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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.