Re: Wintrolls killed CSMA


"Snit" <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BFC322E0.3EE1D%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Again Steve snipped and ran
> <noone-DF3BCD.11301512122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - though he
> actually
> left a little this time... I will comment in response to this post where
> Steve has not dishonestly snipped so much content:
>
> "Snit" <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
> BFC30623.3EDE8%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/12/05 10:49 AM:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
>> noone-28424E.09053812122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/12/05 9:05 AM:
>>
>>> In article <BFC2ABBF.3EDA7%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Wally" <wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
>>>> BFC3641C.FCAD%wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/12/05 2:30 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/12/05 2:02 PM, in article
>>>>> BFC26075.3ED82%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>>>>> "Snit" <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> No amount of your ranting, raving, and lying will alter the fact that
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> have made your perverted views very, very clear:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, Spin City! show any lies I have told!
>>>>
>>>> Again? Just to have you deny them? Heck, look a the quotes, below,
>>>> where
>>>> you claim that two concepts that are in no way synonymous are
>>>> synonymous.
>>>> While I have come to believe that you actually are so delusional you
>>>> believe
>>>> your own lie, it is, of course, a lie. Two things that are not
>>>> synonymous
>>>> can not honestly be stated to be synonymous.
>>>>
>>>> Need more? I am happy to provide!
>>>>
>>>> Message ID: <BFC32FC6.FC87%wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I stated the correct
>>>> fact
>>>> that the order offered when listing two synonymous items is irrelevant
>>>> and
>>>> you dishonestly claimed that this must mean that I - according to you -
>>>> believe order does not matter in other instances. That was dishonest
>>>> of
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> From the post in question:
>>>
>>> "As the order according to Snit doesn't matter then it must follow that
>>> when Snit says..."
>>>
>>> Are you denying that you've never made a claim like this regarding the
>>> order? Good luck.
>>>
>>> "Yes, the concept of incest would bring up the subject of sex."-Snit
>>>
>>> You definitely wrote this quote.
>>>
>>> Wally:
>>> "He must believe that the reverse is true, that being, that the concept
>>> of sex would bring up the subject of incest!"
>>>
>>> Where's the dishonesty here, Snit? What "other instances"? It's the same
>>> topic, with your words taken to their logical conclusion.
>>
>> Clearly, Steve, the word "logical" does not mean what you think it
>> means -
>> either that or you are just not able to apply to concept.
>>
>> My claim:
>> if A = B then B = A (also applies to approximate equality)
>>
>> Wally's conclusion:
>> if A is a subset of B then B need is a subset of B
>>
>> My claim is correct. Wally's conclusion - the one you ignorantly
>> support -
>> is not. Unless you consider an entire set a subset, which is questionable
>> and most certainly a special case, there is no time when the order does
>> not
>> matter when discussing what set is a subset of the other.
>
> Steve's response shows no sign he understood the comments he read. He
> wrote: "I repeat: Where's the dishonesty?". Someday, I hope, Steve will
> learn enough to understand what he reads.

Isn's Steve the one who argued against 2+2=4? His logic skills are hardly
anything to brag about.
>>
>>>> Message ID: <BFC1F3AE.FB52%wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I accidentally
>>>> neglected
>>>> to put the word "would" in a sentence. You concluded - dishonestly -
>>>> that
>>>> this was synonymous with speaking in tongues.
>>>
>>> This isn't a lie, Snit. The best you can do is claim he incorrectly
>>> concluded your drivel. As it stands, there is no good reason to believe
>>> he did so incorrectly.
>>
>> Speaking in tongues is not synonymous with accidentally leaving out a
>> word.
>> Your opinion does not change this.
>
> Steve showed no understanding of how his incorrect opinion does not alter
> reality. Once I told Steve this he snipped and ran from most of the post
> (of course) but did show how completely confused he is... responding with:
>
> Which is it, Snit? An "opinion"... a "conclusion"... or a "lie"?
>
> Steve *still* misses the point - his opinion on speaking in tongues does
> not
> change the fact that it is not synonymous with accidentally leaving a word
> out. This will be true no matter how much he twists and turns. Wally was
> not honest in his claim that the two concepts are synonymous. Hmmm, not
> the
> first time Wally has made *that* mistake. LOL!
>>>
>>>> Message ID: <BFC05511.F9CE%wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> In reference to my
>>>> classes
>>>> at my "undergraduate institution" you dishonestly stated that there are
>>>> "pizza parties".
>>>
>>> Wrong. Have Toasty read it to you next time.
>>
>> Who do you think Toasty is?
>
> Steve responded with: "Don't you know?"

So Steve is talking about people without even knowing who they are. What a
dufus.
>
> Of course I do not know who Steve has deluded himself into thinking Toasty
> is. Unless Steve shares what his BS how can one know it... and even then
> he
> is likely to change it from one sentence to the next.
>>>
>>>> Your only "support" was to point to how I have talked
>>>> about working at *high schools* where *others* have given such
>>>> incentives.
>>>> Not the same things at all. You tried to use a fact from a past post
>>>> of
>>>> mine to embarrass me and ended up merely spewing another of your lies.
>>>
>>> Why assume dishonesty? Perhaps he made a 'mistake' that you were the one
>>> giving the parties.
>>
>> Still would not make the parties at the HS move to the college. There is
>> a
>> difference, Steve - they are neither synonymous with one another nor is
>> one
>> a subset of the other. Those concepts clearly go way over your head.
>
> Steve missed the point and obsessed over my use of the word "synonymous".
> LOL... I knew it would confuse him!

That has been repeatedly shown.
>>>
>>>> Etc. That is just with a couple minutes of looking.
>>>
>>> Yeah... you're getting much more efficient at making yourself look like
>>> what you now look like.
>>
>> What I look like to you does not matter - no matter what I say you will
>> let
>> your hatred control you and you will find fault with my words. You allow
>> your emotions to control you. Your hatred for me and your need to please
>> your girlfriend control your every action - at least online. Hence you
>> will
>> almost never agree with me and, as far as I know, absolutely never
>> disagree
>> with your girlfriend. I have had mashed potatoes less whipped than you.
>
> Steve responded by trying to claim he does agree with me... and then he
> back
> pedaled and showed even his "agreement" was a form of trolling.
>>>
>>>> If you do a reversal
>>>> and actually shows honesty in your reply, and if you show an interest
>>>> in
>>>> knowing how transparent your other lies are, I would be willing to find
>>>> yet
>>>> more of your lies. It really is not that hard to do.
>>>>
>>>> Please note, however, that the comment of mine you responded to does
>>>> not
>>>> even mention your dishonesty - it talks about your perversion... which
>>>> is
>>>> also easy to demonstrate:
>>>>
>>>> Snit: "Incest", for most people, is not synonymous with "sex"...
>>>> The fact that *you* equate sex with incest is not my problem.
>>>>
>>>> Wally: "Incest, for most people, IS synonymous with sex"
>>>> "I have *always* maintained that incest is synonymous with sex"
>>>> "I on the other hand have maintained that incest and sex are
>>>> synonymous!"
>>>>
>>>> You have acknowledged that those are fair representations of your view.
>>>
>>> One of them is by you, Snit,
>>
>> Incorrect - the quote I attribute to Wally are Wally's, not mine. I am
>> not
>> doing as you have been doing - attributing your own quotes to others.
>
> Steve showed he cannot figure out which of the above quotes are mine and
> which are Wally's. He really needs to learn to comprehend what he reads!

You attributed one quote to yourself and three to Wally. How could Steve
not get that?
>>
>>> and is a total lie towards Ebot's position...
>>
>> Thank for you taking my advice to at least try to refute me in a reasoned
>> way. You still have not shown why or how you think my claim was
>> dishonest.
>> Elizabot moved the topic from her sex based accusations to incest, and
>> did
>> so in a way that made it appear she did not know the difference. She has
>> never said why. In any case, even if you disagree with my conclusion,
>> that
>> would not make the two concepts in question become synonymous. No matter
>> how badly you want them to be.
>
> Steve thinks he has shown reason, but, oddly enough, cannot point to a
> post
> where he has. Maybe he will correct this oversight some day. Unlikely
> though.
>>
>>> time to cap off now and get some sleep.
>>
>> You should go get some sleep, it shows that you need it.
>
> I do hope someday Steve stops running from the posts that get him so
> angry.
> He should find a way to relax... hey, Steve, maybe it is time for one of
> your famous 79 mile road trips... maybe one of the ones that you claim
> last
> 4 days... you sure seemed a lot more relaxes after *that* trip. LOL!

Don't know the reference there. I must not be a very good sock puppet.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Steve Carrolls still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)
    ... started in response to a precipitating event. ... Steve's trolling threads are responses... ... Your argument hinges on the presumption that Jesus responded to troll ... posts from Steve and Steve responded to non-troll posts from yourself. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT - grc.com down?
    ... I didn't start making nasty comments about Steve. ... Actually, when I started writing that response, all I ... that happy with Steve in regards to SpinRite. ... that they could care less about the GRC newsgroups and website. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Snits delusions grow even bigger...
    ... IT is in fact whenever the poster is Steve Carroll. ... Steve's "defense" is he claims to believe the accusation - ... accusations about other's alleged reading problems. ... Steve's accusations in response to his mistake being pointed ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: TMP File Created in Addition to Document Saved
    ... Mike A's post wasn't quite right. ... (and you have a response to your original post.) ... steve wrote: ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.misc)
  • Re: OT: Snits argument preserved - act 2
    ... Steve is spewing hate filled BS into CSMA. ... Which, strangely enough, is the same thing John was doing in the post ... ignoring Steve's trolling is not an effective response to it. ... As long as Snit uses my name in posts where he's lying I'm going to call ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)