to Jax's sister. 

*** end snippit

Message-ID: <_KA9E.86455$Xl2.27908@fx20.fr7>
> I proceeded to answer other questions you provided in the same
> email asking about it. You indicated no issue with me, no
> accusation of my being a 'bad guy' until years later, here on
> usenet. 

That's correct. I didn't let on that you were a target and I'd
scored a bullseye. 

> Other than your known dishonesty, is there a particular reason you 
> aren't sharing the entire contents of your inquiry leading up to
> that paste? 

I'm totally honest with good guys. What else would you like me to
tell any newbies about you? 

*** end paste


Begin Davids efforts in rec photo:

MID: <UOlQA.740019$kC.233802@fx16.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149437329500

Request denied. David tries again:

MID:  <PZLQA.735267$Tn2.417645@fx02.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149461165500

Request denied, again. David doesn't give up easily.

MID: <wfTQA.574616$EW4.516451@fx18.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149461088500

Gets no where, again. So, David comes clean with the
group in public on his intentions towards me:

MID: <C87RA.739350$Mr1.566802@fx27.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100

Doesn't really get anywhere. Makes little progress.. Until...

MID: <xrAeC.774106$xP5.431837@fx08.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152201851200

Evidently goes nowhere on him, as I'm still here. But, yes, he did 
try turning things around and painting himself as a victim of some 
kind. Neat huh?

Another go at stalking me and asking others to help. He even keeps 
screenshots incriminating his own stalking behaviors. ROFL!

MID:  <og24t8$v6f$1@dont-email.me>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149603382000

He's basically told to pound sand, continues, releasing more 
'information' he thinks he knows about me to speed things up

MID: <og3ai1$3pk$1@dont-email.me>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152201858800

Perhaps this additional information regarding his date of birth will 
be helpful in identifying his ACTUAL address?

Davids real upset with me, asks rec.photo for help!
MID: <C87RA.739350$Mr1.566802@fx27.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100

David stalking a domain site owner
MID: <nnfp92$hld$1@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152201905200

David Stalking Paul Adare
MID: <nh19s7$dq9$1@boaterdave.dont-email.me>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152201910900

David specifying an .exe malware file that he knew wasn't on
tekrider domain. After claiming it was previously.
MID: <YWYbC.758650$iM5.434140@fx05.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=151796841900

David trying to dox me again with a new signature
MID: <6KyeC.677082$hn.471484@fx07.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=151805918800

I can be trusted to 'shop' you and bring you to justice!
You really shouldn't have used a new signature. Perhaps you'll 
refrain from so doing now that I've got one too?

David threatens me with a bigger? doxing. 
MID: <E6GdneYsQ8Xw6p7JnZ2dnUVZ8rudnZ2d@bt.com>
al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152201932100

Would you like me to publish YOUR personal details Dustin? I have 
them. They were disclosed to me by a 'friend' who lives in the USA.
Genuine stuff - REAL LIFE info! Just say the word and I'll post same 
in all 110,000 plus Usenet groups  held by Giganews!



Is that what you meant, Snit? I don't want to 'misunderstand' what 
you wrote, so I seek clarification.


-- 
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic 
-- Arthur C Clarke

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

#133370

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hmmfoiFj2joU1@mid.individual.net Wed, 08 Jul 2020 17:57:36 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> On 7/7/20 11:41 PM, Diesel wrote:
> 
> ...
>> And finally, you're the new comer here, if any impressing is to
>> be done by anyone, for any reason, that would be on you to
>> impress the regulars, including myself.
> 
> You say "finally", but clearly do not mean it... and then express
> your idea it is my job to impress YOU. Why would I want to?

Is there any particular reason you didn't want to discuss your 
batshit crazy assumption that I was trying to impress you?
 
> You repeatedly try to impress me with your knowledge of the
> hardware side of computers. Hey, you seem to know a fair amount.

Again,

Umm, I don't even consider you a peer - even after reading your mini 
history in the world of IT on udemy, and I don't work for you, 
so...why would I be interested in trying to impress you? More 
importantly, why are you so arrogant that you think anyone would want 
to spend the time trying to impress you, with, anything?

And, I'm just as well versed on the software side, too. I wouldn't 
have as much control as is possible over the hardware if I was 
restricted only to the hardware. It's why I've continued to give you 
a friendly warning concerning myself and your activities you've been 
taking towards me. I don't appreciate your efforts to lie about me. I 
don't know anyone who would.

> COOL! But when the only thing you show using it for is to change
> topics and to try to impress people

I've done nothing of the sort. You repeatedly make accusations 
against me which aren't true. You also make several assumptions 
concerning my intentions, which again, aren't accurate, therefore, 
also, not true.

, the result is it backfires --
> at least with me. 

Again, read it slowly this time:

Umm, I don't even consider you a peer - even after reading your mini 
history in the world of IT on udemy, and I don't work for you, 
so...why would I be interested in trying to impress you? More 
importantly, why are you so arrogant that you think anyone would want 
to spend the time trying to impress you, with, anything?
 
> When it comes to actually USING a computer here are just some of
> your comments:
> 
>    <XnsABEF47D94EFACHT1@rSNu6VvwL.gxU66>
>      -----
>      My first computer didn't even know what a fucking mouse
>      was. You really are playing games with the wrong one.
>      -----
> You were amazingly proud of using a computer without a mouse. Oy.
> Just silly. And when it was noted how unimpressive that was you
> went on: 

I was using it as a reference point to date myself. A method of 
measurement, if you will, Snit. Nothing more.
 
>    <XnsABF1142BE1B85HT1@7aW867X40S.9lJNmPdw66w3c02zdyrWSw906>
>      -----
>      Oh, well, yes, I know alot about them; from the hardware
>      to the software. I didn't just use them as a kid, I did
>      things with them, too. cocos, amigas, atari, commodore,
>      etc...I had a blast.
>      -----
> What did you say you did? Oh. THINGS!
> 
> LOL!

Yes, things. I was trying to at that point, keep things real simple 
for you. When I provided more detail, you didn't comment on any of 
it, nor did you answer any of my questions concerning it. This sort 
of detail, specifically:

MID: <XnsABF2DEEDB0F2HT1@xgeSQa26zT.3g1pprn47c6w6vW82Hp9557VTea52>

What you snipped (rofl!)

 <G> See back then, Snit, you didn't always have a jumper or
dip switch you could put in another position to change something.
instead, you were expected to locate one or more specific, say,
resistors, clip them free, and either install new ones with
different values, or a simple pass thru to change one or more
aspects of the hardware. Anything from more video modes, to
supporting additional floppy drives. 

In some cases, that's still done today. One particular mini stand up 
video game console sold at most discount stores actually has two 
entirely seperate games inside of it. If you want to play the other 
one, clipping a resistor free is how you do it. And if you want the
original game the stickers on the case are for, you put the resistor
back. Or, just clip one end, run it thru a micro switch, resolder
the other end of the switch back to the board and now you can select
which game you want to play. True, hacking, no less, Snit. at the
hardware level. Have you ever done anything even close to this?

> Why not actually spend some time DOING THINGS instead of begging
> me to be impressed with you?

I did spend time doing things, as I described above; that you 
completely ignored and did not respond to. And, it was a simple 
question; I told you about some stuff I did, those "things" I 
mentioned that you thought was funny enough to bring up again. lol, 
okay, and asked if you'd ever done anything I described yourself. 

have you, or haven't you? It's a simple question. And why don't you 
want to tell me what the computer was you had at home with prior 
experience? I read you had an Apple ][e at one point; Was that the 
computer you owned? If so, I used them a lot myself, as a kid. I was 
making expansion board mods and other "things" like that though to 
them, as I described previously.
 
> Wait... you did show off some of your other amazing skills
> (snicker): 

Are you still laughing (well as much as I am now?) after reading what 
I wrote above? I used the word things without detail to dumb it down 
for you, since you have trouble understanding things I post and 
write. Take the documentation I shared about AZ as a good example of 
that. Not only do you have problems understanding what you read, you 
go and attack the other individual for your own difficulties.

 
>    <XnsABF2DEDC93A4HT1@xgeSQa26zT.3g1pprn47c6w6vW82Hp9557VTea52>
>      -----
>      I don't recall a single PC, MaC, sun, sparc, solaris
>      workstation that I actually had to ask someone how I
>      turned it on.
>      -----
> 
> That is right -- you bragged about being able to figure out how to
> turn a computer on. That's it. Not use it to do ANYTHING, just to
> turn it on. As if that is hard.

Snit, is there any chance I could get a copy of the dictionary you're 
using here? You're clearly not using one I can find easily on google, 
nor are you using one that has standard definitions to words I've 
known since I was a kid. So, I really need a copy of yours in order 
to properly understand you, especially in cases like this where you 
make claims about bragging. 

I don't believe that's what I've done, my understanding of the word 
doesn't support it, and what I found on two well known dictionaries 
doesn't either. You either meant another word, or, the word you're 
using has it's own definition which is different; and thus, you have 
a different dictionary. I'd like a copy to further increase my 
knowledge of other cultures. Please?
 
> Keep in mind why you made that brag -- you looked up my bio, found
> it, and then misunderstood it in ways unlike I have ever seen. 

Don't flatter yourself, I didn't look up your bio. Someone sent the 
link to me. My email address is public information, I've had it for.. 
uhh, since gmail was invite only for beta testing. I didn't 
misunderstand anything you wrote in it, either. 

> did you manage to have such poor reading comprehension that you
> twisted yourself around to bragging about your amazing ability to
> find an on switch? Can you explain that? Did you want a gold star
> for your amazing success there? LOL!

Well, going by what I wrote about the on switch, one who doesn't have 
a problem understanding what they read (that's comprehension, Snit), 
clearly wouldn't be able to agree with what you wrote. I didn't get 
twsited around and I certainly wasn't bragging about being able to 
use previous knowledge and experience from the computer I already had 
at home, as well as the tv, stereos, tape decks, equ's etc, that all 
had power buttons and power switches in no standardized place. They 
basically put them where ever they liked. I still don't remember 
asking an adult, or even another kid where the damn switch was on 
something. 

Which is why I found your description so damn funny. I know that in 
1987 you had to have things at home with power switches and/or 
buttons. Yet for some reason, unknown to myself, none of that 
information proved to be of any use to you in locating the power 
buttons/switches on various types of computers you were exposed to 
for the first time at college. Your excuse and justification for 
having to ask for help was due to lack of standardization. Okay, but, 
umm, the stereo, the vcr, the tape deck, the atari, sega, nintendo 
(whatever you had), didn't have their power buttons/switches in the 
same location either. 

Did you have to ask for help with everything in your home that 
required you to press a button or flip a switch to turn it on or off? 
If not, why did you have to do so in the computer lab? You had a 
computer at home, right? Did it blow up or something if you pressed 
the wrong button or flipped the wrong switch? No, it didn't. And you 
wouldn't have been writing any code to show you what HACF (or HALT - 
no Snit, it doesn't just mean stop in the computer sense. It meant 
something more) actually stands for, so, why would you think pressing 
the wrong button or flipping the wrong switch on a computer you've 
never seen before that's presently "off" already would do it any 
harm? And if it was on and you pressed the wrong button/switch 
(highly unlikely considering they weren't going to be jam packed 
beside another one that looked identical to them.) well, you'd learn 
either the reset button or power button, depending on what it did as 
a result. But you wouldn't have had to ask anyone.

When I read your mini autobio, I don't get the impression that you 
have any experience of any real kind with a computer prior to taking 
that job. Yet, you've claimed several times that you had a computer 
at home. What were you doing with the computer you had at home? It 
sure as fuck wasn't learning to code, because, I see nothing in the 
code samples I know you authored (well, you claimed to author anyhow) 
that shows me any background with a computer of any kind. Your home 
computer didn't run Applescript, it wasn't around yet. So what did 
you use that computer for?

Was it an Apple ][e or something else? Why don't you want to tell me 
what the home computer was? I still don't see the harm in that 
question, but you clearly see a problem with it, because you've 
refused to answer it for going on the fifth time now. Interesting, as 
you like to note. Isn't it?

Where is that logic you claim to have so much of, Snit? Am I going to 
live long enough to see a glimpse of it?
 
>> And, if you were at any point trying to
>> impress me or anyone else, you've failed quite nicely. You can't
>> even carry on a conversation as an adult for a paragraph. Let
>> alone more. And, you aren't even that good at lying about things.
>> So really, you've got nothing going for you. Nothing worthy of
>> anyone wanting to impress you, or gain favor of any kind with
>> you. You aren't useful to anyone. You aren't an asset, you're a
>> liability. 
> 
> Your focus on who is impressing whom speaks a lot about you. No 
> inflection needed.

That's a terrible attempt to deflect, Snit. You can't change what you 
already wrote and published to usenet. You can't change the time line 
of the events, either. You're the one who claimed, multiple times, 
that I was trying to impress you. Except, that, obviously, since I 
don't consider you a peer, i'm not trying to do anything of the sort.

I'm not trying to be a dickhead about the facts here, but, you're 
continuing  to be totally rude about things, along with continued 
efforts misrepresent things, I might sometimes on occasion come 
across as one with a smart and short reply, disputing something you 
wrote.
 
>> You really don't think this projection nonsense over thoroughly
>> before you try it, dude.
> 
> You say that as you are literally projecting your desire to
> impress onto me. The irony of that is quite funny. :)

Well, Snit, it is good to laugh at ones own mistakes. That being 
said, you should be having quite a good one at this point in time.
 
>> Do continue trying to snow us into thinking David and yourself
>> aren't becoming what you think are 'friends'. Yea, you'll be his
>> friend until you show you are of no further value to him. Why,
>> he's so concerned for your well being, he didn't mention to you
>> what happened to two of his other former friends.
> 
> Remember when you used to tell the lie I was blindly listening to
> him? 

Do you really think your efforts to spin your lies about me into me 
lying about you are ever going to work? You have a track record for 
doing it to others, going back nearly two damn decades now. And, 
anyone who bothers to check the MIDs you provide where you've quoted 
me out of context is going to see for themselves that's exactly what 
you did. I'm not even the first one you've pulled this routine on, 
It's well documented, going back atleast one decade, if not longer 
than that. 

It's part of the reason why so many label you as a troll or worse. 
Atleast in my case, for now, I'm still going to make the assumption 
that it's a medical condition and that you aren't doing it out of 
malice, but purely because you have problems understanding the 
written word, and you've probably been picked on so much for that irl 
that you're naturally quite hostile towards anyone who notices it and 
makes a comment about it, such as myself.

You've gone off the rails since I started bringing your attention to 
the differences in what I wrote, vs what you thought I wrote and 
shared your incorrect interpretation of. When I made a public comment 
concerning you having done the same with Apd when he also explained 
my comment concerning source code was not what you thought it was and 
did not support your accusation in any way shape or form, you 
proceeded (in error) to tell us both we were wrong concerning what I 
wrote and what I meant about it. 

Despite the fact we both have coding experience/backgrounds and you, 
by your own admission, do not. Yet you sit there and proceed to tell 
us what I meant about something I wrote that was about code in a 
general sense, nothing specific, as you were told, repeatedly, by 
myself, Apd, and atleast one, so called "sock" - Atleast three 
different people all told you the same thing, Snit. You don't 
comprehend how dumb that was of you to do in the first place? Nor do 
you seem to comprehend how stupid it was of you to continue with the 
story. Fact is, you lied about my involvement with the usenet flood 
bot here, and you provided nothing to backup your claims. 

I've repeatedly asked for an apology and none has been forthcoming. 
Instead, you've tried to make excuses and otherwise weasel around 
what you did and why you did it. You're a sorry excuse for an 
individual, Snit. A very sorry excuse for an individual.

I do believe you do better with audio/video formats, but I'm not 
going to get into specifics of why I think so here in public. I'm not 
your enemy, Snit, despite your efforts here to treat me as one.

> Now you are begging me to not be kind to him -- even as he
> has asked me to let you have your little tantrum without rubbing
> your nose in your mess as much as I am.

Has anyone ever begged you for anything in your entire life, snit? If 
so, when did it happen? I just don't see you as having anything 
something would beg you over...
 
 
> Do you still deny you seek to manipulate others?

I've made no effort to do as you claim. Can you provide any proof to 
support your accusation? I ask because, well, you haven't supported 
any of the others you've made against me, so far. That doesn't look 
good for you, Snit.
 
>> Jenn goes by the name Muggles now, Snit. You can find her in
>> alt.home.repair. Just ping her and ask if it's a good idea for
>> you to continue what you're doing with me.
> 
> Did she also call you out on your toddler tantrums?

:) No, Snit. And, I'm almost positive, that aside from David (who 
will only agree to spite me rofl, he's that childish) nobody else 
sees things as you do concerning what I've been doing with you. these 
tantrums, again, are all in your head.

I don't see how bringing up the fact you told some significant lies 
about me and tried to back them up by quoting things I wrote out of 
context and asking for an apology for you having done that is in any 
way throwing any sort of tantrum.

Rather, it's quite childish of you, to get caught (and you did) and 
still try to play stupid about what you did. It's like claiming you 
aren't the person in the full HD up close, entire video, camera, 
that's clearly showing the unique tatoos you have that robbed the 
bank not two hours previous. Nah, it's not you, it's your fucking 
twin that you never met that has your style down to the tat.

You are so full of shit, Snit. And I know this for a fact, because of 
what you wrote about me, that wasn't true, that when called out for 
having done, have done nothing but repeatedly try to weasel your way 
out of it. For weeks now, you've tried to weasel your way out of what 
you did; which was to lie on me. 

What's worse, you've gone and written more horse shit about me since 
then. You have problems snit, serious problems.

>> While you're doing that, ask her
>> for her opinion on the guy you think is your friend here, David
>> Brooks. She once thought he was her friend too, until things went
>> a little too far and he tossed her under the bus to save his own
>> hide. Yes, he damn sure did.
> 
> More of your effort to manipulate me. What does David even have to
> do with ANY of this? Why do you bring him up at all? Is he the one
> who showed you where the on switches are? Did he show you how to
> use a computer without a mouse?

Again, I will need a copy of the dictionary you're using. Warning you 
about David and providing all kinds of his own posts showing you what 
he's like is not in any way trying to manipulate you. 

Why are you so intimidated by me, Snit? Yes, I noticed it awhile ago. 
what I don't know is why.  I haven't done anything to you, aside from 
question some things you've written, and demand an apology for some 
lies you opted to write about me. Other than that, you shouldn't have 
any reason to feel so inferior to me.
 
>> He'll do you the same way, and once again, your threats of police
>> aren't something I haven't heard before, heh, many times...and as
>> she and eagle and David already learned, it won't do you a damn
>> bit of good.
> 
> You make a threat, I note I can show that threat to the police
> *IF* you had the ability to follow through and actually did... and
> then you play victim. You have really thin skin.

You can show the police a usenet post written by someone who 
might/might not be the individual you think wrote it. You can't show 
them anything more than that, because you have nothing more than 
that. 

I've provided various ways in which for you to verify my claims, 
without my having to skull fuck you in front of everyone to show you. 
If you don't wish to do that, that's on you. Since this is a public 
venue, anyone else can fact check me, too. And laugh greatly, as I am 
right now, when they learn that you're choosing to bury your head in 
the sand, thinking I no longer see where you're at. Except, I do, and 
I'm not going away. :) 

I haven't lied to you, tried to mislead you, tried to bluff you, or 
otherwise tried in any way to bullshit you in the least little bit, 
Snit. And, if didn't already know certain things about you which 
could be influencing our comms issues, I would have already made an 
example out of you, awhile ago. 

I've been very careful about that, so, if things go as I expect they 
will soon enough, you won't be able to claim at any point in the 
future that you didn't know. because, you'd be a liar. I told you, 
repeatedly, I told you. You *did* know. You just *didn't listen*. 
There's a difference.
 
>> Go ahead, print and save this post for evidence too, Snit. *laugh
>> laugh laugh*. You really are, without a doubt, in over your head,
>> kiddo. And, it's only because I know you have problems that I
>> haven't already done you like I did Eagle or Jenn for that
>> matter. But, even that willingless to overlook the stupid shit
>> you're writing about me does have it's limits.
> 
> I am not surprised many have called you out on your BS.

Uhh, ROFLMFAO!, that's certainly not how things played out,Snit. 
Short summary for you: in real life, both lost their sources of 
income due to extreme stress brought forth by things which initiated 
online and traveled through, as if by magic, into real life, right at 
them. They couldn't handle the shit storm they brought upon 
themselves. They, like you, mistakenly thought words can be spoken or 
written with no consequences. As I told them, as I've told you, 
that's not always a true statement. Sometimes, with the wrong person, 
your words and actions do have consequences, sometimes, very bad 
consequences.

Feel free to continue making more assumptions about me, Snit. maybe 
one day, you'll get one right. 
 
>> So, let's stop with the intentional effort on your part to piss
>> me off. If you actually do manage to do that, you won't like the
>> decision you made, not at all. I really, can't possibly, be any
>> more clear about this than that, Snit. You can show further
>> ignorance by claiming this is threat, when in actuality, it's a
>> friendly warning. If you'd like, I don't mind. I find some
>> amusement in it, your doubt, and your contradiction with your
>> police threat. You really do have a lot to learn about things,
>> and, I'm probably just the right person to give you that
>> education you missed out on. 
> 
> See: more threats from you. Are you going to teach me about
> mouseless computers? LOL!

No. :) You had plenty of time with one at home already and it wasn't 
able to help you find the power button on another computer that 
didn't look identical to it. What it couldn't do in years I'm not 
going to be able to make up for with a lesson or two here. I'm pretty 
good, but, not that good. :) I can't make a horse drink water if they 
don't want to do so, either. Not and the horse live thru the process.

Say, that's another interesting topic... why is it you're still 
fucking off with AppleScript with no real programming skills when you 
had a computer at home in 1987? Most of the home computers of that 
era had atleast one programming language, ready to go as soon as you 
switched them on. It was for it's time, more powerful than the script 
language you're dicking around with now.

Why didn't you further your knowledge with the home computer? Why 
does your actual knowledge level contain so many holes in it?

-- 
If in doubt, make it sound convincing.

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

#133276

David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
news:0WDLG.79926$oU.20620@fx26.ams1 Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:39:56 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> You are *SO* much better at teasing him than I have EVER been! ;-)

David, heh, you've already told us that teasing is a nice term for 
lying on usenet; and you do it routinely. I've stated that he lied 
when he wrote this:

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"


I'm so glad to find you in agreement with me.
 
> Dustin has been punished long enough.

Oh yes, again with your punishment routine. As I wrote previously, 
you've offered up quite a few excuses to try and justify what you did 
towards me which started the problem we have. 

> It's time to be nice to one another. OK?

We can start by clearing up this small pile of lies, written by your 
new friend:

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"


So, where's that apology then?
 



-- 
It's hard to be serious when you're naked.

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

#133281

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hm8anuFjbgmU1@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 09:06:07 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

[snip]

>>> The same is true with you and I. We had some misunderstandings.
>> 
>> No, it's not. 
> 
> Then you are lying when you say we disagree. Interesting. 

Hmm. It's interesting that you actually think your efforts to rewrite 
what took place, specifically what you falsely wrote about me, are 
actually going to work out in the positive for you.

You only continue to show that what others have written about you is 
more than likely true vs not being so.
 
>> Stop trying to twist things around to get out of or otherwise try
>> to explain away what you did with that post there. 
> 
> You clearly keep begging me to say I agree  even though you
> have been told I do not. There is no twist there.

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"

Where is your evidence snit, to support any of the statements you 
made there? Where is the MID to the post 'calling me out' as you 
claimed took place. Where is the post where I clarified I had the 
compiled code, Snit.

There's no misunderstanding on my part here... You lied when you 
wrote those statements and you've been attemptng to distance yourself 
from what you did by projecting my comments concerning your 
activities onto someone other than yourself. This isn't grade school, 
snit. it won't work here, assuming it ever did for you then.
 
> There is nothing dishonest about moving forward in peace after a
> disagreement

There is when you try to cover up a series of lies as to being a 
'disagreement'; which is what you've been trying to do for a short 
period of time now. There's no disagreement, Snit. The issue is that 
you went out of your way to concoct a series of totally bullshit, 
lies concerning my involvement with the bot here. As shown above.

> Ah, so Carroll succeeded in getting the list in your mind. A list
> that has nothing from me in it. He manipulated you. I did warn you
> about that. Thank you for noting how he successfully got it in you
> mind. 

Learn to comprehend what you read, Snit. it's an important life long 
skill. You've missed out on so much as a result of your poor 
functioning level with it.

> Meanwhile I am just happy to be civil. 

By civil you mean, free to write lies such as these:

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"

And not expect to be called out for it, or apologize for having done 
it. I agree with that, if that's what you mean by civil, sure.

> Do you even see how much it clearly bothers you to have failed to
> earn such a position with me? If not, well, before you read your
> inevitable reply to this post pause and re-read it. See if you can
> catch how many times you show yourself to be frustrated at a
> simple disagreement / misunderstanding. 

I'm not frustrated with you Snit. I know you lied, you know you lied, 
and the more you try to place the blame on me for taking issue with 
what you did, the more laughable you actually are to the rest of us.

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"

Are statements made by you which are lies. There's no 
misunderstanding about that.


-- 
The same thing we do every night Pinky, Try to takeover the world! - 
Brain

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

#133286

On 7/4/20 10:54 PM, Diesel wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> news:hm8anuFjbgmU1@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 09:06:07 GMT
> in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>>> The same is true with you and I. We had some misunderstandings.
>>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>
>> Then you are lying when you say we disagree. Interesting.
> 
> Hmm.

It really is simple: you either DO or DO NOT think we had a 
misunderstanding.

Maybe some day you will figure out if you want to claim your comments in 
response to my talking about Carroll's bot were or were not on that topic.

But you have no coherent story to back your tantrum.

...

-- 
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.

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

#133292

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
news:hmdbavFkt9bU1@mid.individual.net Sun, 05 Jul 2020 06:46:54 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> On 7/4/20 10:54 PM, Diesel wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> news:hm8anuFjbgmU1@mid.individual.net Fri, 03 Jul 2020 09:06:07
>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>>>>> The same is true with you and I. We had some
>>>>> misunderstandings. 
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not.
>>>
>>> Then you are lying when you say we disagree. Interesting.
>> 
>> Hmm.
> 
> It really is simple: you either DO or DO NOT think we had a 
> misunderstanding.

I do not. I've been quite clear in that. What you've tried to pass off 
as a misunderstanding when called out, is a lie. 
 


-- 
Beware the fury of a patient man. - John Dryden

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web