David Brooks - copyright infringer *multiple*

Snit
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:29:06 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 6/10/20 5:49 PM, Diesel wrote:
David_B
Mon, 08 Jun 2020 08:09:11
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

Did you say earlier that if I can find the original video Dustin
posted that you would be able to view it?

Hmm..Are you writing about the encrypted .zip file, David? I can
predict with one hundred percent accuracy that he won't be able
to view it's contents.

Ah, man... you have been accusing me of not understanding what
other code than Carroll's bot you meant even as you fail to say
what other code you were referencing.

You are being *very dishonest*, Snit

Here's the first two paragraphs above what you isolated to show as
'proof' that I had the bot. And anyone, even you, can clearly see
that what I wrote HAD NOTHING to do with ANY specific bot or other
type of program. What you've isolated was the third paragraph of a
reply from me to you about coding. As I've told you, repeatedly, YOU
DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT I WAS WRITING ABOUT. Something you either
intentionally tried to avoid by the section you snipped, or your
comprehension is worse than I've given you credit for, previously.

Or, after reviewing my own post, you actually did, but pulled a David
on me and carefully lifted a single piece of my reply to support your
unfounded claim against me.

Either way, you lied about my involvement with the bot, and you lied
about the so called evidence being what you thought it was. And,
you're continuing to try and avoid having to apologize; because, well
that would mean you were wrong about something AND accepted that as a
fact.

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
Message-ID:

You wrote this, showing that you have next to no useful/practical
knowledge of how reverse engineering works:

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
that.

I responded with this:

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

Do you think when you disassemble something that you're provided the
original source code that was compiled/assembled by the author? You
aren't, what you're given looks nothing like the original source
code, but it still tells you *everything* about the program.

*** end share

Now, when you see the first two paragraphs, it makes a lot more sense
to anyone who can read AND understand what they are reading. It was
NOT about any specific bot.

I forgot about your nonsense about my offers to help David.

What nonsense? You aren't going to be able to help David with that
file if it's the one I'm thinking of. The .zip file itself is
encrypted with a real cypher; it's above your paygrade.

If David was writing about something else, he's welcome to say so. I
haven't read any replies from him about it. So, don't be so quick to
jump to conclusions about what you think I meant with something I
wrote. You're wrong far more often than you are right, Snit.

-----
You claimed that you'd decode messages I encoded, if i
continued so that David could read them. Well, you thought
you'd be able to, anyhow. I was just curious to see if you
could do as you thought you could. And, it's pretty
obvious by now, you were more than slightly bull****ting
about your abilities.
-----

Probably can find the message ID if you want, but you made that
claim up about me and elsewhere admitted to it:

I didn't make anything up about you nor did I 'admit' to having done
such a thing, because I didn't. You aren't going to be able to try
and side track my request for an apology or cover up the fact you
went well out of your way to make up a completely fabricated story
about my involvement with the bot flooding various usenet newsgroups.

I was leaving hex encoded messages in various newsgroups to have a
little fun with David. Along you come, decode one of them and respond
to me in public that if I continue encoding messages to prevent David
from reading them, you might decode them for him and share the
contents, or to make it even easier for David, you offered to write a
tool for him to use to do it.

I rightfully thinking you were butting your nose into business that
didn't concern you decided to do a quick abilities test on you; I
switched hex out for AZ and encoded some more messages. You were able
to read the hex encoded sections and only those; until I and various
others were finally able to get you to understand how the AZ
algorithm works so that you were able to duplicate it's
functionality, for the most part, the hard way.

I didn't lie about you, didn't make up any stories about you, didn't
quote anything you've written out of context to try and use as
'evidence' for any wrong doing that I suspect you of.

On the other hand, you cannot state the same about me. You have lied
about me, multiple times now. yes, Snit, it's a lie when you
knowingly accuse another of lying about you when they didn't do so.
You tried to spin the encoding discussion into something else
entirely, but it won't work; the regulars were there when I was
taunting David too.

Infact, I'm glad you brought that up; it shows (quite nicely) further
'evidence', actual, real evidence, even though it's only
ccircumstantial that I nor others are making things up when one or
more people comment or note, or accuse you of having a learning
disability. You actually do struggle to understand the things you
read. OR, you don't have any disability and you actually are that
dishonest. It's one or the other. I'm going to give you the benefit
of the doubt and go with the former, unless/until you show me
otherwise.

-----
You made up a claim where I said I would decode things
OTHER THAN hex, or that I could decode AZ code on my
own. It is a complete and utter fantasy on your part.
Either you are lying to yourself or you are lying to me.
It does not matter which: either way it is not true.

I made no such claim, Snit. I stated that you offered to
decode other posts I wrote in HEX if I continued.
-----

Do we want to harp on that past lie of yours? You seem really
focused on the past... I don't get it.

It's not a past lie. I never claimed you said you could decode things
other than HEX. You inserted that claim yourself; you'll find no post
from me that is actually worded like that. Because, *drum roll* I
never made any such silly claim about you.

At the time what I actually did write was written, in full context as
a reply to something you wrote, you weren't even aware of AZ's
existance. When you first observed it, you didn't even notice it was
an encoding algorithm.

I've told you this before, when you tried to twist things around and
claim I said you claimed to be able to decode more than hex. I never
said any such thing, and then, as I am now, offered/invited you to
post an MID of my doing what you claimed I did. As far as I know,
some months down the road now, you've yet to provide one.

That's because there's no such MID with the statement you claimed I
made about you. Because, I didn't make any such statement. And I
certainly never said (or thought for a second, rofl) that you'd be
able to do anything with AZ on your own.


Quite the contrary, and I voiced the opposite of what you just wrote
there, too. You have far more faith in your abilities than I do.
Misplaced faith at that, as we can see how things went for you as you
slowly learned how the AZ encoding/decoding process worked. Of
course, we can't forget that ****ed you off to the point where you
tried to teach me about ciphers (cyphers) using AZ to do it. AZ isn't
anymore so a cipher than HEX is, in case you still didn't know that.

As for teaching me about ciphers, hey, anythings possible, even
though the odds are greatly against the possibility. That would be
like you offering to teach me more about transistors, inductors,
different types of diodes etc. In order to teach me, you'd require
knowledge that I don't already have. It's safe to say, quite safe
actually, that on those two additional subjects you and I aren't on
the same playing field. As in, you don't know them well enough to
discuss either of them with me from any first hand knowledge of your
own.

I have very little doubt that the evidence you've been sharing (or
what you think is anyway) concerning the bot and carroll is more than
likely not, the same routine you've tried here with me. Not only is
it most likely not evidence of any kind, it's probably cherry picked
to support your lie with the claim that he's behind it. At this
point, when you make the claim, I automatically assume you to be
lying; after all, I've caught you, out right, lying on me about
several subjects now.

Upto and including your attempt to change the history of the encoded
messages discussion from the beginning. I *can* pull the original
thread and show you play by play Snit, you *are wrong* in your
accusation. Again.

Nah, it can't all be due to reading comprehension issues; that
doesn't cause you to claim people said or wrote things they infact
did not; thats an intentional act on your part. Therefore, when you
go and do these things, it's being done on purpose, because you're a
very dishonest individual.

You still won't acknowledge the fact you LIED YOUR ASS OFF in this
post: (but that's okay, this time, in this reply, I took the time to
show what you've been doing as well as take you to school concerning
reverse engineering basics); sadly for you, this is a repeat class;
this time, if you want to pass, keep good notes. Or, do what you
probably did to get your degrees, have someone else take the exams
for you. I don't really care if you learn something or not at the end
of the day. If you do, great, you benefit from the knowledge I share.
If you don't, no big loss - it's not like you'd actually put it to
good use.


Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

You actually wrote this:

Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:



Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.

And cherry picked the third and last paragraph from part of a reply
to your question to support your insane claim above it.

When taken in full context though, it becomes quite clear that what
you're trying to pass off as evidence of, is anything but:

I clarified it to be the compiled code huh? And you based that on the
third paragraph of a reply I wrote questioning your programming
background and severe lack of knowledge of even the most basic
reverse engineering principles. You took what I tried to explain to
you completely out of context. I clarified NOTHING OF THE SORT.

YOU LIED, SNIT. Plain and simple. Let's see it again:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
Message-ID:

You wrote this, showing that you have next to no useful/practical
knowledge of how reverse engineering works:

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
that.

And I responded with this:

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

Do you think when you disassemble something that you're provided the
original source code that was compiled/assembled by the author? You
aren't, what you're given looks nothing like the original source
code, but it still tells you *everything* about the program.

*** end full share

Nothing I wrote as a reply to you supports the accusation you made
that I had the bot, in source code OR COMPILED FORM. What is
clarified, crystal clear at this point, is one of two possible things
going on with you.

Either you have a serious, disabling level learning disability, OR,
you're a very very dishonest individual. It's one or the other. Now,
which one do you think I'm more likely to believe is the accurate
diagnosis after several interactions with you where I've been able to
see what you do, first hand. And in some cases, atleast two with me
so far, observe you for myself, quote me entirely out of context and
make false accusations against me on two seperate subjects now? In
case your memory is as bad as brooks, I'm writing about your
accusations he

So, you either have one of the worst cases of reading comprehension
difficulty I've seen in my entire life, OR, you are dishonest at the
level of being on equal footing with David Brooks.

Convince me it's the former and not the latter Snit.

Can we just move FORWARD in peace?

We sure can, just as soon as you accept responsibility for what
you've written and make it right by apologizing. Just like any
normal, fully functioning adult would do in your case. Well, except
that in your case, no normal fully functioning adult would misquote
me as badly as you did while fabricating a rather nasty story about
me. Nobody appreciates the usenet flood bot, Snit. And I'm sure you
know that. Your efforts to try and smear me as you did with your
commentary here, wasn't very nice, and wasn't even truthful:

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

I don't believe after all is said and done here that I am out of line
by simply asking you to apologize for having lied about me.

Is it actually apologizing that's so hard for you to do, because it's
me specifically, or is it having to admit you were wrong about
something and owning up to that which is so difficult for you to do
here? All I want is for you to make things right, by apologizing for
the lies you wrote about me.

You wronged me, and if you don't want me to think it wasn't
intentional, but you do want me to think it was, shall we say an
accident, then; you can start trying to convince me by apologizing
for having written what you did. At no point in time did I have any
access to the bot, know who's behind the bot, protect anyone running
the bot, state that I could for sure obtain the bots IP address
present/past or future, etc. As I told you, repeatedly.

In the meantime, the longer this goes on, the longer you delay doing
what you should have already done at this point the more it gets me
to thinking...The more discrepancies and quoting me out of context,
the more it looks like it's being done on purpose Snit. Please,
convince me that you haven't been going out of your way to misquote
me from multiple threads and multiple discussions to try and portray
me as something i'm not, or otherwise put words in my mouth as you've
been trying to do. As, well, if that's whats going on here, and it's
really starting to look that way, your dishonesty level is on par, if
not above David Brooks.

I can assure you of one thing at this point in time, Snit. I trust
any evidence you provide concerning the bot much much less now than I
did previously. I'm much more inclined to believe, without even
examining evidence you present - that the evidence is 'doctored' in
the same manner as i've shown you doing in this reply with your so
called evidence against me supporting your claims that I have the bot
in source or binary form, and that I know who is running it, and that
I've been protecting them and helping them make improvements.

NONE of that is true, but you've claimed it is on more than one
occasion; and for sure, cherry picked me out of context to try and
prove it. I'm damn near convinced at this point that you do this as a
method of attacking other usenet posters.

You protest far far too much and you're uber desperate to convince us
all that Carroll is behind it - in a most bizarre, crackhead (I kid
you not, your style reminds me of one I used to know) like manner of
what passes for logical thinking in their tweaking moment. the thing
is, what they think is perfectly normal thinking, is anything but.

You make up things and quote them out of context to support the story
you're peddling, and when caught doing it and questioned about it, as
with me here, you opt to play games instead. If anything, you're
doing a very good job of convincing me that Carroll has nothing to do
with the bot, but you very well might. Allow me to explain my line of
thinking on that for you, Snit:

The bot is very primitive and doesn't require much work to write. You
have the ability to fully control via Applescript mouse/keyboard
simulated interaction anything you see on the screen, apps and pages
inside them alike. It wouldn't take much effort on your part to set
the browser to a fixed position on the screen and automate (for the
most part) the bots interaction with google.

The locations of the buttons, subject lines, etc, are static; so you
wouldn't have any problem based on what limited programming abilities
you yourself admit you have - to be able to script the bot some
people still observe ****ing off here.

Just set the browser to a fixed point on the screen, take some
digital measurements to see where you need to land the mouse to set
the subject, the message body, and hit the post button. There doesn't
appear to be a captcha requirement to send your message to a group.
There's nothing standing in your way here. And, it's within your
known skills and abilities; known because you told us about them.


Would that even take you twenty minutes to setup Snit? Thirty minutes
including testing time and minor adjustments on locations if you're
off too far to register on the website? Basically, it wouldn't take
you very long to write a program in Applescript to interact with the
browser if the locations of things you needed the cursor to be over
and click on were in known static locations right? Hard setting the
size and location of the browser window on your end is one way of
accomplishing that goal; it gives you a dependable reference to take
the measurements you need for consistency.

Convince me i'm wrong about you Snit.


--
Even in this corner of the galaxy, Captain, 2+2=4 ... Spock

On 11/06/2020 11:17, Diesel wrote:
Convince me i'm wrong about you Snit.

Snit is one of life's *GOOD GUYS*, Dustin.

On 6/11/20 3:17 AM, Diesel wrote:
Snit
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:29:06 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 6/10/20 5:49 PM, Diesel wrote:
David_B
Mon, 08 Jun 2020 08:09:11
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

Did you say earlier that if I can find the original video Dustin
posted that you would be able to view it?

Hmm..Are you writing about the encrypted .zip file, David? I can
predict with one hundred percent accuracy that he won't be able
to view it's contents.

Ah, man... you have been accusing me of not understanding what
other code than Carroll's bot you meant even as you fail to say
what other code you were referencing.

You are being *very dishonest*, Snit

Here's the first two paragraphs above what you isolated to show as
'proof' that I had the bot. And anyone, even you, can clearly see
that what I wrote HAD NOTHING to do with ANY specific bot or other
type of program. What you've isolated was the third paragraph of a
reply from me to you about coding. As I've told you, repeatedly, YOU
DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT I WAS WRITING ABOUT. Something you either
intentionally tried to avoid by the section you snipped, or your
comprehension is worse than I've given you credit for, previously.

Or, after reviewing my own post, you actually did, but pulled a David
on me and carefully lifted a single piece of my reply to support your
unfounded claim against me.

Either way, you lied about my involvement with the bot, and you lied
about the so called evidence being what you thought it was. And,
you're continuing to try and avoid having to apologize; because, well
that would mean you were wrong about something AND accepted that as a
fact.

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
Message-ID:

You wrote this, showing that you have next to no useful/practical
knowledge of how reverse engineering works:

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
that.

I responded with this:

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

Do you think when you disassemble something that you're provided the
original source code that was compiled/assembled by the author? You
aren't, what you're given looks nothing like the original source
code, but it still tells you *everything* about the program.

*** end share

Now, when you see the first two paragraphs, it makes a lot more sense
to anyone who can read AND understand what they are reading. It was
NOT about any specific bot.

I forgot about your nonsense about my offers to help David.

What nonsense? You aren't going to be able to help David with that
file if it's the one I'm thinking of. The .zip file itself is
encrypted with a real cypher; it's above your paygrade.

If David was writing about something else, he's welcome to say so. I
haven't read any replies from him about it. So, don't be so quick to
jump to conclusions about what you think I meant with something I
wrote. You're wrong far more often than you are right, Snit.

-----
You claimed that you'd decode messages I encoded, if i
continued so that David could read them. Well, you thought
you'd be able to, anyhow. I was just curious to see if you
could do as you thought you could. And, it's pretty
obvious by now, you were more than slightly bull****ting
about your abilities.
-----

Probably can find the message ID if you want, but you made that
claim up about me and elsewhere admitted to it:

I didn't make anything up about you nor did I 'admit' to having done
such a thing, because I didn't. You aren't going to be able to try
and side track my request for an apology or cover up the fact you
went well out of your way to make up a completely fabricated story
about my involvement with the bot flooding various usenet newsgroups.

I was leaving hex encoded messages in various newsgroups to have a
little fun with David. Along you come, decode one of them and respond
to me in public that if I continue encoding messages to prevent David
from reading them, you might decode them for him and share the
contents, or to make it even easier for David, you offered to write a
tool for him to use to do it.

I rightfully thinking you were butting your nose into business that
didn't concern you decided to do a quick abilities test on you; I
switched hex out for AZ and encoded some more messages. You were able
to read the hex encoded sections and only those; until I and various
others were finally able to get you to understand how the AZ
algorithm works so that you were able to duplicate it's
functionality, for the most part, the hard way.

I didn't lie about you, didn't make up any stories about you, didn't
quote anything you've written out of context to try and use as
'evidence' for any wrong doing that I suspect you of.

On the other hand, you cannot state the same about me. You have lied
about me, multiple times now. yes, Snit, it's a lie when you
knowingly accuse another of lying about you when they didn't do so.
You tried to spin the encoding discussion into something else
entirely, but it won't work; the regulars were there when I was
taunting David too.

Infact, I'm glad you brought that up; it shows (quite nicely) further
'evidence', actual, real evidence, even though it's only
ccircumstantial that I nor others are making things up when one or
more people comment or note, or accuse you of having a learning
disability. You actually do struggle to understand the things you
read. OR, you don't have any disability and you actually are that
dishonest. It's one or the other. I'm going to give you the benefit
of the doubt and go with the former, unless/until you show me
otherwise.

-----
You made up a claim where I said I would decode things
OTHER THAN hex, or that I could decode AZ code on my
own. It is a complete and utter fantasy on your part.
Either you are lying to yourself or you are lying to me.
It does not matter which: either way it is not true.

I made no such claim, Snit. I stated that you offered to
decode other posts I wrote in HEX if I continued.
-----

Do we want to harp on that past lie of yours? You seem really
focused on the past... I don't get it.

It's not a past lie. I never claimed you said you could decode things
other than HEX. You inserted that claim yourself; you'll find no post
from me that is actually worded like that. Because, *drum roll* I
never made any such silly claim about you.

At the time what I actually did write was written, in full context as
a reply to something you wrote, you weren't even aware of AZ's
existance. When you first observed it, you didn't even notice it was
an encoding algorithm.

I've told you this before, when you tried to twist things around and
claim I said you claimed to be able to decode more than hex. I never
said any such thing, and then, as I am now, offered/invited you to
post an MID of my doing what you claimed I did. As far as I know,
some months down the road now, you've yet to provide one.

That's because there's no such MID with the statement you claimed I
made about you. Because, I didn't make any such statement. And I
certainly never said (or thought for a second, rofl) that you'd be
able to do anything with AZ on your own.


Quite the contrary, and I voiced the opposite of what you just wrote
there, too. You have far more faith in your abilities than I do.
Misplaced faith at that, as we can see how things went for you as you
slowly learned how the AZ encoding/decoding process worked. Of
course, we can't forget that ****ed you off to the point where you
tried to teach me about ciphers (cyphers) using AZ to do it. AZ isn't
anymore so a cipher than HEX is, in case you still didn't know that.

As for teaching me about ciphers, hey, anythings possible, even
though the odds are greatly against the possibility. That would be
like you offering to teach me more about transistors, inductors,
different types of diodes etc. In order to teach me, you'd require
knowledge that I don't already have. It's safe to say, quite safe
actually, that on those two additional subjects you and I aren't on
the same playing field. As in, you don't know them well enough to
discuss either of them with me from any first hand knowledge of your
own.

I have very little doubt that the evidence you've been sharing (or
what you think is anyway) concerning the bot and carroll is more than
likely not, the same routine you've tried here with me. Not only is
it most likely not evidence of any kind, it's probably cherry picked
to support your lie with the claim that he's behind it. At this
point, when you make the claim, I automatically assume you to be
lying; after all, I've caught you, out right, lying on me about
several subjects now.

Upto and including your attempt to change the history of the encoded
messages discussion from the beginning. I *can* pull the original
thread and show you play by play Snit, you *are wrong* in your
accusation. Again.

Nah, it can't all be due to reading comprehension issues; that
doesn't cause you to claim people said or wrote things they infact
did not; thats an intentional act on your part. Therefore, when you
go and do these things, it's being done on purpose, because you're a
very dishonest individual.

You still won't acknowledge the fact you LIED YOUR ASS OFF in this
post: (but that's okay, this time, in this reply, I took the time to
show what you've been doing as well as take you to school concerning
reverse engineering basics); sadly for you, this is a repeat class;
this time, if you want to pass, keep good notes. Or, do what you
probably did to get your degrees, have someone else take the exams
for you. I don't really care if you learn something or not at the end
of the day. If you do, great, you benefit from the knowledge I share.
If you don't, no big loss - it's not like you'd actually put it to
good use.


Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

You actually wrote this:

Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:



Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.

And cherry picked the third and last paragraph from part of a reply
to your question to support your insane claim above it.

When taken in full context though, it becomes quite clear that what
you're trying to pass off as evidence of, is anything but:

I clarified it to be the compiled code huh? And you based that on the
third paragraph of a reply I wrote questioning your programming
background and severe lack of knowledge of even the most basic
reverse engineering principles. You took what I tried to explain to
you completely out of context. I clarified NOTHING OF THE SORT.

YOU LIED, SNIT. Plain and simple. Let's see it again:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
Message-ID:

You wrote this, showing that you have next to no useful/practical
knowledge of how reverse engineering works:

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
that.

And I responded with this:

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

Do you think when you disassemble something that you're provided the
original source code that was compiled/assembled by the author? You
aren't, what you're given looks nothing like the original source
code, but it still tells you *everything* about the program.

*** end full share

Nothing I wrote as a reply to you supports the accusation you made
that I had the bot, in source code OR COMPILED FORM. What is
clarified, crystal clear at this point, is one of two possible things
going on with you.

Either you have a serious, disabling level learning disability, OR,
you're a very very dishonest individual. It's one or the other. Now,
which one do you think I'm more likely to believe is the accurate
diagnosis after several interactions with you where I've been able to
see what you do, first hand. And in some cases, atleast two with me
so far, observe you for myself, quote me entirely out of context and
make false accusations against me on two seperate subjects now? In
case your memory is as bad as brooks, I'm writing about your
accusations he

So, you either have one of the worst cases of reading comprehension
difficulty I've seen in my entire life, OR, you are dishonest at the
level of being on equal footing with David Brooks.

Convince me it's the former and not the latter Snit.

Can we just move FORWARD in peace?

We sure can, just as soon as you accept responsibility for what
you've written and make it right by apologizing. Just like any
normal, fully functioning adult would do in your case. Well, except
that in your case, no normal fully functioning adult would misquote
me as badly as you did while fabricating a rather nasty story about
me. Nobody appreciates the usenet flood bot, Snit. And I'm sure you
know that. Your efforts to try and smear me as you did with your
commentary here, wasn't very nice, and wasn't even truthful:

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

I don't believe after all is said and done here that I am out of line
by simply asking you to apologize for having lied about me.

Is it actually apologizing that's so hard for you to do, because it's
me specifically, or is it having to admit you were wrong about
something and owning up to that which is so difficult for you to do
here? All I want is for you to make things right, by apologizing for
the lies you wrote about me.

You wronged me, and if you don't want me to think it wasn't
intentional, but you do want me to think it was, shall we say an
accident, then; you can start trying to convince me by apologizing
for having written what you did. At no point in time did I have any
access to the bot, know who's behind the bot, protect anyone running
the bot, state that I could for sure obtain the bots IP address
present/past or future, etc. As I told you, repeatedly.

In the meantime, the longer this goes on, the longer you delay doing
what you should have already done at this point the more it gets me
to thinking...The more discrepancies and quoting me out of context,
the more it looks like it's being done on purpose Snit. Please,
convince me that you haven't been going out of your way to misquote
me from multiple threads and multiple discussions to try and portray
me as something i'm not, or otherwise put words in my mouth as you've
been trying to do. As, well, if that's whats going on here, and it's
really starting to look that way, your dishonesty level is on par, if
not above David Brooks.

I can assure you of one thing at this point in time, Snit. I trust
any evidence you provide concerning the bot much much less now than I
did previously. I'm much more inclined to believe, without even
examining evidence you present - that the evidence is 'doctored' in
the same manner as i've shown you doing in this reply with your so
called evidence against me supporting your claims that I have the bot
in source or binary form, and that I know who is running it, and that
I've been protecting them and helping them make improvements.

NONE of that is true, but you've claimed it is on more than one
occasion; and for sure, cherry picked me out of context to try and
prove it. I'm damn near convinced at this point that you do this as a
method of attacking other usenet posters.

You protest far far too much and you're uber desperate to convince us
all that Carroll is behind it - in a most bizarre, crackhead (I kid
you not, your style reminds me of one I used to know) like manner of
what passes for logical thinking in their tweaking moment. the thing
is, what they think is perfectly normal thinking, is anything but.

You make up things and quote them out of context to support the story
you're peddling, and when caught doing it and questioned about it, as
with me here, you opt to play games instead. If anything, you're
doing a very good job of convincing me that Carroll has nothing to do
with the bot, but you very well might. Allow me to explain my line of
thinking on that for you, Snit:

The bot is very primitive and doesn't require much work to write. You
have the ability to fully control via Applescript mouse/keyboard
simulated interaction anything you see on the screen, apps and pages
inside them alike. It wouldn't take much effort on your part to set
the browser to a fixed position on the screen and automate (for the
most part) the bots interaction with google.

The locations of the buttons, subject lines, etc, are static; so you
wouldn't have any problem based on what limited programming abilities
you yourself admit you have - to be able to script the bot some
people still observe ****ing off here.

Just set the browser to a fixed point on the screen, take some
digital measurements to see where you need to land the mouse to set
the subject, the message body, and hit the post button. There doesn't
appear to be a captcha requirement to send your message to a group.
There's nothing standing in your way here. And, it's within your
known skills and abilities; known because you told us about them.


Would that even take you twenty minutes to setup Snit? Thirty minutes
including testing time and minor adjustments on locations if you're
off too far to register on the website? Basically, it wouldn't take
you very long to write a program in Applescript to interact with the
browser if the locations of things you needed the cursor to be over
and click on were in known static locations right? Hard setting the
size and location of the browser window on your end is one way of
accomplishing that goal; it gives you a dependable reference to take
the measurements you need for consistency.

Convince me i'm wrong about you Snit.



Do you understand how immature it is of you to insist I agree with you
merely for YOU to move forward in peace?

Also remember, I have repeatedly noted that if you meant code other than
Carroll's flood bot code then, yes, I was in error -- and if you merely
show where you referenced what other code you meant then that would be
sufficient evidence for you to get what you so immaturely demand.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 6/11/20 6:05 AM, David_B wrote:
On 11/06/2020 11:17, Diesel wrote:
Convince me i'm wrong about you Snit.

Snit is one of life's *GOOD GUYS*, Dustin.

I do not get why he thinks it is my job to convince him of anything. Can
he not think I was wrong about things in the past -- as I think he was
on multiple things -- and not still move forward in peace?

I certainly am not saying it is HIS job to convince me I was wrong about
his past errors. Since he is focuses so much on these past events,
though, I have been quite clear in what it would take to convince me I
was wrong (simple evidence about what OTHER code he meant than the code
I thought he meant: the code to Carroll's flood bot). He can note the
code by app (it was the code to MyApp) or by referencing the lines of
code he had quoted, or whatever.

Or he can just not reference any code and accept I will think he made an
error (which I do think is the case). So what? Am I that important to
him that he cannot both accept that I think he made an error (even if he
disagrees) AND move forward in peace?



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 11/06/2020 14:43, Snit wrote:
On 6/11/20 6:05 AM, David_B wrote:
On 11/06/2020 11:17, Diesel wrote:
Convince me i'm wrong about you Snit.

Snit is one of life's *GOOD GUYS*, Dustin.

I do not get why he thinks it is my job to convince him of anything. Can
he not think I was wrong about things in the past -- as I think he was
on multiple things -- and not still move forward in peace?

I certainly am not saying it is HIS job to convince me I was wrong about
his past errors. Since he is focuses so much on these past events,
though, I have been quite clear in what it would take to convince me I
was wrong (simple evidence about what OTHER code he meant than the code
I thought he meant: the code to Carroll's flood bot). He can note the
code by app (it was the code to MyApp) or by referencing the lines of
code he had quoted, or whatever.

Or he can just not reference any code and accept I will think he made an
error (which I do think is the case). So what? Am I that important to
him that he cannot both accept that I think he made an error (even if he
disagrees) AND move forward in peace?

The sad thing about Diesel is that he finds it impossible to let bygones
be bygones. I've never known him to admit that he's been wrong about
something or someone - that's probably because he's constantly been
looking over his shoulder for his enemies to strike. :-(

I really would like him to move forward and recognise that there really
are good guys like you, me, Joel, Commander Kinsey, FromTheRafters and
Apd here in 'my' group. There's also Mike Easter - an unknown quantity -
but I cannot recall him ever giving 'duff' technical information.

If I can ever be of help, Snit, do, please, let me know. :-)

David_B wrote:
On 11/06/2020 14:43, Snit wrote:
On 6/11/20 6:05 AM, David_B wrote:
On 11/06/2020 11:17, Diesel wrote:
Convince me i'm wrong about you Snit.

Snit is one of life's *GOOD GUYS*, Dustin.

I do not get why he thinks it is my job to convince him of anything. Can
he not think I was wrong about things in the past -- as I think he was
on multiple things -- and not still move forward in peace?

I certainly am not saying it is HIS job to convince me I was wrong about
his past errors. Since he is focuses so much on these past events,
though, I have been quite clear in what it would take to convince me I
was wrong (simple evidence about what OTHER code he meant than the code
I thought he meant: the code to Carroll's flood bot). He can note the
code by app (it was the code to MyApp) or by referencing the lines of
code he had quoted, or whatever.

Or he can just not reference any code and accept I will think he made an
error (which I do think is the case). So what? Am I that important to
him that he cannot both accept that I think he made an error (even if he
disagrees) AND move forward in peace?

The sad thing about Diesel is that he finds it impossible to let bygones
be bygones. I've never known him to admit that he's been wrong about
something or someone - that's probably because he's constantly been
looking over his shoulder for his enemies to strike. :-(

Maybe that is why we find it hard to see eye to eye. I pretty much don’t
hold grudges. I won’t pretend, for example, that Carroll has not harassed
me and folks in my life outside of Usenet, but now that he seems done with
that I even give him a chance. Multiple chances, really. At some point I
might again even though I see he is lying his ass off to Apd about me and
pretty much demanding Apd take sides.

I will give Diesel chance after chance, too. At his worst he has done
1/1000th what Carroll has.

With that said it is MY view. I have never discouraged you or others from
listening to Carroll’s side. I just trust he won’t be able to answer
questions. And he won’t, even about recent events.

When pressed he will run back to his comfort zone: 2004. He really never
moved on from that.

I really would like him to move forward and recognise that there really
are good guys like you, me, Joel, Commander Kinsey, FromTheRafters and
Apd here in 'my' group. There's also Mike Easter - an unknown quantity -
but I cannot recall him ever giving 'duff' technical information.

He has made unsupported accusations. But I hold no grudge and am happy to
speak with him.

That’s who I am.

If I can ever be of help, Snit, do, please, let me know. :-)

Sadly I do not think so. Carroll is getting what he wants — this group is
becoming about his accusations and similar ones. He has Shadow as his
“shill� as he calls them — and to some extent Diesel as well. Carroll IS
good at manipulating people. He looks for those who have disagreements with
me and weaknesses he can exploit.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

David_B
Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:38:44 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

The sad thing about Diesel is that he finds it impossible to let
bygones be bygones.

ROFL, that's so not true, David. I like most normal people have a low
amount of appreciation (read: none) for those who would take the time
to write lies about them. Or, in your case, try to repeatedly STALK
ME because I wouldn't commit felonious computer trespass for you.
Snit doesn't seem to have any problem with that, though. but, I'm the
immature one, here. Atleast according to Snit.

I've never known him to admit that he's been
wrong about something or someone


And that's yet another of your well known lies about me, David. I've
admitting being wrong many times on a wide variety of subjects. I'm
human, like yourself, despite the clear differences in how we think
about things. I make mistakes just like anyone else does.

And like most others I know, I *DO* own upto them and take necessary
steps to not only correct them when possible, but prevent it from
happening again if it's possible to do.

that's probably because he's constantly been looking over his
shoulder for his enemies to strike. :-(

Off you go again with this enemies idea you seem to have. If someone
out there actually still has a problem with me of a serious nature
over some ****ing code I wrote twenty plus years ago; then I'd say
they are the ones with serious mental issues. I didn't go and kill a
person, or a pet, or anything else. I didn't rob any banks, I didn't
steal anyones pension or their life savings, or any other property
they owned. I didn't even steal copies of their damn data or hold any
of it for any ransom. That was NOT my thing, ever.

I wrote some self replicating code. Some of which had nasty payloads,
and, I have since apologized for having done that , MANY times. I
explained to you, in detail when you were emailing me that I ****ed
up, and what I'd done to try and make up for it. You were emailing me
under false pretenses for help for the very thing I wrote and
supported to try and do that very thing, you dishonest cretin.

I really would like him to move forward and recognise that there
really are good guys like you, me, Joel, Commander Kinsey,
FromTheRafters and Apd here in 'my' group. There's also Mike
Easter - an unknown quantity - but I cannot recall him ever giving
'duff' technical information.

Uhh, wait.. FromTheRafters, Apd, and even to a point Mike Easter, I
can't disagree with you. The rest.. umm, heh, with the possible
exception of Joel and maybe even Commander Kinsey (since he just
posts off the wall **** for a rise out of people, harmless
otherwise), but you and Snit good guys? ROFL, you are for sure, not
one. And I'm still on the fence with Snit.

If I can ever be of help, Snit, do, please, let me know. :-)

I'm curious. What would you be able to help him with? I suspect he
knows more about macs than you do...


--
E Pluribus UNIX.

On 16/06/2020 10:24, Diesel wrote:
I'm curious. What would you be able to help him with? I suspect he
knows more about macs than you do...

I've no doubt at all that MOST Usenet posters know far more about
computers than I do. Few folk in my circle use macs, so I'm really
pleased to have found a friend who has already helped me a great deal.

What you fail to understand, Dustin, is that computers are not the 'be
all and end all' for most people who live in the real world. Such
machines are more often than not just a 'tool' - like a 'phone, a
bicycle or a car. Most ordinary folk would never attempt to repair such
devices.

I have much experience of being a father and grandfather and I'm always
pleased to help others less knowledgeable. I'm thinking of such things
as dealing with difficult teenagers or solving everyday problems which
inevitably occur from time to time. A friendly ear can often be helpful.

--
HTH
David

Diesel wrote:
David_B
Mon, 15 Jun 2020 15:38:44 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

The sad thing about Diesel is that he finds it impossible to let
bygones be bygones.

ROFL, that's so not true, David. I like most normal people have a low
amount of appreciation (read: none) for those who would take the time
to write lies about them. Or, in your case, try to repeatedly STALK
ME because I wouldn't commit felonious computer trespass for you.
Snit doesn't seem to have any problem with that, though. but, I'm the
immature one, here. Atleast according to Snit.

I've never known him to admit that he's been
wrong about something or someone


And that's yet another of your well known lies about me, David. I've
admitting being wrong many times on a wide variety of subjects. I'm
human, like yourself, despite the clear differences in how we think
about things. I make mistakes just like anyone else does.

I cannot recall you doing so as I quote errors of yours. But I also don’t
really focus on such things in civil conversation. Maybe you have an
example? Maybe not. If not it does not prove you never did — but of course
does not support it.

I do know you demand for me to get the peace with you I want you require me
to say I agree with you even when I do not. You require me to lie to gain
the peace I want. I will not lie. You will not move on from your need for
agreement, feigned or not. Seems we are at an impasse. Neither of us get
what we want. A shame but at least we know it.

And like most others I know, I *DO* own upto them and take necessary
steps to not only correct them when possible, but prevent it from
happening again if it's possible to do.

that's probably because he's constantly been looking over his
shoulder for his enemies to strike. :-(

Off you go again with this enemies idea you seem to have. If someone
out there actually still has a problem with me of a serious nature
over some ****ing code I wrote twenty plus years ago; then I'd say
they are the ones with serious mental issues.

You imagine I caused you harm and you cannot move on in peace but when you
acknowledge real harm to others you caused you say THEY have issues if they
cannot move on.

Nobody owes you forgiveness for the harm you caused them — though I agree
it would be absurd for any you harmed to follow you around as Carroll does
with me over his imagined harms.

I didn't go and kill a
person, or a pet, or anything else. I didn't rob any banks, I didn't
steal anyones pension or their life savings, or any other property
they owned. I didn't even steal copies of their damn data or hold any
of it for any ransom. That was NOT my thing, ever.

I wrote some self replicating code. Some of which had nasty payloads,

Can you say what these payloads did? What type harm did you cause they you
cannot understand why those you harmed might not forgive you, and others
might be cautious of you?

and, I have since apologized for having done that , MANY times.

Commendable. But you are not owed forgiveness by those you actively and
knowingly harmed.

Does not mean they cannot offer it, but you are not entitled.

I
explained to you, in detail when you were emailing me that I ****ed
up, and what I'd done to try and make up for it. You were emailing me
under false pretenses for help for the very thing I wrote and
supported to try and do that very thing, you dishonest cretin.

I really would like him to move forward and recognise that there
really are good guys like you, me, Joel, Commander Kinsey,
FromTheRafters and Apd here in 'my' group. There's also Mike
Easter - an unknown quantity - but I cannot recall him ever giving
'duff' technical information.

Uhh, wait.. FromTheRafters, Apd, and even to a point Mike Easter, I
can't disagree with you. The rest.. umm, heh, with the possible
exception of Joel and maybe even Commander Kinsey (since he just
posts off the wall **** for a rise out of people, harmless
otherwise), but you and Snit good guys? ROFL, you are for sure, not
one. And I'm still on the fence with Snit.

I think we all have good and bad — or do good and bad things. Sure, there
are some who work to be on one side or the other of some vague spectrum but
I don’t by default group people as good or bad.

If I can ever be of help, Snit, do, please, let me know. :-)

I'm curious. What would you be able to help him with? I suspect he
knows more about macs than you do...

Knowledge is not a straight line. One can know more about X than another
and still learn from them about X. Heck, I did not know you could change
the width of a pen in MS Paint *as* you were drawing a line until a
kindergarten or maybe first grade kid figured it out and showed me. Just
knowing you can is a plus, but did you know? Can you do it?

I mean the old MS Paint on Windows 95 or 98.

Or one can know more math then I do without knowing where, visually, a
standard deviation should be drawn on a standard distribution bell curve. I
see math instructors who know more about math than I do get it very wrong.
Lots of examples of YouTube videos on the standard deviation where they
clearly do not know. They are not off by a little but a lot. Some even on
written materials they provide on the topic.

Maybe you have played D&D or other table top RPGs. Think of it this way:
two PCs can do a, say, knowledge check of some sort. The one with the
higher score has a better chance of knowing a specific bit of info, but the
one with the lower score can roll high and the one with the higher score
role low.

Now games do not capture the complexity of the real world — and a GM may
very well just say the person with the higher score knows X where the other
does not, but perhaps you get the idea.

Or maybe you have never played any tabletop RPG and do not know what I mean
and I just lost you completely, the opposite of my intention.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

David_B wrote:
On 16/06/2020 10:24, Diesel wrote:
I'm curious. What would you be able to help him with? I suspect he
knows more about macs than you do...

I've no doubt at all that MOST Usenet posters know far more about
computers than I do. Few folk in my circle use macs, so I'm really
pleased to have found a friend who has already helped me a great deal.

And you have asked questions and inspired me to do some research and helped
me. It is not as Diesel sees it — a competition. It is not tit-for-tat nor
a game of who knows more then whom. It is people sharing and enjoying and
learning.

But say Diesel was right and I could learn nothing from you about
computers. I do not think so nor care if it was true, but let us grant him
that. And say it was a competition of who knows more.

Well, I just got a boat. I know the basics of canoeing and a bit about
kayaking and rowing, but you know more about boating than I do.

The point is EVEN IF one needs a tit-for-tat exchange and knowledge was as
linear as Diesel presents it as (neither of which I agree with) one can
learn from others in different areas.

It would take extreme arrogance to believe otherwise. Hell, look at how I
speak of Carroll — I do not pretend he has good intentions but I speak well
of his knowledge of tech and music. And I have given examples of learning
from young kids.

If we are not open to learning we stop learning as much.

What you fail to understand, Dustin, is that computers are not the 'be
all and end all' for most people who live in the real world. Such
machines are more often than not just a 'tool' - like a 'phone, a
bicycle or a car. Most ordinary folk would never attempt to repair such
devices.

I might do some basic repairs but my focus is more knowing the features.
For example we recently got new home phones — and I named each of the five
for the place in the house they belong. Silly things did not show the name
by default so I found the rather hurried setting to get it to show. Then I
set ringtones on or off as needed. Even as multiple phones are used it is
easy to get them back where they belong. Could have done it by the set
number that shows, but easier to remember “Kitchen� belongs in the kitchen
then that 3 does. Or is it 4? I really am not sure.

My car door is set to deal with locks on the setting I (and my wife) want.
How many even know you can change the settings?

That is the type stuff I do. My programmer friends generally do not. Does
not suggest I can do what they do.

I have much experience of being a father and grandfather and I'm always
pleased to help others less knowledgeable. I'm thinking of such things
as dealing with difficult teenagers or solving everyday problems which
inevitably occur from time to time. A friendly ear can often be helpful.

I am very lucky to have amazing kids. Even with two adults and two teens
cooped up for this pandemic in a fairly small home, and with various health
issues, we get along well. Very little drama. Essentially none. But you
have shared some of your wisdom with me on that and I appreciate it.





--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

On 16/06/2020 17:46, Snit wrote:
David_B wrote:
On 16/06/2020 10:24, Diesel wrote:
I'm curious. What would you be able to help him with? I suspect he
knows more about macs than you do...

I've no doubt at all that MOST Usenet posters know far more about
computers than I do. Few folk in my circle use macs, so I'm really
pleased to have found a friend who has already helped me a great deal.

And you have asked questions and inspired me to do some research and helped
me. It is not as Diesel sees it — a competition. It is not tit-for-tat nor
a game of who knows more then whom. It is people sharing and enjoying and
learning.

Agreed!

But say Diesel was right and I could learn nothing from you about
computers. I do not think so nor care if it was true, but let us grant him
that. And say it was a competition of who knows more.

Well, I just got a boat. I know the basics of canoeing and a bit about
kayaking and rowing, but you know more about boating than I do.

More than twenty years service in the Royal Navy provided the
opportunity to handle all manner of craft.

The point is EVEN IF one needs a tit-for-tat exchange and knowledge was as
linear as Diesel presents it as (neither of which I agree with) one can
learn from others in different areas.

It would take extreme arrogance to believe otherwise. Hell, look at how I
speak of Carroll — I do not pretend he has good intentions but I speak well
of his knowledge of tech and music. And I have given examples of learning
from young kids.

If we are not open to learning we stop learning as much.

Again we are in agreement.

What you fail to understand, Dustin, is that computers are not the 'be
all and end all' for most people who live in the real world. Such
machines are more often than not just a 'tool' - like a 'phone, a
bicycle or a car. Most ordinary folk would never attempt to repair such
devices.

I might do some basic repairs but my focus is more knowing the features.
For example we recently got new home phones — and I named each of the five
for the place in the house they belong. Silly things did not show the name
by default so I found the rather hurried setting to get it to show. Then I
set ringtones on or off as needed. Even as multiple phones are used it is
easy to get them back where they belong. Could have done it by the set
number that shows, but easier to remember “Kitchen� belongs in the kitchen
then that 3 does. Or is it 4? I really am not sure.

That's a very sensible approach. :-)

My car door is set to deal with locks on the setting I (and my wife) want.
How many even know you can change the settings?

That's something I have never needed to do!

That is the type stuff I do. My programmer friends generally do not. Does
not suggest I can do what they do.

WHY did you change settings?

I have much experience of being a father and grandfather and I'm always
pleased to help others less knowledgeable. I'm thinking of such things
as dealing with difficult teenagers or solving everyday problems which
inevitably occur from time to time. A friendly ear can often be helpful.

I am very lucky to have amazing kids. Even with two adults and two teens
cooped up for this pandemic in a fairly small home, and with various health
issues, we get along well. Very little drama. Essentially none. But you
have shared some of your wisdom with me on that and I appreciate it.

YW ;-)

Stay safe!

On 6/16/20 2:53 PM, David_B wrote:
On 16/06/2020 17:46, Snit wrote:
David_B wrote:
On 16/06/2020 10:24, Diesel wrote:
I'm curious. What would you be able to help him with? I suspect he
knows more about macs than you do...

I've no doubt at all that MOST Usenet posters know far more
about computers than I do. Few folk in my circle use macs, so I'm
really pleased to have found a friend who has already helped me a
great deal.

And you have asked questions and inspired me to do some research
and helped me. It is not as Diesel sees it — a competition. It is
not tit-for-tat nor a game of who knows more then whom. It is
people sharing and enjoying and learning.

Agreed!

But say Diesel was right and I could learn nothing from you about
computers. I do not think so nor care if it was true, but let us
grant him that. And say it was a competition of who knows more.

Well, I just got a boat. I know the basics of canoeing and a bit
about kayaking and rowing, but you know more about boating than I
do.

More than twenty years service in the Royal Navy provided the
opportunity to handle all manner of craft.

I have a number of years as a Boy Scout going on canoe trips (including
down the Colorado river a few times) and a summer camp with a lake, and
then more years as a camp staff person at various camps were we had
canoes and sometimes rowboats and kayaks. Hmmm, and a day of kayaking on
a lake... and I have been ON speed boats a few times but never been
behind the wheel.

With that said, where you certainly know not just more but a vast amount
more, that does not mean there is nothing I know you do not. Just far
more the other direction.

I think you "win".

The point is EVEN IF one needs a tit-for-tat exchange and knowledge
was as linear as Diesel presents it as (neither of which I agree
with) one can learn from others in different areas.

It would take extreme arrogance to believe otherwise. Hell, look at
how I speak of Carroll — I do not pretend he has good intentions
but I speak well of his knowledge of tech and music. And I have
given examples of learning from young kids.

If we are not open to learning we stop learning as much.

Again we are in agreement.

What you fail to understand, Dustin, is that computers are not
the 'be all and end all' for most people who live in the real
world. Such machines are more often than not just a 'tool' - like
a 'phone, a bicycle or a car. Most ordinary folk would never
attempt to repair such devices.

I might do some basic repairs but my focus is more knowing the
features. For example we recently got new home phones — and I named
each of the five for the place in the house they belong. Silly
things did not show the name by default so I found the rather
hurried setting to get it to show. Then I set ringtones on or off
as needed. Even as multiple phones are used it is easy to get them
back where they belong. Could have done it by the set number that
shows, but easier to remember “Kitchen� belongs in the kitchen then
that 3 does. Or is it 4? I really am not sure.

That's a very sensible approach. :-)

My car door is set to deal with locks on the setting I (and my
wife) want. How many even know you can change the settings?

That's something I have never needed to do!

That is the type stuff I do. My programmer friends generally do
not. Does not suggest I can do what they do.

WHY did you change settings?

I do not remember the default, but we want it so when you open the
driver's door it first unlocks just that door, then if you unlock again
it unlocks all. And we want it so when you go out of park the doors do
NOT all lock (and then stay that way even if you go back into park). We
have a gate -- if I get in the car and one of the kids opens the gate
and then I pull forward and they close it, I want the doors unlocked by
default when they come to the car.

When we are in a rental I also turn OFF all the flashing and blinking
nonsense in many newer cars that, I think, mostly serve to distract the
driver. My car is old enough to not have that junk.

Side note: most car rental places do NOT reset the systems to forget
contacts and location history and the like as the car goes from person
to person. *I* delete it for myself and others. Not gonna say it makes
it so the drive is wiped so I am sure it could be gotten by a tech, but
the average driver will not see it.

I have much experience of being a father and grandfather and I'm
always pleased to help others less knowledgeable. I'm thinking of
such things as dealing with difficult teenagers or solving
everyday problems which inevitably occur from time to time. A
friendly ear can often be helpful.

I am very lucky to have amazing kids. Even with two adults and two
teens cooped up for this pandemic in a fairly small home, and with
various health issues, we get along well. Very little drama.
Essentially none. But you have shared some of your wisdom with me
on that and I appreciate it.

YW ;-)

Stay safe!

You as well. And your wife.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 16/06/2020 23:36, Snit wrote:
On 6/16/20 2:53 PM, David_B wrote:
On 16/06/2020 17:46, Snit wrote:
David_B wrote:
On 16/06/2020 10:24, Diesel wrote:
I'm curious. What would you be able to help him with? I suspect he
knows more about macs than you do...

I've no doubt at all that MOST Usenet posters know far more
about computers than I do. Few folk in my circle use macs, so I'm
really pleased to have found a friend who has already helped me a
great deal.

And you have asked questions and inspired me to do some research
and helped me. It is not as Diesel sees it — a competition. It is
not tit-for-tat nor a game of who knows more then whom. It is
people sharing and enjoying and learning.

Agreed!

But say Diesel was right and I could learn nothing from you about
computers. I do not think so nor care if it was true, but let us
grant him that. And say it was a competition of who knows more.

Well, I just got a boat. I know the basics of canoeing and a bit
about kayaking and rowing, but you know more about boating than I
do.

More than twenty years service in the Royal Navy provided the
opportunity to handle all manner of craft.

I have a number of years as a Boy Scout going on canoe trips (including
down the Colorado river a few times) and a summer camp with a lake, and
then more years as a camp staff person at various camps were we had
canoes and sometimes rowboats and kayaks. Hmmm, and a day of kayaking on
a lake... and I have been ON speed boats a few times but never been
behind the wheel.

With that said, where you certainly know not just more but a vast amount
more, that does not mean there is nothing I know you do not. Just far
more the other direction.

I think you "win".

I rather envy your time canoeing down the Colorado River!

Visiting the Grand Canyon in November, with few visitor around, was one
of the highlights of my life. :-)

The point is EVEN IF one needs a tit-for-tat exchange and knowledge
Â*was as linear as Diesel presents it as (neither of which I agree
with) one can learn from others in different areas.

It would take extreme arrogance to believe otherwise. Hell, look at
how I speak of Carroll — I do not pretend he has good intentions
but I speak well of his knowledge of tech and music. And I have
given examples of learning from young kids.

If we are not open to learning we stop learning as much.

Again we are in agreement.

What you fail to understand, Dustin, is that computers are not
the 'be all and end all' for most people who live in the real
world. Such machines are more often than not just a 'tool' - like
a 'phone, a bicycle or a car. Most ordinary folk would never
attempt to repair such devices.

I might do some basic repairs but my focus is more knowing the
features. For example we recently got new home phones — and I named
each of the five for the place in the house they belong. Silly
things did not show the name by default so I found the rather
hurried setting to get it to show. Then I set ringtones on or off
as needed. Even as multiple phones are used it is easy to get them
back where they belong. Could have done it by the set number that
shows, but easier to remember “Kitchen� belongs in the kitchen then
that 3 does. Or is it 4? I really am not sure.

That's a very sensible approach. :-)

My car door is set to deal with locks on the setting I (and my
wife) want. How many even know you can change the settings?

That's something I have never needed to do!

That is the type stuff I do. My programmer friends generally do
not. Does not suggest I can do what they do.

WHY did you change settings?

I do not remember the default, but we want it so when you open the
driver's door it first unlocks just that door, then if you unlock again
it unlocks all. And we want it so when you go out of park the doors do
NOT all lock (and then stay that way even if you go back into park). We
have a gate -- if I get in the car and one of the kids opens the gate
and then I pull forward and they close it, I want the doors unlocked by
default when they come to the car.

When we are in a rental I also turn OFF all the flashing and blinking
nonsense in many newer cars that, I think, mostly serve to distract the
driver. My car is old enough to not have that junk.

Side note: most car rental places do NOT reset the systems to forget
contacts and location history and the like as the car goes from person
to person. *I* delete it for myself and others. Not gonna say it makes
it so the drive is wiped so I am sure it could be gotten by a tech, but
the average driver will not see it.

This whole topic is something I have never even thought about! Thank you
for explaining.

I have much experience of being a father and grandfather and I'm
always pleased to help others less knowledgeable. I'm thinking of
such things as dealing with difficult teenagers or solving
everyday problems which inevitably occur from time to time. A
friendly ear can often be helpful.

I am very lucky to have amazing kids. Even with two adults and two
teens cooped up for this pandemic in a fairly small home, and with
various health issues, we get along well. Very little drama.
Essentially none. But you have shared some of your wisdom with me
on that and I appreciate it.

YW ;-)

Stay safe!

You as well. And your wife.

Thank you. Ditto! :-D

(I loved that film!)

David_B
Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:48:27 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 16/06/2020 10:24, Diesel wrote:
I'm curious. What would you be able to help him with? I suspect
he knows more about macs than you do...

I've no doubt at all that MOST Usenet posters know far more about
computers than I do. Few folk in my circle use macs, so I'm really
pleased to have found a friend who has already helped me a great
deal.

Ouch. David, you need new friends.



--
What is the difference between a 69 and driving in the fog?
When driving in the fog, you can't see the asshole in front of you.

On 17/06/2020 09:23, Diesel wrote:
David_B
Tue, 16 Jun 2020 13:48:27 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 16/06/2020 10:24, Diesel wrote:
I'm curious. What would you be able to help him with? I suspect
he knows more about macs than you do...

I've no doubt at all that MOST Usenet posters know far more about
computers than I do. Few folk in my circle use macs, so I'm really
pleased to have found a friend who has already helped me a great
deal.

Ouch. David, you need new friends.

Are you volunteering to start behaving like a normal human being?

Build yourself a business website and join LinkedIn.

What have you got to lose?