"Rick" <none@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
pan.2005.03.15.22.44.37.912913@trollfeed.com on 3/15/05 3:44 PM:

After dishonestly re-routing to CSMA,
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:30:11 -0700, Snit wrote:

"Rick" <none@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
pan.2005.03.15.11.01.07.435939@trollfeed.com on 3/15/05 4:01 AM:

Why is it you seem willing to accept the word of
Steve Carroll and Elizabot, both Mac users, when Mac users are supposed
to
be really stupid?

What on earth do you mean by that? Are you saying that I'm stupid? That
my kids are? That my friends are? That's rather offensive.

Of course not. But there are number or regulars here who persist in
calling any Mac user stupid, cretin, etc. Peter K, for one.

Does that make it true. I used Macs for years. I am still considering get
a Mini and and iBook if my computer lab at school switches. I don't
think that makes me a cretin.

What do you think it is that does make you a cretin? I am curious as to how
you think that came about...

... and there is proof you have no reading comprehension.



Also, it's not
been established that this Carroll bloke is trustworth, yet you seem
willing to accept what he says about Snit, while refusing to accept what
Snit says about himself.

I hung in CSMA regularly for years. I'm in there less so now. I have seen
Snit in action there.

Yes, and you have trolled in CSMA a great deal.

You are a liar.

You are one of the ones who made it a quagmire of flaming,

You are a liar.


though you are certainly not one of the main ones to do so.


He is being called an identity thief, among other things. Are you willing
to accept Carroll's say-so as proof?

How many does it take?

How about direct evidence and not the word of some group-think dementia that
is common in CSMA?

I see you are too scared to answer posts in COLA and have been childishly,
and dishonestly, re-routing them to CSMA.

It seems you are too stupid to realize that this proves the comments
relating to your ... 'debating methods.'

Please keep your BS where it belongs - in CSMA.

"Rick" <none@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
pan.2005.03.15.22.39.52.714312@trollfeed.com on 3/15/05 3:39 PM:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:48:24 -0700, Snit wrote:

"Rick" <none@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
pan.2005.03.15.10.56.36.72889@trollfeed.com on 3/15/05 3:56 AM:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:59:38 +0000, Kier wrote:

(snip)

Look, I'm not saying Snit is a wonderful person. I'm just saying he
doens't particularly deserve to be slagged like this merely for asking
question in a manner we don't 'approve' of.

Really?

In one post, he removed COLA and inserted CSMA here are his words:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:06:53 -0700, Snit wrote:

BTW: since you and the other trolls have essentially destroyed CSMA, that
is
where I will send your little trolling posts - or at least my responses.

Let's spare COLA of your BS.

I switched the groups back, so my reply came to COLA.

And I will keep sending the flames and trolling BS back to a group which is
all about such things....

You are such a dishonest asshole.

Please send your trolling and flaming to CSMA.

begin KillFileMe.vbs

Your turn, Ben. Then you can make yourself comfortable at the bottom of
the killfile with Bailo, Relf, DooFu$ and the KKKRabAppleMan KKKids.

You've had 20+ hours to make some sort of comment Ben/Snot. I see you
have nothing to add. Not that I expected you to, but I wanted to make
sure you had ample opportunity. While other possibilities exist, I'll
assume I hit things right on the head (not that I had any doubt, but
confirmation in one form or another is always nice).

"Rick" <none@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
pan.2005.03.16.18.44.47.574499@trollfeed.com on 3/16/05 11:44 AM:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:19:29 -0700, Snit wrote:

"Rick" <none@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
pan.2005.03.16.18.08.20.642999@trollfeed.com on 3/16/05 11:08 AM:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:03:50 -0700, Snit wrote:

Lies.

Please keep your trolling to CSMA, where it belongs.

.. and more lies.

Why do you keep trolling COLA?

"Rick" <none@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
pan.2005.03.16.18.54.52.951509@trollfeed.com on 3/16/05 11:54 AM:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:49:53 -0700, Snit wrote:

"Rick" <none@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
pan.2005.03.16.18.44.47.574499@trollfeed.com on 3/16/05 11:44 AM:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:19:29 -0700, Snit wrote:

"Rick" <none@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
pan.2005.03.16.18.08.20.642999@trollfeed.com on 3/16/05 11:08 AM:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:03:50 -0700, Snit wrote:

Lies.

Please keep your trolling to CSMA, where it belongs.

.. and more lies.

Why do you keep trolling COLA?

.. and more lies.

It seems like every time I respond to your trolling, even if I send it back
to CSMA where it belongs,

you just troll COLA again.

Why do you do that, Rick? I do not understand your motivation.

begin oe_protect.scr
Sinister Midget <sinister@stinkfoot.biz> espoused:
begin KillFileMe.vbs

super-cut alleging Sn*t is Ben of Red Hat mailing list fame

Your turn, Ben. Then you can make yourself comfortable at the bottom of
the killfile with Bailo, Relf, DooFu$ and the KKKRabAppleMan KKKids.


smallish chop


You've had 20+ hours to make some sort of comment Ben/Snot. I see you
have nothing to add. Not that I expected you to, but I wanted to make
sure you had ample opportunity. While other possibilities exist, I'll
assume I hit things right on the head (not that I had any doubt, but
confirmation in one form or another is always nice).


On this occasion, I would suggest that the silence speaks volumes.
One would hope that people can change their behaviour over time - perhaps
Ben/Sn*t will make an effort, although looking at 50 posts/day for 18
months, there can't be that much time to consider one's own behaviour.

Still, let's see...

begin KillFileMe.vbs

On 2005-03-16, quoth Rick <none@trollfeed.com>:

By sending your replies to CSMA you show your cowardice and utter
disregard for other people.

More importantly, by bothering people in other groups with his
responses, he's deliberately inviting them *from* those groups *to*
this group where the full conversation exists.

KantGetAMan must be proud.

"Sinister Midget" <sinister@stinkfoot.biz> wrote in post
slrnd3hb67.9e9.sinister@laptop.harry.net on 3/16/05 4:04 PM:

begin KillFileMe.vbs

On 2005-03-16, quoth Rick <none@trollfeed.com>:

By sending your replies to CSMA you show your cowardice and utter
disregard for other people.

More importantly, by bothering people in other groups with his
responses, he's deliberately inviting them *from* those groups *to*
this group where the full conversation exists.

KantGetAMan must be proud.

The CSMA trolls are well aware of my presence here... there is little I can
do to prevent them from trolling. Trust me, I have tried - I have ignored
them; I have even just stopped posting for several weeks - it did not even
slow them down.

At this point they are so mad at me, so frustrated based on some ancient
battles or other nonsense, that they will just keep following me to any
group I talk to others in. There is one exception to this - the moderated
group I sometimes have discussions in. This is very telling... they know
that their BS simply would not be tolerated there.

begin virus.scr Snit wrote:

Snit snip


All are easy to provide.


I don't care the least little bit for anything you might provide/fabricate
All you can do is simply to get lost, liar

begin KillFileMe.vbs

On 2005-03-14, quoth Mark Kent <mark.kent@demon.co.uk>:
begin doom.scr
Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> espoused:

Compare your experience to just *some* of Sn*t's:

http://tinyurl.com/3ptfj

The better part of 20,000... that's twenty **THOUSAND** posts in an 18
month time period... in *one* NG... and that's just using the name Sn!t;
as Elizabot has already shown cola, he's used plenty of others... as
well as his sockpuppets and outright stealing of identities.

25,900 I saw. Over 18 months, that's almost 50 posts a day, *every day*
for 18 months. Is sn?t more than one person?

Flatbrain has been known to do that, as Flatso only. Add in the
puppets.....

SCOoke was near or over that number a couple of times.

Several other trolls, most of whom I killfiled before they ever got
that obnoxious (Hello DooFu$, Bailo!), have aimed for numbers like
that.

AFAIK none have ever achieved that many for that long, excepting
possibly Krabs Itches, Man and s/h/it's multitude of socks.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:19:13 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

begin doom.scr
Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> espoused:

Compare your experience to just *some* of Sn*t's:

http://tinyurl.com/3ptfj

The better part of 20,000... that's twenty **THOUSAND** posts in an 18
month time period... in *one* NG... and that's just using the name Sn!t;
as Elizabot has already shown cola, he's used plenty of others... as
well as his sockpuppets and outright stealing of identities.

25,900 I saw. Over 18 months, that's almost 50 posts a day, *every day*
for 18 months. Is sn?t more than one person?

First you'be got to prove that all of those posts that are supposedly
his sockpuppets and identity thefts and different names were were actually
made by Sn*t (and no, I don't think it's cool to munge his name, whatever
he may or may not be).

Why is it you seem willing to accept the word of
Steve Carroll and Elizabot, both Mac users, when Mac users are supposed to
be really stupid?

And why should it matter how many posts he's made? Some people are
prolific posters, some aren't. Last i heard, there wasn't a law against it.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:01:27 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

begin oe_protect.scr
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:19:13 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

begin doom.scr
Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> espoused:

Compare your experience to just *some* of Sn*t's:

http://tinyurl.com/3ptfj

The better part of 20,000... that's twenty **THOUSAND** posts in an 18
month time period... in *one* NG... and that's just using the name
Sn!t;
as Elizabot has already shown cola, he's used plenty of others... as
well as his sockpuppets and outright stealing of identities.

25,900 I saw. Over 18 months, that's almost 50 posts a day, *every
day*
for 18 months. Is sn?t more than one person?

First you'be got to prove that all of those posts that are supposedly
his sockpuppets and identity thefts and different names were were
actually made by Sn*t (and no, I don't think it's cool to munge his
name, whatever he may or may not be).

I'm munging the name because it's been claimed that he's used a name
appearance count as an ego-booster. This would seem to align with what
I'd expect from someone who trolls so widely, and posts so unbelievably
voraciously, so I'm making sure that I do not in any way add to that
ego-trip.

Why don't you simply stop talking about him at all, then? If what you say
is true, the form his name is in will make little difference to him, in
fact is liable to reinforce his sense of 'victory'. If, of course, the
claim is true. And even if it is, so what? Does it really mater that much?
Do you care what he allegedly did or does in CSMA? If so, why not take it
up with the posters there?



Why is it you seem willing to accept the word of
Steve Carroll and Elizabot, both Mac users, when Mac users are supposed
to be really stupid?

What on earth do you mean by that? Are you saying that I'm stupid? That
my kids are? That my friends are? That's rather offensive.

Of course not. But there are number or regulars here who persist in
calling any Mac user stupid, cretin, etc. Peter K, for one.

Also, it's not
been established that this Carroll bloke is trustworth, yet you seem
willing to accept what he says about Snit, while refusing to accept what
Snit says about himself.

He is being called an identity thief, among other things. Are you willing
to accept Carroll's say-so as proof?

And why should it matter how many posts he's made? Some people are
prolific posters, some aren't. Last i heard, there wasn't a law against
it.


In principle, it doesn't. 50 posts/day for 18 months without a break
is not normal behaviour in my view, though. Can you find anyone else
who's make so many? Even on Cola? It seems doubtful to me.

Doubtful, quite possibly. Still isn't any indication of anything except
that he posts a lot. But so do a lot of the posters in CSMA who accuse
him.

begin oe_protect.scr
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:19:13 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

begin doom.scr
Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> espoused:

Compare your experience to just *some* of Sn*t's:

http://tinyurl.com/3ptfj

The better part of 20,000... that's twenty **THOUSAND** posts in an 18
month time period... in *one* NG... and that's just using the name Sn!t;
as Elizabot has already shown cola, he's used plenty of others... as
well as his sockpuppets and outright stealing of identities.

25,900 I saw. Over 18 months, that's almost 50 posts a day, *every day*
for 18 months. Is sn?t more than one person?

First you'be got to prove that all of those posts that are supposedly
his sockpuppets and identity thefts and different names were were actually
made by Sn*t (and no, I don't think it's cool to munge his name, whatever
he may or may not be).

I'm munging the name because it's been claimed that he's used a name
appearance count as an ego-booster. This would seem to align with what
I'd expect from someone who trolls so widely, and posts so unbelievably
voraciously, so I'm making sure that I do not in any way add to that
ego-trip.

Why is it you seem willing to accept the word of
Steve Carroll and Elizabot, both Mac users, when Mac users are supposed to
be really stupid?

What on earth do you mean by that? Are you saying that I'm stupid? That
my kids are? That my friends are? That's rather offensive.

And why should it matter how many posts he's made? Some people are
prolific posters, some aren't. Last i heard, there wasn't a law against it.


In principle, it doesn't. 50 posts/day for 18 months without a break
is not normal behaviour in my view, though. Can you find anyone else
who's make so many? Even on Cola? It seems doubtful to me.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:01:27 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

begin oe_protect.scr
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:19:13 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

begin doom.scr
Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> espoused:

Compare your experience to just *some* of Sn*t's:

http://tinyurl.com/3ptfj

The better part of 20,000... that's twenty **THOUSAND** posts in an 18
month time period... in *one* NG... and that's just using the name Sn!t;
as Elizabot has already shown cola, he's used plenty of others... as
well as his sockpuppets and outright stealing of identities.

25,900 I saw. Over 18 months, that's almost 50 posts a day, *every day*
for 18 months. Is sn?t more than one person?

First you'be got to prove that all of those posts that are supposedly
his sockpuppets and identity thefts and different names were were actually
made by Sn*t (and no, I don't think it's cool to munge his name, whatever
he may or may not be).

I'm munging the name because it's been claimed that he's used a name
appearance count as an ego-booster. This would seem to align with what
I'd expect from someone who trolls so widely, and posts so unbelievably
voraciously, so I'm making sure that I do not in any way add to that
ego-trip.

Why don't you simply stop talking about him at all, then? If what you say
is true, the form his name is in will make little difference to him, in
fact is liable to reinforce his sense of 'victory'. If, of course, the
claim is true. And even if it is, so what? Does it really mater that much?
Do you care what he allegedly did or does in CSMA? If so, why not take it
up with the posters there?

Why is it you seem willing to accept the word of
Steve Carroll and Elizabot, both Mac users, when Mac users are supposed to
be really stupid?

What on earth do you mean by that? Are you saying that I'm stupid? That
my kids are? That my friends are? That's rather offensive.

Of course not. But there are number or regulars here who persist in
calling any Mac user stupid, cretin, etc. Peter K, for one.

Also, it's not
been established that this Carroll bloke is trustworth, yet you seem
willing to accept what he says about Snit, while refusing to accept what
Snit says about himself.

He is being called an identity thief, among other things. Are you willing
to accept Carroll's say-so as proof?

And why should it matter how many posts he's made? Some people are
prolific posters, some aren't. Last i heard, there wasn't a law against it.


In principle, it doesn't. 50 posts/day for 18 months without a break
is not normal behavior in my view, though. Can you find anyone else
who's make so many? Even on Cola? It seems doubtful to me.

Doubtful, quite possibly. Still isn't any indication of anything except
that he posts a lot. But so do a lot of the posters in CSMA who accuse him.

begin virus.scr Kier wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:01:27 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

begin oe_protect.scr
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:19:13 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

begin doom.scr
Steve Carroll <noone@nowhere.com> espoused:

Compare your experience to just *some* of Sn*t's:

http://tinyurl.com/3ptfj

The better part of 20,000... that's twenty **THOUSAND** posts in an 18
month time period... in *one* NG... and that's just using the name
Sn!t;
as Elizabot has already shown cola, he's used plenty of others... as
well as his sockpuppets and outright stealing of identities.

25,900 I saw. Over 18 months, that's almost 50 posts a day, *every
day*
for 18 months. Is sn?t more than one person?

First you'be got to prove that all of those posts that are supposedly
his sockpuppets and identity thefts and different names were were
actually made by Sn*t (and no, I don't think it's cool to munge his
name, whatever he may or may not be).

I'm munging the name because it's been claimed that he's used a name
appearance count as an ego-booster. This would seem to align with what
I'd expect from someone who trolls so widely, and posts so unbelievably
voraciously, so I'm making sure that I do not in any way add to that
ego-trip.

Why don't you simply stop talking about him at all, then? If what you say
is true, the form his name is in will make little difference to him, in
fact is liable to reinforce his sense of 'victory'. If, of course, the
claim is true. And even if it is, so what? Does it really mater that much?
Do you care what he allegedly did or does in CSMA? If so, why not take it
up with the posters there?



Why is it you seem willing to accept the word of
Steve Carroll and Elizabot, both Mac users, when Mac users are supposed
to be really stupid?

What on earth do you mean by that? Are you saying that I'm stupid? That
my kids are? That my friends are? That's rather offensive.

Of course not. But there are number or regulars here who persist in
calling any Mac user stupid, cretin, etc. Peter K, for one.

I take offense with that. I have made it very clear that I think that the
mac-crossposters from *csma* are cretins and unbelievable stupid, like
Oxford, TravelinMan and Sandman.

Those are as bad as Snit in being unable/unwilling to discuss and constantly
redefining the thread. All the time they are proven wrong they start to
claim things which were never said or twist what others said
With those retards it is impossible to have a rationale discussion

Also, it's not
been established that this Carroll bloke is trustworth, yet you seem
willing to accept what he says about Snit, while refusing to accept what
Snit says about himself.


What Snit claims about himself is of no interest whatsoever where it can't
be proven by third parties. Flatfish also claims lots of things, and no one
in his right mind believes anything at all from him.

Following your logic here, anything coming from flatfish has suddenly more
weight than that of all the posters against flatfish. Are you sure you want
to entertain that train of thought?

He is being called an identity thief, among other things. Are you willing
to accept Carroll's say-so as proof?


Are you willing to accept flatfish claim that he is not nymshifting?

Why are you willing to accept Snits claim then, given that seemingly all of
csma is of like mind in saying Snit is a retard and troll (and this will
probably include also the non-cretin part which did not crosspost any
drivel here)? Note also that Carroll seems to be more level headed and not
as incredibly dumb as this TravelinMan idiot.

And why should it matter how many posts he's made? Some people are
prolific posters, some aren't. Last i heard, there wasn't a law against
it.


In principle, it doesn't. 50 posts/day for 18 months without a break
is not normal behaviour in my view, though. Can you find anyone else
who's make so many? Even on Cola? It seems doubtful to me.

Doubtful, quite possibly. Still isn't any indication of anything except
that he posts a lot. But so do a lot of the posters in CSMA who accuse
him.


*That* many posts? I really find it incredible that you still defend that
idiot. Is it so difficult for you to admit that you've been had?