Re: OT: Quick Dishonest, Delusional Summary by Snit exposed...

"Steve Carroll" <trollkiller@xxxxxx> stated in post
trollkiller-FE618B.07561607062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/7/08 6:56 AM:

In article <C46F8338.BE999%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The quotes in question:

"The quotes in question" are your smokescreen. The only question here is
which Mac that belongs to Steve de Mena was John in reference to when he
wrote his initial "eSata card" BS.


Which the quotes make clear (hence the reason you snipped them):

Alan Baker:
Steve [de Mena], you have had more problems in the last six
months with Macs than all the Macs at all the clients I've
worked for over that same stretch of time.
John:
Steve has an unsupported eSata card in his machine for one
thing. No telling what else he foolishly installs without
proper drivers being present.

John was clearly referring to a machine he says has an unsupported eSata
card that was in the set of "Macs" that Steve has had problems with.

If that is your only "question here" then I have answered it (as has John)
and there are no questions remaining. Now you know.

That was simple!


<trollkiller-C60261.07515530052008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve claimed I misattributed a quote I did not attribute to
anyone

LOL! You *still* can't comprehend what you read!!

Nope. You did exactly as I said. Period.

Fact: The quote you link to here proves I didn't claim you misattributed
a quote, I said you didn't know "who wrote what" when it came to the
identity of the person who used the word "Macs"... as shown here:

"Snit is having trouble differentiating who posted what... again".

And that is a fact... later, you finally realized it was Alan, not John,
who posted using the word "Macs", as shown here:

"Looking back at the thread it was not John who used the word "Macs", it
was Alan Baker".

And it was. Did I ever say otherwise. I did, I admit, get fooled by you
and your co-trolls into thinking I likely had said otherwise... though I
cannot find evidence of such! Can you?

<trollkiller-06EA10.08125730052008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve quotes John and admits he does not understand what John
is saying. In my response I note that given just the
comments Steve quoted it is "a very reasonable guess" that
John was referencing some machine Steve de Mena had talked
about with an eSata card. John jumped in and made it clear
I was right.

Why did John have to 'jump in' again?

Because you admitted you could not understand what you read. That,
ironically, is made clear in the very text you responded to!

....
<trollkiller-74F181.08395530052008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve insists that I did not know what John meant... even
though John clarified for Steve Carroll and I was exactly
right.

Of course you didn't know what John meant!

See above: I clearly did.

<trollkiller-50FACC.16124702062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve starts asking where John talked about more than one
computer though *nobody* had said he had! In my response I
correct Steve Carroll and let him know that "John talked
about *one* of the Macs" and even quoted which Mac John was
talking about (one with an unsupported eSata card that was in
the group of Macs that *Alan Baker* talked about).

Sure, like everyone else in the thread I recognized your smokescreen of
multiple "Macs"... I was trying to steer you back to the initial lie
John had written about.

Your comments do not answer why you talked about *John* talking about more
than one Mac... something that nobody had done. Your "smokescreen" comments
do not even make sense - it just shows you do not understand the concept of
having comments relate to the very text they respond to!

<trollkiller-DEBA6E.22264702062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve Carroll correctly states that John talked about one
machine but lies and claims I said John was talking about
more than one machine.

Where is my lie"?

As stated in the very text you ask about:
<trollkiller-DEBA6E.22264702062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

<trollkiller-872240.22375202062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve starts his BS about how John must have meant the Mac
Power Book:
> But John never referenced Steve's "*Macs*"...
> John referenced "his machine" when he spoke of the
> *singular* Mac Steve was talking about (a MBP). There
> is no indication John was referring to anything other
> than the machine Steve mentioned... and Alan's comment
> doesn't change that.
Note that Steve will flip flop on this claim quite quickly!

Fact: The word "Powerbook" was never used by me when referring to what
"John must have meant"... anywhere... not in this link or any other.

Ok, so you insisted it must be the MacBook Pro. Nice dodge on your part!

<trollkiller-B1107B.07475303062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve insists that the machine John was referencing was "not
specified any further..." even though it clearly was
specified to be the machine with an unsupported eSata card!

I "meant" with respect to the Mac model... the entire issue here was
about whether John was referencing Steve's MBP or some other Mac of
Steve's. Of course, you can't follow context so you're seen here
insinuating I somehow blew it;)

Since there was no reason to think John referred to the MBP why would that
be an "issue"?

<trollkiller-FBF5F4.10112703062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve flip flops and claims that John *did* specify a
specific machine, "Incorrect... the reference was Steve's
MBP." Steve gives no evidence that it was the "MBP" that had
the unsupported eSata card, and thus *no* reason to think
that was the machine John was referencing.

I was talking about your erroneous reference to a Powerbook.

Nope.

Steve only referenced one Mac (his MBP)... therefore, any
reader who read John's statement would have rightfully
assumed John was referencing the same "machine" Steve had
referenced previously... it's called "context"... which is
why you are having so much trouble with it;)

You are simply lying. You flip flopped and insisted John's comments about a
machine with an eSata card was the MBP... but you give *no* evidence that
the MBP had even an alleged unsupported eSata card

Steve gives no evidence that it was the "MBP" that had
the unsupported eSata card, and thus *no* reason to think
that was the machine John was referencing.

Other than the fact that the context of the conversation shows Steve de
Mena referring to "his" MBP, you mean.

The fact Steve de Mena referred to that machine is not in question - your
claim that it was that machine that had the alleged unsupported eSata card
is the one where you are not able to support... and at times you even deny
you make the claim!

<trollkiller-E6D52F.09445004062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve lies and falsely attributes ideas and quotes to me.
> Asked "the guy that claims that a poster using the
> term "his machine" (singular) makes it clear that the
> poster "obviously" meant 'his machines' (plural)!"

I attributed nothing to you... I was quoting another poster. The "idea"
was one you were pushing pretty hard.

In response to me you replied with a claim that I had made a statement I did
not make. You lied. Heck, as far as I know *nobody* made the claim you
attributed to me.

<trollkiller-05F570.19283504062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve shows he cannot understand how a machine can be
specified by a feature (an unsupported eSata card) but not by
model. He repeats this bizarre and ignorant claim many times.

The "feature" aspect wasn't relevant to the conversation, exactly which
Mac of Steve's was relevant... which is why you are seen talking about
features while I'm staying on the pertinent topic.

I accept your failure to understand why the machine with the alleged
unsupported eSata card is relevant to Johns comments about a machine with an
allegedly unsupported eSata card. Your lack of comprehension is that
extreme.

<trollkiller-58B62B.19554804062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve again claims that John *must* have been referencing a
MPB (a claim he later flip flops on).

Where is this claim?

As noted in the text you replied to:
<trollkiller-58B62B.19554804062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

....
<trollkiller-CF6642.08002305062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve lies and insists I have taken a position on the claim
of the eSata card in question being supported or not. John
did so... not I.

As noted in the text you replied to:
<trollkiller-CF6642.08002305062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>.

<trollkiller-CF6642.08002305062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve posts more lies about my position:
> Your claim: The "s" in "Macs" from Alan's
> comment unequivocally means that John was *not*
> referencing Steve's MBP.
Steve repeatedly spews that same lie... even though
I correct him. No chance he merely made a mistake, he
outright lied.

Your argument, that everyone but you is "wrong",

That is not my argument. You are lying.

....
<trollkiller-54360B.13433505062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve spews lies about how Steve de Mena must *own* Macs that
nobody claimed he did for people to understand what Steve
could not. Steve repeatedly spews this bizarre claim of his
and I humor him and explain that the Macs could be rented,
borrowed, used at work, etc. and it would not matter. The
most likely scenario, however, is that they were owned... and
that is cleared up by John: they were owned.

So then what I said... wait for it... was *not* a lie. ...

Yes, it was. Period.

<trollkiller-018D75.14254305062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve completely flip flops on his claim about knowing the
specific machine John referenced and says it is "false" that
he did.

I *never* said which Mac of Steve's John was in reference to ...

You did... as referenced above. You are lying.

On and on... Steve Carroll again made a complete and total fool of himself.
But Tim Adams and Wally will support him. LOL! Do the three of them not
realize how stupid they are?

Yeah... sure;)



--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.



.

Relevant Pages