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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #560139

Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/4/20 10:54 PM, Diesel wrote:
...

>>> I suspect, within a few months once I begin pen testing, your
>>> opinion will change significantly...
>>
>> Saving this post. If you do anything to harm me I am sure the
>> police will be interested in the evidence. You having an online
>> tantrum is one thing... you are young and immature... but to make
>> threats is another.
> 
> I've made no threats, Snit.

Great! Then you have nothing to be concerned about! What wonderful news!

> I've gone over that already. What
> evidence do you intend to present them? More than a usenet post or
> two, I'd hope?
>   
>>>> Here, tell you what: after I post responses to your tantrum of
>>>> today I shall let you get the last word. Stamp your feet. Scream
>>>> in the grocery store. Get it out of your system.
>>
>> Had you not made specific threats I would have done this. And, I
>> admit, I wanted to reply to your funny bragging of knowing about
>> computers without mice. That was priceless.
> 
> 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.

You did THINGS with them. Yeah, others just used them for doorstops and 
paperweights... but you, with your big boy pants, did THINGS!

I am very, very impressed! Wow!

Curious, did you ever use a spell check with them to learn "alot" is 
actually two words? Do not get me wrong -- I have made grammatical 
errors online. I absolutely know "their" from "there" but have been 
caught making that mistake. Embarrassingly, more than once. I just 
happen to notice you make that particular error, well, alot. :)

>> Of note: it was only your failure to understand what you read that
>> made you think you had permission to do ANYTHING to me. Again: ANY
>> harm done to me and I will share your post with the police. Same
>> with your other threats of collecting SSNs and the like. I am
>> printing those out and saving links.
> 
> A serious question for you, snit,

As opposed to your tantrum-based questions?

> what evidence do you you think I or
> my peers would leave behind for you to offer up to the police or
> anyone else? 

Hint: your post where you make specific comments about doing so! I mean, 
really, was that really so hard for you to figure out? Wow! I cannot 
believe how you missed that!

> Another question for you to ponder on, what makes you
> think your police are within my jurisdiction and can in any way help
> you with a 'spat' you're having online with someone?

Ask Carroll about that. :)

> And most importantly, on what planet do you live where a usenet post
> is for certain useful as evidence against another person in a
> courtroom? Do you think the usenet provider has logs that will be of
> use to you concerning me? :) Do you think any of the machines here
> are going to hand over any contents they might/not contain locally to
> any unauthorized persons? Do you even know what your rights are as a
> citizen of this country concerning that, Snit?

Hint: Usenet posts are not saved just at my Usenet provider.

Are you sure you really want to keep saying you know about tech?

> Just what do you think is going to happen if the bot owner identity
> is learned and confirmed Snit?

Carroll will throw a bigger fit than he is now. Of course.

> Do you really think threats as you've
> made here would be useful to save the bot owner?

Amazing how you did not understand when I told you that while I do not 
approve of you causing him harm I would not feel bad for him. I never 
said, suggested, hinted, or implied I would care one whit about what you 
do to him.

You really do have a very, very hard time understanding what you read.

> I can assure you.
> from much previous experience, they won't help.

And yet I did. Once again you show you have very poor understanding of 
what you read.

>> I suspect you are, as is so often the case, just full of shit.
> 
> If you really believed that, you wouldn't have responded to me as
> you've done here. You wouldn't feel the need to save posts, print
> posts, etc. Yet, for some reason, a single reply from me and your
> printer gets turned on.

If someone made a threat to break my windows, I would not assume it was 
likely they would travel far to do so... but they COULD. And it would be 
wise for me to keep the proof of their threat JUST IN CASE.

Say, on the off chance, you really have a friend or whatever who can do 
what you say you can. And say you do so against me. I now have proof 
that you at least claimed you were involved. I doubt it will be 
needed... but, hey, just in case there is SOME truth behind the gobs of 
unsupported claims you make I am already prepared.

> I think I've made my point 

That you can throw tantrums and when you are called out you freak out. 
Sure. That point has long since been made.

> - but i'm not a
> total dick, so I don't need you with your knees on the ground saying
> "yes, you've made your point, I understand." I'll let you save some
> face here.

LOL! I am not the one who bragged I had used a computer without a mouse. 
You did... as you bragged about your amazing tech skills. Funny as hell!

>> But if you actually cause harm I want you to know I am not against
>> using legal means to respond and have you held accountable.
> 
> legal means to respond.. yes, well.. lemme show you how worthless
> that actually is when you go and fuck around with someone like me,
> writing a check your ass has no chance in hell of ever cashing.
> 
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/toadie-virus-poses-serious-threat/
> 
> That Austrian company, snit, was Toyota (yes, the car/suv/truck
> maker). Don't *ever* think you have more legal options, or money to
> pay some very high priced lawyers to try and sick on me, then they
> did. And, they had nothing to work with, either. I seriously doubt
> the security you employ on a home network is going to be anywhere
> near the level they had on their corporate one. or the security
> methods you use when protecting your personal data. I doubt it's as
> advanced as theirs either.

So now you admit to your threats again. Interesting.

> All kidding and joking around aside,

Ah, before your claims were just jokes. LOL!

> let's have no misunderstanding
> about this: I'm not that interested in demonstrating anything of true
> blackhat nature to you at this point in time. If I was, and I really
> wanted to make an example of you, I could, and there's no fucking
> agency on the planet that would be able to stop it, reverse it, or do
> anything for you after the fact. It doesn't even matter if you
> believe me or not, a simple google search will confirm it's true,
> anyway.

Carroll used to claim he had hacked Google. No wonder you two get along 
so well!

>> Ask Carroll what it is like to have the police get involved when
>> his trolling did not go as he wanted and he took things out of
>> Usenet. Oh. He won't even talk about it.
> 
> I don't think you quite understand how large the sharks be in this
> water, boy. You're gonna need a bigger boat.

I understand how proud you not only used computers without a mouse, but 
you did "things" with them!

Hell, Carroll has backed up his tech claims more than you have.

>>>>> There's a
>>>>> very big difference between a threat and a warning. The word
>>>>> threat is abused these days almost as much as the word troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would not even think about making a threat of any kind to
>>>>> you. OTH, I might warn you that if you do such and such, I will
>>>>> respond with such and such - but that's not a threat.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is.
>>>
>>> Learn to use a dictionary.
>>
>> You have made several threats -- including one above.

And you just run away from this. But whatever... you like playing games. 
And then you respond very poorly when I don't give you the responses you 
like.

> See above.
>   
>>> What is forged about the list, specifically? It includes MIDs for
>>> review.
>>
>> Several of the posts are from his own socks... as anyone who has
>> been paying attention would know.
> 
> Can you provide evidence to support the claim they are from socks? If
> yes, please do so.

The evidence is it is beyond obvious to anyone who is paying attention. 
Look to see how these socks are used to beg for my attention. Look to 
see how predictable they are.

It points to one and only one person. But you are not able to see it. 
Hey, that is not a surprise. A LOT goes by you that you do not understand.

>>> No, I was writing of your technical limitations.
>>
>> Like thinking having used a computer without a mouse is something
>> special. LOL!
> 
> I didn't state it was. I was using it as nothing more than a
> reference.

Yeah, and you did THINGS with it! LOL!

Seriously one of the funniest efforts to impress ANYONE I have ever seen.

>>>>>> I do not think there should be consequences for ANYTHING said
>>>>>> in Usenet
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I got that impression already snit. You think it's
>>>>> perfectly okay to lie about people, on usenet. It's not.
>>>>
>>>> Remember when you used to accuse me of the type twisting you
>>>> just did there?
>>>
>>> I didn't do anything of the kind, Snit.
>>
>> Thank you for rescinding your accusations.

And then you back pedaled again. Not hard to predict.

> I didn't do that, either.
>   
>>> You think it's perfectly okay
>>> to write whatever you want online, that there's no consequences
>>> for anything you do here. You're wrong.
>>
>> Oh, I know it will only increase your tantrum.

And you did.

> Obviously you know different, because you've made silly threats of
> police against me.

When I was a counselor at a camp in Pennsylvania I had a camper run up 
to me and complain another camper was hitting him back.

You remind me of this incident. :)

> See, you think it's okay to talk shit about
> people, but you don't think it's okay to be held accountable for it.

You really don't understand what I said at all. Wow!

> On what planet do you live on where that works out? Anyways, I've
> said my piece on this subject. Do what you like with it.

I do not think anything will need to be done -- remember, I think you 
are full of shit.


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

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

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 05:54 +0000
  Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-04 23:33 -0700
    Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 09:06 +0000
      Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-05 02:58 -0700
        Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-06 05:17 +0000
          Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-05 22:44 -0700
            Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-08 06:41 +0000
              Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-08 08:55 +0100
                Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-10 05:27 +0000
                Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-10 23:19 +0100
                Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2020-07-11 00:24 +0200
                Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-10 15:33 -0700
                Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Peter Weiss <nospamspamno@mail.org> - 2020-07-10 23:49 +0000
                Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Peter Weiss <nospamspamno@mail.org> - 2020-07-10 23:33 +0000
                Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 00:33 +0000
            Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-10 05:27 +0000
  Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-04 23:43 -0700
    Re: snit bitch threats of law enforcement. wanker Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-05 09:06 +0000

csiph-web