If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
Diesel wrote:
This is the full version; very long. (thousands of lines, snipped) This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing. *Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince anyone. Pretty-much all that thing does is lie, and then claim that no one can quote it lying. It will read an example of its lying, and immediately ask why you can't show an example of its lying. I'm sure that it will do so, in response to this post. Obviously, that thing's posts are filtered, here. Occasionally, I post examples of its lies, obtained when others have responded to it, in my .sig. -- "This is common in COLA... people see me as more knowledgeable than they do most others... your actions show YOU do." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
chrisv
Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Diesel wrote: This is the full version; very long. (thousands of lines, snipped) This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing. In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an example of. *Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince anyone. My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's true: "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" I've asked him to provide MID(s) to the post(s) that called me out as well as the post(s) where I clarified I merely! had the compiled code to the usenet flood bot that's been making friends in COLA for a long time (so i'm told) and recently introduced itself in alt.computer.workshop, after Snit and some individuals who for various reasons (everyone has Snit lying in common) arrived. When Snit attempted to confuse the issue by spinning it around as a misunderstanding of some kind on my end, that's essentially when the thread I shared relevant contents of here began. As you can see, I provided the MIDs, howardknight bookmark quicklinks, as well as full message bodies. There's no denying that other well known regulars from alt.computer.workshop called him out on it too: Message-ID: Snit wrote: [...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so much to Diesel. Apd responded with this: None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not. *** end snippit 1 Message-ID: Snit wrote this in response to me: It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me. Apd responded to Snit (again) with this: No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was directly related to the topic of the bot code itself. For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has no access to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the accusation and thus he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd still believe he has no access because of what he's been writing about the thing. If I were a gambling man I'd place a very large bet on him having no involvement. *** end snippit 2 As you can see, twice Apd confirms what I accused Snit of doing; that is, to accuse me of something I did not do. Snit has been trying to spin the entire thing into a misunderstanding on my part since I began requesting an Apology for the lies he wrote concerning my knowledge of, access to, and involvement with the bot. Message-ID: Steve Carroll wrote this in response to Apd: Even if you'd not made the accusation It's not *just* an accusation (in an endless stream of them), it's unsupported and clearly made for a purpose in a campaign to convince readers that 'Snit is good, Diesel is bad'. There is *no* way you don't know this, so WTF is the story here? That story doesn't address the fact that Snit is doing what we can all clearly see (even DB sees it, he's only quiet about it because Snit 'supports' his BS). You haven't noticed the lengths that Snit has gone to in order to keep attention focused on the bot? Or his over the top, hard sell that I run it? Or that he's the only person who has tried to seek benefit from it? FromTheRafters responded to him with this: I see it, but I skip most of the bot related posts because I am not interested in such a lame program. *** end snippit 3 Once again, you can clearly see two other people have also noticed Snit lied on me, and is attempting to whitewash it away as a misunderstanding on my part. It's nothing of the sort. Now, you have three people, other than myself, who agree that what Snit wrote isn't true, it wasn't ever true. Snit did infact make a series of unfounded accusations towards me when he wrote this: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100 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. ----- So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My guess: he will NEVER say. ** end And the thread contents I shared with this new topic all address every single thing he wrote, in considerable detail. Snit *LIED* on me, and I think at this point, he knew he was lying when he wrote the **** he did! I don't even think it was a misunderstanding on his part at this point. I believe he did it intentionally and just didn't expect or anticipate that I'd actually come after him for it. Obviously, that thing's posts are filtered, here. Occasionally, I post examples of its lies, obtained when others have responded to it, in my .sig. I'll resume kfing him soon enough. For the time being though, I'm going to expose a few more of his lies he likes to tell - Since he went well out of his way to not only lie on me multiple times, but use the lie to try and troll me on usenet; when I haven't interacted with the illiterate piece of ****e for days. He just doesn't learn to leave people be. Atleast, not quickly. -- 'Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something' .--Pancho Villa's last words (really!) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
Snit
Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:03:16 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote: chrisv wrote: Diesel wrote: This is the full version; very long. (thousands of lines, snipped) This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing. All those unquotable lies. Notice how Diesel offers just endless babbling and no evidence as he spams many groups. evidence? babbling? Oh, lemme help you out here. chrisv Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Diesel wrote: This is the full version; very long. (thousands of lines, snipped) This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing. In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an example of. *Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince anyone. My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's true: "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" I've asked him to provide MID(s) to the post(s) that called me out as well as the post(s) where I clarified I merely! had the compiled code to the usenet flood bot that's been making friends in COLA for a long time (so i'm told) and recently introduced itself in alt.computer.workshop, after Snit and some individuals who for various reasons (everyone has Snit lying in common) arrived. When Snit attempted to confuse the issue by spinning it around as a misunderstanding of some kind on my end, that's essentially when the thread I shared relevant contents of here began. As you can see, I provided the MIDs, howardknight bookmark quicklinks, as well as full message bodies. There's no denying that other well known regulars from alt.computer.workshop called him out on it too: Message-ID: Snit wrote: [...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so much to Diesel. Apd responded with this: None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not. *** end snippit 1 Message-ID: Snit wrote this in response to me: It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me. Apd responded to Snit (again) with this: No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was directly related to the topic of the bot code itself. For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has no access to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the accusation and thus he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd still believe he has no access because of what he's been writing about the thing. If I were a gambling man I'd place a very large bet on him having no involvement. *** end snippit 2 As you can see, twice Apd confirms what I accused Snit of doing; that is, to accuse me of something I did not do. Snit has been trying to spin the entire thing into a misunderstanding on my part since I began requesting an Apology for the lies he wrote concerning my knowledge of, access to, and involvement with the bot. Message-ID: Steve Carroll wrote this in response to Apd: Even if you'd not made the accusation It's not *just* an accusation (in an endless stream of them), it's unsupported and clearly made for a purpose in a campaign to convince readers that 'Snit is good, Diesel is bad'. There is *no* way you don't know this, so WTF is the story here? That story doesn't address the fact that Snit is doing what we can all clearly see (even DB sees it, he's only quiet about it because Snit 'supports' his BS). You haven't noticed the lengths that Snit has gone to in order to keep attention focused on the bot? Or his over the top, hard sell that I run it? Or that he's the only person who has tried to seek benefit from it? FromTheRafters responded to him with this: I see it, but I skip most of the bot related posts because I am not interested in such a lame program. *** end snippit 3 Once again, you can clearly see two other people have also noticed Snit lied on me, and is attempting to whitewash it away as a misunderstanding on my part. It's nothing of the sort. Now, you have three people, other than myself, who agree that what Snit wrote isn't true, it wasn't ever true. Snit did infact make a series of unfounded accusations towards me when he wrote this: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100 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. ----- So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My guess: he will NEVER say. ** end And the thread contents I shared with this new topic all address every single thing he wrote, in considerable detail. Snit *LIED* on me, and I think at this point, he knew he was lying when he wrote the **** he did! I don't even think it was a misunderstanding on his part at this point. I believe he did it intentionally and just didn't expect or anticipate that I'd actually come after him for it. *Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince anyone. Again with the unquotable lies. Some are in this reply, above. Along with quotes from several other regulars from alt.computer.workshop calling your accusation for what it is, an accusation; not a misunderstanding, but an accusation, made by you against me about the usenet flood bot that bothers people unable to use a filter in various newsgroups. Pretty-much all that thing does is lie, and then claim that no one can quote it lying. It will read an example of its lying, and immediately ask why you can't show an example of its lying. I'm sure that it will do so, in response to this post. Notice: no example. Provided above. Extensively, provided above. Obviously, that thing's posts are filtered, here. Occasionally, I post examples of its lies, obtained when others have responded to it, in my .sig. Nope. As everyone can see, as much as you wish they didn't, what Chrisv wrote about you is true, and this reply also confirms it with examples. g Groups restored, Snit. you aren't going to hide. you lied on me, and, I want an apology for what you did. It's as simple as that. -- Justice is incidental to law and order. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
On 24/07/2020 08:13, Diesel wrote:
chrisv Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Diesel wrote: This is the full version; very long. (thousands of lines, snipped) This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing. In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an example of. *Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince anyone. My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's true: You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-( |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 07:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote: chrisv Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Diesel wrote: This is the full version; very long. (thousands of lines, snipped) This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing. In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an example of. And that is how snit sets up his snit circus in whatever group he happens to be attacking ATM. At first snit seems harmless enough but it doesn't take long for him to start his trickery combined with dishonest snipping, mis-quoting, and pathological lying. This is what turns decent groups into chaos where snit is the topic of choice and is at the center of attention, like a ringmaster in a circus. And this is snit's goal and has been from the day he appears in a given group. This is why ignoring snit from day one drives him to crawling up the walls. He will run this circus, adding rings as needed, until it begins to run out of "gas" at which point snit will shift into "mode 2" in order to keep the chaos alive. What is mode 2? Glad you asked eyeroll. Mode 2 is where snit will suddenly "discover" that he made a minor error and misread something his current victim (that's you) wrote. At this point snit will offer a half assed apology for his "unintentional mistake". If the victim is foolish enough to fall for this ruse, and some have, snit will make sure to plaster all over the group comments such as "victim and I reached a solution to our petty disagreement, and I commend him for admitting we were both wrong on this". Notice how snit drags his victim into the admission of a mistake being made so IOW snit AND his victim both screwed up. This is very important. Snit being the extreme narcissist that he is has never been capable of admitting that he is solely to blame for some error being made so he attempts to convert it into a group error so that the blame is shared. Watch for it, because after snit tires of his current rainman routine, he will shift to the profuse apology routine, Mode 2. You can bet your left testicle on it. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:14:12 -0400, James wrote:
If the victim is foolish enough to fall for this ruse, and some have, snit will make sure to plaster all over the group comments such as "victim and I reached a solution to our petty disagreement, and I commend him for admitting we were both wrong on this". Both Alan Baker & Snit are characterized as Dunning-Kruger Quadrant 1: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrQGXxKXcAAFaVt.jpg They "self assess" far (far) far greater than their actual knowledge level: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxL91TTWwAAC6Am.jpg I've been on Usenet as long as anyone here (decades), where, given I use vi/telnet/dictionary scripts as my "reader", it's difficult to plonk, and yet, the only people I've ever had to killfile, are Snit, & Alan Baker. https://www.skepticblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Dunning-Kruger.png There is no distinction between the two based on what they post. o Neither has ever added one iota of value to Usenet in their entire lives. Both Alan Baker and Snit are all confidence, and literally zero knowledge: https://scanfoam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/adpativeDKblog3.jpg Here's an example of Snit's idiocy, for example, where he didn't even LOOK at the Y axis before proclaiming (literally in over 200 posts!) that he had a solution (clearly he doesn't know a decibel from a megabit!)... o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/qSXecrnZAQAJ Snit even stooped to publishing this hilarious video about his "genius": https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo Yet, Alan Baker is as Dunning Kruger Quadrant 1 as is Snit, IMHO... o I just belatedly realized why adults can't communicate with Alan Baker & Snit - because they're too far to the left on the Dunning-Kruger scale https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MwtyT7BdxF4 Here's proof, for example of how fantastically stupid Alan Baker is, where I estimate Alan's IQ to be no greater than 50 based on what he writes: o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo Both are clearly Dunning Kruger far to the left of Quadrant 1: https://eclecticlip.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/dunning_kruger_effect.png -- Only 2 kinds of people post to Usenet - those who add value; & those who can't. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
On 2020-07-24, David_B wrote:
On 24/07/2020 08:13, Diesel wrote: chrisv Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Diesel wrote: This is the full version; very long. (thousands of lines, snipped) This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing. In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an example of. *Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince anyone. My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's true: You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-( Compared to Snit his name is gold. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
David_B
Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:18:17 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 24/07/2020 08:13, Diesel wrote: chrisv Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Diesel wrote: This is the full version; very long. (thousands of lines, snipped) This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing. In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an example of. *Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince anyone. My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's true: You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-( Heh. When you seperate the truth from the bull**** written about me, David, I actually have a pretty decent rep on both sides of the fence. If you had bothered to do a little more researching of me (er, stalking, but I digress) you wouldn't have sent the first email trying to con me into cracking into machines you didn't own or have permission to give me to do on your behalf. When you told me that you thought it was perfectly okay for me to break various federal and state laws for you, I nearly fell out of my chair. I actually went back and read that post several times before I actually responded to you about the contents. I was dumbfounded - to read that you finally admitted you did try to get me to break various laws by cracking into gear you didn't own or have any rights whatsoever to. I didn't expect to see you do that in my entire lifetime. If anyone were to compare me to yourself, or even Snit for that matter, and include all of the blackhat things I've done since I was a single digit age kid, It would be clear of the three of us, you two are much bigger piles of **** by comparison. You both lie and steal, and despite the things I've done as a blackhat in the past, most people hate liars and thieves much much moreso than they ever did a hacker, regardless of hat color. David, I've done some really low down, ******* things in the past. So, that's quite a comparison for me to be making. Yet, despite all of that, a liar and a thief are still two of the top ten hated most kinds of people, world wide. Even a former blackhat such as myself pales by comparison to the two of you. Do you remember those replies of yours, David? Or were you drunk at the time of writing them? Go ahead, claim you have no idea what I'm writing about, you know what the response to that is going to be. G You would have known that I wouldn't have done the job for you. You would have saved yourself considerable time and embarrassment down the road. You wouldn't have tried to dox me into doing it for you, either. And, as a result, Your information wouldn't be anywhere near as easy to get as it is these days. It would still be mostly, aside from your website registrar ****up, safe. -- If in doubt, make it sound convincing. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
Snit
Fri, 24 Jul 2020 07:46:43 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Diesel wrote: chrisv Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: [big snip] I'll resume kfing him soon enough. For the time being though, I'm going to expose a few more of his lies he likes to tell - Since he went well out of his way to not only lie on me multiple times, but use the lie to try and troll me on usenet; when I haven't interacted with the illiterate piece of ****e for days. He just doesn't learn to leave people be. Atleast, not quickly. I suspect you will run off crying when you realize your tantrum is not getting you the type attention you crave and you finally realize I will not lie for you, even to get the peace I want. Snit, you could have done some significant snippage there. Ah well. You seem to be suffering from a rather huge misunderstanding here. I don't want you to lie for me (again); Rather, I'd prefer you didn't continue doing so. I'd also appreciate an apology for the completely bull**** (as in pulled straight from your arse) story you wrote concerning my involvement with the super lame bot that's flooding various newsgroups and annoying only those who are unable to filter it for a variety of reasons. The lie is annoying, granted, but the actual irritation aspect is that you went and tried to associate me with such a **** poor example of programming. *That* is what I really take issue with. The lies are just icing on the cake in terms of determining your character, without outside attempts to influence my decisions/opinions of you. I too know what it's like to have enemies Snit, so, I've continued to try and avoid tainting my view, or allowing it to be tainted by persons other than yourself. That's why I still continue to interact with you...If I had no actual interest in you, I would have just opted to ignore you awhile ago. I've already proven that you wrongfully accused me, it doesn't matter that you continue trying to deny it, or pass it off as some kind of misunderstanding. You weren't succesful in conning anyone of importance to me with it - and I was/still am able to show that by providing posts from them backing up what I wrote; that you made an accusation against me that you didn't support in any way shape or form. You are not the honorable person David seems to think you are, atleast, not in all ways. Especially, not with me. You have a remarkably different attitude towards me; and you've essentially had it since you first arrived in this newsgroup. When another individual, or in this case, a series of individuals tells you the same thing as myself, you respond to them in a completely different manner. I couldn't help but notice that Joel has a tendency for doing that here as well. And, like you, specifically towards me an attitude; but if the same thing is provided by another person, a thank you is provided to them; not a 'how do you know? I don't believe you, etc" response as I get. I'm confident that Joel and yourself are actually not one in the same people, but, I don't get why the both of you have the same general attitude towards me (which isn't all that pleasant) and have essentially done so since you both first arrived. Yet, as I wrote, you both display an entirely different attitude to almost everyone else, even if they tell you the same damn thing I did previously. What is the deal with that? But until then keep begging me to lie. It has a certain level of comedy to it. I just worry for you. I sincerely hope you are okay. Heh. I haven't begged anyone to do anything for me since I was in elementary school, Snit. The most I can do is demand an apology for the unfounded accusation you wrote about me concerning the lame as **** all bot that is easily filtered by anyone who can make use of a real client/nntp provider, or, can do a little scripting. Granted, I do find your weak as **** replies to have some comedic value, but, let's be frank; you're no George Carlin, or Rodney Dangerfield. You wouldn't even make for a suitable Andrew Dice Clay and that's a fairly low standard if you think about it. I think it's safe to say at this point that you'll just continue trying to jerk myself and others around concerning what you do/don't do. So, with that in mind, you may have the last word here as well. Just don't confuse that as to mean I've surrendered - I've accepted that I've more than made my point concerning your authenticity, your integrity, and your actual honesty - all as a matter of searchable public record for years to come. In your case though, I didn't find anything new; I've only added to what's already known about you, and by that, I mean contributed nothing more than a few more examples of you lying, getting caught lying, and trying to weasel your way out of it. I've gained very little considering the time spent. Perhaps those in charge of the snitlist will include some of your rather funny replies to my questions, then. That would be rather amusing. A positive contribution after all; so as not to make my time spent responding to your nearly illiterate ass completely wasted. -- Don't get stuck in a closet -- wear yourself out. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
On 24/07/2020 13:14, James wrote:
And this is snit's goal and has been from the day he appears in a given group. You may be interested to learn that I INVITED Snit to join me here. Our views on many things differ, be he's a straight-forward and honest family man who has helped me in so many different ways. :-) What about you, James? Where have YOU sprung from? Interestingly, you only the second other person I've ever met online who uses blocknews.net as their newsserver. It's very good, isn't it? Tell me how you know Snit so well? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
On 24/07/2020 13:59, Diesel wrote:
David, I've done some really low down, ******* things in the past. Yes, Dustin, you have. The saddest thing of all, though, is that you show no remorse for doing them. :-( |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
Snit
Fri, 24 Jul 2020 17:07:14 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: [snip] You have been spending significant time writing 10,000 words or more a day as a part of your tantrum. I am not going to read all of that, no less respond to it. I'm impressed that you'd actually take the time in your busy day to count the amount of words I used in a post. I don't. As far as any tantrum is concerned, uhh, no, I've just wasted months now effectively, asking for an apology that you owe me for some lies you wrote about me. Three specific lies, if we were counting. I'm not including the other far more petty ones you've written since your arrival. I just want an apology for these: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100 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. ----- So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My guess: he will NEVER say. I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output - atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the "compiled code". Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation. You were very specific in the way in which you worded your post there Snit. Words do have meaning, clarified, and called out especially so. Where are the posts which support what you wrote, Snit? Keep in mind, I am not nearly as interested in you as you are in me. You're interested enough in me to lie about me, and latch onto posts David Brooks writes which also contain lies so that you can attack me again. You also tried to bring up the old ascii discussion - all because the instructions for AZ encoding/decoding process was too complicated for you to understand by reading it, so you decided to attack me for being specific about the codepage. You went out of your way to makeup a completely bull**** story about me (it's provided above), so don't lie further and claim you have no interest in me. You clearly do. And I already know that by comparison, you feel so inferior to me, you debate on sucking a 12ga off, if you could get someone to loan you one. This is another concept I suspect will simply go over your head. Nothing you've written, at any point in time so far, has gone over my head. It hasn't even gone above my knees. You again, give yourself far too much undeserved credit. Yet you keep begging me to claim -- which would be dishonest -- to agree with you. For me to do so would be to lie. Uhh, no. I'm not begging you, and I don't need you to agree with me. What I need for you to do, is stop writing lies like below (and above) about me, and apologize for this particular set that you already published. http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100 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. ----- So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My guess: he will NEVER say. I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output - atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the "compiled code". Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation. You already *lied about me*. What I want, is an apology. You *need* me to lie for you to be comfortable. Can you figure out what that says about you... no inflection needed? Umm, no. What I 'need' is for you to stop lying, and apologize for the ones you already wrote and have failed to be able to pass off as the truth. It doesn't say much good about you when you're unable to accept responsibility for what you went out of your way to do. The amount of energy you've spent trying to turn this into a misunderstanding where I'm entirely responsible for it is amazing, considering how insignificant your lies are at the end of the day. Fact remains, you went well out of your way to write that as part of your combined trolling efforts with David Brooks. You just didn't expect me to call you out for it, or make a "big deal" out of it. If it was the first time you pulled such **** here, I probably would have ignored it as I do many of your other nonsense posts, but, since you already lied about me in another discussion, I decided not to ignore this particular set of them. trying to jerk myself and others around concerning what you do/don't do. So, with that in mind, you may have the last word here as well. I suspect that is yet another lie of yours... you will continue to spam many groups with your trolling of me. I do not think you can help yourself. Snit, Do you know what the definition to spamming is? I ask because, this is the second time that I'm aware of where you've made the accusation and I've found nothing in my posts to support it. So, do you know what spam actually means in this context (I'm thinking you don't) or do you and are just electing not to use the right word for google ****ing purposes? Don't you find it odd that with all your claims of my being dishonest you have failed to find an actual quote where I have done as you accuse? I didn't fail to find anything. I found three specific ones right he http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100 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. ----- So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My guess: he will NEVER say. I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output - atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the "compiled code". Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation. I do have more, but they're more insignificant than these. And, well, what's the point. A liar is a liar, after all. And if you're going to lie about stupid **** like this, as you've done, and then spend months avoiding issuing an apology, it's no far stretch then to dismiss you as a liar. I've gained very little considering the time spent. I did tell you some time ago your tantrum would not really get you what you want. Glad you have come to realize I was right. ROFL, You misunderstood, Snit. My goal has never really been an apology; I knew that you'd never be able to admit you did something wrong and accept responsibility for it. I wasn't sure if everyone else in acw knew that about you or not already, and I wanted you to show them for me. So, I caught you in a rather nice collection of lies, a little totally bull**** story you wrote as a matter of fact, and, I asked you for an apology. As if by magic, you did not let me down; you did exactly what I "predicted" you'd do; show your true colors to everyone here, so bright, there's absolutely no ****ing way they wouldn't see what you were doing. And no, Snit, before you even try it, we'll go ahead and snip that one in the bud right now. I didn't manipulate you or anyone else by doing what I described above. I had my suspicions concerning you already, and I did nothing more than yet you do your thing. If anyone was turned off by you as a result, that was all entirely of your own doing. It's not nice to lie about others, and especially rude to continue trying with the lie when you've been caught and an apology is asked for. You tried the misunderstanding routine already, it didn't work. Apd, Ftr, Myself, Carroll and another all called you out, all of us took the time to explain (by dumbing it down further) what I was writing about. You dismissed us all with "I disagree"; as if you know what I meant by what I wrote better than I would. It's very odd, Snit, that everyone would agree with me concerning what I wrote, but we're the ones who had the misunderstanding. Perhaps those in charge of the snitlist will include some of your rather funny replies to my questions, then. That would be rather amusing. A positive contribution after all; so as not to make my time spent responding to your nearly illiterate ass completely wasted. Are you STILL denying Carroll is manipulating you? LOL! There you go again, Snit, making more claims you can't support. In other words, lying that much more. Are you proud of the contents of that list? It's full of comments written about you, and/or to you by other people you've interacted with on usenet. I know several of the individuals on that list, too. Some I've known for over two decades. You can't tell me they all misunderstood you when they wrote those things about you, Snit. Fact is, and you're showing us it's true on a daily basis now, you *are a lying troll*. No question about it at this point. You've provided far more evidence to prove what I just wrote about you that it's not even close to funny, and there's not even any room for conjecture. Even if we dismissed, say, 80% of the contents of the snitlist, the remaining 20% combined with your actions since you arrived in acw would just restore the value of the aforementioned, missing 80%. There's no way you aren't what you've been described as being by so many people, now, at this point in time. Quite simply, if you aren't a troll, many people have gone out of their way, well out of their way in some cases to paint you as one. And I just don't see so many people doing that. Especially some I know. What could they possibly gain by getting together as a large group effort to write lies about you? Why single you out, Snit? You don't have any technical knowledge or skills that another person would be jealous of. If anything, I cringe at the thought of you passing yourself off as a technician offering repair services. People like you,Jeol,Arlen and that wannabe T from ahr are the reason why the average joe thinks all computer repair places will **** them over just like a shady tree car mechanic. Not all of us out there are like you, or the others I mentioned. We actually do know WTF we're doing, we're not 'learning' about it by playing 'mrfix it' with your stuff. And you haven't done yourself any favors, none at all, by playing the part with the way in which you've portrayed yourself here. The unfounded bot accusation you made against me, and your complete and utter failure to issue an apology for having made it, are all marks of a troll. You wrote something which wouldn't be true on a cold snowy day in hell, and when caught, you've done everything you can think of to avoid taking responsibility for the lies you wrote. Again, all the marks/signs of a troll. And, you aren't a very good one, either. -- The world meets nobody halfway. --Charles Lamb |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
Steve Carroll "Steve
Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:55:14 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 2020-07-24, David_B wrote: On 24/07/2020 08:13, Diesel wrote: chrisv Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Diesel wrote: This is the full version; very long. (thousands of lines, snipped) This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing. In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an example of. *Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince anyone. My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's true: You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-( Compared to Snit his name is gold. Ayep. -- 'Your kid may be an honor student but you're still an IDIOT!' |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
David_B
Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:45:49 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 24/07/2020 13:59, Diesel wrote: David, I've done some really low down, ******* things in the past. Yes, Dustin, you have. The saddest thing of all, though, is that you show no remorse for doing them. :-( David, you're lying as poorly as snit does these days. Put some effort into your work to snowjob people concerning me. Atleast pretend like you care one way or the other. You know, for show if nothing else. -- Sometimes the best medicine is to stop taking something. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
David_B
Fri, 24 Jul 2020 13:37:01 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 24/07/2020 13:14, James wrote: And this is snit's goal and has been from the day he appears in a given group. You may be interested to learn that I INVITED Snit to join me here. Our views on many things differ, be he's a straight-forward and honest family man who has helped me in so many different ways. :-) Straight forward and honest? LOL!!! http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100 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. ----- So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My guess: he will NEVER say. I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output - atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the "compiled code". Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation. So why can't he answer my questions, then, David, if he's so straight forward and honest? Tell me how you know Snit so well? Snit has quite the reputation in cola, David. Maybe you should bring yourself upto speed? -- Keep Canada beautiful. Swallow your beer cans. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|