Re: Snit's delusions grow even bigger...

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-B10889.10105606092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 9/6/07 9:10 AM:

In article <C3056C63.8F524%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-9B9BA8.09185306092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 9/6/07 8:18 AM:

In article <C3056303.8F50E%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-A7D417.08520306092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 9/6/07 7:52 AM:

Steve:
The BS is flowing thick in this thread now.


Why didn't you include *what* I responded to when I wrote this statement? I
suggest if you had, you would have stood a chance of not getting so
confused
because you would have this little thing we call "context"... then again,
context and you never did much for each other ;)

I am not going to talk about irrelevancies. What you responded to is
irrelevant.

You didn't need to make the fact that context is irrelevant to you so crystal
clear, Snit... but thanks for doing so... again;)

John:
IT is in fact whenever the poster is Steve Carroll.

Steve:
Yet, if we look at the post you responded to, we see very few
words were written by me. Funny how it works...

Snit:
How many words of BS do you need to use, Steve, before you
consider it "flowing thick"?

And Steve refused to answer... instead he snipped all but the first
couple
of words. When I entered the conversation the topic was, clearly,
Steve's
BS... a term Steve himself brought up.

"Steve insinuated that his "BS" could not be "flowing thick" because he
did
not use many words in a post". - Snit


Snit will now show where I "insinuated" I was referring to *my* BS...

Snit? SNIT? LOL!

I guess we can add "insinuated" to the ever-growing list of words you
can't
comprehend;)

John talked about how the "thick flowing" BS was coming from you...

You DO recognize that I am not John, right? LOL!

Arbitrary insulting insinuations from you do nothing to help make your
"case".

Correction: Alleged insinuation.

You have yet to show where I insinuated what you claimed I did.

and you
"defended" yourself by saying you did not write many words.


Which clearly indicated that I wasn't referring to myself when I talked
about
the BS flowing thick... (as if that was even necessary for people that
comprehend what they read the first time).

John was, clearly, talking about you.

Very good, Snit... you were able to differentiate between John and myself. Now
where's the part where *I* "insinuated" what you've claimed?

Now you say you changed the topic and
were talking about someone else.

So now I "say" I've changed the topic, eh? Show where I ever 'said' *I*
changed
the topic any time you like to.

I can accept that

Of course, you "accept" all sorts of things that have nothing to do with
reality... as evidenced once again in this thread.

- you changed the topic
to be about someone other than you... but you did not state who or even that
you had done so.

The "topic" *I* responded to with that statement wasn't about me. If context
wasn't irrelevant to you... you'd have an idea where you went wrong here;)

Ok, you changed the topic...

Incorrect.

I asked a
reasonable question: how many words of BS do you need to write before you
consider it "flowing thick".

Your question *proved* you failed to comprehend what you read... (as if
such proof is ever any longer necessary).

I did not understand your unstated change of topic
that you did not indicate in any way. Ok.

You just claimed that I "say" I changed the topic. You're also claiming that
this alleged topic change by me was "unstated". Will you be showing proof for
either of these delusions... uh, accusations any time soon?

By the way, if "*what*" I responded to is irrelevant to you, as you "very,
very" clearly indicated up above, why are you now seen whining about topic
changes? This makes no sense... which is why *you* are seen doing it;)

Note: Your hypocrisy is duly noted for not whining in the proper direction
regarding the person who "actually" changed the topic.


You did not answer... but you are lashing out and making more accusations
as
I point out your lack of answer.

No, I'm asking you to prove your accusation... that I've insinuated what
you've claimed. So far, the only proof you've shown here is for a fact
everyone already knows exists;)

You have now admitted you changed the topic but failed to let anyone know.
I accept that.

Correction: You are alleging I "changed the topic", I have "admitted" to none
of
your delusions because there is nothing to admit to with regards to your
delusions. Do you even know what the "topic" was that I responded to with the
statement in question (I already pointed to it once today)? If so, lemme
know...

"The BS is flowing thick in this thread now".

Hmmm, seems rather appropriate here, too;)

John was, clearly, talking about you. In your response you made no
indication you were changing the topic to be about someone else... though
you have now claimed you were not.

I accept that you changed the topic to be someone else and just neglected to
note it. Why you feel the need to go on and on and on about yet another
mistake of yours is anyone's guess.

Based on that and on Wally's comments we can update the list of your recent
actions:

* Steve made an off topic accusation about John vandalizing Wikipedia.

Steve's "defense" is he claims to believe the accusation -
completely ignoring the fact that the very accusation was
irrelevant. As far as that belief, well, at least one other
has brought his claims of it being "proved" into question.
Frankly I do not care one way or the other.

Wally's defense: talked off topic - did not discuss how
Steve's accusation had no place in CSMA.

* Steve showed he could not understand what John said when John talked
about never vandalizing Wikipedia.

Steve has no defense of his misunderstanding here and will
not even acknowledge it. Ironic given his repeated
accusations about other's alleged reading problems.

Wally's defense: talked off topic - did no discuss how
Steve did not understand John or the irony of that.

* Steve insisted I cared about his off-topic accusations... even though
I repeatedly told him I did not and tried to refocus him on the
topic as discussing - his inability to understand John's comments.

Steve shows he cannot even understand what this means -
claiming I do talk about his side issues when I do not,
other than to note their existence.

Wally's defense: showed no understanding of what he read.

* Steve used the phrase "red button" in a non-standard way. While he
did quickly explain what he meant, he posted insults and accusations
against me for kindly noting his error.

Steve has no comment on his mistake here, but does respond
with talk of drug abuse.

Wally's defense: shows no understanding of the fact Steve
never admitted to his mistake, nor does he acknowledge
Steve's accusations in response to his mistake being pointed
out.

* When I told Steve I posted about something not a "single time" he
did not understand what that meant and asked if I meant "18,000 times".

Steve has no defense of his misunderstanding here and will
not even acknowledge it. Ironic given his repeated
accusations about other's alleged reading problems.

Wally's defense: claimed Steve may have just been playing
asinine semantic games. I accept that as a possibility.

* In a conversation about the water-cooled G5 systems I noted it was
*not* about cars... and Steve insisted that meant I did not understand
what I read. He did, however, later admit the conversation was not
about cars...

Steve nit-picks what he thinks the conversation was about
and ignores the fact that his accusations against me were
absurd... even he admitted I was right that the topic was
not about cars - the very thing he belittled me about!

Wally's defense: talks about who created what ... and
does not get around to talking about how Steve claimed
I was wrong about something he later said he agreed
with!

* Carroll repeatedly "vandalized" posts by snipping all but the first
few words.

Steve will not comment on this... other than to try to claim
he is justified in doing so because he thinks the comments
he is "responding" to are "delusions"... clearly he cannot
understand what he is reading.

Wally's defense: claims to have defended Steve elsewhere.

* Steve insinuated that his "BS" could not be "flowing thick" because
he did not use many words in a post. He would not answer how
many words of BS he has to post before he considers it "flowing
thick".

While it was clear the comments Steve responded to were
in reference to him, Steve has admitted that he changed
the topic to be someone else (he has no said who).
Steve made no indication of this in his initial comments.

Wally's defense: admitted he is disregarding information...
and then claimed he did not have enough information.

* When Sandman talked about how Carroll's actions bring out the worst
in me Steve claimed that meant Sandman was saying Steve was
responsible for my actions. When his error was pointed out Steve
posted accusations and insults.

Steve runs from this topic and makes claims about how he
thinks Sandman worded things poorly... as though that would
be relevant. I understood Sandman and *nothing* Sandman
said implied Steve was responsible for anyone but himself.
Steve will not admit to this.

Wally's defense: talked about how it would make sense for
Steve to misunderstand Sandman - and ignores the fact it was
clear Sandman was *not* saying one person was responsible
for another... or how Steve responded by lashing out when
his mistake was pointed out.



--
BU__SH__



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Reasons why Snit is the worst troll ever seen in csma - WAS - Re: Apple gets served!
    ... not a word of support from Steve. ... Make unsupported accusations on a regular basis with the ... and even accusations of taking debates out of CSMA ... And, Steve, as you can see from your response below, I was 100% right. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • 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: Steve Carroll Vandalizes CSMA Posts
    ... Steve made an off topic accusation about John vandalizing Wikipedia. ... Steve's "defense" is he claims to believe the accusation - ... Steve insisted I cared about his off-topic accusations... ... When Sandman talked about how Carroll's actions bring out the worst ...
    (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)