Re: Request for Sandman: please stop lying about me

In article <C41FB3B9.B2892%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Sandman" <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
mr-E71B15.20131707042008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 4/7/08 11:13 AM:

In article <C41FAD6A.B2880%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tell me, what email did you use to send this supposed report to? Easy
enough question, wouldn't you say? Claiming to have responded to an
email is not sufficient.



You know you wont get a straight answer out of him.

Sandman already has admitted he received the email I sent him

What I didn't get was a straight answer to the question what email you
used to contact "my service provider". You sent emails to *Verizon*, a
US-based ISP that has nothing to do with me. You're sick.

Read the email you quoted, Sandman.

Read it fully.

Here it is, fully.

No emails in there that have anything to do with any supposed "service
provider" of mine, so you were lying when you said you had "reported"
something to these supposed providers. Instead you (allegedly) sent
two emails to Verizon, a US based ISP that has nothing to do with me.
You're weird.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I reported your harassing email
to abuse@xxxxxxxxx and abuse@verizonbusiness.com

Any responses will be forward to both of those addressees at my
discretion.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sandman <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: April 3, 2008 9:56:16 AM MST
To: "Anne :)" <NaturalGirl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: OT: Questions about Set Theory

In article
<47370e58-eeee-4282-b6a7-2903ece4b6db@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Anne :)" <NaturalGirl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 3, 2:47 am, Wally <Wa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I was agreeing with the final comment of your view that "none of the
elements of S2 were over 1000".

So why did you not make that clear?

I did - your lack of understanding is not my fault.  Face it: I have
been consistent, the answer to the number of items in a set of
integers 1 through 10 that are over 100 is zero and thus the subset of
such numbers is thus {} (and not {0} as you incorrectly claimed it
was)... I also never agreed with you that a set {0} "came into being"
as a subset of integers 1 through 10... that is *your* ignorant claim.

You are usually so quick to cut out or
make known what you don't agree with Snit!
Obviously you have had time to see that you were actually agreeing to the
entire summary and have changed your mind!..... That's fine!

   Snit:
     S2, the set:
     {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
     ...
     I have noted that a subset can have zero items (be an
     empty set), such as a subset of items in the above set
     with the "feature" of being over 1000.  There are no
     such numbers and thus the subset of S2 numbers that
     are over 1000 = {}.
  Wally
     I would have thought {0}? (which accounts for my
     comment above)

And more by you, Wally:

     I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0
     elements would not actually be empty as you claimed
     that it would!

     it makes no difference if you write {} and I write {0}
     because the meaning is exactly the same ...0 elements!

     But zero items does not necessarily translate to being
     empty as you have said it would!

    Now research why a "subset" cannot be "empty"

You can go on pretending - dishonestly - that I have ever sided with
you in your ignorance of set theory ... but you cannot change the fact
that your comments are just flat out ignorant.  That is OK: we are all
ignorant of some things (though your being ignorant of such simple
logic and basic knowledge does boggle the mind!) - where you really
made a fool of yourself was your insistence on how right you were and
how wrong basic set theory was... you should have acknowledged your
errors and not repeatedly compounded them.

There is some good that came of your spewing of such *clearly*
ignorant and incorrect claims: it gave Sandman a chance to pretend to
agree with you and demonstrate how cowed he is by the folks you co-
troll with... the folks he calls the "bad people".  Though he will
clearly not admit to it this might ... just might... be an eye opener
for him on how pathetic he is in terms of being completely unwilling
to stand up for what he knows to be right.

Does your wife knows you're posting with her account? Of all the sock
puppets you could use, why pick your wife?

I am sending this response to her as well, so she is alerted how you
are using her email address in a public forum where you are considered
to be the most disliked person of them all. It reflects badly on her
and I think she should take appropriate actions to see to it that it
doesn't happen again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Sandman[.net]





--
Sandman[.net]
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Request for Sandman: please stop lying about me
    ... Snit wrote: ... Any responses will be forward to both of those addressees at my ... Subject: OT: Questions about Set Theory ... that your comments are just flat out ignorant. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Request for Sandman: please stop lying about me
    ... Snit wrote: ... Any responses will be forward to both of those addressees at my ... Subject: OT: Questions about Set Theory ... that your comments are just flat out ignorant. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Adobe: ripping off European customers
    ... contradictory position on this topic and comment on it, ... So, yes, Steve, it is your problem when you cannot understand what you read. ... I am merely ripping your ignorant claims to pieces. ... this forum just ignore Snit. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Base Normal Form
    ... >>It is easy enough to model a database relation with a set theory ... ignorant of the reason that the change was made, ... There are reasons for decisions that have been made in defining ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: The Wintard Preoccupation with Price and Marketshare
    ... I've got it already, Snit ... I accept that you are ignorant as to why someone who makes a living based on ... Someone with a professional life that revolves around technical work ... a Mac user since they first came out should understand. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)