Microsoft end of support dates

Snit
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 03:37:55 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 9, 2020 at 6:12:14 PM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

Snit
Sun, 09 Aug 2020 02:05:42
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 8, 2020 at 5:59:15 PM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:
[snip]

It's not as if he's looking to hire me for some service work.
I'm several thousand miles away. A local shop would be much
more economical and faster turn around time, to boot. And, he
doesn't like Americans, so why send me money? lol

I'm not stupid Snit.

What makes you think you are good judge of this?

Nearly two decades of prior experience in dealing with David
Brooks makes me a very good judge, snit.

I rarely hear you speak well of David

I rarely having anything well to speak about him, Snit.


I've yet to make a single false accusation against David.

I don't really follow the accusations you two make against each
other

That's your choice. It doesn't change what things are, though.

And, I
seriously doubt Carroll has anywhere near the track record David
does for stalking, and getting himself banned from various forums
and sites.

You can believe as you wish. As I said I do not really follow your
past with David, but I know Carroll ha done all sorts of nasty
things.

Well, the problem (for me) with your accusations towards Carroll is
your continued lack of ability to provide actual evidence of it.
Where as, with David, I can/and have provided supporting evidence for
the accusation(s) I've made.

You need not follow that any more than I do your
accusations with David.

Snit, unlike yourself, I'm *still willing* to review any evidence you
provide to support the accusations you continue to make against
Carroll. Where as, you are unwilling to review any evidence which is
available concerning David Brooks and his.. most uncool activities.

It's one thing to make accusations towards another, but, what I've
written about David aren't accusations. It's actually the truth. He's
done every single thing I've "accused" him of doing, multiple times.

Your continued efforts to review none of the proof (evidence hell,
it's proof dude; there IS a difference) is on you. It doesn't change
what things are, though.

I do wish you would less easily
manipulated by Carroll, but so be it. You will be you.

That's an accusation you've been making towards Carroll and myself
lately. With, as usual, nothing to support it. I'll ask again though,
please provide MID(s) of posts demonstrating the manipulation you're
claiming is or has already taken place. Examples, Snit. I want to see
examples. Can you provide any?

Sorry, but, you've shown me nothing to support your claims
concerning Carroll. You repeatedly make accusations, but, you
don't offer up anything for evidence to support them.

Again, your view of them is not really relevant.

Your response is out of order, Snit. It also scored a hit on the
snitlist. Details:

8. Lies by refusing to believe anything remembered by the person he's
attacking, and saying that it's irrelevant, when it isn't. Example:
"some recollection of what you think you remember from 10 years ago
is not on topic or of interest".


You have been
shown specific posts from Carroll where he spoke of contacting one
of my employers, and a post from his then-girlfriend or whatever
where she bragged about tracking down where I worked. You also
have seen him mention clients of mine.

Actually, I've seen Carroll dispute those claims (As well as
additional ones) - and strangely enough, I don't always see a reply
from you when he does that...

All typical doxxing games from you and Carroll.

You're misusing the terminology...

As you know you have already given me information to know where
you work. Or at least pretended to. Who knows -- you could have
been lying then, too.

When I placed that call to you, I was debating on providing you a
return number on me - Against my better judgement I answered your
question, and you already know the number goes to me, you've
called it since then. I listened to your voice mail, but, I
didn't call you again.

OK, this is you making it be OK to discuss that you called me.

That's an interesting way to weasel around your initial comment,
there, Snit. Umm, David is aware of the fact I like to make phone
calls from time to time to people I find of interest. When you wrote
what he did, you told him (as he puts it, by reading between the
lines) - I'll give it to you that you probably didn't realize it.

I just said you provided information.

Of course. I didn't provide you anything via usenet, and, We've never
interacted via email.. So, what else do you suppose David would think
I used to contact you? Take your time. i'm just being a wiseass with
you here, Snit. I know you didn't fork him anything on purpose this
time.

Yes, you did call me.

Yep.

And yes I have phone records with the number.

Snit, the call I placed to you didn't originate on a phone as you
know it to be. It had no phone number associated with it to be
recorded, either by you, or your local branch office. It's an
outbound only system and it's not really a telephone...

I can make outbound calls to almost any actual phone number, but I
have no way of routing them back to me, unless I give them a way to
contact me. It can't accept incoming requests due to the umm, methods
being deployed.

It's the reason your caller ID didn't provide you my contact details
and you had to ask me for a number to reach me at. Let's not play
games about this.

And yes I called you back to ask you about some thing you said on
line and you did not respond.

Yes, at the number I provided you right? When you reached the
voicemail system, it sounded just like the person who called you
previously and provided you that number, right? That person was me,
Snit. So, I didn't lie to you, nor did I mislead you. I do own a
small computer/electronics repair shop. I consider it mine because I
have the controlling majority of the stake in it. And, I do believe I
mentioned this to you in that call.

I believe I even went so far as to tell you how I know my business
partner; that he is actually one of my former ELECTRICAL COMPANY
employers where I worked for him as an electrician. He's known me
since I was a damn teenager, he knows I know WTF i'm doing in both
trades.

The partnership allows me to bid on semi large jobs too, because I
literally have access to an electrical crew (his business that's
unrelated to this one) that can come in and pull the wire for me. G
Or, provide additional power sources, if needbe. I can do both of
those jobs too, but, dude, when you're wiring a grocery store (a
brand new building hehehe), it's nice to have a crew of other people
who know what the **** they are doing that can help you. Cha ****ing
ching in the bank, my man...

I'm pretty sure I told you this stuff on that phone call. As, I
believe I told you I got your number from a website where your
business was mentioned.

And yes that number goes to a computer business.

Indeed, it does. Mine. So, we're done with this conversation then?

I also told you I would not share that number. I did not.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't.

I did not even tell anyone you called me. YOU did.

As I wrote, you didn't knowingly do it. Had you of listened to me
concerning David and some aspects, though, you might have rethought
even mentioning what you did...But, it's no biggie.

Just so you know, I wasn't kidding when I asked that you not
share the information with David. If you opt to go against that,
I can't very well stop you, but, I can tell you that you'll
regret having gone against my wishes with respect to this.

I already told you I had no intention of doing so -- though I will
say threats make it MORE likely I would, not less.

I wasn't making any threats.

And keep in mind if you did not think I was honest and honorable
you would not have shared the number and your work place with me

As I told you on the call, I don't know you that well. I didn't
provide you a way to contact me because I assume you to be honest and
honorable, no. I provided you the number, against my better judgement
to test a theory I have concerning you. The test makes the risk an
acceptable one.

-- assuming you did not spoof the number.

I don't think you understand what you just accused me of
doing...While I didn't use a phone to call you, I didn't spoof
anything. Your caller ID didn't give you a bull**** number, it gave
you no number.


If you did not then the place you work is not exactly
something that speaks amazingly of your capabilities, but it is
also a job and I surely am not going to mock or attack you for
where you work.

WTF? I'm my own boss and my quality of work speaks for itself. So I
don't know what you're going on about with the wiseass commentary.

I reached out with the phone call to try and learn more about
you,

The very type thing you mock and attack David for.

No, nothing like it.

For the record he has never called me.

I doubt he knows how to find your number on his own, Snit.
If he did, I wouldn't be all that surprised if he did call you at
some point to say hello. I know from previous experience, he doesn't
like to be waiting long for an answer. He became quite the obnoxious
pest with me via email.

With that said, at the very start you were humble and made it
clear if I did not want to talk that was fine. I have no issue
with you doing so -- I do not want to make it sound like you did
something wrong.

Yet you just wrote:

The very type thing you mock and attack David for.

When I explained why I called. And you pulled another OE top reply
routine, too. Why do you continue to do that stupid ****? It
interrupts message flow. Is that why you're doing it, Snit?

and perhaps exchange information outside of usenet; where one
cannot read emotion. I called you in order to reduce/prevent
future issues.

That seems AMAZINGLY unlikely given how you escalated things past
that point... but maybe you intended to but could not carry
through.

I didn't escalate anything. I wanted to know why you decided to write
lies about me; I learned that you had done this after releasing the
filter I had previously set on you and reloading 'marked as ****
off' articles specifically from you. I read some, and then I found
the lies you wrote about me concerning the bot.

So, as any normal person would (who doesn't appreciate being falsely
accused), I asked why you lied as you did, and, I began requesting an
apology for the lies you clearly wrote about me.

I've continued requesting said apology and providing clear examples
of the lies you wrote about me. Not only that, I've provided posts
from others who also noticed what you did, and one specific poster
who went to great lengths to respond to everything you wrote about
the subject. They called out the fact you falsely accused me in
atleast two seperate replies they wrote to you.

I also told you in confidence not to mention we'd chatted. I
didn't want you catching any strife for it, I wasn't trying to
cover my own ass.

Why would I catch strife for you calling me?

Just wait for it...You'll see.

Of course you know I can be trusted... if you did not think so you
would not have provided me that information (assuming it is real).

Message-ID:
And yes I called you back to ask you about some thing you said on
line and you did not respond.

And yes that number goes to a computer business.

** end snippit share

Make up your mind, Snit.

And of course I did not even tell anyone you called me.

Not intentionally. I accept that. As I already wrote.

Prior to your disclosure, here, nobody knew I conversed with you
outside of usenet. As i told you on the phone call, it wouldn't
be a good idea for anyone to know that. And, you'll learn why as
time goes on now.

You realize such nonsense threats really do not work well for you.
Right?

You don't understand various group dynamics here. You refuse to
accept any information concerning some aspects of this newsgroup.
That's what I alluded to in what I wrote above, Snit. I wasn't
threatening you with anything.

But, what you're going to learn is entirely on you; I didn't
have anything to do with it, I warned you ahead of time.

Ah, like Carroll you blame others for your actions. Got it.

See above.


[snip]

But, no, NOT gonna go into details here.

So long as you're unwilling to answer something as simple as
full/part time, snit, you can stop with the story you're trying to
peddle about my having lied about your employment. I haven't done any
such thing.

I've worked *a lot* of jobs since I was a teenager, there's no way in
hell I could have done it and maintained the usenet posting frequency
you do. Even if you 'worked from home', you still couldn't get any
serious work done and still have the time for usenet that you show
you have by your posting frequency.

You don't need to go into any details, none specific were asked. Your
quickly jumping to conclusions and dancing around the questions is
tell enough; when combined with your usenet posting frequency, it's
pretty much sealed.

You sure act like you want to impress me. A lot. I point out some
of the examples.

I'd like to see those examples. Did you forget to include them in
your reply?

Bottom line: I *don't care* if you believe me or not.

Fair enough. And just want to be clear I am not doing as YOU do
and insisting you do not work or any of the other claims you made
that you glommed off of Carroll. Heck, even if it turned out you
had never worked a day in your life I would not attack you for it.
I simply will not sink to the level you and Carroll do on a
regular basis.

ROFL. Snit, I already got all of my "credits" for later benefits; I
maxxed it out, ten or so years ago. So, if I retire later, or become
disabled or something, it won't be a hand out, or tax payers dime.
It's my ****ing money, I earned every ****ing penny of it.

I *do work*. I work my ****ing ass off. Uncle sam ****ing loves me.
He shows me the love when I see my paychecks.

And, if you do live on government benefits, I have a problem with it,
because YOU CAN find employment with the skillsets you have. You can
work and earn a living wage with the skills you have. I do, there's
no reason you can't. That system is intended for people who really
need it. Lazy isn't a legitimate need.


--
Taxes still too low? Vote democrat in 2000

On Aug 10, 2020 at 6:51:50 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

Snit
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 03:37:55 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 9, 2020 at 6:12:14 PM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

Snit
Sun, 09 Aug 2020 02:05:42
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 8, 2020 at 5:59:15 PM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:
[snip]

It's not as if he's looking to hire me for some service work.
I'm several thousand miles away. A local shop would be much
more economical and faster turn around time, to boot. And, he
doesn't like Americans, so why send me money? lol

I'm not stupid Snit.

What makes you think you are good judge of this?

Nearly two decades of prior experience in dealing with David
Brooks makes me a very good judge, snit.

I rarely hear you speak well of David

I rarely having anything well to speak about him, Snit.

What you snipped:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I rarely hear you speak well of David, but you saying interacting with him
makes you think you are a better judge of how stupid YOU are does speak
highly
of his ability to help people. I had never really considered that as one of
his skills.

Still, seems poor reasoning on your part. I am, to be clear, just having a
bit
of fun here and NOT saying you are stupid, but I have noticed you repeatedly
feel the need to tell people how you are not. That, frankly, does not speak
particularly well of you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Care you try to reply in an honest way?

I've yet to make a single false accusation against David.

I don't really follow the accusations you two make against each
other

That's your choice. It doesn't change what things are, though.

Correct. Just as you not following the idiotic battle Carroll has with me does
not change it. The difference is I am not so arrogant as to think you must
care enough to follow it!

And, I
seriously doubt Carroll has anywhere near the track record David
does for stalking, and getting himself banned from various forums
and sites.

You can believe as you wish. As I said I do not really follow your
past with David, but I know Carroll ha done all sorts of nasty
things.

Well, the problem (for me) with your accusations towards Carroll is
your continued lack of ability to provide actual evidence of it.

You confuse your failure to understand as a failure on my part. Here, just
some of the evidence I have posted befo


-----
It's not a "sickness" to point out how a person who
appears to be an imposter is making false charges of
adultery in a public newsgroup. t's not a "sickness" to
point out how a person who appears to be an imposter has
engaged in forging posting ID's. t's not a "sickness" to
point out how a person who appears to be an imposter has
created disparaging websites about posters with the intent
of humiliating them. It's not a "sickness" to point out
how a person who appears to be an imposter has forged
PDF's and tried to pin it on others. It's not a "sickness"
to point out how a person who appears to be an imposter is
trolling usenet to the point that several newsgroups full
of people have commented on the kinds of things I just
mentioned. The only "sickness" here is being exhibited by
the person doing all these kinds of things and believing
(falsely) that he could get away with all of it with no
one confronting him on it.

Really, Steve... think about how desperate you have
become.

Are you trying to "dissuade" me from contacting Yavapai
College? If you are an imposter I can see why you would
attempt to do so. If you are the real Michael Glasser...
are you saying that you don't stand behind what you've
posted to usenet?

Interestingly, and hypocritically, it didn't seem to
bother you when you contacted clients of mine and tried to
denigrate me in their eyes.
-----

Of note: Carroll was again caught forging an image -- in this case of a
webpage tied to David. He accuses me of doing as he does repeatedly.


-----
I'm on the verge of contacting Yavapai College with a very
reasonable request for an investigation into what appears
to be a case of identity theft of one of their
instructors. I will write about all the things the person
I reasonably believe to be an imposter has pulled on this
newsgroup that I'm aware of and I will document it like I
documented the above. We'll see if the folks at Yavapai
College consider them to be "delusions" like you claim to.
Perhaps they'll just dismiss me the way you are dismissing
me. OTOH... perhaps they will conduct an investigation
regarding what I consider to be reasonable suspicion of ID
theft. IOW... perhaps they will also consider the actions
undertaken by this Snit person to be suspicious and wonder
if it is, in fact, a person they are employing. For all
anyone knows, at this point, it's just a kid impersonating
one of his college instructors.

Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't do this?
-----


-----
You're confused. I'm not threatening to do anything, I'm
promising you that, unless you, or someone, can give me a
sound reason not to, I intend on providing certain parties
with information they can use to determine if there is a
case of identity theft (a thing you have engaged in
online) involving a person that represents them in their
community. John tried to help you but it backfired... all
he did was support the idea that you are also targeting
Elizabot in your libelous statements... a thing supported
by the many other libelous statements similar to this one
where you actually used the name "Elizabot" in reference
to being my "girlfriend".
-----

But you do not care. And you are not obligated to... but just don't lie about
it!

From there you go into crying about how you think you have backed your claims
about David and how you do not believe I have with Carroll. Whatever. Your
view simply means nothing to me... the fact you are not able to be accurate
and cannot understand what you read is YOUR issue. It is not mine.

....

As you know you have already given me information to know where
you work. Or at least pretended to. Who knows -- you could have
been lying then, too.

When I placed that call to you, I was debating on providing you a
return number on me - Against my better judgement I answered your
question, and you already know the number goes to me, you've
called it since then. I listened to your voice mail, but, I
didn't call you again.

OK, this is you making it be OK to discuss that you called me.

That's an interesting way to weasel around your initial comment,
there, Snit. Umm, David is aware of the fact I like to make phone
calls from time to time to people I find of interest. When you wrote
what he did, you told him (as he puts it, by reading between the
lines) - I'll give it to you that you probably didn't realize it.

You can blame me for what YOU did, which was to specifically call out the
phone call you made to me. What I said was purposely made vague enough where I
could have been referring to a past post, a letter, a Facebook chat, or any of
a number of other things. YOU decided to tell David about having called me,
and YOU decided to tell him that you provided a phone number.

Don't blame me for your actions. Take responsibility!

I just said you provided information.

Of course. I didn't provide you anything via usenet, and, We've never
interacted via email.. So, what else do you suppose David would think
I used to contact you? Take your time. i'm just being a wiseass with
you here, Snit. I know you didn't fork him anything on purpose this
time.

Yes, you did call me.

Yep.

And yes I have phone records with the number.

Snit, the call I placed to you didn't originate on a phone as you
know it to be. It had no phone number associated with it to be
recorded, either by you, or your local branch office. It's an
outbound only system and it's not really a telephone...

Does this you have no issues with my posting a screenshot of the image where
the phone number claimed by my phone company shows?

After all, if there is no such number then there is no issue with my showing
it. Of course, you could have spoofed a number... but when I suggested that
you stated otherwise.

I can make outbound calls to almost any actual phone number, but I
have no way of routing them back to me, unless I give them a way to
contact me. It can't accept incoming requests due to the umm, methods
being deployed.

It's the reason your caller ID didn't provide you my contact details
and you had to ask me for a number to reach me at. Let's not play
games about this.

So you have no issue with my posting an image showing, from my phone records,
listing the date and time of your call, the number it came from, the number
you called (well, I would block that out!), the length of the call, and the
city associated with that number?

Really... are you so confident that this image does not exist you are saying
if I have it I can post it? Because if you say so I will... even just spent a
few moment to get the image and block out the number you called -- a number I
do NOT give you permission to share in any way.

And yes I called you back to ask you about some thing you said on
line and you did not respond.

Yes, at the number I provided you right?

Yes... and the the one that matches my called ID and phone records.

....

Just so you know, I wasn't kidding when I asked that you not
share the information with David. If you opt to go against that,
I can't very well stop you, but, I can tell you that you'll
regret having gone against my wishes with respect to this.

I already told you I had no intention of doing so -- though I will
say threats make it MORE likely I would, not less.

I wasn't making any threats.

Of course you were. Repeatedly. See right above for an example. And, of
course, this is yet another example of you lying.

And keep in mind if you did not think I was honest and honorable
you would not have shared the number and your work place with me

As I told you on the call, I don't know you that well. I didn't
provide you a way to contact me because I assume you to be honest and
honorable, no. I provided you the number, against my better judgement
to test a theory I have concerning you. The test makes the risk an
acceptable one.

You have said you did not want David to know the number. You have repeatedly
insisted I am working with David. Had you REALLY believed your claims you
would not have done as you did.

It really is that simple (assuming you did not spoof a number or the like).



-- assuming you did not spoof the number.

I don't think you understand what you just accused me of
doing.

I understand I did not accuse you of ANYTHING. I understand you just failed to
understand what you read. I understand you are seeking to play victim. You do
that a lot.


..While I didn't use a phone to call you, I didn't spoof
anything. Your caller ID didn't give you a bull**** number, it gave
you no number.

If that is the case you have no issue with my posting this image, but only the
number you called blocked, right?

https://ibb.co/5jv8X2x

For the record he has never called me.

I doubt he knows how to find your number on his own, Snit.

Maybe he could. Maybe not. But he could ASK.

You know, like a decent human being.

To be fair, as I said, I have no issue with you calling me. Just don't share
the number you called.


If he did, I wouldn't be all that surprised if he did call you at
some point to say hello. I know from previous experience, he doesn't
like to be waiting long for an answer. He became quite the obnoxious
pest with me via email.

With that said, at the very start you were humble and made it
clear if I did not want to talk that was fine. I have no issue
with you doing so -- I do not want to make it sound like you did
something wrong.

Yet you just wrote:

The very type thing you mock and attack David for.

When I explained why I called. And you pulled another OE top reply
routine, too. Why do you continue to do that stupid ****? It
interrupts message flow. Is that why you're doing it, Snit?

If you do not like the way I respond to your trolling then do not troll me.

The point you are avoiding is you do what you attack David for. Can you
understand that?



and perhaps exchange information outside of usenet; where one
cannot read emotion. I called you in order to reduce/prevent
future issues.

That seems AMAZINGLY unlikely given how you escalated things past
that point... but maybe you intended to but could not carry
through.

I didn't escalate anything.

Direct lie on your part.

I also told you in confidence not to mention we'd chatted. I
didn't want you catching any strife for it, I wasn't trying to
cover my own ass.

Why would I catch strife for you calling me?

Just wait for it...You'll see.

Direct threat on your part.

....


Prior to your disclosure, here, nobody knew I conversed with you
outside of usenet. As i told you on the phone call, it wouldn't
be a good idea for anyone to know that. And, you'll learn why as
time goes on now.

You realize such nonsense threats really do not work well for you.
Right?

You don't understand various group dynamics here. You refuse to
accept any information concerning some aspects of this newsgroup.
That's what I alluded to in what I wrote above, Snit. I wasn't
threatening you with anything.

I do not care about your past battles. Stop crying over it.


But, what you're going to learn is entirely on you; I didn't
have anything to do with it, I warned you ahead of time.

Ah, like Carroll you blame others for your actions. Got it.

See above.

Where you posted threats. Then denied you did. You lied




[snip]

But, no, NOT gonna go into details here.

So long as you're unwilling to answer something as simple as
full/part time, snit, you can stop with the story you're trying to
peddle about my having lied about your employment. I haven't done any
such thing.

You see, I am not obligated to do ANYTHING to have you not lie about me.

This really is simple: Carroll tells lies about me. You allow yourself to be
manipulated by him and you repeat those lies.

Then, AFTER YOU LIED, you asked me questions about if your claims were true or
not. And you pretend I am obligated to play your game. Nope.

You allowed Carroll to manipulate you into spreading his unsupported claims.

I've worked *a lot* of jobs since I was a teenager,

As have I. I mean, really, this is not an uncommon thing! Please stop trying
to impress me!

....

--
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.

Snit
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:05:17 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 10, 2020 at 6:51:50 AM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

Snit, the call I placed to you didn't originate on a phone as you
know it to be. It had no phone number associated with it to be
recorded, either by you, or your local branch office. It's an
outbound only system and it's not really a telephone...

Does this you have no issues with my posting a screenshot of the
image where the phone number claimed by my phone company shows?

Snit, again, I didn't call you with a phone. Your caller id didn't give
you my name, nor did it provide you with a phone number, or even so
much as a city/state. Infact, Snit, if I called you from the number I
gave you, your caller ID still wouldn't give my name. And the city
would be wrong, as well. The state may be correct, but, I wouldn't
exactly count on it.

After all, if there is no such number then there is no issue with
my showing it. Of course, you could have spoofed a number... but
when I suggested that you stated otherwise.

There is a number you can reach me at, but it's not present on your
caller ID, Snit. I provided you a callback number, it wasn't available
on your caller ID. Which is why you asked me specifically for a number
to call you back at. It wasn't available to be read by your caller ID.

You can continue with this lie of yours for a little while longer if
you'd like. But, you are lying about this.

And Snit, I just verified my system is still working as expected. Your
forging a caller ID view here. Infact, when I just called a family
members phone using the same method I did when I called you, there
caller ID shows 'unknown caller'. Doesn't even give so much as a city
or state. Which makes sense, considering how the call is being placed.


I can make outbound calls to almost any actual phone number, but
I have no way of routing them back to me, unless I give them a
way to contact me. It can't accept incoming requests due to the
umm, methods being deployed.

It's the reason your caller ID didn't provide you my contact
details and you had to ask me for a number to reach me at. Let's
not play games about this.

So you have no issue with my posting an image showing, from my
phone records, listing the date and time of your call, the number
it came from, the number you called (well, I would block that
out!), the length of the call, and the city associated with that
number?

Sure, snit, because I know for an absolute fact you are lying about the
claim that your caller ID itself has a number on me. It doesn't. I can
prove it, too.

Really... are you so confident that this image does not exist you
are saying if I have it I can post it? Because if you say so I
will... even just spent a few moment to get the image and block
out the number you called -- a number I do NOT give you permission
to share in any way.

You have my permission to post your caller ID logs, snit. I already
know you'll have to forge it, and i'll disclose why AFTER you commit to
this.

And yes I called you back to ask you about some thing you said
on line and you did not respond.

Yes, at the number I provided you right?

Yes... and the the one that matches my called ID and phone
records.

That's not possible snit. I didn't call you from the phone number I
provided you. It has no phone number, it can only make outbound calls.
That's why I had to give you a callback number. Your caller ID can't
help you with that. And do remember, you even claimed it provided my
name on your caller ID. That's not possible for it to have done so
either.


--
Tell me what you believe and I'll tell you where you're going wrong.

On Aug 10, 2020 at 4:43:28 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:
....

Really... are you so confident that this image does not exist you
are saying if I have it I can post it? Because if you say so I
will... even just spent a few moment to get the image and block
out the number you called -- a number I do NOT give you permission
to share in any way.

You have my permission to post your caller ID logs, snit. I already
know you'll have to forge it, and i'll disclose why AFTER you commit to
this.


I won't post the full log -- of course -- but just this line:

https://ibb.co/5jv8X2x

And you are OK with it. Thanks!

And, no, I shan't forge a thing. Nor would I. You just are flat out wrong...
as is your norm.

Just know YOU gave public permission for me to do it if I opt to.

How about if I just share it with David privately (to be clear he has not
asked for this, nor have I offered).

--
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.

In article ,
says...

Snit
Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:05:17 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 10, 2020 at 6:51:50 AM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

Snit, the call I placed to you didn't originate on a phone as you
know it to be. It had no phone number associated with it to be
recorded, either by you, or your local branch office. It's an
outbound only system and it's not really a telephone...

Does this you have no issues with my posting a screenshot of the
image where the phone number claimed by my phone company shows?

Snit, again, I didn't call you with a phone. Your caller id didn't give
you my name, nor did it provide you with a phone number, or even so
much as a city/state. Infact, Snit, if I called you from the number I
gave you, your caller ID still wouldn't give my name. And the city
would be wrong, as well. The state may be correct, but, I wouldn't
exactly count on it.

After all, if there is no such number then there is no issue with
my showing it. Of course, you could have spoofed a number... but
when I suggested that you stated otherwise.

There is a number you can reach me at, but it's not present on your
caller ID, Snit. I provided you a callback number, it wasn't available
on your caller ID. Which is why you asked me specifically for a number
to call you back at. It wasn't available to be read by your caller ID.

You can continue with this lie of yours for a little while longer if
you'd like. But, you are lying about this.

And Snit, I just verified my system is still working as expected. Your
forging a caller ID view here. Infact, when I just called a family
members phone using the same method I did when I called you, there
caller ID shows 'unknown caller'. Doesn't even give so much as a city
or state. Which makes sense, considering how the call is being placed.


I can make outbound calls to almost any actual phone number, but
I have no way of routing them back to me, unless I give them a
way to contact me. It can't accept incoming requests due to the
umm, methods being deployed.

It's the reason your caller ID didn't provide you my contact
details and you had to ask me for a number to reach me at. Let's
not play games about this.

So you have no issue with my posting an image showing, from my
phone records, listing the date and time of your call, the number
it came from, the number you called (well, I would block that
out!), the length of the call, and the city associated with that
number?

Sure, snit, because I know for an absolute fact you are lying about the
claim that your caller ID itself has a number on me. It doesn't. I can
prove it, too.

Really... are you so confident that this image does not exist you
are saying if I have it I can post it? Because if you say so I
will... even just spent a few moment to get the image and block
out the number you called -- a number I do NOT give you permission
to share in any way.

You have my permission to post your caller ID logs, snit. I already
know you'll have to forge it, and i'll disclose why AFTER you commit to
this.

And yes I called you back to ask you about some thing you said
on line and you did not respond.

Yes, at the number I provided you right?

Yes... and the the one that matches my called ID and phone
records.

That's not possible snit. I didn't call you from the phone number I
provided you. It has no phone number, it can only make outbound calls.
That's why I had to give you a callback number. Your caller ID can't
help you with that. And do remember, you even claimed it provided my
name on your caller ID. That's not possible for it to have done so
either.

Gremlin, you probably know this already but I am going to give
you a head's up that snit is a highly unstable, mentally ill
person who is one hair trigger from snapping and making your
life as miserable as his own.

Do not be surprised if the police come knocking at your door
because he filed a harassment report against you. Snit will
fabricate any evidence or documentation he might require to
report you and this includes forging headers, screen shots and
any other correspondence you two might have had.

If you have made the serious mistake of contacting snit via
phone, or other voice vs print/online communication you have
made a grave mistake because he has most definitely recorded
the conversation and he will edit it, one syllable at a time if
needed, to make it appear that you have said things you never
said.
Trust me, you are not his first victim nor will you be his
last.

Just some friendly advice from another person who has had the
most unpleasant experience of tangling with mentally ill snit.

--
Milo

Snit
Tue, 11 Aug 2020 02:44:20 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

A date and time stamp? C'mon dude, I'm not denying that you have
a date and time stamp. I'm denying that you got my name, or a
phone number, or even the correct city/state from your caller ID.

Does not have a name but it most certainly has a phone number and
a city and state. They may or may not be accurate, though the
number matches the one you gave me.

The number has obviously been inserted by yourself, then. As I told you
when I spoke with you, I didn't use a phone device. It has no number.
The number I provided you is an entirely seperate piece of gear on an
entirely different network. You copy/pasted the number I left for you
to call me back if you wanted into your bogus caller ID logs you're
providing at this point in time.

It's *impossible* for the call I placed to you to provide you ANY
number, because that's simply NOT how the technology works, Snit. The
ONLY way the number I gave you over the phone is in the pic/video is if
you took the time and effort to manually insert it.

Which is why you asked me for a number to call me back on in the first
place, your actual caller ID information was NOT able to provide you
that information, because there was NO INFORMATION PROVIDED to your
carrier concerning any of that.

I really don't know why you think you can snow people on this subject
with your creative editing skills, snit. Anyone who's ever used dialpad
or anything else like it knows already that you are full of ****
concerning this, that you have to be manually editing your pics/videos
to insert a number I provided you after the fact.

I would have offered to share the audio of the call (with your
permission) as all comms are recorded on the network as well as my own
personal cell phone. However, I didn't move the files from the junk
folder, so after about sixty or so days, it recovered drive space. I
record calls as a habit for business related purposes. So that I don't
have to call the client back with the same questions, I can just replay
the conversation; to ensure I didn't miss anything that needed to be
done for the client. It's not for stalking or blackmailing or anything
like that. Hell, it was so insignificant to me, I didn't bother saving
my copy of our conversation.

It's the creative editing that you've been doing that sunk you here.
It's why you blacked out everything else along with the original
'unknown number' message that you opted to replace with the number I
provided you. The city/state information would also confirm you're
lying, which is why I asked you to unblock those. I can't think of a
legitimate reason for you to have blocked out ANY of the details you
claim were provided, besides the phone number (I know you inserted it,
but I'll humour you for now lol). Unless, you aren't sure if I actually
do live in city/tn? Virginia is but a hop skip and a jump away,
after all. NC isn't far away either, for that matter.

And well, you aren't certain what city/state I actually live in vs do
business in. For all you know, I'm doing business in multiple states in
this region.

Am I close snit? Truth be told snit, the service I called you with
couldn't even provide you a city or state on me. Your caller ID wasn't
provided any information by your carrier, because, your carrier wasn't
provided any information to pass along to you.

Which is why you're playing blackout with ALL of the details you claim
it provided you. A city/state would have been harmless information to
go ahead and share, if your caller ID information was valid and wasn't
edited by hand, that is. But your problem is, you can't risk taking a
guess and being wrong...So, you must wait for me to give you enough
information to make your efforts more believable.

Otherwise, why hold back anything except the number itself? I only
asked that the number be held in confidence. And what name did your
caller ID claim to have been provided for you? I bet, noname, unknown,
etc. just like everything else.

And you have given me permission to publish the image of it
publicly.

Yep, just keep the number blocked, thanks. I'm very interested in
seeing the other material unblocked though; for obvious reasons.

Remember, you simply are wrong to deny I have what I have. I know
what I have.

I'm not denying you have a way to reach me, snit. I provided it to you,
but your caller ID wasn't able to do that. For the simple reason, I
didn't call you from the number I gave you. I didn't even use a phone
to call you. The service I used and the phone are two completely
different animals which are entirely, unrelated to each other.


Hell, an image is easier to fake than a video so I made a video.
Here is more proof.

Umm, Snit, a video is a collection of still shots. So, it's a bit more
time consuming if editing by hand, but far from impossible; and you
really don't need to edit very many frames in this particular case,
since it's pretty much static. You really should stop playing people
for stupid. Not just myself, but the others who are reading this
between us. Anyone who's ever used the online/voip services knows your
full of ****, Snit.

But even if you admit it, you have ALREADY given me permission to
post that image with your blocked information removed -- your
phone number and the listed city / state.

Let's be clear about this. At no time did I give you permission to
publish the number I gave you in confidence. While I cannot stop you
from doing so, I will just tell you this and leave it at that: Your
actions will have dire consequences for you.

I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied it listed your name.
Please TRY to understand what you read.

It didn't provide you anything, because it has nothing to provide you,
Snit. Stop playing dumb about voip technologies. I'm sure you're
familiar with various kinds of them. They don't all provide ANY caller
id information. And it would be impossible for any voip to 'share' the
same number as the one assigned to my cell phone by it's carrier. I
could do call forwarding or something along those lines with it, but
the two technologies can't "share" the same phone number.

One is a cell, the other (the one I used to call you) is voip
technology, like dialpad was when it was new and free. It didn't
provide caller ID information either, Snit. They are not related, they
are not tied together in any way shape or form. They don't even know
each other exists, Snit.

So, the only way your caller ID pic/video could have a number on me
(the same number as the one I gave you no less) is if you added it,
after the fact. Same with the city/state you blacked out, but claimed
it provided you.

Why do you insist on claiming untrue things are true?

Snit, I know what I used to call you with. I know it's impossible for
it to have been able to give you any details for caller ID, because it
doesn't have any details to transmit for caller ID. I don't know why
you'd go so far out of your way to lie about this, but, that is what
you're doing here.

And, I know you're pretty good with video editing. I found a very
interesting and quite funny one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYqMGjGiqHg

I'm a fan of Dr Who myself. And, I don't know how you did that. Wanna
share the secret? I suspect it has to do with an overlay, but, video
editing isn't one of my strong points, and certainly not special
effects like you demonstrated there with the Tardis.

It's possible that it wasn't your wife who answered the phone; I won't
claim for sure it was, because, I don't know. It seemed a little odd to
me, though. I'm not going to go into specific details as to why I
thought it was you pretending to be your wife - because despite the
fact you do think I'm trolling you, and are otherwise out to get you;
I'm not, so I won't share my theory concerning why I made the
accusation. I'll simply apologize for having made it. You catch enough
strife with the **** you do already, I'm not going to add to it.

[snip]

How about I just share your information, your wifes information,
and for good measure, your kids information, via .nfo file
release as I did with David. To be clear, you haven't asked for
this, nor have I stated I would actually do so.

I give no permission for you to do anything of the sort.
The fact you have given me permission to release information is
not a tit-for-tat agreement. I cannot stop you from doxing me, but
I absolutely give NO permission to do. Ever.

I've given you permission to go ahead with your hole digging by
unblocking the caller name, city and state, Yes. I can't stop you from
disclosing the phone number to David, I can just tell you that you'll
regret the decision if you make that one. Make no mistake, I'm not in
any way threatening you, I'm just telling you, straight up; if you wish
to violate the small amount of confidence I've placed in you, I can't
very well stop you from doing so, but I can make you wish you didn't.

I do hope I'm as clear as I can possibly be concerning this, Snit. As,
I'd really rather not have to go through all the motions. What was done
to David was an exception, rather than the norm snit. And, it didn't
happen right away; he was given two years to make things right, he
opted not to do so, so he got what he had coming to him.

--
Drive C: Error, (A)bort (R)etry (I)gnore (K)ick (S)cream

On Aug 11, 2020 at 10:36:45 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

Snit
Tue, 11 Aug 2020 02:44:20 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

A date and time stamp? C'mon dude, I'm not denying that you have
a date and time stamp. I'm denying that you got my name, or a
phone number, or even the correct city/state from your caller ID.

Does not have a name but it most certainly has a phone number and
a city and state. They may or may not be accurate, though the
number matches the one you gave me.

The number has obviously been inserted by yourself, then.

Nope. You really do not get the idea that call records actually record what
calls you get.

https://ibb.co/5jv8X2x

https://youtu.be/_w36vBolA8I

Remember, I am not saying you COULD not block that info, I am noting you DID
NOT.

And you have given me permission, publicly, to post the image with your number
showing.

As I told you
when I spoke with you, I didn't use a phone device. It has no number.

You also lied about me sounding like my wife and much more. Your lies are of
no interest to me. The number is there and you gave me permission to post it.

Maybe I will. Maybe I won't. The amount you troll me will help me decide.

Just stop lying.

....
The
ONLY way the number I gave you over the phone is in the pic/video is if
you took the time and effort to manually insert it.

Nope. Not in the slightest. Apparently you do not understand the tech you are
using.

....
How about I just share your information, your wifes information,
and for good measure, your kids information, via .nfo file
release as I did with David. To be clear, you haven't asked for
this, nor have I stated I would actually do so.

I give no permission for you to do anything of the sort.
The fact you have given me permission to release information is
not a tit-for-tat agreement. I cannot stop you from doxing me, but
I absolutely give NO permission to do. Ever.

I've given you permission to go ahead with your hole digging by
unblocking the caller name, city and state, Yes.

You made up the part about the name. It shows a number and a city / state. No
name.

But your reading comprehension is not very good. So be it.

But thank you for the permission. If I actually do it you will play victim.
Count on it. You will continue to tell your lie about my call records not
showing that info:

https://ibb.co/5jv8X2x

https://youtu.be/_w36vBolA8I

Easy to unblur the parts I blurred on the video. Easier to post the full image
(other than my number).

And you have given me permission to do so.


I can't stop you from
disclosing the phone number to David, I can just tell you that you'll
regret the decision if you make that one.

You gave me direct permission but now say I will regret it if I do as you said
I could do.

You have a HUGE comprehension problem here! Perfect example!


Make no mistake, I'm not in
any way threatening you, I'm just telling you, straight up; if you wish
to violate the small amount of confidence I've placed in you, I can't
very well stop you from doing so, but I can make you wish you didn't.

How the hell is it violating your confidence to do what you said I could and
yet, given how I know you have significant challenges understanding the tech
you are using, I am still NOT doing what you said I could?

For crying out loud you play victim a whole lot! If you did not want to give
me permission why would you give it? Then why cry about it?

I do hope I'm as clear as I can possibly be concerning this, Snit.

Su you screwed up and gave me permission to do something you do not want me
to do so now you are posting threats. This only inspires me to post the image
you SAID I COULD.

You gave permission. Stop crying about it!


As,
I'd really rather not have to go through all the motions. What was done
to David was an exception, rather than the norm snit. And, it didn't
happen right away; he was given two years to make things right, he
opted not to do so, so he got what he had coming to him.

Make things right? You do not even get the basics of the tech you are working
with so you did not know your number was shown in the records. Then you lied
and attacked and threatened.

And STILL I have not shared the image, nor the unblurred video. I am being
extremely kind to you... and you return the favor by playing victim and making
threats.

--
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.

Snit
Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:20:17 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 11, 2020 at 10:36:45 AM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

Snit
Tue, 11 Aug 2020 02:44:20
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

A date and time stamp? C'mon dude, I'm not denying that you
have a date and time stamp. I'm denying that you got my name,
or a phone number, or even the correct city/state from your
caller ID.

Does not have a name but it most certainly has a phone number
and a city and state. They may or may not be accurate, though
the number matches the one you gave me.

The number has obviously been inserted by yourself, then.

Nope. You really do not get the idea that call records actually
record what calls you get.

Snit, I'm well aware of how call records work, thanks. I'm also well
aware of the fact that it's simply impossible for you to have a phone
number that is the same as the one I gave you in your log - I didn't
use the device which has the number assigned to it to interact with
you. I used what is like dialpad was when it was an open beta. They
have nothing to do with each other, they do not even know each other
exist.

So yes, you are lying about your caller ID logs having a number,
especially the same number as the one I provided you. As well, it's
just not a technical possibility. It's not a ****up, it's not a lack
of forgetting to block the number. It's a simple matter of the fact I
DID NOT USE THE PHONE to call you.

https://ibb.co/5jv8X2x

https://youtu.be/_w36vBolA8I

Remember, I am not saying you COULD not block that info, I am
noting you DID NOT.

There wasn't anything to block on this end, Snit. I didn't use a
service or device which has a number of any kind personally assigned
to it. I don't even presently have an account to login to the system.

As I told you, it's very much like dialpad was when it first hit the
scene. It lets you make free phone calls using your pc, over the
internet. It seems to be limited to mostly state based and a little
bit of canada; but it's free, and the voice quality isn't that
bad,imo.

And you have given me permission, publicly, to post the image with
your number showing.

At no time have I done that. I have given you permission to post the
name, the city and state, several times now, though. Why the delay in
releasing that information?

Again, as you continue digging yourself deeper here, Snit, the
service I used to initiate that call with you has no personal
information of any kind on me, and since I used a VPN, it didn't even
know what part of the world I was actually coming to it from.

Which is why it doesn't provide caller ID information when I use it
to call; it doesn't have anything to give. And, it doesn't support
caller ID, so far (it may later when individual accounts become
available?). There's no number to call back when I used it to call
you, that's why I gave you a number to reach me. I already knew if I
didn't do so, you wouldn't have been able to call back, if you wished
to discuss anything else.


As I told you
when I spoke with you, I didn't use a phone device. It has no
number.

You also lied about me sounding like my wife and much more.

Well, I wasn't going to go into this, but...Your voice is.. a bit
high, and the voice that answered the phone seemed initially, atleast
to me, to be increasing the higher notes by a small amount as well as
attempting to fake another accent. Which is why I suspected you might
be screening calls by pretending to be another person when you
answered the phone, initially.

Your lies are of no interest to me. The number is there and you
gave me permission to post it.
Maybe I will. Maybe I won't. The amount you troll me will help me
decide.

When and if you decide to publish something you never had my
permission to share, the answer to the following question will have a
much deeper meaning for you.

Snit, do you know what an .nfo file is?

The
ONLY way the number I gave you over the phone is in the pic/video
is if you took the time and effort to manually insert it.

Nope. Not in the slightest. Apparently you do not understand the
tech you are using.

Oh, but I do, I certainly do. The tech I'm using is entirely
unrelated to the phone which has the number I provided you assigned
to it. It's impossible for the voip technology to give you any number
for me, let alone the same one I gave you, that goes to a cell phone,
snit. ROFL. Just what do you take your audience for here?

But thank you for the permission. If I actually do it you will
play victim. Count on it. You will continue to tell your lie about
my call records not showing that info:

They can't show what they don't have, unless you take the time and
effort to do a little video/pic editing work. Which is the only way
in which you could do it.

Which would explain your lack of wanting to unblur that city and
state. You're stalling, Snit. And, I know it. I bet others have
noticed it too.

I can't stop you from
disclosing the phone number to David, I can just tell you that
you'll regret the decision if you make that one.

You gave me direct permission but now say I will regret it if I do
as you said I could do.

I gave no such thing, Snit.

Su you screwed up and gave me permission to do something you do
not want me to do so now you are posting threats. This only
inspires me to post the image you SAID I COULD.

If by screwed up, provided you a valid number to call back, when I
could have just as easily lied, or refused one outright. Maybe, I
did. Maybe, I didn't. That remains to be seen. But I couldn't very
well screw up with the technology I used to call you, because there's
simply no way for it to provide you any information.



--
It turns out a Chinese food deliveryman who was thought to be
missing, was actually stuck in a Manhattan apartment building
elevator for 4 days.
The man is ok, but the building's owner is charging him $1,500 rent.

On Aug 11, 2020 at 6:49:59 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

Snit
Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:20:17 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 11, 2020 at 10:36:45 AM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

Snit
Tue, 11 Aug 2020 02:44:20
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

A date and time stamp? C'mon dude, I'm not denying that you
have a date and time stamp. I'm denying that you got my name,
or a phone number, or even the correct city/state from your
caller ID.

Does not have a name but it most certainly has a phone number
and a city and state. They may or may not be accurate, though
the number matches the one you gave me.

The number has obviously been inserted by yourself, then.

Nope. You really do not get the idea that call records actually
record what calls you get.

Snit, I'm well aware of how call records work, thanks.

Then stop lying. But here is the thing -- you clearly do not really get how
the tech you are using works, and if you had decent troubleshooting skills you
would test your phone and just call someone and see how your info looks on
call records. Clearly you have not done this. You are showing yourself to be,
at least in this case, an incompetent troubleshooter who is not really good
with tech.

https://youtu.be/_w36vBolA8I
https://youtu.be/xRvaRLlb3b8

Even after seeing these things:

1) You lie and say the call record does not show what it does. You do not
understand the tech you are using. Neither the image nor video are in any way
faked, though I do clearly block out much and the mouse pointer in the video
has been replaced with one that is easier to see. I have updated the video to
make it easier to see where the mouse pointer moves, and the image link as
well because the first one was outdated.

2) You lie and insist when my wife answered your call it was me. We sound
nothing alike and you had no basis for this insane story... all it does is
show you lie by habit.

3) You have given me permission to post the image with your number and
location unblocked, but then say if I do what you repeatedly have said I could
it would somehow go against trust. This shows you do not understand basic
concepts outside of tech, either.

4) You play victim non-stop. You have made various threats saying if I did
what you said I could you would retaliate... suggesting you might do things I
have made clear I do NOT give my permission for.

....
Su you screwed up and gave me permission to do something you do
not want me to do so now you are posting threats. This only
inspires me to post the image you SAID I COULD.

If by screwed up, provided you a valid number to call back, when I
could have just as easily lied, or refused one outright. Maybe, I
did. Maybe, I didn't. That remains to be seen. But I couldn't very
well screw up with the technology I used to call you, because there's
simply no way for it to provide you any information.

As more evidence of your utter cluelessness, it has yet to occur to you that
the phone logs also show a city and state. But not a name, as you repeatedly
claimed as you failed to understand what you read.

In this whole little bit of nonsense:

* You show you do not understand the tech you use, even of phone records.

* You show you are not able to do even basic troubleshooting. If you could you
would have done a quick test and looked at other phone records. Nothing
magical about mine.

* You show you cannot understand what you read, such as when you repeatedly
claimed I said your name was in the phone record.

Why do you do this to yourself?


--
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 Aug 11, 2020 at 10:36:45 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

Which is why you're playing blackout with ALL of the details you claim
it provided you. A city/state would have been harmless information to
go ahead and share, if your caller ID information was valid and wasn't
edited by hand, that is. But your problem is, you can't risk taking a
guess and being wrong...So, you must wait for me to give you enough
information to make your efforts more believable.

Did not see this before (I was looking for a specific comment of yours -- I
generally stop reading your posts below where I reply to them... you babble a
LOT). Sure... I am happy to reveal the city / state. Thank you for asking me
to do so.

https://ibb.co/fpJry4K

Says Johnson CY, TN. I have no clue if that is accurate or not. I did no work
beyond looking at my call log to see that information. I did no searching, no
guessing, no caring. It is merely what the log shows.

I do not care what you THINK about your service. None of that is relevant to
the fact that your number and that city / state shows in the phone records.
Your denials mean NOTHING in the fact of facts.

My guess -- and it just a guess -- is that when you signed up for whatever
service you are using they asked for a number to verify you and that is the
number that is shared. But maybe not. I do not care. Not my job to figure out
what tech issues you are having. But here is what is clear:

https://ibb.co/6D63kkM
https://youtu.be/xRvaRLlb3b8

Even after seeing these things:

1) You lie and say the call record does not show what it does. You do not
understand the tech you are using. Neither the image nor video are in any way
faked, though I do clearly block out much and the mouse pointer in the video
has been replaced with one that is easier to see.

2) You lie and insist when my wife answered your call that it was me. We sound
nothing alike and you had no basis for this insane story... all it does is
show you lie by habit.

3) You have given me permission to post the image with your number and
location unblocked:

Gremlin :
-----
You have my permission to post your caller ID logs, snit.
-----

You have said that if I do what you gave me permission to do it would go
against your trust. Your claim there makes NO sense. I have been overly kind
and NOT done what you have said I could. If you continue to be an ass about it
I very well might, even though I know you do not really want me to do what you
gave written permission for me to do.

4) You play victim non-stop. You have made various threats saying if I did
what you said I could you would retaliate... suggesting you might do things I
have made clear I do NOT give my permission for. This shows you are not a
moral person.


--
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.

Snit
Wed, 12 Aug 2020 02:17:44 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 11, 2020 at 6:49:59 PM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:
Snit, I'm well aware of how call records work, thanks.

Then stop lying.

I'm not. I really don't know why you feel the need to concoct a
totally bull**** story about how you got my number - I provided it to
you. And then have to spend, hours i'm guessing for your creative
video work...I just don't see the point in this.

Btw, David has posted all kinds of addresses on me, they *all* state
Kingsport. As do the articles I offered to share with you concerning
me, Snit. So, you ****ed yourself quite nicely by claiming the call
originated from a city that's more than a few miles down the road. A
city I've never lived in, and rarely do any business of any kind in.
I hate driving in JC traffic; they cannot drive worth a ****, wrecks
on a daily basis on the main roads in that city. And, they have a lot
of one way roads too; **** that ****.

Depending on where you are in Kingsport, VA is closer than Johnson
City would be. I don't live in VA either, though. And, I prefer not
to be caught there for any real period of time. It's a commonwealth
state. TN is not.

Although my cell doesn't have a name to provide when I make calls
with it, it does provide the city and state of Kingsport, TN, snit.
Not Johnson city. And the system I used to call you, I understand
quite well; I've been using them for decades. It doesn't have any
information to provide your carrier. As a result, your carrier has
nothing to give you except for unknown caller.

It's quite clear to me that what another poster recently warned me
about is true. You certainly are quite crafty with video editing.
And, I've little doubt you could do what they claimed with audio too;
but I still think I could catch you with those edits, too.

So, thanks for trying to bull**** as much as you did about this, but
you committed yourself to the wrong ****ing city, Snit. Oops. I did
tell you I was going to be able to prove you were lying, I just had
to wait for you to unblock that city and state for me. Everything
tied to me for the last twenty or so years is and has been Kingsport,
TN related. Even the stalker David Brooks has to agree with this,
Snit; he's been doxing various addresses for years now. ALL
kingsport. And, I don't even deny I live in the Kingsport area.
Nowhere near JC, though.

Not an entirely different city quite a distance from me. I despise
that particular city so much, snit, I'd rather drive an additional
fifty or so miles to another one instead. It's a ****hole. A real,
****hole. It makes Las Cruces, NM look reasonably decent (during the
day) by comparison. Uhh, just don't be walking around too much at
night in Las Cruces, NM; especially in the unpaved road sections. It
wasn't safe when I lived there, sometime ago, and I seriously doubt
that's improved in the least little bit. The gangs there, shooting
wise, would make the new york ones reconsider shooting it out with
them. Seriously, bad dudes...

[snip rest of your fabrications; they aren't worth a response]


--
In case of fire, yell 'FIRE!'

Snit
Wed, 12 Aug 2020 04:03:50 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

If you continue to be an ass about it I very well might

An acceptable risk, and justification for an .nfo greet if you do.
I don't think your detractors have anywhere near as much dirt on you
as that .nfo file will be providing them, but, I do take a great
amount of pride in my work. Nor do I think you quite grasp how many
copies of that .nfo file will become available within hours of being
uploaded to top sites during a batch run...

Would you like to see a few urls to give you an idea of what you can
expect to see for the first phase? And maybe you'd also like to see
the next phase? The second one includes pictures. rofl. Oh, i'm
sorry, I didn't tell you about the phases. I will some other time, if
you'd like to know.

David could tell you all ahout this, if he wanted to be honest with
you concerning me.

How much firearm experience do you have? I know David told you I shot
10k worth of rounds in a single afternoon. What David neglected to
mention was that I didn't do it by myself. I held a shooting day with
some close friends of mine. I purchased 10k worth of 22LR ammo for
various rifles and pistols we all own of that calibre. And we shot
them all. The brass was sparkling everywhere on the ground.

David lies by omission just as easily about me too, Snit. He has for
years now. And let me clear up the issue of how long I've known him,
too.

From:
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 03:18:26 EDT
Subject: Malware and BugHunter

As of today, I have known David Brooks for 13 years now. It's nearly
2021 though, and by 2027 I will have had the misfortune of knowing
him for two decades, officially, if we're both still alive by then.

So, not quite two decades yet, but, closer to two now than it is one.

You really should take me up on the offer to read our entire email
correspondence, Snit. I know you don't trust me, that's fine; but you
really shouldn't be trusting David, either. He's not your friend, and
when you no longer serve a useful purpose to him, you will learn that
too, the hard way. Just like his other former friends did.

He's only supportive of you to a point because you and I have an
issue. An enemy of my enemy is my friend is how David thinks and how
he operates. He didn't come running to your defense when Apd, Ftr,
myself, and Carroll have all called you out for lying about me
concerning the bot, snit. He *only* comments in a positive manner to
you when you've done something he likes towards me. How can you not
be aware of this?

I notice you only ride me for writing negative things about him, but
you're silent on every other thread where others are questioning
things he's said or done, or, as i've done, stating that he made
mistakes and doesn't know what he's doing. Is there a particular
reason you're singling me out?

Or, is it because you aren't interested in those discussions because
you can't really deal with several of us at the same time?

I know you do not really want me to do what you gave written
permission for me to do.

You've been warned. The next move is yours.

you might do things I have made clear I do NOT give my permission
for. This shows you are not a moral person.

My morals are more than likely not inline with yours, snit.
And, I don't see that as a bad thing.

--
'Sex on television can't hurt you... unless you fall off.'

On Aug 12, 2020 at 7:56:33 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

Snit
Wed, 12 Aug 2020 02:17:44 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 11, 2020 at 6:49:59 PM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:
Snit, I'm well aware of how call records work, thanks.

Then stop lying.

I'm not.

I leave open the possibility you truly are completely clueless about how to do
even basic troubleshooting on the tech you have. It would be trivial to do --
call another number you have or someone else you know who has access to their
call records and LOOK.

There, simple.

You can do yourself a HUGE favor and learn a little about the tech you use.

I really don't know why you feel the need to concoct a
totally bull**** story about how you got my number - I provided it to
you. And then have to spend, hours i'm guessing for your creative
video work...I just don't see the point in this.

https://ibb.co/fpJry4K
https://youtu.be/xRvaRLlb3b8

And the new making-of video:

https://youtu.be/xNvMu5fwUxQ

Really, it is a screen recording directly from my phone company and then with
stuff blocked out.

Why can't you understand this simple concept?


Btw, David

David is not relevant. He has not even asked for the number. Your obsession
with him is as sick as Carroll's obsession with me.

....

--
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.

Gremlin wrote:
Snit
Wed, 12 Aug 2020 04:03:50 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

If you continue to be an ass about it I very well might

An acceptable risk, and justification for an .nfo greet if you do.
I don't think your detractors have anywhere near as much dirt on you
as that .nfo file will be providing them, but, I do take a great
amount of pride in my work. Nor do I think you quite grasp how many
copies of that .nfo file will become available within hours of being
uploaded to top sites during a batch run...

Direct threat from you to engage in illegal behavior.

Would you like to see a few urls to give you an idea of what you can
expect to see for the first phase? And maybe you'd also like to see
the next phase? The second one includes pictures. rofl. Oh, i'm
sorry, I didn't tell you about the phases. I will some other time, if
you'd like to know.

You are making threats. All because you don’t understand the tech you use,
are a horrid troubleshooter, and you have written permission for something
you now regret.

David could tell you all ahout this, if he wanted to be honest with
you concerning me.

How much firearm experience do you have? I know David told you I shot
10k worth of rounds in a single afternoon. What David neglected to
mention was that I didn't do it by myself. I held a shooting day with
some close friends of mine. I purchased 10k worth of 22LR ammo for
various rifles and pistols we all own of that calibre. And we shot
them all. The brass was sparkling everywhere on the ground.

David lies by omission just as easily about me too, Snit. He has for
years now. And let me clear up the issue of how long I've known him,
too.

You lie about me nonstop.

....

You really should take me up on the offer to read our entire email
correspondence, Snit.

I don’t care on whit about your actions emails.

I know you don't trust me, that's fine; but you
really shouldn't be trusting David, either.

David is not relevant here. You making threats is. You failing to
understand the tech you use is. You being a crappy troubleshooter is. You
lying is.

....


I notice you only ride me for writing negative things about him, but
you're silent on every other thread where others are questioning
things he's said or done, or, as i've done, stating that he made
mistakes and doesn't know what he's doing. Is there a particular
reason you're singling me out?

He never has thrown the tantrums you do. He has never threaten me. He has
never claimed to understand tech and then shown he can’t even figure out
something as simple as a call log — can’t even test something that simple
himself. He has never given me written permission to do something then
cried about it as you do and made threats if I actually do as he said I
could.

Or, is it because you aren't interested in those discussions because
you can't really deal with several of us at the same time?

I don’t care one whit about your view of David. You lie as easily as you
breathe and have proved yourself not only incompetent and immature but
arrogant and vindictive.

I know you do not really want me to do what you gave written
permission for me to do.

You've been warned. The next move is yours.

Warned not to do whet you gave me written permission to do. Threatened by
you to engage in illegal activities.

you might do things I have made clear I do NOT give my permission
for. This shows you are not a moral person.

My morals are more than likely not inline with yours, snit.

No ****! You lie nonstop. Hell, you claim you add good with tech but can’t
even figure out how call logs record calls! And your troubleshooting skills
are utter crap even as you brag about them.

And, I don't see that as a bad thing.

You screwed up and are throwing a tantrum like a toddler.



--
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.

Snit
Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:23:55 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 12, 2020 at 7:56:33 AM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

Snit
Wed, 12 Aug 2020 02:17:44
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 11, 2020 at 6:49:59 PM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:
Snit, I'm well aware of how call records work, thanks.

Then stop lying.

I'm not.

I leave open the possibility you truly are completely clueless
about how to do even basic troubleshooting on the tech you have.
It would be trivial to do -- call another number you have or
someone else you know who has access to their call records and
LOOK.

Your continued efforts to project instead of explaining how two
unrelated technologies could have given you anything isn't working,
snit. Sorry, but, it's not working. The voip service I used to call
you couldn't give you caller ID data on me. You made up the material
in the video, and it's too late to try and fix it now. You disclosed
the wrong city with your accusation. You took a chance and you
missed.

David Brooks can't even confirm your story is valid at this point
for you, you picked the wrong city. His own dossier on me will
confirm that. Had you waited a little longer, and given him the
chance to give you the right city, or perhaps, read any of the urls
or MIDs i've provided with examples of him trying to dox me, you
would have known which city to use to make your story semi
believable for the newbies atleast.

As soon as I disclosed the fact I used voIP though, it wasn't
necessary to bait you into disclosing the city; I just did that for
good measure. All of the regulars here know how voIP technologies
work, snit. They all know what you're claiming took place couldn't
have. They all know you've been doing some video work on your end.
And by work, I mean to say, that you've been carefully removing all
references to unknown caller as you attempt to create a legitimate
looking entry. And, had you picked the correct city, you might have
outright, been able to snooker newbies who read your post days,
weeks or years from now.

But you didn't. You made yet another false accusation against me,
and this time, you went so far as to try and forge evidence to
support it. Only, you didn't do a good job here. If what you did was
a magic card, it would be considered a misprint and ruled legal for
gameplay in universal versions of the game only. You literally
selected the wrong city for your video work. All that time and
effort, down the drain now.

You can do yourself a HUGE favor and learn a little about the tech
you use.

I know how the tech works. You can do yourself a huge favor in the
future by learning the right city in which your target lives.
There's no getting out of this one for you, snit. You can't even
claim it was some kind of misunderstanding as you've been trying to
do with the bot accusation you made against me. This time, you
****ed up good.


And the new making-of video:

https://youtu.be/xNvMu5fwUxQ

Really, it is a screen recording directly from my phone company
and then with stuff blocked out.

Why can't you understand this simple concept?

I realize that to distract peoples attention, you continue to claim
it's a fresh pull from your telco company. You have several problems
with this ruse you opted to try and pull.

Let's review them.

1) You claimed a voIP system gave you my cell number. it didn't.

2) You claim your caller ID system told you I was from Johnson City.
It couldn't have, as it doesn't know where I'm located.

3) I've never resided in Johnson City. Nothing available via google
searches on me shows any such affiliation. Instead, they all show
Kingsport. Kingsport, snit, Not Johnson city. Had I called you with
my cell, as you're desperately trying to sell here, It would have
shown unknown name, kingsport, tn, and the phone number, unless I
used *67 and I wouldn't bother doing so; I can just as easily use voIP as I did with you instead.

I know you're doing this to distract me, as well as divert attention
away from the lies you wrote about me over the floodbot. It's not
working. Not only am I ripping your latest lies to shreds with ease,
I'm still reminding you of the lies I want the apology for, and i've
provided supporting documentation written by others which supports
the fact you LIED on me.

I'm still asking for that apology about the bot lies you wrote about
me. None of your nonsense off topic side discussion/lying is going
to take my focus off what you did. You lied on me, and I want an
apology for you having done so. I'm going to continue asking for it,
because you owe it to me.

4) To try and recover credibility with your story, your completely
ignoring the fact I know you can do video editing and are somehow
trying to convince others that you couldn't edit the supposed live
pull. I know differently, because you've taken the time and gone
thru great effort now to revise the unknown caller entry you
actually did get with that of my actual information, that you got
from my voice, not the gear you have. You took a lot of time and
effort on this one, It wasn't some quickie as you did with the bot
accusation.

There's no misunderstanding this time around, either. You picked the
wrong city, period. Full stop. Wrong city. You *confirmed* your
videos are not originals. They are heavily modifed to try and sell
your story, but you picked the wrong city, and you can't explain how
that would have happened, can you?

Snit, you do realize that your video is contradicting well known
public knowledge concerning the city and state in which I reside,
don't you? Just how do you explain that?!? The only explanation is
that you've been working on the video, ever so carefully. But, you
didn't do your homework beforehand. You picked the wrong city.

I wonder why David hasn't called you out for that and offered up the
correct one? He's been asking you to hunt in kingsport phone books
(not Johnson city) for a reason. He claimed to know someone who
knows me locally, and once again, that would be kingsport. Which is,
if David is to be believed, what he was told by his supposed friend.

So again, how do you explain why your so called caller ID entry,
that you're claiming to be pulling from your telco has the wrong
city for me?

And can you explain how my cell number would come up on your caller
ID when I was using a vpn and didn't have a logged in account to the
voIP? How is the voIP supposed to give you anything when it doesn't
know anything about me, snit? Why do you continue to avoid that
question, Snit?

How is my cell phone supposedly, as if by magic, somehow tied into
the voIP system that doesn't know me? You do have a number to reach
me at, but, contrary to what you're trying so hard to sell here, it
didn't come via any caller ID entries; because it's simply not
possible. The only way my cell number can be in that call log is if
you replaced the unknown caller information; which is what you have
done, with the number I provided you. Which is what you've gone and
done here.

And just like the lies you wrote about my involvement with the bot,
you're trying to play stupd. Except that, especially in this case,
you aren't playing.

Btw, David

David is not relevant. He has not even asked for the number. Your
obsession with him is as sick as Carroll's obsession with me.

David is completely relevant. He asked you to see if you could match
the number to any computer repair shops in the kingsport area. What
were you supposed to do if you did, other than say yes and disclose
the name of the shop and/or the cell number? You might as well stop
playing stupid concerning David. You know damn well what he asked
for your help in doing. And, just like the clamxav thread, you began
to help him by trying to find my shops listing with the cell.

Neither of you have a legitimate interest in my business. You don't
need me, you have your own business, and there's no financial
benefit for David to use my services, or yours, when he has shops
available to him, several thousand miles closer, no less, to him.

He would very much like to be able to get a valid address on me, or
my business for the purposes of online harassment. It's what he did
the first time around that got him in deep **** with me, and his
information made available to millions of people, world wide. He
tried to dox me because he couldn't hire me to break into two
computer networks for him. His only excuse for his request is that
he was looking out for other people. When I refused his offer of
payment for the services, he opted to try and dox me the first time
on usenet with a gsv of what he thought was my house; because
someone else posted it, in one particular newsgroup, claiming it
was.

David wanted my attention, and that's why he went and did what he
did. David actually has entitlement issues - He practically demands
everything from you short of a stool sample, if you don't want him
to get hinkies about you. Once he gets a hinky, the stalking begins.

I've put up with repeated copyright violations on his part; I filed
multiple DMCA notifications and won them all, snit. I can prove ALL
of this is true, too. And repeated efforts to try and stalk me. Upto
and including his efforts to recruit others to do the same.

Such as this post of his:

MID:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100

From: "David B."
Message-ID:
Do, please, read the WHOLE thread started by Mr Cook - called "Wanna
torrent? " - on the 'alt.computer.workshop' group.

Just *HOW* can I 'hang him out to dry'? (if you catch my drift!)

*** end

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156316302300

You've been caught lying your ass off multiple times. As well as
intentionally violating copyrights of others when it
suits/pleases you to do so. You've also been caught attempting
to hire individuals to hack (crack actually) into various sites
you'd already been banned from. You want others to commit
felonies for your benefit and when they don't, you resort to
trying to blackmail them.

That's not QUITE true. *YOU* are the *ONLY* one AFAICR.

As I've mentioned before, sometimes the end justifies the means.

*** end share one.

Snit, that's a reply that david wrote to me. His only disagreement
with what I wrote was the amount of others he's tried to hire to
crack into those servers. Otherwise, he didn't disagree with a
single thing, and didn't so much as challenge anything else. Infact,
he agreed with everything I wrote, except for the amount of people.

That is the scumbag you're helping who's trying to get real dirt on
me. There's simply no way for you to spin his comments into
something other than what they are.

Do you know Savageduck from rec.photo.digital?

NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 02:49:59 -0600
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.3 (iPad)
Newsgroups: uk.comp.sys.mac,rec.photo.digital,alt.computer.wor kshop,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: 'nospam'
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From: Savageduck
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 02:49:59 -0600

I wrote:
Well, in all fairness, mr Duck, you did at one point mistakenly
assume that David Brooks was a decent enough person; myself and some
other individuals were the problem. I don't know at what point you
discovered that your initial opinion was a little more than off
concerning him, but, better late than never.

The Duck responded to me with:

It is true that I had initially given him the benefit of doubt, and
provided some assistance regarding photo queries he had in
rec.photo.digital, but he could not resist revealing his true nature. So I
figured things out quite quickly. At that point it seemed to me that the
simplest solution was to eliminate him from my Usenet musings, and not to
respond to him directly in any way. That has made Usenet life almost
enjoyable again.

Judicious use of filters/killfile helps, and I suggest that others
suffering from 'Boater Dave' fatigue employ a similat tactic.

Regards,
Savageduck

** end

MID:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=151805918800

I can be trusted to 'shop' you and bring you to justice!
You really shouldn't have used a new signature. Perhaps you'll
refrain from so doing now that I've got one too?

David threatens me with a bigger? doxing.
MID:
al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=152201932100

Would you like me to publish YOUR personal details Dustin? I have
them. They were disclosed to me by a 'friend' who lives in the USA.
Genuine stuff - REAL LIFE info! Just say the word and I'll post same
in all 110,000 plus Usenet groups held by Giganews!

*** end share

Now, I've established without any doubt of any kind what davids
intentions are towards myself and loved ones. I will take any
further effort by you to assist him in searching for me, my
business, or any of my loved ones as you attempting to stalk me and
my loved ones. And I will respond to that in a most unpleasant (for
you) manner.

Whats important to you is important to me - stop assisting david
concerning my location, my business, and that cell number. This
isn't a joke, and a call to your police isn't going to get you out
of this if you continue down this road with me.

Stop assisting David with locating myself or my business, and do not
disclose the number I provided you. I won't ask you again, Snit.

--
'Winning isn't everything, but losing isn't anything.' - Pogo