Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #288845
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. |
| Date | 2015-04-09 20:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D14C8F76.49DE3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | <mg70n2$p5p$4@dont-email.me> |
On 4/9/15, 4:07 PM, in article mg70n2$p5p$4@dont-email.me, "DFS"
<nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>
> Here's the thread, started by Tattoo Vampire on Aug 26, 2008.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/w9pWSa90DrI/iEUPU
> XurznUJ
>
> Below I'm going to repost EVERY Snit post/response in that thread, in
> the order in which they appear in the 8 pages in the Google Groups
> archive (which is mostly but not necessarily chronological), and show
> how each of your posts is an outright lie, a false accusation (which is
> also a lie), a dishonest twisting of words, a chickenshit snip-n-run, a
> slimy misdirection (moving goalposts), an insult, a mocking, a
> self-nuke, a truth, or some combination of those.
>
> Insults and mocking come with the cola brawlpit territory. I don't
> fault you or anyone for doing it. I do it all the time. It's not
> nice, but it's why cola is fun. But your lies and twisting words and
> snip-n-run and misdirection and false accusations and denial in the face
> of evidence - the things you specialize in - are very wrong and childish
> and pathetic.
>
> At the end I'll give you a chance to admit to your proven lies and
> scummy behavior, and we'll see if you're as 'honest and honorable' as
> you claim to be.
>
> This will be fun! You said you wanted fun in my threads or you would
> leave. So don't run off now!
>
> =========================================================================
> Begin Page 1 of Google archive
> =========================================================================
>
> Snit post #1: "I love the picture taken on 28 August 2008... with the
> *July* calendar still showing in background. That made me chuckle."
>
> DFS note: Mocking of Tattoo
>
> You didn't know it yet, but you had already screwed yourself. You had
> already downloaded one or both image files and confused file download
> date with EXIF picture taken date.
Support for this claim? None. You claim I got confused but show NO evidence.
You just make things up as you go. Why?
But you are getting into obsessive mode. Wow. Not sure I will even make it
through your whole post. Will look to see if you write anything of value or
see how patient I am.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #2: "My favorite is the picture taken on 28 August 2008... with the
> *July* calendar still showing in background. That made me chuckle."
>
> DFS note: Mocking of Tattoo (and a virtual repeat of your 1st post)
Yup. I teased him about a calendar on his wall in 2008. I am evil.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #3: "Just moved... but have an old calendar up. LOL!"
>
> DFS note: Mocking of Tattoo
Not in contention.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #4: "Hmmm, darn good question... and my typo.. it was taken today,
> on the 26th."
>
> DFS note: Yes, you made a typo. But you made the typo /because/ you
> confused file download date with EXIF picture taken date, as noted in
> your first post and in this one when you say 'it was taken today'. Fact
> is, you don't know when it was taken - the file had no EXIF data.
One: you show no evidence I was confused about what you say I was. No
evidence at all.
Two: Even if I had, how the hell would that have made me think it was a date
in the then-future? My computer date being off? I mean, what the hell are
you even speculating here?
This is not a rhetorical question. You claim I made that type "/because/" of
this error you think I made (though you have no evidence I did so). For the
sake of argument (to keep you focused) how would such an error lead one to
make a typo and put a then-future date?
I do not see how it possible could. I think you are just blowing smoke. But
please do explain!
> And like the child you are, you later use this typo - and your
> admittance of it - in repeated denials, misdirections, and word-twisting
> about your EXIF data mistake.
So I admit to an error which proves I made another error? Really, this is
just stupid.
> Nobody was fooled. Nobody has ever been fooled by your bullshit lies
> and kiddie-level dishonesty.
Fooled by what? I ADMITTED to the error!
Good grief. An error in 2008.
You ARE becoming like Carroll, though he obsesses over 2004.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #5: "I made a typo. You "work" in a room with a month-old
> calendar. Oh well. LOL!"
>
> DFS note: Well, that didn't take long.
>
> Also, more mocking of Tattoo.
How many damned times are you going to reference this? YES. I had some fun
mocking Tattoo who had been trolling me.
I mocked... a calendar.
It was evil. You got me!
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #6: "And in next weeks lesson we shall discuss EXIF data!
> ...
>
> And when the bulb turns on Tattoo Vampire shall slap himself on the
> forehead. :)"
>
>
> DFS note: And BOOM!!!!
>
> With those mocking words you revealed your mistake to cola, while at the
> same time using that mistake as the basis to wrongly mock Tattoo.
>
> Huge self-nuke. 6.5 years later you still haven't recovered from it -
> you're still twisting like a pathetic little boy and shouting 'Prove I
> lied! Quote my lies!"
I sincerely have no idea what point you are even trying to make here. BOOM!
BOOM what?
Whatever.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #7: "Gee, and before you denied you had lied about me calling you.
> How funny is that!"
>
> DFS note: Truth. But irrelevant to the EXIF discussion.
So in your list of claims of my wrongs you note in the discussion I had with
Tattoo he was lying about me. And then I mocked his calendar. OH NO!
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #8: "EXIF. Look it up."
>
> DFS note: 2nd self-nuke. You were burying yourself deeper.
>
> And more mocking of Tattoo
Again: no point by you. Do this a couple more times and I am done reading.
If you are going to ask me to defend myself as you obsess over me and your
desire to FINALLY catch me in a lie, at least TRY to make a point.
> =========================================================================
> End Page 1 Google archive, Begin Page 2
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #9: "You did not look up "EXIF" did you? LOL!"
>
> DFS note: 3rd and final self-nuke. Shortly after this post you realized
> your mistake and began the pathetic kiddie lying rampage.
>
> Also more mocking of Tattoo
Again: you are not making a point here. Well, not a meaningful one. Yes:
when Tattoo was lying about me calling him I mocked a calendar on his wall.
Utter evil.
Now get to a damned point.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #10: "Another of his lies. He does that. A lot. Geoff M. Fitton
> simply cannot stop himself from making serious yet dishonest accusations
> in a public forum."
>
> DFS note: Probably a half-lie on Dumb Willie's and your part. I'm sure
> you didn't blackmail anyone, but you probably threatened to expose
> someone as Thufir alluded to later in the thread. It's a wash.
No clue what this is even in reference to.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #11: "Frustration? With what? I snipped your BS about how each of
> us *look*. Note I did not comment on his looks - others did, but not I.
> Frankly such actions would be below me... but not you. Sad, eh."
>
> DFS note: Truth. But irrelevant.
Ah, I did not sink to the level of others and mock someone's looks. Yeah,
this is a great thing to point out to show how evil I am.
Sigh.
You really are never going to get to a point, are you? I am not even half
way through your post and you have yet to make a single point other than I
showed deep evil and mocked a calendar on a wall. In 2008.
And that is the worst thing you can find to show me doing wrong.
The shame I feel is overwhelming.
Yeah, that was sarcasm.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #12: "If you look at his he clearly has items on it... it shows how
> busy he is not. :)"
>
> DFS note: Mocking of Tattoo.
Yeah, pure evil. You got me. I mocked a calendar in 2008. You covered how
this is evil. Please now make a new point. Please?
Yes, I am to the level of begging you to make a point in a post you already
wrote. You can call that a sign of rudeness or whatever. I am more evil.
Wow. You are good!
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #13: "I trusted most in COLA are fully able to view EXIF data on
> their own. Really. I do admit, though, it seems I was wrong about that."
>
>
> DFS note: False accusation. There was NO evidence cola regs couldn't
> view EXIF data on their own.
>
> And this is when the childish, Snittish rampage of lying and twisting
> and denying started up full-force, in a pathetic attempt to save face.
I do not recall enough about the debate from 2008 to say if "advocates" lied
before he swapped the image and said their was no EXIF or if he swapped it
before they could look at it.
Whatever. I do not care enough to read through the thread and try to figure
it out. Knock yourself out.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #14: "I have not even looked at what he currently has there. I do
> not care."
>
>
> DFS note: Bald-faced lie. You had already downloaded one or both files
> - that's how you confused the file download date with the EXIF picture
> taken date, as revealed in Post #6.
I noted CURRENTLY. You even quote this. So this is after people note the
THEN CURRENT file had no EXIF. So after he swapped it.
Or so it seems.
Without context it is not clear 100%. And - please listen - I do not care.
What is noteworthy is you repeatedly accuse me of lying with NO evidence.
> This is also when Ahlstrom showed those files had no EXIF data.
Was this after Tattoo swapped them or was Ahlstrom lying to cover for his
fellow herd member.
Who knows. Who cares.
It was from 2008 and I do not care one whit. Repeated comments on this topic
will just be noted as "See above".
I am doing you a MASSIVE favor to go through this post of yours this far.
Frankly it is perhaps the most boring post I have read in years... massive
words with no real content.
> The advocates were all over you by now, and rightfully so.
See above.
> This was your best chance to back out and admit your confusion and take
> whatever lumps were coming, then exit the thread quietly with tail
> tucked. But no, that's not what Snit does. What Snit does is hang
> around and deny deny deny and lie lie lie. Like a little boy - in his 30s.
See above.
> =========================================================================
> End Page 2 Google archive, Begin Page 3
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #15: "I did not keep the file. Why would I?"
>
>
> DFS note: A lie, since you later made a video with one of the files:
With the NEW file! The one WITHOUT EXIF.
As I show in the video. The one with meta-data is one where I clearly added
it. I never tried to hide that.
Are you lying or too dim witted to follow what is being said?
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Don_Zeigler_EXIF.mov>
>
> Note: that video shows how creepy and dishonest you are, too (so thanks
> for leaving it up). When viewing the 1st file that has no EXIF data,
> you clicked on the Camera Data tabs which proves no EXIF data, but when
> viewing the 2nd file (which you said has EXIF data), you didn't click on
> the Camera Data tabs. The tabs you did click on (Description,
> Illustrator, IPTC *) are not EXIF data. You did this intentionally.
> Very slimy, but expected once people understand how deceitful you are.
I intentionally did this on a file which I clearly added the meta-data.
Why the hell would anyone do that? You claim this was intentional and slimy.
How? Why? What would the goal be?
I mean, really... your claims are getting more and more insane?
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #16: "Wrong about what. Put the context back. Frankly your
> snipping to run from your lies grows old."
>
>
> DFS note: Lies.
>
> Lie 1: By this time you knew EXACTLY what you were wrong about.
>
> Lie 2: Tattoo didn't snip and run from any lies.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #17: "Context is important. Stop snipping it all away.
>
> I caught you openly lying about my having called you... and now you keep
> running to your silly picture as if that somehow makes it alright for
> you to openly lie about my actions.
>
> As far as your silly picture: You corrected me and said it was *26* and
> not *28* as I wrote. Yup, I made a typo. Get over it. Freak out over
> something else."
>
>
>
> DFS note: lie, snip-n-run, misdirection
You mean I did not respond to the same trolling 1000x.
The very thing I often do (and am doing now) and am told I should not. In
other words, I worked to NOT get involved with the idiotic circus and you
whine about it.
> Lie: "stop snipping context away". Tattoo didn't do that.
So when I snip it is evil. When he does the same it is not.
Whatever. Do not expect more posts from me in this thread You have gone
hundreds of lines without making a point other than I mocked a calendar so I
am evil.
> Chickenshit snip-n-run: While you're chiding him for supposedly snipping
> context, you snipped most of his post - especially the part where he
> nailed you clean: "In your zeal to make me look stupid, you only
> succeeded in making yourself look like an utter fool."
See above.
> Misdirection. You're trying to shift the discussion away from
> your EXIF goof by referring back to the typo you made. What you don't
> seem to understand - and I think have never understood to this day - is
> how stupid you sounded referring back to a typo made /only because/ you
> mistook file download date for EXIF date.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #18: "Yup, I caught you in *another* dishonest act. Can't you even
> *try* to be honest? Please?"
>
> DFS note: Lie. Tattoo did nothing dishonest.
You already admitted he did, above!
-----
Post #7: "Gee, and before you denied you had lied about me calling
you. How funny is that!"
DFS note: Truth. But irrelevant to the EXIF discussion.
----
At least keep your obsessive accusations consistent. Thanks!
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #19: "I do not care one little bit about who calls you or not.
> Your private life is of *no* interest to me. The fact is you accused
> me, in a public forum, of calling you. And you lied. It is that simple.
>
> I made a typo and owned up to it when you pointed it out. Who cares?"
>
>
> DFS note: Misdirection. You're again trying to shift the discussion
> away from your EXIF goof by referring back to the typo you made.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #20: "The date was not the 28th but, as you said, the 26th. Oh
> well. I made a typo. Get over it."
>
> DFS note: Misdirection. You're again trying to shift the discussion
> away from your EXIF goof by referring back to the typo you made.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #21: "Open an image, get info, and see the EXIF data. Most image
> editing programs have this option.
> ...
>
> That might be a fun way to spend an evening!
> ...
>
> Holy cow! The EXIF data include the date the image was created! Who
> would have guessed! :)"
>
>
> DFS note: Misdirection. You're trying to shift the discussion away from
> your EXIF goof by making a claim nobody ever contested ("EXIF data
> includes dates"), then acting like that was the issue in contention.
> I've seen you pull this slimy maneuver several times, in this and other
> threads.
See above.
[Note, at this point I am barely skimming... if I miss you actually making a
point please point it out... though even then you have humiliated yourself
so badly in the post I am responding to I have no reason or obligation to
help you keep your circus going...]
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #22: "You are focusing on this non-issue to run from the fact I
> caught you lying about calling you... and since we already agreed that I
> should have written "26" when I wrote "28" what the heck is the problem?
> As I said I do not even have the file - so no screen image for you.
>
> Go cry to someone else... and then spew your lies someone who cares."
>
>
> DFS note: Misdirection. You're again trying to shift the discussion
> away from your EXIF goof by referring back to the typo you made.
>
> Also a lie. It wasn't a 'non-issue'. Your EXIF data goof was the ONLY
> issue anyone was talking about. But you were now buried deep in
> Snittish lying territory.
See above.
> =========================================================================
> End Page 3 Google archive, Begin Page 4
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #23: "I have a friend with all sorts of telescopes and
> microscopes... I do not think the telescopes will be of much value here,
> but maybe I can borrow a microscope.
> ...
>
>
> Frankly I would have preferred if mine had not - but it was not worth my
> time to export it with another tool or look at export options on Photoshop.
> ...
>
> Bottom line, though, as I noted EXIF data contains dates. Seriously, I
> am surprised how many people in COLA did not know that."
>
>
> DFS note: The last sentence is a big, stinking false accusation. There
> was not one bit of evidence that anyone in cola didn't know EXIF data
> contained dates. You fabricated this.
>
> Also misdirection: "as I noted EXIF data contains dates." Nobody ever
> contested that. It's a weak-minded strawman maneuver.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #24: "LOL! It is not Usenet messages that have EXIF data but
> images (mostly jpg images). Seriously, Peter, it amuses me to see you
> try to sound clever. Too funny!"
>
>
> DFS note: Mocking and word-twisting. Very dishonest bullshit -
> intentionally misrepresenting what Kohlmann actually said. Over the
> next years you repeated the false accusation "Kohlmann says Usenet
> message have EXIF data" many times. He NEVER said or implied that.
>
> DFS note: we're now just halfway thru the 8 pages in the Google archive
> of this thread. Having fun yet?!
What did he say? Why not quote it? Ah, here it is:
-----
And you can certainly give us the Msg-IDs,
Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser
After all, it is *your* lie about EXIF data
-----
Yeah, Peter was referencing the Msg-IDs and not images in terms of EXIF
data.
Yeah, he was THAT stupid.
At least you showed something a bit funny there. :)
Still, this is a HUGE favor from me to you to humor you on this. Looking at
the scroll bar I do not think I am even half done with your nonsense.
Really? How obsessed are you?
And so far your big point: I mocked a calendar in 2008 and this proves I am
evil.
> =========================================================================
> End Page 4 Google archive, Begin Page 5
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #25: * "How was I *supposed* to know that viewing EXIF data would
> be beyond so many in COLA? Honestly - I did not know. I consider that
> a fairly easy thing for anyone who is even moderately techie... but
> several in COLA asked me how I did it. Tattoo Vampire clearly knew - he
> was able to point out a typo I made when I reported some data from the
> EXIF info... then he harped on the typo like a crazed lemur... but that
> is a topic for another day.
> ...
>
> I was *repeatedly* asked how I was able to find EXIF data on a jpg. It
> is not hard... you can even get Firefox extensions to do so."
> ...
>
> Gee, you sure spew a lot of BS attacks without *any* support."
>
>
>
> DFS note: False accusation, lie, and misdirection.
>
> False accusation: You didn't "know that viewing EXIF data would be
> beyond so many in COLA," because not one person ever showed it was
> beyond their abilities. You fabricated this.
>
> Lie: You were NOT "repeatedly asked how to find EXIF data on a jpg." Not
> one person up to this point asked you how to do that. You fabricated
> this silly claim.
>
> Misdirection: You're still trying to shift the discussion away from
> your EXIF goof by referring back to the typo you made.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #26: "Two? What two? I only knew of *one* with a calendar. Not
> two. And I do not have a copy of the file any more so I cannot look at
> the EXIF data. So what?
> ...
>
> You say it did not. I say it did. No way to verify for either of us.
>
> You claim there were two images in question... I say one.
>
> So far you have not stated any other than the one with the calendar...
> the one I commented on the EXIF data from.
>
> So what other image did you mean?
>
> If none, as I suspect, or even one that is not relevant to the
> discussion, you have shown that your "views" are less trustworthy than
> are mine - and thus a reasonable person should not believe you about
> your views about the EXIF data... heck, if you cannot figure out the
> difference between one and two what makes you think you can *find* EXIF
> data?
>
> Heck, you also have repeatedly accused me of forging a PDF that I
> *proved* was 100% accurate... so you have a history of dishonestly
> accusing me of forgeries.
>
> And you recently showed you were confused about what my IP was and
> pointed to two other IPs that were not mine... showing your technical
> incompetence.
>
> So we *know* you make dishonest claims of forgery. We *know* your
> technical knowledge is quite limited.
>
> Why do you think *anyone* would listen to your denial of what the EXIF
> data showed in a single image (which you referred to as two images)?
>
> No reason at all... I bet you cannot think of a single one."
>
>
>
> DFS note:
>
> Lie: "no way to verify for either of us". Yes there was - the files
> were still available to verify.
Evidence?
> Multiple misdirections: bringing up irrelevancies, such as 1 vs 2 files,
> forging PDFs, IP addresses, etc.
Gee, it makes no difference that those who accused me of forging data have a
known history of making such false accusations.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #27: * "I noted there was *one* image with a calendar in it and
> noted what the EXIF data said about it - specifically about how the
> calendar was out of date.
>
> You responded by denying the EXIF data exists (!) and then showing you
> do not even know what image is being discussed... you claimed it was
> *two* images when it was only *one*!
>
> You have also shown you are an open liar - lying about me forging PDFs
> where the data was 100% verifiable... and you have shown you are
> technically incompetent being that you think *my* IP must be the same as
> my web host and my email provider (even though they are difference IPs!).
>
> So you are technically incompetent liar who claims that I am wrong about
> EXIF data that you have not even claimed to have seen!
>
> Who do you think is stupid enough to believe your BS?"
>
>
>
> DFS note:
>
> Same stupid misdirections as post #26: bringing up irrelevancies, such
> as 1 vs 2 files, forging PDFs, IP addresses, etc. Anything to take the
> focus off your EXIF mistake.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #28: "Export from Photoshop.
> ...
>
> In Photoshop CS3:
> File > File Info
> Advanced tab
> Save button
>
> It gives a file extension of XMP.
> ...
>
> Any reasonable image editor has the ability to view at least basic EXIF
> data... at least as far as I know."
>
>
> DFS note: Truth. You explained to Ghost how you used Photoshop to
> export EXIF data in a certain format. Ghost had already found EXIF data
> in jpg files - he did NOT ask you how to find EXIF data in general.
The whole discussion was about EXIF data in the image with the calendar and
how I saw it.
I explained how I did.
I am evil.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #29: "He did not know how I got the specific EXIF data I did...
> when he got it he saw a very different format.
> ...
>
> Ah, so now you will point to the post where you have done as you say.
> Oh. No. You will not. Oh well."
>
>
> DFS note: Truth. But Ghost had already found EXIF data in jpg files -
> he did NOT ask you how to find EXIF data in general. He asked how you
> got YOUR version of EXIF data. You showed him - but not with the Tattoo
> file - it didn't have EXIF data.
See above.
> =========================================================================
> End Page 5 Google archive, Begin Page 6
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #30: "I would love to see quotes *from* Hadron... and from me...
> *prove* your claims. As if! LOL!
>
> It will *never* happen. Carroll tried and failed - so he went to quote
> scavenging... so I returned the favor and found as many derogatory
> quotes about him.
>
> Face it... spewing baseless accusations is the group sport of CSMA and
> COLA... those who are honest, honorable, and knowledgeable are just
> accused by those with low self esteem for things they never can show any
> support for."
>
>
> DFS note: Lies and more lies.
>
> Lie 1: "Carroll tried and failed..." In fact, Carroll found many
> derogatory quotes about you. I'd guess every single person you've ever
> 'debated' with would have something derogatory to say about you.
Carroll failed to find quotes from ME, hence the reason he went scavenging
and forging.
> Lie 2: referring to yourself as honest and honorable. heh! You just
> can't help with the dishonesty.
The lies you cannot quote. Got it.
But, hey, I mocked a calendar in 2008. I am evil. You got me there.
You must be very proud!
> Lie 3: "never can show any support for". In fact, everyone can show
> support for your lies. This EXIF thread is full to bursting with your
> ridiculous lies (and your nutjob dishonest behavior).
Yet you have spend who knows how many HUNDREDS of lines without backing any
accusation other than, OH NO!, I mocked Tattoo's calendar.
I am evil.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #31: "You made up a story, Tim, and then you claim it makes me look
> foolish. By the way, Tim Adams, why did you use your other user name
> again?"
>
>
> DFS note: Lie. Tim Adams didn't make up a story. He explained how you
> confused the file download date with the EXIF picture taken date.
The confusion that make me make a typo... somehow. You never did say how.
LOL!
Your story is convoluted and boring.
> Your confusion didn't make you look foolish - it's probably an easy
> mistake to make, given how image data is arranged and labeled in the
> Photoshop File Info page(s). What made you look foolish was spending a
> week denying it and lying about others after you realized your mistake.
See above.
> What kind of adult does that?
You have spent untold hours digging through a discussion from 2008 without
finding me doing anything wrong you can actually back other than that I
mocked a calendar.
And then you ask that.
Sigh.
You need help.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #32: "EXIF data is the date of the image, Tim, not the date of the
> download. Really. Amazing. Just amazing."
> ...
>
> You are the *only* one claiming EXIF data changes based on the date you
> download a file. Well, you and your sock puppet "Why Me". Gee, I
> thought you were denying that was your sock puppet but now you have
> shown - again - that it *clearly* is.
> ...
Full quote... keep in mind this is about EXIF data:
-----
|| change the date on your computer, download the same file and
|| get yet another date.
| EXIF data is the date of the image, Tim, not the date of the
| download.
Incorrect. EXIF data is more than merely the "date of the image".
----
Yes, it WAS claimed that if you change the date of your computer the EXIF
data will change. Looks like it was claimed by Tim Adams. Here is the post
of mine: <http://goo.gl/hNVvfq>.
I had forgotten about that bit of stupidity of his. He was a real hoot...
dumber than dirt. Carroll used to use him as he is using you, now, but
worse. He and Wally. Those were fun time.
> You, not I, are the one who claimed that the EXIF tag kept changing. And
> you are wrong. I am always amazed at how pathetic your errors are."
>
>
> DFS note:
>
> Misdirection: bringing up Tim's 'sock puppets' to shift away from your
> EXIF mistake.
>
> Probably Lies and word-twisting as well. Tim put 'EXIF data' in quotes,
> indicating what you thought was EXIF data was not.
>
> It's like me saying "Snit is 'honest and honorable'"... it's a sarcastic
> way of mocking you or what you're saying. Either you truly don't know
> what it means to use quotes that way and you don't recognize sarcasm, or
> you're lying. Which?
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #33: "I snipped your BS and went right to your examples. And your
> examples show accusations without any support... but they come from
> *you*. Oops. You blew it."
>
>
> DFS note: Lie and hypocrisy:
>
> Lie: "your examples show accusations without any support" In fact,
> chrisv had 100% support in showing your ridiculous lies.
>
> Hypocrisy: you snipped and ran, big time, from chrisv's proof
> of your lying, not long after accusing Tattoo of snip-n-run.
Ah, he had "proof" but you cannot quote it or link to it. Let me guess - you
can email it to someone but now quote it here. LOL!
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #34: "Let me get this straight: I made a *typo* and wrote 28 when I
> meant 26... and this gets Tim Adams so freaked out the:
>
> * Makes up stories about EXIF data changing based on what date you
> open or download a file
As I show above. HILLARIOUS. So at least you had one thing that made this
long and useless post amusing.
> * Makes up lies about me having found the date in the EXIF data in
> "advanced tag", whatever that is.
>
> * Targets my professional life with his lies - a sign Tim Adams is,
> truly, insane. Seriously... how mentally ill would one have to
> be to do that? There is something *seriously* wrong with him...
> something so wrong as to make it clear he should not be able to
> post to public forums.
>
> And this, to you, is a sign that I was "spanked".
>
> Dude, seriously, what the heck is wrong with you to have such bizarre
> thoughts?
>
> I must admit, even though I have seen the mass hysteria overcome usenet
> morons before, to see Tattoo Vampire, Peter Köhlmann, Tim Adams, Steve
> Carroll, and others sink *so* low simply because I made a *typo* is absurd."
>
>
>
> DFS note: Lies and misdirection
>
> Lie 1. Tim Adams didn't make up any stories.
I quoted and link to them above.
> He showed how your 'EXIF
> date' (which was actually your file download date) changed each time the
> file was downloaded.
No, he claimed EXIF download dates change. As I show above.
> Lie 2. You knew he was referring to the Photoshop Advanced tab (he
> mistyped it as 'tag')
Support that I know what the hell nonsense he was babbling about at the
time?
> Also more of your childish, scummy misdirection: ranting about others
> "sinking low because of a typo", when nobody but you cared about the
> typo. The only issue in contention was your bogus EXIF claim and the
> nasty, bullshit lies and behavior that followed.
You have gone on and on about the typo in this post. It is 2015.
The typo was in 2008.
Above you even make the idiotic claim:
-----
But you made the typo /because/ you confused file download date
with EXIF picture taken date
-----
Yes... you claim this typo was made because I confused two pieces of data
that had nothing to do with the typo.
Now you say, even though you are obsessing over it years later, that it was
irrelevant then.
Your claims are idiotic.
> =========================================================================
> End Page 6 Google archive, Begin Page 7
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #35: "It absolutely amazes me how many people freaked out over a
> question of if a calendar in a photo was or was not out dated.
>
> I stated it was ... Tattoo Vampire noted I made a typo as I did so.
>
> Debate over.
>
> Why the hell do people freak out over such thing - spewing BS about
> people's personal and professional lives, calling people names, making
> up stories such as how EXIF data *changes* based on when you download a
> file, and on and on and on.
>
> Something is *seriously* wrong with the people who lashed out so
> strongly against me on this non-issue. Don't they have lives?"
>
>
>
> DFS note: Lies and misdirection.
>
> Lie: nobody freaked out over an outdated photo. People "freaked out"
> because you lied so much, made false accusations about their abilities,
> denied your lies, self-nuked with 'EXIF data' while mocking someone, etc.
Lies you cannot quote. Got it.
But, yeah, I mocked his calendar. Evil.
> Misdirection: you're still trying to shift the discussion away from your
> EXIF goof by referring back to the typo you made. But as you already
> knew, that typo was NEVER the issue. You tried to make it one, because
> you weren't man enough to admit your mistake.
See above.
> Why weren't you man enough to admit your mistake?
You already admitted I DID admit my mistake on the typo! And the type of
meta-data.
So you know I DID admit to my mistakes but here you say I did not admit to
my mistake.
Um, what?
Really... hundreds of lines from you representing hours of work and this is
the best you can do.
OK, now just very quickly skimming... I think I have spent half an hour on
this idiotic post of yours.
You should be thanking me profusely. This is a HUGE favor I am doing for
you. HUGE.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #36: "I am familiar with EXIF data and Photoshop.
> ...
>
> You will remind me of the time I made a typo and wrote 28 when I meant
> 26. Damn! I was hoping to let the deep humiliation I feel over that
> mistake go away. How can you be so cruel as to remind me I made a typo?
> Have you no heart!
>
> Oh. You won't even mention the typo... you will just spew lie after lie
> after lie after lie. Oh well. Not like it was not well know you are a
> liar.
>
> Hey, did you get any more calls today that freaked you out so badly you
> could not do your work for thinking I might be on the other side of the
> line? LOL! Before that is misconstrued, I am merely reminding *you* of
> your lie about me calling you... I am not suggesting I ever would."
>
>
> DFS note: Misdirections.
>
> Misdirection 1: For about the 10th time you're bringing up your "28/26"
> typo that was not in contention, in order to try and shift attention
> away from your EXIF mistake and subsequent lies and idiocy.
>
> Misdirection 2: Again bringing up Tattoo's claim about you calling him,
> as if that makes your lies OK.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #37: "You lied about me calling you.
>
> You have targeted my personal and professional life.
>
> There is little I would not put past you... you simply do not understand
> the concept of not getting so whacked out and upset over COLA that you
> take things out of COLA repeatedly. You are, quite likely, mentally
> ill. Seriously - there is no other excuse for your behavior."
>
>
> DFS note: I don't recall Tattoo ever once taking things out of cola, or
> "targeting your life" in any way. What did he do?
>
> Ironic: you saying someone else is "quite likely mentally ill"?
> Seriously? You're quite likely the only mentally ill person on cola,
> now that Rex Ballard is gone.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
>
> Post #38: "Well, at least you have admitted you are "really" pissed off.
> That is a step in your dealing with your problem - you have admitted
> that you have lost control of your emotions simply because someone on a
> Usenet forum made some comments out the Linux GUI you did not like...
> oh, and also made a typo!
>
> Now the question is if you can find a way to regain control over your
> emotional state - not let such trivial things get you to lose control?
> Can you? If not - if you find you cannot let go of this anger - then
> even you, hopefully, will understand your need to seek outside
> *professional* help.
>
> I wish you well."
>
>
>
> DFS note: Misdirection. Still bringing up that typo, trying to shift
> the discussion away from your EXIF goof.
See above.
Oh, and damn am I bored. Yeah, you own me a BIG sign of gratitude.
Do NOT expect this level of patience and favors from me in the future.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #39: "For the record, you showed *no* understanding of the comments
> you responded to. None.
>
> But, no, I am not leaving. Feel free to if you find that my making
> "bad" comments about Linux and, gasp!, having the occasional typo is
> just too much for you to take - so much you claim to hallucinate about
> hearing my voice on your phone.
>
> Seriously, did you really hallucinate you heard my voice? Do you often
> hear voices in your head?"
>
>
>
> DFS note: Mocking.
>
> Misdirection. Still bringing up that typo, trying to shift the
> discussion away from your EXIF goof.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #40: "OK, now here is going to be where you are going to *really*
> humiliate me: prove the EXIF data was not on the file Tattoo Vampire
> first linked to. This should be gooooood.
> ...
>
> I was repeatedly asked how to find the EXIF data... I even made a movie
> showing how I did it (not with the original image - *obviously* - though
> Tattoo Vampire lied about that and claimed I was trying to push it off
> as his image).
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Don_Zeigler_EXIF.mov>
>
> Now even after I created this movie Tim Adams *lied* and claimed that
> the EXIF data I was looking at would change based on when the file was
> downloaded (he was corrected on this and, in response, targeted my
> professional life with his trolling - lord knows my pointing out his BS
> about EXIF data is worth *that*!)
>
> Meanwhile Peter Köhlmann kept babbling about two images (only one was
> ever in question - even when this was pointed out he continued to lie
> about that).. and, of course, he lied and accused me as posting as
> Rekruled, he lied about my family, he cross posted his BS to CSMA, etc.
Ah, yes... info on Peter's lies. My fault I am sure. Because I am evil for
mocking a calendar. Got it.
> And Tattoo Vampire claimed to have heard my voice on his phone... and at
> first he did not even deny that the EXIF data was there... he just noted
> that my listing of 28 was not accurate (I made, you got it, a *typo*!)
> Funny how he had no complaints about the EXIF data at first... the very
> thing you now claim has been the issue all along... Oh, and of course
> Tattoo felt the *need*, the absolute need, to target my professional
> life as well - lord knows this debate must be resolved *somehow*. After
> all, a disagreement about what was in EXIF data is, as Tattoo said:
>
> one of the better whoppers told in this group over the
> past few years.
>
> Well, at least you seem to agree with him! LOL!
>
> But let us get this straight: you have no problem with the above listed
> people taking things out of COLA, you have no problem with the above
> listed people openly lying about the number of images in question, about
> being called on the phone by someone else, and about freaking out over a
> disagreement over a date an image was taken...
>
> To you *the* issue is that I focused on the typo - the original
> complaint against me - and not the side issue BS of EXIF data. *That*
> is something that is bigger than *anything* else you saw in this debate.
>
> Really?
>
> That is - frankly - insane on your part. Completely irrational.
>
> But stick to your story... it helps make my recent mocking of the whole
> issue that much more funny.
> ...
>
> Oh, do go on! Do document these lies... or show where they have been
> documented! Please! I look forward to it!
> ...
>
> Tattoo and I disagreed as to what the EXIF data on a photo listed or, it
> seems, even if the EXIF data existed (though anyone with a clue could find
> the EXIF data on their own if they cared to).
>
> Man... the drama. This is the biggest issue in years.
>
> LOL! Seriously: get a life."
>
>
>
>
> DFS note:
>
> Lie 1: "I was repeatedly asked how to find the EXIF data". Not one
> person asked you how to find the EXIF data.
Not digging through the thread, but above it was shown Tim Adams thought it
was based on the download date.
> Lie 2: "Tattoo Vampire lied about that and claimed I was trying to push
> it off as his image." It WAS his image, and it had no EXIF data.
>
> General scummy dishonesty: request to "prove the EXIF data was not on
> the file Tattoo Vampire first linked to" It had already been proven,
> and you knew it.
Proof you cannot quote. Give it up.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #41: "You say it was not there... and even go so far as to call me
> a liar over your belief. So prove it. But you will not.
>
> Oh well... it is not like *anyone* expects you to actually support your
> BS. I, on the other hand, can show where you claimed the discussion was
> about two images - a lie from you. The only image in contention was the
> *one* that had the calendar on it. One. Not two. You never did
> acknowledge your clearly untrue comments on that.
>
> You also never supported your accusations of me posting as Rekruled.
>
> You never gave a reasonable excuse for your cross posting to CSMA.
>
> You never explained why you lied about me forging a PDF.
>
> You never acknowledged your ignorance in confusing *my* IP with that of
> my web host and later my email provider.
>
> You never apologized for belittling my family in reaction to the
> embarrassment you have over your mistakes and being caught lying so much.
>
> On and on, Peter. You are a self-loathing hate filled little man... who
> claps like a monkey when I ask you to. Now if there was just some way
> to make you stop lying and lashing out..."
>
>
> DFS note: 1st of 4 times you will post the same thing.
You have posted the same damn thing a dozen times in this one post. I am
truly barely skimming at this point. If you actually make a new point I
missed it. Bored to tears.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #42: "You say it was not there... and even go so far as to call me
> a liar over your belief. So prove it. But you will not.
>
> Oh well... it is not like *anyone* expects you to actually support your
> BS. I, on the other hand, can show where you claimed the discussion was
> about two images - a lie from you. The only image in contention was the
> *one* that had the calendar on it. One. Not two. You never did
> acknowledge your clearly untrue comments on that.
>
> You also never supported your accusations of me posting as Rekruled.
>
> You never gave a reasonable excuse for your cross posting to CSMA.
>
> You never explained why you lied about me forging a PDF.
>
> You never acknowledged your ignorance in confusing *my* IP with that of
> my web host and later my email provider.
>
> You never apologized for belittling my family in reaction to the
> embarrassment you have over your mistakes and being caught lying so much.
>
> On and on, Peter. You are a self-loathing hate filled little man... who
> claps like a monkey when I ask you to. Now if there was just some way
> to make you stop lying and lashing out..."
>
>
> DFS note: 2nd of 4 times you will post the same thing.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #43: "You say it was not there... and even go so far as to call me
> a liar over your belief. So prove it. But you will not.
>
> Oh well... it is not like *anyone* expects you to actually support your
> BS. I, on the other hand, can show where you claimed the discussion was
> about two images - a lie from you. The only image in contention was the
> *one* that had the calendar on it. One. Not two. You never did
> acknowledge your clearly untrue comments on that.
>
> You also never supported your accusations of me posting as Rekruled.
>
> You never gave a reasonable excuse for your cross posting to CSMA.
>
> You never explained why you lied about me forging a PDF.
>
> You never acknowledged your ignorance in confusing *my* IP with that of
> my web host and later my email provider.
>
> You never apologized for belittling my family in reaction to the
> embarrassment you have over your mistakes and being caught lying so much.
>
> On and on, Peter. You are a self-loathing hate filled little man... who
> claps like a monkey when I ask you to. Now if there was just some way
> to make you stop lying and lashing out..."
>
>
>
> DFS note: 3rd of 4 times you will post the same thing.
See above.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #44: "You say it was not there... and even go so far as to call me
> a liar over your belief. So prove it. But you will not.
>
> Oh well... it is not like *anyone* expects you to actually support your
> BS. I, on the other hand, can show where you claimed the discussion was
> about two images - a lie from you. The only image in contention was the
> *one* that had the calendar on it. One. Not two. You never did
> acknowledge your clearly untrue comments on that.
>
> You also never supported your accusations of me posting as Rekruled.
>
> You never gave a reasonable excuse for your cross posting to CSMA.
>
> You never explained why you lied about me forging a PDF.
>
> You never acknowledged your ignorance in confusing *my* IP with that of
> my web host and later my email provider.
>
> You never apologized for belittling my family in reaction to the
> embarrassment you have over your mistakes and being caught lying so much.
>
> On and on, Peter. You are a self-loathing hate filled little man... who
> claps like a monkey when I ask you to. Now if there was just some way
> to make you stop lying and lashing out..."
>
>
>
>
> DFS note: 4th of 4 times you cut-n-pasted the same thing. Ridiculous
> and hysterical. I've seen you do this before. In one thread with
> Greycloud you posted the same few sentences ~20 times.
>
>
> General scummy dishonest/denial: Request to "Prove it". By now you
> already knew at least 2 people proved there was no EXIF data.
>
> Misdirection: bringing up a bunch of other irrelevant bullshit
> (1 vs 2 files, Rekrules, cross-posting, forge PDF)
>
Poor trolls... I post the same truth in response to their lies. I am evil.
OK.
>
> =========================================================================
> End Page 7 Google archive, Begin Page 8
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #45: "And yet you cannot find this example of blackmail in the
> Google record. Man, you are *incompetent*. You keep accusing me of
> things but then you an *never* find an example to support your claims.
>
> I, on the other hand, have shown you to be a liar many times over... do
> you need the quotes *again*?
>
> By the way, do you still claim Santa Clause is the number one key Linux
> programmer - you know, the "paraphrasing" of your arguments that is as
> accurate as your "paraphrasing" of mine."
>
>
> DFS note: "blackmail" is the wrong word on their part.
Not even looking to see what that is in reference to. If I goofed on the
word then show it. Your accusation.
I might even read your response. But at this point you own me BIG time.
> Your lie is "You keep accusing me of things but then you an *never* find
> an example to support your claims." Huge lie. Everyone has always
> supported their claims that you lied. Every single time.
Ah, the lies that cannot be quoted. Got it.
> =========================================================================
>
> Post #46: "Peter seriously is too dim to get the whole "Santa Clause"
> silliness... Thufir claimed that his fabrications about me were fair
> "paraphrases"... so I returned the favor... but make it very clear what
> I am doing and do not try to pass it off as Thufir's real views. In
> other words I am openly mocking Thufir's lies. He is a liar... unless
> he can twist logic to the point where it is fair to claim he thinks the
> number one top programmer of Linux is Santa Clause."
>
>
>
> DFS note: Thufir probably didn't fabricate anything about you, but I
> don't know for sure. I definitely wouldn't put it past you to threaten
> to expose someone (what Thufir claimed was 'blackmail'), seeing as how
> you claimed "If I get a single phone call from anyone I now have every
> right to contact his [-hh's] base."
Vaguely remember someone making up claims and saying they were paraphrasing.
Sounds like it was Thufir but who the hell knows. You give no quotes or
links.
As far as -hh, I have looked for the original in the past and not found it.
Whatever. He made threats. I responded. I think he later denied then. This
was before this debate in 2008. Who the hell cares? Not I.
Next.
> =========================================================================
> End Page 8 Google archive, End of thread
> =========================================================================
>
> Recap:
> 46 total Snit posts, containing:
>
> 20 outright lies
> 3 serious false accusations
> 24 pitiful misdirection/move goalposts
> 9 mocking
> 5 general scummy dishonesty and denials
> 4 truthful posts
> 3 big self-nukes
> 3 unclassified
> 2 blatant hypocrisy/chickenshit snip-n-runs
> 1 shameful word-twisting
> 1 mistake/typo
>
>
> The general flow of the thread was:
> Day 1: you started off mocking Tattoo
Yup. I mocked his calendar. Evil. I did not mock his looks as others did (or
was it someone else's looks... whatever).
> Day 1-2: you self-nuked, hugely
In ways you cannot support.
> Day 2: you discovered your self-nuke but weren't man
> enough to admit it
In ways you cannot support.
> Day 2-9: you spent the next week lying and denying and trying
> to misdirect away from your self-nuke
In ways you cannot support.
> It's a very pathetic display of grade-school behavior. Other than some
> "blackmail" bullshit by a couple advocates, you were the only dishonest
> person in that entire thread.
>
> All that's left is for you to take responsibility and admit it and
> apologize to everyone for your dishonesty and maniacal behavior.
I mocked Tattoo's calendar.
I am evil.
As far as the rest, if you are going to accuse someone of something then
quote them doing so.
And you own me. Big time. You begged me to read this post and I did... well,
read and skimmed a bunch. This is truly the most boring post I have seen in
COLA in years.
Oh, and you owe Slimer a thanks, too. Had he not commented on it I would not
have even noticed you posted this. Or maybe I would have found it later.
Whatever, he pointed it to me and it was his comments that helped inspire me
to actually waste my time on you.
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-09 19:07 -0400
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-09 19:59 -0400
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-09 18:47 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-04-10 11:26 +0000
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 08:42 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 10:00 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-10 20:28 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 20:36 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 20:47 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 20:58 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-04-11 14:14 +0000
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-09 19:10 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-09 22:36 -0400
The real reason Steven Petruzzellis AKA Steve Carroll is saying his non-TOR account was hacked. tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 13:27 -0700
Re: The real reason Steven Petruzzellis AKA Steve Carroll is saying his non-TOR account was hacked. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-11 23:07 +0200
Re: The real reason Steven Petruzzellis AKA Steve Carroll is saying his non-TOR account was hacked. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-11 21:44 -0600
Re: The real reason Steven Petruzzellis AKA Steve Carroll is saying his non-TOR account was hacked. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-11 21:15 -0700
Snit Michael Glasser, lying imbecile, using socks army Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-12 10:41 +0200
Re: The real reason Steven Petruzzellis AKA Steve Carroll is saying his non-TOR account was hacked. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-11 19:31 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-09 20:20 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-09 21:06 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-04-10 11:20 +0000
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-10 10:05 -0400
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-10 08:32 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 08:48 -0700
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 08:41 -0700
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-10 08:57 -0700
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 09:48 -0700
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-10 12:33 -0700
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-11 00:36 +0200
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-04-11 04:08 +0000
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-04-11 14:21 +0000
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-11 15:47 +0100
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-11 18:09 +0200
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 09:40 -0700
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-11 11:11 -0700
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-11 11:30 -0700
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-11 14:33 -0400
Re: DFS blames me for his circus. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-11 12:44 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-04-11 14:10 +0000
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-11 11:12 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread GermsJerms <jeremywalmartprescottaz@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 11:30 -0700
Ugh, more EXIF nonsense Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-11 14:58 -0400
Why Do You Wipe Pee Pees Chris Ahlstrom? GermsJerms <jeremywalmartprescottaz@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 12:01 -0700
Re: Ugh, more EXIF nonsense Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 12:19 -0700
Re: Ugh, more EXIF nonsense Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-11 12:27 -0700
Re: Ugh, more EXIF nonsense Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 12:32 -0700
Steven Petruzzellis / Steve Carroll busted lying about his multiple Google accounts again tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 13:36 -0700
Re: Steven Petruzzellis / Steve Carroll busted lying about his multiple Google accounts again Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-11 23:03 +0200
Re: Steven Petruzzellis / Steve Carroll busted lying about his multiple Google accounts again Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 14:10 -0700
Re: Steven Petruzzellis / Steve Carroll busted lying about his multiple Google accounts again Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-12 00:29 +0200
Re: Steven Petruzzellis / Steve Carroll busted lying about his multiple Google accounts again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-11 19:16 -0700
Re: Steven Petruzzellis / Steve Carroll busted lying about his multiple Google accounts again JermsGerms <jeremywalmartprescottaz@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 16:25 -0700
Re: Steven Petruzzellis / Steve Carroll busted lying about his multiple Google accounts again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-11 19:35 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-12 08:27 -0400
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 08:47 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-12 11:50 -0400
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 09:06 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 09:19 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-12 13:08 -0400
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 10:21 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-12 13:49 -0400
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 14:34 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 10:24 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-12 13:50 -0400
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 11:25 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 14:32 -0700
Steve Carroll self-nukes Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 14:58 -0700
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 00:12 +0200
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 15:23 -0700
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 00:38 +0200
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 15:45 -0700
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 01:15 +0200
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 16:54 -0700
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-12 20:46 -0400
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 03:48 +0000
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-12 21:01 -0400
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 19:22 -0700
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 19:31 -0700
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 19:47 -0700
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-12 23:36 -0400
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 21:50 -0700
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 19:09 -0400
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:36 -0700
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-04-13 11:16 +0000
Re: Snit gets busted cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-13 04:47 -0700
Re: Steve Carroll self-nukes Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 09:34 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-12 15:40 -0400
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 14:18 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Charlie Croyden <charlescroyden3@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 14:24 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-12 18:26 -0400
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 08:57 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-10 08:39 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 08:51 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Charlie Croyden <charlescroyden3@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 09:45 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 12:48 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-10 15:53 -0400
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 16:01 -0400
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-10 16:11 -0400
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 17:21 -0400
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 14:37 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 16:03 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-10 16:28 -0400
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 16:04 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-10 16:00 -0400
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-10 13:15 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 14:50 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 16:08 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 17:04 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-12 11:47 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 13:35 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 13:03 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-10 06:19 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 09:05 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 09:28 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-10 10:17 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 10:52 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-10 11:50 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 16:13 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 19:43 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 11:50 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 13:29 -0700
Re: DFS: you own me a HUGE thanks for responding at all. WARNING: MOST BORING POST EVER. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-11 19:32 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Tralfaz <directly_above_the_center_of_the_earth@santas_deer_poop_too_much.org> - 2015-04-10 14:24 +0000
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-10 09:30 -0500
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-10 10:08 -0500
Re: After hours of trying, DFS fails to actually quote a single lie from Snit Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 08:43 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-10 08:46 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 13:24 -0700
Re: Snit, let's have some fun with your 23 lies and false accusations in the EXIF thread Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-11 19:29 -0700
csiph-web