Microsoft end of support dates

Snit
Sun, 30 Aug 2020 19:56:03 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 30, 2020 at 10:40:26 AM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

it will be to refute your claims about the
number not being there

Moving goalposts to justify what you're threatening to do again.
How quaint. I do *not* deny it's present. Of course it is, you
put it there. Duh!

The number in phone records from a phone provider show up
automatically when you call, assuming your number is not somehow
blocked. It is not the recipient who puts them there.

Correct with the exception of various calling technologies which do
not have anything to send along for the purposes of caller ID. If
caller ID was as reliable as you seem to think it is, than phone
call tracing would work just like you see in the movies; almost
instant.

In real life, if you actually want to try and determine where the
call is originating from, you need time - because you have to travel
in reverse through a lot of switching gear; much of which you don't
own, so you require their participation to assist in the tracing and
on and on it goes until you reach the actual origination point, if
you had enough time to get that far down the rabbit hole.

It's not instant, and caller ID isn't useful for that purpose -
because it's completely unreliable. Mike Easter and yourself seem
to want to avoid the flaw with your argument: if there's nothing to
provide CID, then, there's nothing to provide it - it's not a
matter of the blocked flag being set or not in this particular
case, either. It's a matter of certain information NOT BEING
PROVIDED in the first ****ing place.

I'm not going to go into specifics concerning how to **** around
with mabell, I'm just going to tell you, and Mike, that what the two
of you have been reading as you learn about the technology isn't the
full story; and neither of you so far seem to have understood what
I've been trying to explain the entire time here.

Well, you probably do, but you have to play dumb and support Mikes
ignorance here; to do otherwise is to admit you dr'd the video and
you aren't about to admit that. You can't even admit that you
wrongly accused me of writing a direct lie about what David asked
you to do; which you did.

Mike has voIP which works both ways. It has a number it can receive
calls on. It can transmit this information when he makes outbound
calls. My voIP service has no such features. It doesn't have a
number associated with it - it can ONLY MAKE outbound calls, it
cannot take incoming calls; there's (a) no number for the person to
call and (b) no way for the voIP to route the incoming caller to the
specific individual who the call is actually for - there are no
individual user accounts on the system yet.

When you finally apologized for it, the apology was for some
imaginary error that you made; the apology is total bull****. And
you aren't apologizing to me for lying on me, you're apologizing in
a very general way for an error that didn't even occur.

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

Here comes the bull**** apology, nearly ten days later, after
repeated requests and repeated reposts of the lie you clearly wrote,
you finally issue a halfass apology, not addressing what you did in
the least little bit, but actually lying some more!

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

I said nothing whatsoever about any research there, snit. I
specifically wrote that David asked you to check that number against
phone book urls he shared with you. And, that's exactly what you did
for him, but you responded and claimed that what I wrote was A direct lie AND that David didn't ask you to do any such thing. Your own words snit!

But, David did infact ask you to do what I wrote he did, and you did do it:

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

So, there was no direct lie written by me concerning David or
yourself. You falsely accused me, again. And it took several days of
reminding you about this before you wrote the apology which has
absolutely nothing at all to do with what you wrote accusing me of something I didn't do. Which was, to write a "Direct lie". I didn't. David *did* do what I wrote he did.

The apology accepts absolutely no blame for what you did, and
doesn't apologize to me for having lied about me, instead, you blame
it on some BS error and claim I was writing about "research". No, I
made no such accusation. You aren't doing any research, you're
openly stalking and inviting others to participate. :

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 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.

You are a confirmed stalker. And a confirmed liar. You're a bit of a
troll, too.

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 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


Can you understand that?

I understand you, and your limited antics, just fine Snit. You're a
confirmed liar, a stalker, and a troll who instead of working for a
living like most normal adults of your age do with pride the
majority of the time - You prefer to get a check for "disability" as
your wife works to make up the difference because you're far to
sorry of a man to do so.

While you troll usenet and stalk people and their businesses because
of your insane levels of jealousy; they have what you don't, what
you couldn't get up and going and be succesful with.

In other words, it ****es you off to know that you're a failure, and
it drives you bat**** crazy when I remind you of it. And I guess,
through no fault of my own, the fact I have a succesful, legit
business doing what you couldn't, makes your blood ****ing boil.

You are not a role model any kid should be looking upto. You're a
parasite. A leeching ****head on society. Do your kids know what
sort of a ****head you are snit? Do you really think you can keep
your family in the dark concerning your online activities at this
point in time? I seriously, wouldn't count on that, snit.

Infact, I'm going to "predict" that your family soon learns of your
online activities. I wonder if you can con them as you have some
online throughout the years?


--
All about snit read 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

Ayep...He's as bad as David Brooks:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Snit
Sun, 30 Aug 2020 19:59:46 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 30, 2020 at 10:40:26 AM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

and so people can verify that it does tie
to Johnson City (and Verizon). These are things you say your
number does not do -- and if you are correct it is not even
your number!

I know what the app is telling you. I'm just telling you that
another carrier is my provider, so as Mike indicated previously,
the database that app is using isn't up to date.

Are you saying you were flat out wrong when you said the
following?

I was responding in regard to the carrier. Do you know what the word
carrier actually meant in that context? Because, well, your question
had nothing to do with the carrier. And, as you admitted in another
post, a little later, the carrier ID isn't reliable. Another source
claims it's a centurylink owned line. I already explained why this
happens. So, I see no reason to repeat myself.

As for the city, i'm willing to concede on the possibility, which I
have not confirmed so far for myself, that the disposable sometimes
does transmit johnson city for it's call origination city. Maybe. I
have not confirmed it's doing that when I place calls using it to
various types of numbers I can check out here, though. Including one
that provides me a full dump of the caller ID datablock. (It's a
former employee perk I still have; I'm not abusing anything)

Despite this possibility, it still doesn't support the claims you've
made that the number is in your inbound call logs (whatever kind
you're referencing). Based on the videos you've shared recently, it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that you selected the
city after running the phone number through various sites already.

I may have made a mistake in thinking you were taking a wild guess
in the dark as a result. I didn't know, at the time, you'd begun
stalking me and my business. I still wouldn't know you were making
an effort to do that if you didn't disclose it here.

It appears that you weren't guessing, in so much as you were relying
on what various sites and applications have told you about the
number as you initiated your stalking of me behind the scenes,
before you made the fact you've been doing it public.

Are you really sure of what you said here?

For the most part, I am. I know you had to insert the number into
your pics and the videos you've shared. It's the only way it could
be present on the inbound call logs. Because, as I've told you from
the jump, and I believe I told you during the call too (it was back
in May, I don't have a copy of the audio recording that was made
because I didn't think this would come up, some months later and I'd
have to try to defend myself from your absurd accusations.) I didn't
know, at the time, that by pressing you for an apology for a lie you
know damn well you wrote that you'd go ape **** crazy with a much
more elaborate one which would be more difficult to prove is a lie.
Or so you thought.

I don't think you really care about that aspect though. I think by
calling out this lie, you see it as an opportunity to try and dox me
to 'support' the lie you've written here, but it's not even really
about supporting it. The actual goal here is to dox me, but ever so
carefully so you don't get in any trouble with various service
providers and so you can claim 'but I didn't really do that, it
wasn't his number, the city wasn't right" and if anyone pressed you,
you'd go with the "It was an accident, a misunderstanding over the
numbers we were discussing." ; except there wasn't ever more than
one.

I'm not taking the bait, and anyone who actually does isn't all that
smart of an individual and deserves to become your bitch on a
permanent basis. You have the rights to them, because if you can
snow them with your bull****, they are just as mentality defective
as you and couldn't possibly be a contributer to society, but a
leech, like yourself.

You fixed the issues you told with the bot lie, is what I'm saying,
snit. Atleast, that's what you think you did. You've really allowed
me to corner you; which I have. Obviously. And it doesn't matter how
hard you try to climb or scratch or growl, I've got you, dead to
rights, I've got you.

The *only* way you're going to get me off your ass on usenet is if
you apologize for the lies you knowingly wrote about me. I was going
to let you slide with this one, but now, since you've gone well out
of your way to sell it, moved goalposts all over the ****ing field,
etc, I want an apology for this lie too, then.

So, three apologies for three seperate lies you've peddled on me,
and I'll let you resume your usenet nonsense unaffected (well,
sorta). Until then, I'm going to continue to stay right on your ass,
nibbling away until there's nothing of it left.

Now, just to be fair here, so you don't accuse me of not being fair
in the future if you decide to issue those apologies, they will only
cover our issues here on usenet. It's not going to do ****all to
save you from the ****storm you already started for yourself. That's
an entirely seperate matter and an apology isn't going to get you
out of that. You had plenty of chances there that you did not take.
So, that's a done deal for you now at this point in time.

You and others may start to notice various things before I share the
first url. Or, maybe not.


--
All about snit read 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

Ayep...He's as bad as David Brooks:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

On Sep 1, 2020 at 8:32:42 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

Snit
Sun, 30 Aug 2020 19:59:46 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 30, 2020 at 10:40:26 AM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

and so people can verify that it does tie
to Johnson City (and Verizon). These are things you say your
number does not do -- and if you are correct it is not even
your number!

I know what the app is telling you. I'm just telling you that
another carrier is my provider, so as Mike indicated previously,
the database that app is using isn't up to date.

Are you saying you were flat out wrong when you said the
following?

I was responding in regard to the carrier. Do you know what the word
carrier actually meant in that context? Because, well, your question
had nothing to do with the carrier. And, as you admitted in another
post, a little later, the carrier ID isn't reliable.

I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied it was. Can you PLEASE try to
understand what you read?

Another source
claims it's a centurylink owned line. I already explained why this
happens. So, I see no reason to repeat myself.

This is perhaps your biggest lie to date. Damn, you repeat yourself non-stop.

As for the city, i'm willing to concede on the possibility, which I
have not confirmed so far for myself, that the disposable sometimes
does transmit johnson city for it's call origination city.

So we have two claims of yours:

1) You insist the number in my providers phone records does not exist. You
have speculation but have no direct access to the phone records. I have direct
access. I know. You speculate.

2) You denied the number showed Johnson City. You now admit the following
claims of yours were made up crap:

YyRp
-----
They are relevant to the fact YOU INSERTED the phone
number I provided you verbally into a bogus call log video
you've taken the time to create. When I use the cell I
provided you the number for to make outbound calls, It
*ALWAYS* reports Kingsport, TN. Not one single time has it
ever, nor would it have any reason to report Johnson City.
It doesn't pick cities at random, it doesn't go by my
present location, either. That's actually fixed, as is the
number assigned to the phone.
-----


-----
And amusingly (this is what sunk you bro) found yourself
in disagreement with David Brooks (a well known internet
stalker that you foolishly think is your friend) over
which city it is I reside in. it's Kingsport, snit. Not
Johnson City. I'm not within walking distance of Johnson
City, snit. rofl. It's not even a short drive for me, it's
a bit of a long one. So, how can you explain why that city
is supposed to show in your logs but not the one I reside
in?
-----

3WTC373bt67J31gn
-----
You didn't even score the right city, Snit. And, the
correct city is common, public knowledge with the regulars
here. The moment you unblocked 'Johnson City' in your
videos, you were busted.
-----

oj8b
-----
David, every single Address you've posted that's supposed
to be mine has been Kingsport. Not Johnson City. Don't you
think you should tell snit that was a ****up on his part
by now?
-----


-----
His response to that was to file a report with the
kingsport,tn police. Well hell, why not the johnson city
ones? That's where he claimed the call said it originated
from.
-----

You were wrong there, as you are with your lies about my provider's phone
records.

It really is that simple.

Maybe. I
have not confirmed it's doing that when I place calls using it to
various types of numbers I can check out here, though. Including one
that provides me a full dump of the caller ID datablock. (It's a
former employee perk I still have; I'm not abusing anything)

Despite this possibility, it still doesn't support the claims you've
made that the number is in your inbound call logs (whatever kind
you're referencing). Based on the videos you've shared recently, it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that you selected the
city after running the phone number through various sites already.

Nope. My looking things up to help you verify your claims are wrong does not
change what I see in my phone records. Nor could it.

You are just making things up to try to save face.

I may have made a mistake in thinking you were taking a wild guess
in the dark as a result. I didn't know, at the time, you'd begun
stalking me and my business. I still wouldn't know you were making
an effort to do that if you didn't disclose it here.

You make insane claims. I show evidence to prove you wrong. You cry you are
the victim, even as I STILL have not shared the number you gave me written
permission to sha

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

It appears that you weren't guessing, in so much as you were relying
on what various sites and applications have told you about the
number as you initiated your stalking of me behind the scenes,
before you made the fact you've been doing it public.

As we have seen, what you think "appears" to be true need not have any
relation to reality.

Are you really sure of what you said here?

For the most part, I am.

Nope. You have just admitted you were flat out wrong with your insane
accusations about Johnson City. And you repeated them... even though you claim
there is no reason to repeat yourself.

You simply do not understand the tech you are using, cannot troubleshoot it,
and now want to rescind your written permission.

I know you had to insert the number into
your pics and the videos you've shared.

You "know" something contrary to reality... this is delusional on your part.

It's the only way it could
be present on the inbound call logs.

Nope.

Because, as I've told you from
the jump, and I believe I told you during the call too (it was back
in May, I don't have a copy of the audio recording that was made
because I didn't think this would come up, some months later and I'd
have to try to defend myself from your absurd accusations.)

I am the one defending myself from your lies about me inserting the number
that showed up from a call YOU told people about. Remember, I never mentioned
it.

I didn't
know, at the time, that by pressing you for an apology for a lie you
know damn well you wrote that you'd go ape **** crazy with a much
more elaborate one which would be more difficult to prove is a lie.
Or so you thought.

More repetition from you where you want me to lie and pretend I agree with
you. You NEED me to lie. Why?

Why does my view even matter so much to you? How did I become so high and
mighty in your life?

I don't think you really care about that aspect though. I think by
calling out this lie, you see it as an opportunity to try and dox me
to 'support' the lie you've written here, but it's not even really
about supporting it. The actual goal here is to dox me, but ever so
carefully so you don't get in any trouble with various service
providers and so you can claim 'but I didn't really do that, it
wasn't his number, the city wasn't right" and if anyone pressed you,
you'd go with the "It was an accident, a misunderstanding over the
numbers we were discussing." ; except there wasn't ever more than
one.

I have done nothing to dox you, not even sharing the number you said I could
-- not even sharing it to respond to your lies about me tied to it.

Remember, I am protecting you from yourself. Still. But I am not obligated to.
You DID give written permission.

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

I'm not taking the bait, and anyone who actually does isn't all that
smart of an individual and deserves to become your bitch on a
permanent basis. You have the rights to them, because if you can
snow them with your bull****, they are just as mentality defective
as you and couldn't possibly be a contributer to society, but a
leech, like yourself.

See how you put others down to try to feel better about yourself. Please do
keep in mind your actions there have nothing to do with me -- they are about
you.

You fixed the issues you told with the bot lie, is what I'm saying,
snit. Atleast, that's what you think you did. You've really allowed
me to corner you; which I have. Obviously. And it doesn't matter how
hard you try to climb or scratch or growl, I've got you, dead to
rights, I've got you.

See: you just repeat you same insane accusations. You cannot stop yourself.

The *only* way you're going to get me off your ass on usenet is if
you apologize for the lies you knowingly wrote about me.

This is a direct admission from you that you are harassing me. Interesting.

I was going
to let you slide with this one, but now, since you've gone well out
of your way to sell it, moved goalposts all over the ****ing field,
etc, I want an apology for this lie too, then.

So, three apologies for three seperate lies you've peddled on me,
and I'll let you resume your usenet nonsense unaffected (well,
sorta). Until then, I'm going to continue to stay right on your ass,
nibbling away until there's nothing of it left.

Now, just to be fair here, so you don't accuse me of not being fair
in the future if you decide to issue those apologies, they will only
cover our issues here on usenet. It's not going to do ****all to
save you from the ****storm you already started for yourself. That's
an entirely seperate matter and an apology isn't going to get you
out of that. You had plenty of chances there that you did not take.
So, that's a done deal for you now at this point in time.

You and others may start to notice various things before I share the
first url. Or, maybe not.

Notice you are making direct threats here.

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

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

On Sep 1, 2020 at 8:32:41 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

Snit
Sun, 30 Aug 2020 19:56:03 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 30, 2020 at 10:40:26 AM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

it will be to refute your claims about the
number not being there

Moving goalposts to justify what you're threatening to do again.
How quaint. I do *not* deny it's present. Of course it is, you
put it there. Duh!

The number in phone records from a phone provider show up
automatically when you call, assuming your number is not somehow
blocked. It is not the recipient who puts them there.

Correct with the exception of various calling technologies which do
not have anything to send along for the purposes of caller ID. If
caller ID was as reliable as you seem to think it is, than phone
call tracing would work just like you see in the movies; almost
instant.

I have said nothing about the reliability of caller ID. Please try to
understand what you read.

In real life, if you actually want to try and determine where the
call is originating from, you need time - because you have to travel
in reverse through a lot of switching gear; much of which you don't
own, so you require their participation to assist in the tracing and
on and on it goes until you reach the actual origination point, if
you had enough time to get that far down the rabbit hole.

In this case I simply looked at my provider's call logs. A number and city
were listed, along with time and other such info. As I have shown you.

Is this really such a hard concept for you to understand?

It's not instant, and caller ID isn't useful for that purpose -
because it's completely unreliable. Mike Easter and yourself seem
to want to avoid the flaw with your argument: if there's nothing to
provide CID, then, there's nothing to provide it - it's not a
matter of the blocked flag being set or not in this particular
case, either. It's a matter of certain information NOT BEING
PROVIDED in the first ****ing place.

You can SPECULATE all you want. I have direct access to my provider's logs and
know what is there. KNOW.

You have speculation. I have knowledge.

Can you understand that?

I'm not going to go into specifics concerning how to **** around
with mabell, I'm just going to tell you, and Mike, that what the two
of you have been reading as you learn about the technology isn't the
full story; and neither of you so far seem to have understood what
I've been trying to explain the entire time here.

I am making no claims about the tech. I am merely noting the fact of what is
in my phone records, which you called my "caller ID logs" as you gave me
permission to share it:

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

Can you understand that?

Well, you probably do, but you have to play dumb and support Mikes
ignorance here; to do otherwise is to admit you dr'd the video and
you aren't about to admit that. You can't even admit that you
wrongly accused me of writing a direct lie about what David asked
you to do; which you did.

See: you start with speculation then you get to making direct accusations
which are simply not true.

Mike has voIP which works both ways. It has a number it can receive
calls on. It can transmit this information when he makes outbound
calls. My voIP service has no such features. It doesn't have a
number associated with it - it can ONLY MAKE outbound calls, it
cannot take incoming calls; there's (a) no number for the person to
call and (b) no way for the voIP to route the incoming caller to the
specific individual who the call is actually for - there are no
individual user accounts on the system yet.

You SPECULATE the number did not show up where it IS. Your speculation is thus
flawed. It really is not complex.

....


Can you understand that?

I understand you, and your limited antics, just fine Snit. You're a
confirmed liar, a stalker, and a troll who instead of working for a
living like most normal adults of your age do with pride the
majority of the time - You prefer to get a check for "disability" as
your wife works to make up the difference because you're far to
sorry of a man to do so.


See how you lash out to try to deal with your own insecurities? It does not
work to make you feel better about yourself.

While you troll usenet and stalk people and their businesses because
of your insane levels of jealousy; they have what you don't, what
you couldn't get up and going and be succesful with.

Notice you provide false claims here... about a business you do not even seem
to have.


In other words, it ****es you off to know that you're a failure, and
it drives you bat**** crazy when I remind you of it. And I guess,
through no fault of my own, the fact I have a succesful, legit
business doing what you couldn't, makes your blood ****ing boil.

See: more lashing out from you.


You are not a role model any kid should be looking upto. You're a
parasite. A leeching ****head on society. Do your kids know what
sort of a ****head you are snit? Do you really think you can keep
your family in the dark concerning your online activities at this
point in time? I seriously, wouldn't count on that, snit.

Do you remember when you used to pretend to not be angry?

Infact, I'm going to "predict" that your family soon learns of your
online activities. I wonder if you can con them as you have some
online throughout the years?

This is a direct threat on your part. I am asking you to please stop with such
threats.

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

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

Mike Easter
Tue, 01 Sep 2020 18:04:47 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Mike has voIP which works both ways. It has a number it can
receive calls on. It can transmit this information when he makes
outbound calls. My voIP service has no such features. It doesn't
have a number associated with it - it can ONLY MAKE outbound
calls, it cannot take incoming calls; there's (a) no number for
the person to call and (b) no way for the voIP to route the
incoming caller to the specific individual who the call is
actually for - there are no individual user accounts on the
system yet.

I do not doubt what you are saying above; but I argue that that
does not prove that Snit doesn't have a number in his voip
provider's logs.

I'm not arguing that he doesn't. Quite the opposite infact, I do
believe he has a number in his outbound logs from calling the number
I provided him, twice. I don't believe the incoming log video or
pictures he's provided are legitimate. Rather, I believe he forged
the data to support the lie that he's peddling here. Unless, as I've
asked him and yourself several times now, you can explain how my
voIP system would have provided snit the burner cells number for the
caller ID information? Remember, the voIP I used doesn't have a
login, doesn't have a way to identify me, and doesn't know anything
abuot any cell/landlines I might/might not have under my control.

So, if you can explain this very simple problem I have with his
story; how did my burner cell number get in his incoming call
records when I didn't use the cell to place the call; and what I did
use doesn't know anything about the cell. Because, Mike, I just
can't figure that out.

Do you understand the point I've been trying to make now?

I don't dispute he has my number, I gave it to him over the course
of the conversation. He doesn't dispute that. We disagree on that
number being available legitimately in his logs. For what I should
think are obvious reasons by now, I *know* he's faking the evidence.
Even if I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, it's the only
thing which makes sense of any kind here. I know what I used to
contact him. I know what I didn't use. I know the two systems know
nothing about the other one.

To backup what I just wrote concerning how he lies with ease, here's
a short and sweet example of it, with an apology he finally forks
days later - admitting to nothing he accused me of doing, and not apologizing for wrongfully claiming I wrote a direct lie about David, either.

Matter of fact, the apology is a small pile of additional lies which
have nothing whatsoever to do with what he wrongfully accused me of.

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

You can't help but notice exactly what I wrote, and exactly what he
responded with. According to Snit, I just told a direct lie; David
did not ask snit to do any such thing.

Now, here's the apology snit finally forks over, because I continued
demanding one and reposting his claims along with David and him
doing exactly what I wrote about...

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

*nothing* in that 'apology' has a damn thing to do with what Snit
accused me of, and none of it's even true. It's another fresh pack
of total bull**** and no admission by snit for any wrong doing
towards me. As usual.

Again, for comparison, this is what I wrote that he claimed was a
direct lie:
"David has asked you to check it against phone book urls he shared
with you."

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.

And here's the posts clearly showing that what I wrote, is entirely
true. There's no direct lie, there's no lie on my part, period.

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

Mike, why do you continue to take this lying toadie's word at face
value here? He does NOT have legitimate incoming call logs, caller
id, whatever, displaying my burner cells number. It's not possible,
because I DID NOT call him using it.

And as of today, he's begun doxing me:

From: Snit
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp. sys.mac.advocacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Ha! Ads be gone!
Date: 1 Sep 2020 18:50:19 GMT
Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology
Lines: 58
Message-ID:
References: op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass op.0p8iz00fwdg98l@glass op.0p91brdawdg98l@glass
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net tfcGXQyqLar9Gie8jtKZiwFCciivmf5KY/uMEuKMKeHEt/1Ve1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qyQbLPWwfZMnf3Mm1n+o4/DC3uE=
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.80.8/l beta for MacOS
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org alt.computer.workshop:57691 comp.os.linux.advocacy:800315 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:237556 talk.politics.guns:1357305

On Sep 1, 2020 at 10:53:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote:
.....

With that said I am willing to share the number encrypted so others can
verify
that it is tied to Johnson City and Verizon, exactly as I show. This would
prove the claims that can be proved wrong to be wrong.

If it's encrypted so we can't read it, we can't prove anything. If it's
encrypted so we can decrypt it, then you're going against your nature.

It would be encrypted so ONE person, or a small group, can read it -- but
not
where it would show up in a Google search or the like.

Bit of a faff, why not just email it? If you encrypt it, then hand out the
code, anyone can decrypt it.

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.

On the off chance he
actually has a business I would not want him to be harmed even by himself.

Stop being nice to your enemies.

I am not always nice -- but I try to be fair. More than fair, really.



If you were to go to WhitePages or use an online tool you would be able to
verify that his number really does tie to Johnson City, something he
strongly
denies. No need to call him:

https://gofile.io/d/8XldzV

That says Johnson City but does NOT say Verizon (says CenturyLink).
Different
databases seem to be getting used.

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.

*** end

So again, why are you sticking up for this pos and attempting to
give his story, which is total bull**** on top of bull****, any
credibility at all?

Why aren't you calling him out for the nonstop trolling lies and
other bull**** he's doing?

--
All about snit read 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://ibb.co/CBgLWpf
Ayep...He's as bad as David Brooks:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Snit
Tue, 01 Sep 2020 16:19:27 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Infact, I'm going to "predict" that your family soon learns of
your online activities. I wonder if you can con them as you have
some online throughout the years?

This is a direct threat on your part. I am asking you to please
stop with such threats.

It is most certainly nothing of the sort. I told you, snit, there
would be consequences if you provided that cell to anyone. I wasn't
joking, or even being playful in the slightest little bit with you.

Message-ID:

From: Snit
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp. sys.mac.advocacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Ha! Ads be gone!
Date: 1 Sep 2020 18:50:19 GMT
Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology
Lines: 58
Message-ID:
References: op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass op.0p8iz00fwdg98l@glass
op.0p91brdawdg98l@glass

On Sep 1, 2020 at 10:53:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote:

Bit of a faff, why not just email it? If you encrypt it, then hand out the
code, anyone can decrypt it.

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.

On the off chance he
actually has a business I would not want him to be harmed even by himself.

Stop being nice to your enemies.

I am not always nice -- but I try to be fair. More than fair, really.

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.

*** end


As of that post, you have officially began your doxing campaign. As
I warned you, multiple times, previously, there would be
consequences for attempting to dox me.

Did you think there wouldn't be any if you actually went and did so,
snit? You chose to release the number you've been told, many times
now, not to give to anyone for any reason. You did. You are no
longer in any position to ask, demand, or even beg me to do or not
to do anything. You may now officially add, bat**** crazy dox'r to
your resume.

https://ibb.co/CBgLWpf - it's a screenshot. [g]

If you have any brains that are useful, snit, you'll stop while you
still can. Otherwise, you're just going to make what's coming that
much more interesting.

See David, it's playing out exactly like it did with Eagle. Snit
made the first move, I've made a move. Let's see if snit wants to
make another stupid move. Just like eagle did, initially. How many
moves did Eagle make before he decided the **** was getting real
serious and hitting way to close to home for him? three, four? I was
having so much fun with him, I lost count.

Do you think snit will last longer than your former friend Eagle
did? Did eagle puss out on move four or five David? I know he
started calling me one sick **** and a slew of other wonderful
adjectives on the second or was it the third move... Well, anyways,
for those keeping score - Snit made the first move, officially on
Tuesday. rofl.

After consulting with the others, I have made our official first
move in response.

https://ibb.co/CBgLWpf

As with chess, it's now snits turn. We will wait for him to make his
turn for upto 24 hours, then, pending no turn has been taken, snit
will void this rounds turn and we will proceed with our second turn.
And again, wait for snit to complete his turn; and we will likewise,
counter. This will continue for a short period of time as we
finalize our data.

David, oh David, snit needs your help! Snits little game has
started. I don't think he quite understands how to play though.
We're waiting for him to make his second move now. It's his turn. We
are following the eagle protocol for the purposes of this
experiment. Do you remember what our second move should be if we
remain on this particular one? if you do, don't tell snit, let it
be a surprise as it was for eagle. Along with the third and fourth
move. Did eagle back down on move four or move five? It was awhile
ago and I've forgotten that specific detail. Do you remember?



--
All about snit read 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

Ayep...He's as bad as David Brooks:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Mike Easter
Tue, 01 Sep 2020 19:36:05 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Snit wrote:
But he did also give me A number... and I think the same one. I
wrote it on a scrap of paper at the time and do not see it. Might
have even tossed it when I saw it was the same as the one in the
record.

That part of the/your story doesn't smell good to me.

Just that part? Really? Just how ****ing gullible are you these days, Mike?

From: Snit
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp. sys.mac.advocacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Ha! Ads be gone!
Date: 1 Sep 2020 18:50:19 GMT
Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology
Lines: 58
Message-ID:
References: op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass op.0p8iz00fwdg98l@glass
op.0p91brdawdg98l@glass

On Sep 1, 2020 at 10:53:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote:

Bit of a faff, why not just email it? If you encrypt it, then hand out the
code, anyone can decrypt it.

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.

On the off chance he
actually has a business I would not want him to be harmed even by himself.

Stop being nice to your enemies.

I am not always nice -- but I try to be fair. More than fair, really.

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.

*** end

What's your opinion of this Mike? Looks like a doxing attempt there
to me. Interesting that kumquat confirmed David and snit, and
himself are email buddies. As if I had any doubt. Matter of fact,
this looks like prep to do a doxing via proxy. So again, I'll ask,
why do you stick up for this lying, stalking, nutjob troll? Why try
to extend any credibility to his bull**** story here? Do you dislike
me that much old man?

I mean, you went well out of your way to try and tell us that David
Brooks wasn't a stalker (yes, he is), and you attempted to claim
that I was a bully towards David Brooks (impossible, I didn't try to
hire myself to break into computers I didn't own and then try to dox
myself for refusing to do so - David did), and it was karma for the
anoncoward to be bullying me. So, not only do you not stand behind
what you write about others, you also support those who are known
(very well known) to be liars themselves.

That's not the Mike I remember. This version seems to be one hell of
a downgrade both in terms of reliability as well as integrity.


--
All about snit read 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://ibb.co/CBgLWpf
Ayep...He's as bad as David Brooks:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Mike Easter
Tue, 01 Sep 2020 19:56:08 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Snit wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

My arguments elsewhere do not actually claim *reliability* of a
CID as much as *existence* of a CID.

VoIP involves packets and routing. But I argue that even if the
'device' you use to engage the VoIP doesn't have a callable
number, the service or provider which is used can do what it
wants to about providing a CID.

What I *KNOW* is the number is in my provider's logs. All the
speculation in the world does not change that. How could it?

In my own constructed scenario, I'm accepting that in your voip
provider's logs is a number.

So am I. He put it there.

But he did also give me A number... and I think the same one. I
wrote it on a scrap of paper at the time and do not see it. Might
have even tossed it when I saw it was the same as the one in the
record. But it is POSSIBLE the numbers were merely similar and I
goofed.

This I find 'stinky'.

To elaborate about what *I* think is more likely than not.

I take Diesel at his word that he gave you a real cellno that he
is calling a burner.

Correct.


I take YOU at your word that your voip provider's logs have a number.

The edited ones do, sure. The outbound ones without editing do.

In my scenario, those are NOT the same number.

I only provided him one number, Mike. Just one. It's the same one
he's added to his incoming caller id logs via creative video
editing, and it's the same one that's visible in his outbound call
logs, because he called it, twice.

Again, I'll repeat for you, the voIP system I use does not leave a
number on an individuals caller ID. It's not intentionally trying to
block the transmission of a number, it simply DOES NOT HAVE ONE to
give.

They can't be, according to what I think more likely
than not with no evidence of anything.

They are. One was edited with creative video editing efforts, and
the outbound logs have the real deal; no editing because he did make
the outbound calls.

So, to prevent further confusion by you, I accused Snit of dr'ing
the evidence for his logs which he claims show my burner cell number
in them for incoming. And after I made the accusation, several of
his detractors proceed to inform me he's been busted doing this with
video previously as well as a pdf file. I'm not even in the top ten
list of people he's faked **** to attack them with previously.


Granted, I can't prove he did as I'm accusing him of doing, and he
knows that. He learned his lesson from his bot story and has done a
better job of this one. But, he's still lying about it. Straight up,
lying about it, and he's forged evidence this time to support his
lie.

The fact that in 'your world'/story my theoretical scenario sorta
breaks because of your flakey story about losing the number he
gave you gives me great pause.

His entire story should have caused you to take a step back and
thing about this, Mike.

But for your own personal dislike of me, you didn't do so.

So either two numbers OR he is just wrong. I go with door number
two.

No. I believe there are/were two numbers AND he is wrong (about
your voip's logs) and I'm still trying to figure out what I think
about your tale that you lost the number he gave you. So far that
is unbelievable to me.

Mike, there's only one number, and since you've succesfully let this
asshat snow you into thinking there's two, you are, with all due
respect, a ****ing idiot who's been talking out of turn concerning
snit with not only myself, but Steve Carroll as well.

--
All about snit read 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://ibb.co/CBgLWpf
Ayep...He's as bad as David Brooks:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Snit
Tue, 01 Sep 2020 15:50:59 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Another source
claims it's a centurylink owned line. I already explained why
this happens. So, I see no reason to repeat myself.

This is perhaps your biggest lie to date. Damn, you repeat
yourself non-stop.

What *specifically* are you claiming I've lied about there? Be specific.

As for the city, i'm willing to concede on the possibility, which
I have not confirmed so far for myself, that the disposable
sometimes does transmit johnson city for it's call origination
city.

So we have two claims of yours:

1) You insist the number in my providers phone records does not
exist. You have speculation but have no direct access to the phone
records. I have direct access. I know. You speculate.

I *know* you faked the evidence, snit. I'm not speculating.

It really is that simple.

What's simple is your well known and established track record of
being a liar, as well as one who will go so far as to forge evidence
he feels is needed to backup his lie. If I was the only one you did
this with, you'd probably be okay since I can't prove it, beyond
what I've already written. But I'm not even in the top ten. You've
pulled this same exact routine on others before me. Which is how I
found out you've done this before - several people who also know
what a pos you are wrote about it. And I directly asked you about
it, only to hear crickets.


You are just making things up to try to save face.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I don't need to do so. I'm not the
one with a damn well known record of doing what you do. Lying your
ass off, and forging evidence to try to support it. Only to get your
stupid ass caught anyway. Since you've done this with all kinds of
people already, and got caught, you'd think you would smarten up.
But you don't.

You're the one who's been trying to save face since you wrongfully
accused me of being involved with the floodbot that was here. And
you somehow think this is going to get me to finally let you up from
that lie; it's not, I won't. I'm still going to remind you of what
you wrote, ask those questions I know you can't answer to support
what you wrote, and close with the obvious point that you are a
confirmed, stalking, netkook, lying piece of **** toadie.

You make insane claims.

No, again, that's something else you like doing when you're lying
about people, or trying to explain yourself out of one you got
caught telling. A good example of that is the bot lies you wrote
about me. You still try to claim you didn't lie about anything, I
simply misunderstood you. I didn't misunderstand anything, you were
specific with your unfounded accusations.

I show evidence to prove you wrong.

Dr'd videos and pics is not evidence that proves anything about me,
it only provides further proof that you are a despicable, lying,
toadie. A troll snit, a ****ing dishonest as **** troll. That's what
you've shown.

You cry you are the victim

Says snit who confuses consequence for threat and demands he not be
held accountable for his actions. You'll be crying plenty, soon
enough, irl.

even as I STILL have not shared the
number

Bull****:

From: Snit
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp. sys.mac.advocacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Ha! Ads be gone!
Date: 1 Sep 2020 18:50:19 GMT
Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology
Lines: 58
Message-ID:
References: op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass op.0p8iz00fwdg98l@glass
op.0p91brdawdg98l@glass

On Sep 1, 2020 at 10:53:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote:

Bit of a faff, why not just email it? If you encrypt it, then hand out the
code, anyone can decrypt it.

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.

On the off chance he
actually has a business I would not want him to be harmed even by himself.

Stop being nice to your enemies.

I am not always nice -- but I try to be fair. More than fair, really.

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.

*** end


Basically, if your mouth is moving, or your keys are hitting a
keyboard; you're probably lying about something and/or someone. It's
all you really do, and like everything else in your miserable life,
it's not very good.

As we have seen, what you think "appears" to be true need not have
any relation to reality.

You're obviously projecting again, snit. We can confirm this by
reading your replies to my request for an apology over the bot lies
you wrote about me. They match the description you just tried to
project onto me, to a T, snit, to a T.


Nope.

ROFL, Yep.

You simply do not understand the tech you are using, cannot
troubleshoot it, and now want to rescind your written permission.

I do understand the tech just fine, I'm years ahead of you and Mike
easter. I was phreaking long before you got your first taste of the
world of PC. I didn't give you any written permission to do anything
with my phone number.


It's the only way it could
be present on the inbound call logs.

Nope.

Yep. face it, you faked it, and you've done this same thing to
others before me. Yes, you're that ****ing dishonest.

I am the one defending myself from your lies about me inserting
the number that showed up from a call YOU told people about.
Remember, I never mentioned it.

You're doing nothing of the sort. You're using this entire thing to
keep attention away from the bull**** lies you wrote about my
involvement with the floodbot. You're trying to keep me from
pointing them out, again, and asking for what you rightfully owe me:
an apology.

More repetition from you where you want me to lie and pretend I
agree with you. You NEED me to lie. Why?

Bull****. You did lie, and you went and did it again recently with
David Brooks over the phonebooks, but before you issued your totally
bull**** apology that wasn't, you tried to excuse the lies you wrote
by claiming I didn't understand what I was reading. You can't go
three posts without lying about something, or someone.

Why does my view even matter so much to you? How did I become so
high and mighty in your life?

You put the target on yourself when you began threatening to dox me.
You sealed your fate today when you did it.

I don't think you really care about that aspect though. I think
by calling out this lie, you see it as an opportunity to try and
dox me to 'support' the lie you've written here, but it's not
even really about supporting it. The actual goal here is to dox
me, but ever so carefully so you don't get in any trouble with
various service providers and so you can claim 'but I didn't
really do that, it wasn't his number, the city wasn't right" and
if anyone pressed you, you'd go with the "It was an accident, a
misunderstanding over the numbers we were discussing." ; except
there wasn't ever more than one.

I have done nothing to dox you, not even sharing the number you
said I could -- not even sharing it to respond to your lies about
me tied to it.

From: Snit
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp. sys.mac.advocacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Ha! Ads be gone!
Date: 1 Sep 2020 18:50:19 GMT
Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology
Lines: 58
Message-ID:
References: op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass op.0p8iz00fwdg98l@glass
op.0p91brdawdg98l@glass

On Sep 1, 2020 at 10:53:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote:

Bit of a faff, why not just email it? If you encrypt it, then hand out the
code, anyone can decrypt it.

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.

On the off chance he
actually has a business I would not want him to be harmed even by himself.

Stop being nice to your enemies.

I am not always nice -- but I try to be fair. More than fair, really.

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.

*** end

You are, without a doubt, a ****ing liar, Snit.

You fixed the issues you told with the bot lie, is what I'm
saying, snit. Atleast, that's what you think you did. You've
really allowed me to corner you; which I have. Obviously. And it
doesn't matter how hard you try to climb or scratch or growl,
I've got you, dead to rights, I've got you.

See: you just repeat you same insane accusations. You cannot stop
yourself.

I didn't make any insane, or unfounded accusations against you. I've
repeatedly called you out for the lies you did infact write about
me, and I will continue doing so until you apologize for having
written them.

The *only* way you're going to get me off your ass on usenet is
if you apologize for the lies you knowingly wrote about me.

This is a direct admission from you that you are harassing me.
Interesting.

This is direct proof that you do have a reading comprehension issue
and you like to project things as you make up stories. Yep. Thanks,
but more proof of what we already know about you wasn't required,
pondscum toadie.

You and others may start to notice various things before I share
the first url. Or, maybe not.

Notice you are making direct threats here.

Nope. I'm simply reminding you of a consequence for the action you
took here, snit:

From: Snit
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp. sys.mac.advocacy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Ha! Ads be gone!
Date: 1 Sep 2020 18:50:19 GMT
Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology
Lines: 58
Message-ID:
References: op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass op.0p8iz00fwdg98l@glass
op.0p91brdawdg98l@glass

On Sep 1, 2020 at 10:53:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote:

Bit of a faff, why not just email it? If you encrypt it, then hand out the
code, anyone can decrypt it.

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.

On the off chance he
actually has a business I would not want him to be harmed even by himself.

Stop being nice to your enemies.

I am not always nice -- but I try to be fair. More than fair, really.

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.

*** end

Yep, that was your action, and it has a consequence. No threat.




--
All about snit read 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://ibb.co/CBgLWpf
Ayep...He's as bad as David Brooks:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

On 2020-09-01, Gremlin wrote:
Snit
Tue, 01 Sep 2020 15:50:59 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Another source
claims it's a centurylink owned line. I already explained why
this happens. So, I see no reason to repeat myself.

This is perhaps your biggest lie to date. Damn, you repeat
yourself non-stop.

What *specifically* are you claiming I've lied about there? Be specific.

IMHO you are approaching this in the wrong way.
Anyone can fake call logs, videos, screen shots, PDF files and so forth
and as you have discovered this isn't snit's first rodeo at faking data.

And let's be honest there is no way of knowing one number from another
or one person's claim from another. At least not by looking at the raw
data, ie:the numbers, cities, etc.

What you need to do is take the FILE, the video, screenshot, pdf file etc
and have it forensically analyzed for trickery.
Only an expert can insert something that wasn't in the original and not
leave some type of tracks. And that includes blurred files.

The three letter groups do it all the time.

That is how I would approach this.

Grab these files before snit all of a sudden loses them and ask around
for people who can help you.




--
pothead

On Sep 1, 2020 at 2:30:15 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

Snit
Tue, 01 Sep 2020 15:50:59 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Another source
claims it's a centurylink owned line. I already explained why
this happens. So, I see no reason to repeat myself.

This is perhaps your biggest lie to date. Damn, you repeat
yourself non-stop.

What *specifically* are you claiming I've lied about there? Be specific.

Did you really not follow that simple comment?

Diesel:
-----
So, I see no reason to repeat myself.
-----

Maybe you just think you do it for no reason at all? LOL!

....

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

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

On Sep 1, 2020 at 2:30:15 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

So we have two claims of yours:

1) You insist the number in my providers phone records does not
exist. You have speculation but have no direct access to the phone
records. I have direct access. I know. You speculate.

I *know* you faked the evidence, snit. I'm not speculating.

You SPECULATE I did. But I did not. Can you understand the difference?


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

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

On Sep 1, 2020 at 2:30:15 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

You are just making things up to try to save face.

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

Just some examples, EACH of which contains information ANYONE can verify if
they have access to your phone number -- while I will not give my ID/PW for
people to see the phone records directly, they can verify the city associated
with it. In RESPONSE to your absurd and repeated accusations I am willing to
share the number you gave me written permission to do so, but ONLY so they can
verify your claims are nonsense and with the specific request they NOT use it
to harass you in any way.

First the written permission if anyone is thinking I would offer it without
such:

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

And then some of your repeated false accusations:

YyRp
-----
They are relevant to the fact YOU INSERTED the phone
number I provided you verbally into a bogus call log video
you've taken the time to create. When I use the cell I
provided you the number for to make outbound calls, It
*ALWAYS* reports Kingsport, TN. Not one single time has it
ever, nor would it have any reason to report Johnson City.
It doesn't pick cities at random, it doesn't go by my
present location, either. That's actually fixed, as is the
number assigned to the phone.
-----


-----
And amusingly (this is what sunk you bro) found yourself
in disagreement with David Brooks (a well known internet
stalker that you foolishly think is your friend) over
which city it is I reside in. it's Kingsport, snit. Not
Johnson City. I'm not within walking distance of Johnson
City, snit. rofl. It's not even a short drive for me, it's
a bit of a long one. So, how can you explain why that city
is supposed to show in your logs but not the one I reside
in?
-----

3WTC373bt67J31gn
-----
You didn't even score the right city, Snit. And, the
correct city is common, public knowledge with the regulars
here. The moment you unblocked 'Johnson City' in your
videos, you were busted.
-----

oj8b
-----
David, every single Address you've posted that's supposed
to be mine has been Kingsport. Not Johnson City. Don't you
think you should tell snit that was a ****up on his part
by now?
-----


-----
His response to that was to file a report with the
kingsport,tn police. Well hell, why not the johnson city
ones? That's where he claimed the call said it originated
from.
-----

YyRp
-----
They are relevant to the fact YOU INSERTED the phone
number I provided you verbally into a bogus call log video
you've taken the time to create. When I use the cell I
provided you the number for to make outbound calls, It
*ALWAYS* reports Kingsport, TN. Not one single time has it
ever, nor would it have any reason to report Johnson City.
It doesn't pick cities at random, it doesn't go by my
present location, either. That's actually fixed, as is the
number assigned to the phone.
-----

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

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

On Sep 1, 2020 at 2:30:15 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

I show evidence to prove you wrong.

Dr'd videos and pics is not evidence that proves anything about me,
it only provides further proof that you are a despicable, lying,
toadie. A troll snit, a ****ing dishonest as **** troll. That's what
you've shown.

I will not share my ID/PW for people to verify the records directly, but given
how you have offered written permission for me to share your number I am happy
to do so for anyone who wants it so they can verify the more openly provable
lies of yours. They need only provide an email (even a temporary one) and I
will ask them not to use the phone number to harass you in any way but ONLY to
verify that your accusations about the number not being tied to the city are
flat out wrong. I am merely defending myself against your accusations to do
so.

YyRp
-----
They are relevant to the fact YOU INSERTED the phone
number I provided you verbally into a bogus call log video
you've taken the time to create. When I use the cell I
provided you the number for to make outbound calls, It
*ALWAYS* reports Kingsport, TN. Not one single time has it
ever, nor would it have any reason to report Johnson City.
It doesn't pick cities at random, it doesn't go by my
present location, either. That's actually fixed, as is the
number assigned to the phone.
-----


-----
And amusingly (this is what sunk you bro) found yourself
in disagreement with David Brooks (a well known internet
stalker that you foolishly think is your friend) over
which city it is I reside in. it's Kingsport, snit. Not
Johnson City. I'm not within walking distance of Johnson
City, snit. rofl. It's not even a short drive for me, it's
a bit of a long one. So, how can you explain why that city
is supposed to show in your logs but not the one I reside
in?
-----

3WTC373bt67J31gn
-----
You didn't even score the right city, Snit. And, the
correct city is common, public knowledge with the regulars
here. The moment you unblocked 'Johnson City' in your
videos, you were busted.
-----

oj8b
-----
David, every single Address you've posted that's supposed
to be mine has been Kingsport. Not Johnson City. Don't you
think you should tell snit that was a ****up on his part
by now?
-----


-----
His response to that was to file a report with the
kingsport,tn police. Well hell, why not the johnson city
ones? That's where he claimed the call said it originated
from.
-----

YyRp
-----
They are relevant to the fact YOU INSERTED the phone
number I provided you verbally into a bogus call log video
you've taken the time to create. When I use the cell I
provided you the number for to make outbound calls, It
*ALWAYS* reports Kingsport, TN. Not one single time has it
ever, nor would it have any reason to report Johnson City.
It doesn't pick cities at random, it doesn't go by my
present location, either. That's actually fixed, as is the
number assigned to the phone.
-----

And for anyone who wants to verify you gave me written permission to share the
info from my logs:

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

--
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.

pothead Tue,
01 Sep 2020 22:48:05 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 2020-09-01, Gremlin wrote:
Snit
Tue, 01 Sep 2020 15:50:59
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Another source
claims it's a centurylink owned line. I already explained why
this happens. So, I see no reason to repeat myself.

This is perhaps your biggest lie to date. Damn, you repeat
yourself non-stop.

What *specifically* are you claiming I've lied about there? Be
specific.

IMHO you are approaching this in the wrong way.
Anyone can fake call logs, videos, screen shots, PDF files and so
forth and as you have discovered this isn't snit's first rodeo at
faking data.

I know about the former, recently learned about the latter.

And let's be honest there is no way of knowing one number from
another or one person's claim from another. At least not by
looking at the raw data, ie:the numbers, cities, etc.

It depends on the raw data and what you're looking for. I'll concede
that your statement is mostly correct for a lay person, though.

What you need to do is take the FILE, the video, screenshot, pdf
file etc and have it forensically analyzed for trickery.

Yes, I'm aware of this, and I've already taken such liberty with
:the material he's offered to share, thus far.

Only an expert can insert something that wasn't in the original
and not leave some type of tracks. And that includes blurred
files.

Umm.

I disagree with you on this assumption - I've seen some impressive
trickery done by non experts, using the right software. And I know
of two cases where had it not been for the umm, bad guys admitting
it, nobody was going to prove they diddled the video. This is a
digital world now, and digital photo/video editing software packages
have gotten very advanced throughout the years. Short of the digital
photograph being digitally signed in some manner, and/or the video
itself, there's no way to identify all cases of digital video
forgery, no. Sadly, the answer is no. The hardware and software, and
algorithms in use now due to faster processors and more advanced
understanding of various types of math makes what wasn't possible,
not even so much as ten years ago, quite possible, and infact,
demonstratably done, now. And it's not going to get better as time
marches on.

Now, the only way you're going catch fakery is if the person who
shot the video didn't really try to hide anything or ****ed up if
they did, or the video is so unbelievable as to make you doubt it.

If they did, and they used the right packages, you probably aren't
going to know for sure what's real and what isn't in the video
itself. Now, if you see an alien land in dudes back yard, you
may/may not trust the video, but the damn data itself isn't going to
tell you the guy didn't insert that space ship during post
production, if it's done right.

The three letter groups do it all the time.

Yes, but, they outsource that work most of the time to uhh, people
like me. It's possible a peer would find something I missed, but,
I'm not hopeful. They still do some inhouse work mind you, but, they
aren't using inhouse only tools vs outsource only tools. It's not
quite like that...

This was not some quick video production. This took a little time to
do properly. Now, I don't have original source sample videos of this
particular material to cross reference against either; it's possible
I could find something I'd missed if I did. Such as pixelation
present that I'm mistaking as should be there, for shouldn't.
Youtubes transcoding isn't helpful for this either. rofl.

I've already said I can't prove what I accused him of and that
hasn't changed. I'll review the videos he's shared again later, as
time allows, but I expect the results are going to be the same from
a forensic analysis approach. Again.


That is how I would approach this.

I did. I'm glad to see we think alike in some aspects, though.

Grab these files before snit all of a sudden loses them and ask
around for people who can help you.

I've already acquired the ones youtube allows me to get. One is
private as of the last time I tried. I have passed them around to my
peers, those who didn't already have copies, and they are also
analyzing the files. No one is hopeful of finding enough material to
prove he faked it and be able to show the time stamps of where the
faking begins/ends - which is what we were wanting to be able to do
with the analysis.



--
All about snit read 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://ibb.co/CBgLWpf
Ayep...He's as bad as David Brooks:
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php