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 |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
Gremlin wrote:
pothead Tue, 01 Sep 2020 22:30:23 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: On 2020-09-01, Gremlin wrote: Snit Tue, 01 Sep 2020 18:50:19 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: I have no issue with that and think I first made that suggestion. Either way, I am fine with that idea -- even a temporary email. ONLY the info Gremlin directly told me I could share, and ONLY with the idea that it is to verify it is tied to Johnson City, which he repeatedly denied. I didn't tell you that you could provide that number to anyone else. Obviously you think this is some kind of game...Congrats on making yet another tactical mistake. Ok, email me the number (you have my address, David emailed us both recently), and I'll use Whitepages - I take it https://www.whitepages.com/reverse-phone will tell me the area. Check your email. So, when you claimed your wife answered the phone, just to be sure I've got the right person; the phone isn't coming back as registered to you, despite it supposedly being your computer business; it's registered to Anne. Is Anne the name of the individual I initially spoke with, snit? Anne is snit's wife who supposedly is a lesbian. I can't say for sure except to say she is a member of some very interesting local groups. That she is. Seems to be quite talkative about family matters as well. Personal family things that don't have business being online where they can be found so easily by people snit has an issue with. Snit, you really should put a leash on your wife. Writing letters to local papers and attending local "support groups" where she gets mentioned is not a good thing when you are trolling up a storm. It's a bit late for that now. We've already archived some interesting discussions, and have left atleast one possibly two individuals at their posts in lurk mode. It's quite possible one or more has been instructed to attempt contact, to become 'friendly' to extract more information down the road. An attempt to infiltrate. Yes yes. I did say this was a multi prong approach, and I've indicated my fondness for the game of chess multiple times now. A game of chess is afoot, snit should be brushing up on the rules of the chessboard, unless he wants to make this an easy checkmate. We're not presently able to determine if snits children are his biologically, or part of a package deal when he acquired his wife from an online meet and greet. We'll keep you all posted as we learn more. G We do not presently recommend that he be teaching anyone how to drive though. He's got four resolved traffic court cases where he repeatedly, can't follow the rules of the road and doesn't carry car insurance. He's not financially responsible. We can currently find no current vehicle insurance on him, in his name. We can't even find proof of ownership of a vehicle in his name, presently. That being said, the two of them are professional parasites. I've gotten that impression by comparing the known criminal record on snit and that of Anne. Btw, the daycare center was shutdown for the reasons I suspected, and an additional reason: it was never licensed by the city or the state as a daycare center at any point in time. And his home wouldn't have qualified in it's present condition. It's not code compliant and the property isn't zoned for commercial use. I don't think his business was ever legal, but it could have been (registered to Anne), results are still incomplete on them. The daycare center for sure was not legal, and they opted to take the ticket rather than obtain the required licensing and rental of commercial property to support the venture. They *could have* despite the property zoning ran it as an in home small business, with a bit of work to bring the place upto code; They opted, for reasons not known, that I am not likely to find via database searching, not to do so. Instead, they closed up the illegal shop, paid a fine and moved on. Did you know he actually did a 30year mortgage on a ****ing mobile home? Insane! His credit was bad at the time he did this, and, it hasn't improved during the time in which he's had the place. I can't even show on paper where he's been making the payments. Someone has obviously, but I suspect it's been his wife. She seems to be the bread winner on paper. I can find a work history on her, nothing to write home about; they're all minimum wage, **** jobs. He could have purchased a small house for what he spent on what he's living in. I cannot find a single record in his name for the computer business he was advertising. The phone number supposedly attached to his computer business is registered to his wife. Going by the floorplans, I'd say it's a pretty tight fight with the amount of persons he has living with him. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the kids are sharing a bedroom. These are the original plans, and I don't know if he's modified the place since 2001 or not. If he has, he didn't submit new building plans for approval before he did it. Snits business was either registered to his wife, like the bills seem to be, except for the mobile home he's still paying on. Or, he ran a completely illegal business that he provided advertising for and accepted calls as if he was a legitimate business of some kind. These results would explain why he was so desperate to try and make it appear as if I ran a completely illegal business; because he actually did. AND, at this point, pending no further information comes forth concerning Anne, she did as well. They have so much respect for other small business owners who typically go into debt in some way shape or form to do it right, and proper, the legal way. Yes, that was sarcasm in the event you had any doubt. He and his wife skip the paper work, and the small initial fees, along with the down payment for x months of commercial insurance. They also avoid paying commercial tag fees for each vehicle used for the business, as well as the commercial insurance rates on those vehicles. And as a result, they opt not to pay any taxes on income they bring in for either business. It's possible I'm wrong on all counts, and if so, I'll apologize when that becomes known. For the time being though, it appears that Michael and Anne both attempted to run for a period of time, two completely illegal 'businesses' even as Michael continues to collect disability. Now, I realize you're allowed to work so many hours per week and still keep all of your benefits. But, if you were working a straight/legit job, that would I feel have shown up in our records searching by now. We're very detailed in what we do. Granted, this is taking much longer than it otherwise would due to the amount of pussyfooting around that we've been forced to do; but that's not within our control and when things were initially decided to begin, the outside issue wasn't a potentially big problem for HHI and a few others. But, that's all up in the air right now. The daycare center and the computer company didn't have a single vehicle registered to them for business use. Neither 'company' showed any assets of any kind on paper that I or my peers have been able to locate so far. It appears, atleast on paper that they both played with being business owners, without going through all of the motions and expenses to actually become business owners. Snit evidently shut down before the state was made aware of his little 'company' that wasn't. Anne didn't fair as well, the state found out about that one and shut her down. Again, for the property not being setup to be what they were doing, and for her not filing so much as a single piece of required paperwork. A daycare center is a little more involved than an electronics repair shop, paperwork wise, and insurance work wise. It's a pain in the ****ing ass, actually. My aunt did it some years back, legally. Made a mint, but the paperwork shuffle she did ever quarter made me question the income. As in, I didn't feel it was enough for that aggravation, it barely covered dealing with the snot nosed potty mouth spoiled little brat kids. He really does see me as his competition, despite the fact it's highly unlikely we'd ever have the same client, ever. His work, according to the legit company with a closely matching name was horrible, when he was actively performing service work. It's why he's projecting so hard concerning troubleshooting skills. Oh, and incidently, my soldering skills are, according to snit 'fair'. As if he'd be a position to reliably judge the condition of my solder joints, right? He could have bought a small house here with an acre or two of land for less than what he still owes on that small piece of property. It's small enough to being actually zoned for mobile home usage. I told you, trying to dox me wasn't a smart decision on your part. I meant what I wrote, Michael. I can't even follow this saga because snit keeps altering his story. Naturally. Supposedly, now, the city is the key to proving he didn't dr any video. Except that, you and I both know damn well he did, and it doesn't matter how much Mike tries to blur and otherwise confuse things with his weak understanding of CID and the issues concerning it. The system I used couldn't very well send snit anything of value for his CID or other call logs. It just doesn't work that way, contrary to what mike mistakely thinks has taken place here. And it sure as hell wouldn't have sent my backup burner cell number in the event it could send something for CID purposes; but that would require me being able to login to it, so it could identify me as opposed to someone else also using the service, from another part of the ****ing world, no less. And of course snit "conveniently" loses important to the discussion papers which I suspect he will find rising from the dead like Lazarus. Ayep. And of course, snit tried the, we must be talking about two seperate numbers; since the one I have is from Johnson City. As I've already explained, and he's already shown, it's entirely possible that he already ran the number through those sites he's mentioned, determined it comes up as Johnson city, and used it for his video. So, when I called him out on it, he thought he saw an opportunity to dox me, under the guise of simply proving himself as being accurate. This type of behavior is typical snit. When he was trolling COLA and CSMA he would always seem to have these convenient friends appear and start posting to back him up. Of course they were snit socks. Such as the one that created a new thread, bashed on snit a little bit, and advised that I give up and slink off; and accept Snit as the winner? Yea, I caught on. Larry Washington was one. Onion Night was another. Jeremy who works in Walmart's computer section is another. Now, this I do find very interesting. I recall having several conversations with a long time usenetter who was known as Jeremy irl that happened to work at Walmart, if i'm not mistaken, in the electronics dept. Damned if I could find any support work history on snit to confirm he was employed by them during that time period. I forget what the time limit is for the databases I've accessed, but, I can't find work history on snit for the past ten years. Granted, I'm nowhere near the light at the end of the data tunnel, but I would have expected to see something by now, even a **** job flipping burgers; anything that pulled payroll taxes to uncle sam *should have* shown up. I've confirmed my odd results with my peers as well. We're intentionally using different database access points using different search criteria so we don't double the same workload and so that we're more likely to get everything. So far, none of us can find work history on snit, and we know at some point, he had to work. his home is still filed as a single person, though. rofl. No doubt tax evasion purposes. So, he hasn't had a legit job on paper for ten years or so now, or, we just haven't found anything yet. Or, none of the goto databases for things like this have anything in that section on him; possible, but, not that ****ing likely. Oh and one thing about snit socks is that they don't always support snit. Snit's goal is to disrupt and cause confusion in order to destroy a group so he will unleash anti-snit socks as often as those who support him. I've noticed. Along with snits creative editing of posts when he does respond, and his sometimes, partial information replies. He has succesfully been able to confuse Mike Easter, and whether Mike wants to admit that or not, we've all seen it. At this point, it's obvious that snit is grasping at straws in order to save his reputation, OMG that is a funny! , but he's at the end of his rope so get ready for "the BIG REVEL" which is where snit will suddenly discover something he missed and admit his errors although he will make sure he includes you or whomever his current adversary is in the screw up of it all. If I understand you correctly, should I be watching for something along the lines of this: From: Snit Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,co mp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.politics.guns Subject: Ha! Ads be gone! Date: 27 Aug 2020 16:00:24 GMT Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology Message-ID: References: op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass YyRp XnsAC1EBCDBAAD5EHT1@0ydV5Cg6OLqWT90unHZ34QVT6yqk8 KnKb.nd I did incorrectly say he had not asked me to "research" or whatever -- not considering such a quick look to really count. But from your perspective, I suppose, where doing a quick search on a list is not completely trivial, it counts. Sorry for my error on that. *** end Again, for comparison, this is his reply to me, claiming that what I wrote, was a direct lie, AND that David had done no such thing. From: Snit Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: Ha! Ads be gone! Date: 18 Aug 2020 17:06:20 GMT Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology Message-ID: References: op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass 3WTC373bt67J31gn YyRp On Aug 18, 2020 at 8:49:01 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote: David has asked you to check it against phone book urls he shared with you. This is a direct lie from you. He did no such thing. *** end copy Now, here's exactly what I wrote they did: From: David_B Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 07:19:33 UTC Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:19:32 +0100 Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can read about here? https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-...omputer-stores Message-ID: From: Snit Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !! Date: 12 Aug 2020 07:38:13 GMT Message-ID: References: Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can read about here? https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-...omputer-stores Not there. Message-ID: From: David_B X-Complaints-To: NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:52:23 UTC Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:52:23 +0100 On 12/08/2020 08:38, Snit wrote: On Aug 12, 2020 at 12:19:32 AM MST, "David_B" wrote: Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can read about here? https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-...omputer-stores Not there. OK. Thanks for looking. Please try he- https://www.yellowpages.com/kingspor...omputer-stores Message-ID: From: Snit Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !! Date: 12 Aug 2020 17:44:03 GMT Message-ID: References: On Aug 12, 2020 at 5:19:49 AM MST, "David_B" wrote: OK. Thanks for looking. Please try he- https://www.yellowpages.com/kingspor...omputer-stores 121 results! Sorry there are so many to check. Not a big deal -- just five pages. Did a search for the last four digits... no matches. *** end share I've shown this to Mike as well, and asked him about it. He doesn't respond to that section of my replies to him. He doesn't respond to anything I write about a previous comment he (mike) wrote concerning my bullying david brooks either. he doesn't seem to realize, that sometimes, no answer IS an answer, too. If you fall for his upcoming ruse and back off you will be hearing snit boast about how honest and honorable he is well through 2030. I don't expect snit to change things up and try to brown nose me at this point in time, but, I will be watching for any attempt by him to smooth things over with me in any way, short of issuing those apologies he owes me. If he does that, I can't claim he's just doing it to change the game up, it's what I've been asking him for. Naturally, I'll be very suspicious that he finally forks them over, and I'll ask him about it, but, I can't ride him for doing the right thing for once in his miserable life. You get more wrong than right, but you did provide proof of your efforts to dox 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. |
Ads |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
Snit
Sat, 05 Sep 2020 22:54:02 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Gremlin wrote: Snit Wed, 02 Sep 2020 02:43:23 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: You're a liar, snit. It's not necessary for you to share that number with anyone for the purposes of trying to prove your claim is true, and you know that, too. How else do you propose I allow others to check if the number in my providers phone records, tied to your phone call, is tied to the city you denied it was, at least in some databases (Johnson City)? The fact you actually think you're clever here is astounding. It really is. You're also well aware of the fact that you don't have my permission to share it. Direct lie on your part. You really need to stop with that total bull**** line. You've claimed it, only to have it shot down in flames too many times, snit. You have written permission to share No, I didn't. You've selected what I wrote, out of context, again, just as you did with the bot; and just as you did with the bot, you're attempting to put your own spin on things. From: "Apd" Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: Steve Carroll YT channel Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:32:43 +0100 Organization: ad hoc Message-ID: References: "Snit" wrote: On Sep 2, 2020 at 2:06:27 PM MST, ""Apd"" wrote: I meant your accusation was more than a suggestion. [...] My question (I am not asking you to rehash this!): but why mention that in relation to what one can know of the bot code if it does not even apply to the bot code? It could apply to anything. It was an example of discovery without having something in its originsl form. In response to you saying "One has to see the code" it contradicted that by showing how one /could/ know a program without seeing the source code. Aside from not understanding what was meant, your insistence of him actually having the code because of that example was quite wrong. *** end See snit? You aren't fooling Apd anymore, and I seriously doubt you ever were succesful in snowing him. He isn't buying your repeated bull****. Here's more on the matter: From: "Apd" Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: Steve Carroll YT channel Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 22:06:27 +0100 Message-ID: References: "Snit" wrote: On Sep 2, 2020 at 3:18:18 AM MST, ""Apd"" wrote: "Snit" wrote: On Sep 1, 2020 at 5:56:37 PM MST, ""Apd"" wrote: It all started when you accused him of being in cahoots with SC over the bot code and has escalated since then. I noted HIS comments suggested that. I reckon it was a bit more than a suggestion and there are other issues now. Well, OK. Sure. Taken at face value it is pretty clear he responded to comments about how much he knows about the bot code by talking about what he can know by disassembling the code. That is more than a suggestion. I meant your accusation was more than a suggestion. You can see what he's asking in his posts. I thought apologies were the main concern. But I do NOT agree with him and I will not lie to him. An apology is not a lie. Apologize for what? For thinking he meant the bot code when he responded to comments about the bot code? I am sincerely NOT sorry for saying that, IIRC You accused him of being in cahoots with SC or having the code for some time after the comment was explained. [...] I apologize to, say, Carroll when I make mistakes with him and my honesty is taken as weakness (you are the one who has had to apologize for XYZ so many times). Perhaps consider making fewer accusations. It is not my job to make him stop throwing a tantrum. I could stop responding and see if he fizzles out. If I were unwilling to accede to someone's requests I'd have stopped responding long ago. I rarely accuse anyone of being a troll. But I do often respond to trolling. And I'm saying it's not trolling. "to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content" "To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames ... comes from mainstream 'trolling', a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite". number in my phone provider’s log. You did not specify you had to ADMIT it was there or that you had to understand the technology. Snit, try as you might to paint me out as an illiterate idiot, you're the only one who's having problems understanding things. So much so, others are commenting about it and calling you out, straight up, calling you out for it. The issue is with you, not me, not anyone else, it's you. You're the one who doesn't understand what he reads well. Not anyone else. And David is already on record for wanting to do me harm, if he can. He is not relevant in any way. Yes, he certainly is. And your willingness to provide him information I specifically told you multiple times not to share is relevant. Where the **** do you get off even thinking you get to decide what is isn't relevant to my information? Just who the **** do you think you are? This is how David is relevant, toadie troll: Message-ID: http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=156316302300 In a reply to me, you quoted and responded with: 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 And I've also got one where he's asking people in another newsgroup just how he can 'hang me out to dry'. I'd certainly want someone like that having useful information on me, wouldn't I? dip****. This little game you're playing here is going to cost you snit, it's going to be very expensive for you. There's no ****ing reason I should ever want David to have anything to contact me, **** for brains. It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for me to want him to have access to anything of that nature. The issue he and I have started when he tried to dox me for refusing to accept his job offer to break federal law, the first time around. So yea, he is completely relevant. He's a stalker, much like you. And just like you, made the mistake of thinking he could intimidate me into doing what he wanted done to someone elses equipment. Just like you, he tried to dox me first, and I responded in kind; just as I'm going to do you! Why do you turn a completely blind eye to that? Any particular reason you have such an obvious double standard here, Michael? You claim to have honor and integrity, but you've yet to demonstrate that you even know the meaning to the words. You can't even do the right thing over a simple as **** all lie you got busted telling. You remember the one where you claimed I told a 'direct lie' when I wrote that David asked you to check the number against two phonebook urls. He did ask you, and you did check both. you were attempting to assist David in locating my business, and you foolishly thought you had a number that was associated with my business for the purposes of stalking me. And you're actually arrogant, and stupid! enough to think that nobody other than myself has caught onto what you've been doing here. Newsflash, punkbitch, everybody knows what you've been trying to do. Everybody knows what sort of mess you're making for yourself, and everybody knows what's going to happen to you as you continue with this nonsense. Your obsession You're making things up as you go again, Snit. That's what got you in **** with me in the first place. When you falsely accused me of having the bot in compiled code form, because you didn't understand the subject matter. It went above your head quite fast, but you're far too arrogant and prideful to say "Hold up, I don't understand this; please explain". Yea, you're that much of an asswipe. You can continue denying this is what took place, if you wish, but Apd also called you out for it, and it's very unlikely everyone else, but you, is wrong here, snit. does not impact your permission You never had permission to share the number. And you're well aware of that. You're simply doing what you do best at this point, being a dishonest stalker. nor with your threats to cause me and my family harm. I've made no threats. Despite your repeated attempts to label consequences as something else entirely; it doesn't change reality in the least little bit. For legal reasons, I'm not about to make any threats of any kind towards you. Part of the concept of a proper ****ing snit, is to do it within the confines of the law so that you can also take advantage of the law later for another angle of attack. Another vector, if you will. You have so much to learn, simplesnit. So much to learn. I just don't have another lifetime to spend to bring you upto speed. I've been very careful to ensure I stay within the the boundries of the law, so that I keep legal options on the table for you too. I could enter a courtroom with 'dirty hands' but I want to spend good money, hard earned money and not waste it. I want a chance to nail you to a cross in the legal sense too, so I must ensure that option stays open. I've already checked on the associated costs. G And I'm assured that I've collected more than enough sample data of your posts and resulting activities to do well against you in a civil matter. I've got you dead to rights, actually, on stalking, intimidation, etc. Got you by the balls I do, and your disability check isn't untouchable, either. funds can be pulled from it on a monthly basis until the tab is settled in the event you lose an upcoming lawsuit filed against you, snit. You know that right? Well, if you didn't, you do now. It's more the principle than it ever would be the money. Wouldn't it be nice to see a lawsuit filed against you by me, that you lose coming up in all public records searches for years to come? I think that would be ****ing hillarious, and not something you could explain away, atleast, not easily. That entire honorable and honest thing wouldn't be usable anymore, would it. rofl. [subject snit, that reminds me of a great offspring tune which I will listen to at this very moment! Because, I ****ing can!] "What Happened To You" Before you started tokin' you used to have a brain But now you don't get even the simplest of things I can draw a little picture Or even use my hands I try to explain but you just don't understand Man you're really losin' it And you've really done a lot of junk now But you keep on abusin' it What in the world happened to you It's bad enough you do it to yourself But taking someone with you Well you know that's something else I say I'm not that kind of person I'm not that kind of man I try to explain but you just don't understand I might be sympathetic or cut a little slack If I thought that you were willing to give a little back But you do it in the morning You do it in the night You lie to refrain from just facing your life So I'll see you tomorrow You'll be gackin' up again I'll see you in a coffin by the time your wad is spent I think of all the times that I tried to lend a hand I try to explain but you just don't understand Btw, Snit, There seems to be an issue with our data collection. We can't confirm your masters degrees; at all. Infact, we can't find any education marks on you beyond that of high school. Either the school(s) you attended to get those degrees weren't accredited, OR, you've been lying about having them. I've read some older posts by you that don't claim to have certs, and others which do claim to have them. Based on your paper trail so far, you don't actually have either one. Can you explain this discrepancy? Can you provide the years you obtained these degrees? It's not normal for such information to not come up in these record searches. We're double checking this with another public records database that specializes in education. It's for employers to confirm what someone wrote on their resume is true; they actually do have the degree, license, etc, they are claiming to have. You aren't coming up! in the first one we checked, and that's odd. It's raising eyebrows. Now, unless I've misunderstood what you've written concerning this, you have claimed to have not one, but two masters degrees. One in IS and another in psy. Is that correct, or am I mistaken already? I want to be thorough with you, but entirely truthful. This is your opportunity to correct a possible bad entry which could affect you when/if you apply for a job and claim to have those degrees. Those people will check the same databases as us, snit. If we can't find it, they won't either. Do you understand what that looks like? Since I know you have problems understanding things which are written vs spoken, or provided in a visual manner, it would appear to a prospective employer that you lied on your resume concerning your actual skillset and knowledge level - You went so far as to lie about having a masters degree in either subject is what you're employer is going to be thinking when nothing comes back in that database. That can even make the first employer you bombed the interview with reach out to his local competitors and warn them about you, in advance. Ie:blackballed. No hire, unfit to be hired reputation. You wouldn't want that, it's a career stopper unless you're willing to relocate and try again, by being honest the second time around. If nothing comes back in the other one, dude, you've been blowing smoke about it, the entire time. Unless! You'd be willing to take a pic of them and show us? It's not like they'd be disclosing anything personal at this point. We already know who you are. A masters level degree isn't a little while lie to be telling, if you haven't actually got it. And it's not looking like you do, atleast not so far on paper. I'd be more than happy to eat crow if you can show me otherwise, though. This I consider to be rather important. I asked what you knew about CompTIA A+ exam processes previously, I've confirmed that you don't even have that certification - which is why you couldn't answer any of my questions concerning it... CompTIA has no record of you.. Do you have any certs whatsoever dude? Anything at all? You've been trying to besmirch me for awhile now, but, I've actually got certs that can be verified as legit. What do you actually have Snit? I'm starting to think you've been totally bull****ting about all kinds of things since you arrived here in acw. This is a multi prong response to your stalking, libel, and besmirching efforts snit. I realize you don't have the mental capacity to understand the situation, but others do, and it's for their amusement that I bother explaining all of this to you. I realize you can't benefit in the least little bit from the information I've shared with you, because, thanks to your mom as you tell it, you have serious mental defects which greatly interfere with your ability to hold information as well as understand the information you're provided with. It's starting to look like you've been totally bull****ting since you got here concerning those degrees. And that would explain why you don't know nearly as much as you should, if you actually had a masters in IS. You don't even have a firm grasp of the basics concerning technology. You're a ****ing poseur. I knew some of the **** you wrote wasn't making sense to me, because you kept claiming you had this and that degree, and I just assumed you did, but I continued to question why if you had them, are you having such a time understanding very basic 'tech' subjects here. And then it occured to me, you're bull****ting about those degrees. Atleast the computer one. And so far, it doesn't look like you got either. Which was also an interest of mine; I see how badly you do with txt; with having to read material. There's no ****ing way you could read the required material, understand what you read, and demonstrate an understanding well enough to pass any aspect of the required exams. Your learning disability prevents it. It's quite obvious just by reading replies you've written here on usenet to various people. even Apd pointed it out: From: "Apd" Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: Steve Carroll YT channel Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 10:32:43 +0100 Message-ID: References: "Snit" wrote: but why mention that in relation to what one can know of the bot code if it does not even apply to the bot code? It could apply to anything. It was an example of discovery without having something in its originsl form. In response to you saying "One has to see the code" it contradicted that by showing how one /could/ know a program without seeing the source code. Aside from not understanding what was meant, your insistence of him actually having the code because of that example was quite wrong. *** end Here's another one: *IF* he has the bot code then he is clearly working with the person who makes the bot (or otherwise got the code). Say, in your hypothetical scenario, he was given the code, it could have been because he had asked to see it. There's no implication of "clearly working with the person" at all. From the same post. G And another: From: "Apd" Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: Steve Carroll YT channel Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 22:06:27 +0100 Message-ID: References: "Snit" wrote: Apologize for what? For thinking he meant the bot code when he responded to comments about the bot code? I am sincerely NOT sorry for saying that, IIRC You accused him of being in cahoots with SC or having the code for some time after the comment was explained. [...] I apologize to, say, Carroll when I make mistakes with him and my honesty is taken as weakness (you are the one who has had to apologize for XYZ so many times). Perhaps consider making fewer accusations. *** end See Snit? I'm not the only one who read what you wrote for exactly what you intended for it to be. You were not succesful in being sneaky about it, and I know that's what you were trying to do. You have, as I've said from the jump, LIED on me concerning the bot. You falsely accused me, several times, and continued to do so. That means, you LIED on me, snit. And you've written other lies about me since then. I'm not going to let you off the hook for any of it. I know what you tried doing, and so does everyone else. Nothing you write is going to convince people differently at this point in time, stupid. Lying is something that comes very natural for you, and you appear to have no difficulty writing them. You run into problems after you wrote them and the other person notices and calls you out for it. Again. Here's another simple as **** lie you wrote about me. You went so far as to claim I wrote a 'direct lie' too. What exactly is a direct lie when it's not, snit? How does that work? How do you explain the following snit? From: Snit Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: Ha! Ads be gone! Date: 18 Aug 2020 17:06:20 GMT Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology Message-ID: References: op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass 3WTC373bt67J31gn YyRp On Aug 18, 2020 at 8:49:01 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote: David has asked you to check it against phone book urls he shared with you. This is a direct lie from you. He did no such thing. *** end copy A direct lie is it? Explain this then: From: David_B Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 07:19:33 UTC Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:19:32 +0100 Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can read about here? https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-...omputer-stores Message-ID: From: Snit Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !! Date: 12 Aug 2020 07:38:13 GMT Message-ID: References: Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can read about here? https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-...omputer-stores Not there. Message-ID: From: David_B X-Complaints-To: NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:52:23 UTC Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:52:23 +0100 On 12/08/2020 08:38, Snit wrote: On Aug 12, 2020 at 12:19:32 AM MST, "David_B" wrote: Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can read about here? https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-...omputer-stores Not there. OK. Thanks for looking. Please try he- https://www.yellowpages.com/kingspor...omputer-stores Message-ID: From: Snit Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !! Date: 12 Aug 2020 17:44:03 GMT Message-ID: References: On Aug 12, 2020 at 5:19:49 AM MST, "David_B" wrote: OK. Thanks for looking. Please try he- https://www.yellowpages.com/kingspor...omputer-stores 121 results! Sorry there are so many to check. Not a big deal -- just five pages. Did a search for the last four digits... no matches. *** end share I think maybe you should retire the "direct lie" routine. It's over used, and clearly, not accurate when you claim it. But, I'll humor you; please point out the direct lie you claimed I wrote. Include the MID as well. I maintain I did no such thing, rather, you're the one who's been lying. And I submit the above posts as further proof of my accusation towards you. Any questions? BFG And let's not forget what you wrote for an apology about this: Message-ID: From: Snit Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,co mp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.politics.guns Subject: Ha! Ads be gone! Date: 27 Aug 2020 16:00:24 GMT Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology Message-ID: References: op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass YyRp XnsAC1EBCDBAAD5EHT1@0ydV5Cg6OLqWT90unHZ34QVT6yqk8 KnKb.nd I did incorrectly say he had not asked me to "research" or whatever -- not considering such a quick look to really count. But from your perspective, I suppose, where doing a quick search on a list is not completely trivial, it counts. Sorry for my error on that. *** end Say what? research? quick look to really count? WTF are you going on about now? Sorry for your error? Uhh, no, snit, you should have written that you were wrong, that I didn't tell any direct lie as you accused me, that David *DID* do as I wrote he did, and you carried out to the best of your ability, both requests. You claimed that was a direct lie when I wrote it. But it's clearly not. Show me the direct lie you claimed I wrote, then, Snit. Or, apologize for the false accusation and your bull**** 'apology' that isn't. Or, play dumb as you've tried doing with the bot accusations you made against me. It's doing wonders for your credibility in every single newsgroup I carefully selected for you, snit. Again, for comparison, this is what I wrote that you claimed was a direct lie: From: Snit Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: Ha! Ads be gone! Date: 18 Aug 2020 17:06:20 GMT Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology Message-ID: References: op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass 3WTC373bt67J31gn YyRp On Aug 18, 2020 at 8:49:01 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote: David has asked you to check it against phone book urls he shared with you. This is a direct lie from you. He did no such thing. *** end copy It clearly wasn't, and I didn't say a damn thing about research. No error had been made, snit lied his ****ing ass off and doesn't dare fork what's rightfully mine over to me; a ****ing apology to ME for having lied on me, yet again. Snit, you are not the honorable and honest individual you described yourself as being previously. You've provided direct evidence to contradict your own claims about yourself. You don't even have the maturity level of a young adult at this point in time. You are simply incapable of admitting any wrong doing of any kind. You're the saint that isn't, snit. .. -- The cyber stalker, liar, and troll known as Michael Glasser (Snit) view below: https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html https://www.imgpaste.net/image/9tI2X - https://ibb.co/NTCVpvN - https://gofile.io/d/kE7vxh The cyber stalker, liar, and troll known as David Brooks (BoaterDave) view below: https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
Gremlin wrote:
Snit Sat, 05 Sep 2020 22:54:02 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Gremlin wrote: Snit Wed, 02 Sep 2020 02:43:23 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: You're a liar, snit. It's not necessary for you to share that number with anyone for the purposes of trying to prove your claim is true, and you know that, too. How else do you propose I allow others to check if the number in my providers phone records, tied to your phone call, is tied to the city you denied it was, at least in some databases (Johnson City)? The fact you actually think you're clever here is astounding. It really is. I figured you were lying to say you have a better way. Now you verified that. .... You don't even have a firm grasp of the basics concerning technology. You saying this shows you lied when you said you though I altered the videos proving your number is in my provider’s logs. Interesting. .... -- 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. |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
On 9/6/2020 8:45 AM, Snit wrote:
Gremlin wrote: Snit Sat, 05 Sep 2020 22:54:02 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Gremlin wrote: Snit Wed, 02 Sep 2020 02:43:23 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: You're a liar, snit. It's not necessary for you to share that number with anyone for the purposes of trying to prove your claim is true, and you know that, too. How else do you propose I allow others to check if the number in my providers phone records, tied to your phone call, is tied to the city you denied it was, at least in some databases (Johnson City)? The fact you actually think you're clever here is astounding. It really is. I figured you were lying to say you have a better way. Now you verified that. ... You don't even have a firm grasp of the basics concerning technology. You saying this shows you lied when you said you though I altered the videos proving your number is in my provider’s logs. Interesting. I'm going to try one more time: I don't read this newsgroup to see arguments between you and trolls. You're filling up this newsgroup with your arguments. Even though I agree with most of what you say, I don't want to see it; it's nothing but a waste of my time. So please, please, please---stop replying to trolls, or better yet, killfile them so you won't see their replies and be tempted to reply to them. If this doesn't stop very soon, I'm going to killfile you too. -- Ken |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 09:07:30 -0700
Ken Blake wrote: On 9/6/2020 8:45 AM, Snit wrote: Gremlin wrote: Snit Sat, 05 Sep 2020 22:54:02 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Gremlin wrote: Snit Wed, 02 Sep 2020 02:43:23 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: You're a liar, snit. It's not necessary for you to share that number with anyone for the purposes of trying to prove your claim is true, and you know that, too. How else do you propose I allow others to check if the number in my providers phone records, tied to your phone call, is tied to the city you denied it was, at least in some databases (Johnson City)? The fact you actually think you're clever here is astounding. It really is. I figured you were lying to say you have a better way. Now you verified that. ... You don't even have a firm grasp of the basics concerning technology. You saying this shows you lied when you said you though I altered the videos proving your number is in my provider’s logs. Interesting. I'm going to try one more time: I don't read this newsgroup to see arguments between you and trolls. You're filling up this newsgroup with your arguments. Even though I agree with most of what you say, I don't want to see it; it's nothing but a waste of my time. So please, please, please---stop replying to trolls, or better yet, killfile them so you won't see their replies and be tempted to reply to them. If this doesn't stop very soon, I'm going to killfile you too. I have consider him a troll from the first time I saw his disgusting name. |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
Ha! Ads be gone!
On 9/6/2020 9:07 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On 9/6/2020 8:45 AM, Snit wrote: Gremlin wrote: Snit Sat, 05 Sep 2020 22:54:02 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: Gremlin wrote: Snit Wed, 02 Sep 2020 02:43:23 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: You're a liar, snit. It's not necessary for you to share that number with anyone for the purposes of trying to prove your claim is true, and you know that, too. How else do you propose I allow others to check if the number in my providers phone records, tied to your phone call, is tied to the city you denied it was, at least in some databases (Johnson City)? The fact you actually think you're clever here is astounding. It really is. I figured you were lying to say you have a better way. Now you verified that. ... You don't even have a firm grasp of the basics concerning technology. You saying this shows you lied when you said you though I altered the videos proving your number is in my provider’s logs. Interesting. I'm going to try one more time: I don't read this newsgroup to see arguments between you and trolls. You're filling up this newsgroup with your arguments. Even though I agree with most of what you say, I don't want to see it; it's nothing but a waste of my time. So please, please, please---stop replying to trolls, or better yet, killfile them so you won't see their replies and be tempted to reply to them. If this doesn't stop very soon, I'm going to killfile you too. I don't read talk.politics.guns to see your replies to off-topic subjects. You are polluting talk.politics.guns with your arguments that have nothing to do with the politics of gun ownership and use. I don't want to see it; it is nothing but a waste of bandwidth and time. Please stop replying to trolls who post off-topic, irrelevant rants to talk.politics.guns. If this doesn't stop very soon, I'm going to killfile you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|