What it's like to interact with Snit - a video perspective

A video perspective of the experience one can look forward to when
interacting with Snit.

In this video, Keith will be playing the role of Snit. The voice is a
pretty close match, wouldn't you agree? Matt will be playing the role
of myself and anyone else who's had the misfortune of dealing with
Snit.

Yes folks, someone who thinks with the logic of Snit; the keith. Just
listen as they make a ****load of mistakes and ramble on, and then, try
to link it all together. Uh huh. Just like Snit does with their
obnoxious trolling replies and posts about various others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAue1i58GOQ



--
The worst of all deceptions is self-deception. -Plato

Gremlin wrote:
A video perspective of the experience one can look forward to when
interacting with Snit.

In this video, Keith will be playing the role of Snit. The voice is a
pretty close match, wouldn't you agree? Matt will be playing the role
of myself and anyone else who's had the misfortune of dealing with
Snit.

Yes folks, someone who thinks with the logic of Snit; the keith. Just
listen as they make a ****load of mistakes and ramble on, and then, try
to link it all together. Uh huh. Just like Snit does with their
obnoxious trolling replies and posts about various others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAue1i58GOQ

Hey, let’s do a Zoom session and record it and share it with others! You
can ask me whatever you want. And I get to do the same with you.

What day and time works for you? Happy to do it. Would be fun! Heck, we can
both post it to make sure all is fair and honest.

Don’t trip over your laces.


--
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.

John Doe
Thu, 30 Jul 2020 06:47:46 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Chronic nym-shifting deranged troll...

Dumbass, how many times do you need to be told to learn to use a filter
on your client? What point is there in responding and ADDING an
additional newsgroup to your reply:

From my post these newsgroups were selected:


alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp. sys.mac.advocacy,talk
..politics.guns,alt.comp.os.windows-10

And yours is:

alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp. sys.mac.advocacy,talk
..politics.guns,alt.comp.os.windows-10,free.spam

I suspect you got confused, the free.spam should have been in the
followup to section of your headers, dumb****. Otherwise, your reply
makes no sense whatsoever, because, you ADDED an additional newsgroup
to the collection. Either way, you're a dumb ****.

User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05

Xnews does have working filtering code, and it's not difficult to
setup. Learn to use your ****ing client.




--
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati - Possum Lodge Motto

Snit
Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:25:42 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

John Doe wrote:
Chronic nym-shifting deranged troll...


Diesel / Gremlin / whatever other names he uses is flipping out.

Ah yes, the flipping out routine. That's covered in the snitlist,
too.

Are you still going to tell us that everything written about you in
the so called snitlist is completely untrue and otherwise bull****
written by your detractors to slime you?

As well, You used one of your known lines with your asshat response,
is why I'm asking.

But I will still be happy to do a Zoom session with him. Would
love it. He can try to impress me all he wants! He can repeat all
his accusations and let me respond in real time.

Snit, you avoid discussing anything you've been writing so far. I
have no intentions to let David get a birds eye view of my location,
inside or out. I'd have to be a ****ing idiot to think this video
idea is entirely your doing. And, I see no possible benefit to doing
this, other than providing David additional stalking information.

Sounds like fun!

You can't hold a conversation with me on usenet, I seriously doubt a
video chat would be any different. Infact, it would be worse for you,
because, your facial expressions would be available for reading and
analysis when you responded to my questions, if you actually did so.
You avoid them here, so I don't see why you wouldn't try the same
ruse on zoom. With your facial expressions available on video when I
ask my questions, you wouldn't be able to con anyone (not that you
actually have) concerning any misunderstanding about the false
accusations you've continued making against me. Not to mention your
snide remarks concerning what you think I do/don't know. I'd just own
you on video same as I already do on usenet. No question about it.

But I bet he refuses.

Yea.. another prediction right?

Btw, check the headers before you respond, The previous dumbass added
an additional newsgroup while they professed inability to setup a
filter on their client.



--
You want computer jokes? Ok: IBM, NEC, DEC, Microsoft...

Snit
Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:25:41 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Gremlin wrote:
A video perspective of the experience one can look forward to
when interacting with Snit.

In this video, Keith will be playing the role of Snit. The voice
is a pretty close match, wouldn't you agree? Matt will be playing
the role of myself and anyone else who's had the misfortune of
dealing with Snit.

Yes folks, someone who thinks with the logic of Snit; the keith.
Just listen as they make a ****load of mistakes and ramble on,
and then, try to link it all together. Uh huh. Just like Snit
does with their obnoxious trolling replies and posts about
various others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAue1i58GOQ

Hey, let’s do a Zoom session and record it and share it with
others! You can ask me whatever you want. And I get to do the same
with you.

Hey, that's not too bad of an idea, except for a few little problems I
can think of off the top of my head. Snit, due to previous, and quite
severe 'misunderstandings', I'm being *very* sarcastic by using the
word 'little'. I do hope I've dumbed this down enough so that you
understand without issue, but I won't bet on it.

Anyways, here's a few of those little problems:

1) You lack the ability to have a discussion with me on usenet. Video
wouldn't be any different, you'd most likely just talk over me as I
responded to something you asked, or began asking you something. I'd
let you do this, because my radio background already taught me that the
audience isn't going to hear both of us well at the same time.

2) Based on previous interactions with David Brooks concerning videos
and pictures which outright belong to me, or have shared copyright as a
video with you would - being placed anywhere he likes, requiring me to
file multiple dmca notifications all over again.

3) I'm really not too keen on providing David Brooks any video
background of my shop. I have a real problem doing that, for what
should be obvious reasons. as I realize you're clueless about that too,
intentionally, I'll dumb this down further too:

David Brooks has attempted to use video and pictures I've shared
previously to stalk me. To find my current and actual meatspace, which
if he had, would be shared as much as he could possibly share it. I
have no reason to trust that a 'zoom' video with you wouldn't be abused
by David Brooks shortly after you released it. Likely with your
blessings for him to abuse as he sees fit.

4) I don't believe the video idea is an original one from you. I
believe you had an individual make the suggestion.

5) The video result would be the same as the video I selected for this
threads Creation. I'd be playing the role of Matt, and you'd be playing
one of the callers who doesn't comprehend logic thought for a
nanosecond.

If theres anything i'm missing, or, otherwise left out, feel free to
let me know.

What day and time works for you? Happy to do it. Would be fun!
Heck, we can both post it to make sure all is fair and honest.

Ahh. Yes, both post it... rofl. Dude, you aren't honest so far on
usenet, I have no reason to think that would change via video. The only
thing video would do is provide David more information on me. And, I
just don't see any advantage for me to do that.



--
My sister-in-law sat on my glasses and broke them. It was my own
fault. I should have taken them off.

On Aug 4, 2020 at 6:12:35 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

Snit
Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:25:41 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Gremlin wrote:
A video perspective of the experience one can look forward to
when interacting with Snit.

In this video, Keith will be playing the role of Snit. The voice
is a pretty close match, wouldn't you agree? Matt will be playing
the role of myself and anyone else who's had the misfortune of
dealing with Snit.

Yes folks, someone who thinks with the logic of Snit; the keith.
Just listen as they make a ****load of mistakes and ramble on,
and then, try to link it all together. Uh huh. Just like Snit
does with their obnoxious trolling replies and posts about
various others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAue1i58GOQ

Hey, let’s do a Zoom session and record it and share it with
others! You can ask me whatever you want. And I get to do the same
with you.

Hey, that's not too bad of an idea, except for a few little problems I
can think of off the top of my head. Snit, due to previous, and quite
severe 'misunderstandings', I'm being *very* sarcastic by using the
word 'little'. I do hope I've dumbed this down enough so that you
understand without issue, but I won't bet on it.

Here come your excuses for not having a Zoom session. The reality is you fear
being utterly humiliated in a new medium. You clearly have a lot of trouble
understanding the written word, but for you to show you cannot understand
interactive voice even with a video would be even worse for you.

Anyways, here's a few of those little problems:

Below you project and troll. Bot interested.


1) You lack the ability to have a discussion with me on usenet. Video
wouldn't be any different, you'd most likely just talk over me as I
responded to something you asked, or began asking you something. I'd
let you do this, because my radio background already taught me that the
audience isn't going to hear both of us well at the same time.

I assure you I would be happy to give you plenty of time to dig your hole. It
would be fun to watch it, really!

2) Based on previous interactions with David Brooks concerning videos
and pictures which outright belong to me, or have shared copyright as a
video with you would - being placed anywhere he likes, requiring me to
file multiple dmca notifications all over again.

It would be open. You or I can use it as we want. Others likely would.
Whatever. I have no fear.

3) I'm really not too keen on providing David Brooks any video
background of my shop. I have a real problem doing that, for what
should be obvious reasons. as I realize you're clueless about that too,
intentionally, I'll dumb this down further too:

Zoom has the ability to have a backdrop. Does not look great but who cares? I
would be happy to teach you how.

And you can use a curtain if you do not like that or cannot figure it out. It
is not that hard but it might be a bit advanced for a beginner.


David Brooks has attempted to use video and pictures I've shared
previously to stalk me. To find my current and actual meatspace, which
if he had, would be shared as much as he could possibly share it. I
have no reason to trust that a 'zoom' video with you wouldn't be abused
by David Brooks shortly after you released it. Likely with your
blessings for him to abuse as he sees fit.

You want to blame David for you being afraid to have a Zoom discussion.
Whatever.

4) I don't believe the video idea is an original one from you. I
believe you had an individual make the suggestion.

I did not create the idea of video chats. Good for you to figure that out! But
nobody suggested I make this offer to you.

Heck, you can even invite Carroll to back you up... after all you would need
it. I would love it.


5) The video result would be the same as the video I selected for this
threads Creation. I'd be playing the role of Matt, and you'd be playing
one of the callers who doesn't comprehend logic thought for a
nanosecond.

And yet you, not I, are the one who is refusing. Again, you do not owe me --
but the excuses you give are hilarious!


If theres anything i'm missing, or, otherwise left out, feel free to
let me know.

How funny your excuses are. Face it -- you are simply scared. You could not
push the crap you do in real time as easily as you do in a forum like this. It
is also why Carroll will NEVER agree to such a conversation.

You two troll a lot alike in many ways.



What day and time works for you? Happy to do it. Would be fun!
Heck, we can both post it to make sure all is fair and honest.

Ahh. Yes, both post it... rofl. Dude, you aren't honest so far on
usenet, I have no reason to think that would change via video. The only
thing video would do is provide David more information on me. And, I
just don't see any advantage for me to do that.


He would see your face... and hear your voice. He already knows how badly you
understand things and how poorly you support your claims. It would be fun to
show it in a different medium.

But you will not. That is for certain. It was trivial to predict.


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

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

Gremlin wrote:

some thing wrote:

Diesel / Gremlin / whatever other names he uses is flipping out.

Ah yes, the flipping out routine. That's covered in the snitlist,
too.

Are you still going to tell us that everything written about you in
the so called snitlist is completely untrue and otherwise bull****
written by your detractors to slime you?

That thing will claim that no one has been able to quote it lying.
Ever.

It lies without shame, man. Lying is pretty-much all that it does.

--
"Many claim, for example, that I have lied... but *none* can find any
example of this. Not a single example." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)

Snit wrote:
On Aug 4, 2020 at 6:12:35 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote:

Snit
Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:25:41 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Gremlin wrote:
A video perspective of the experience one can look forward to
when interacting with Snit.

In this video, Keith will be playing the role of Snit. The voice
is a pretty close match, wouldn't you agree? Matt will be playing
the role of myself and anyone else who's had the misfortune of
dealing with Snit.

Yes folks, someone who thinks with the logic of Snit; the keith.
Just listen as they make a ****load of mistakes and ramble on,
and then, try to link it all together. Uh huh. Just like Snit
does with their obnoxious trolling replies and posts about
various others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAue1i58GOQ

Hey, let’s do a Zoom session and record it and share it with
others! You can ask me whatever you want. And I get to do the same
with you.

Hey, that's not too bad of an idea, except for a few little problems I
can think of off the top of my head. Snit, due to previous, and quite
severe 'misunderstandings', I'm being *very* sarcastic by using the
word 'little'. I do hope I've dumbed this down enough so that you
understand without issue, but I won't bet on it.

Here come your excuses for not having a Zoom session. The reality is you fear
being utterly humiliated in a new medium. You clearly have a lot of trouble
understanding the written word, but for you to show you cannot understand
interactive voice even with a video would be even worse for you.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.

Anyways, here's a few of those little problems:

Below you project and troll. Bot interested.


1) You lack the ability to have a discussion with me on usenet. Video
wouldn't be any different, you'd most likely just talk over me as I
responded to something you asked, or began asking you something. I'd
let you do this, because my radio background already taught me that the
audience isn't going to hear both of us well at the same time.

I assure you I would be happy to give you plenty of time to dig your hole. It
would be fun to watch it, really!

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.

2) Based on previous interactions with David Brooks concerning videos
and pictures which outright belong to me, or have shared copyright as a
video with you would - being placed anywhere he likes, requiring me to
file multiple dmca notifications all over again.

It would be open. You or I can use it as we want. Others likely would.
Whatever. I have no fear.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.

3) I'm really not too keen on providing David Brooks any video
background of my shop. I have a real problem doing that, for what
should be obvious reasons. as I realize you're clueless about that too,
intentionally, I'll dumb this down further too:

Zoom has the ability to have a backdrop. Does not look great but who cares? I
would be happy to teach you how.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel. Maybe he thinks the lesson is too
advanced for him.

And you can use a curtain if you do not like that or cannot figure it out. It
is not that hard but it might be a bit advanced for a beginner.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.



David Brooks has attempted to use video and pictures I've shared
previously to stalk me. To find my current and actual meatspace, which
if he had, would be shared as much as he could possibly share it. I
have no reason to trust that a 'zoom' video with you wouldn't be abused
by David Brooks shortly after you released it. Likely with your
blessings for him to abuse as he sees fit.

You want to blame David for you being afraid to have a Zoom discussion.
Whatever.

4) I don't believe the video idea is an original one from you. I
believe you had an individual make the suggestion.

I did not create the idea of video chats. Good for you to figure that out! But
nobody suggested I make this offer to you.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.

Heck, you can even invite Carroll to back you up... after all you would need
it. I would love it.


5) The video result would be the same as the video I selected for this
threads Creation. I'd be playing the role of Matt, and you'd be playing
one of the callers who doesn't comprehend logic thought for a
nanosecond.

And yet you, not I, are the one who is refusing. Again, you do not owe me --
but the excuses you give are hilarious!

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.


If theres anything i'm missing, or, otherwise left out, feel free to
let me know.

How funny your excuses are. Face it -- you are simply scared. You could not
push the crap you do in real time as easily as you do in a forum like this. It
is also why Carroll will NEVER agree to such a conversation.

You two troll a lot alike in many ways.



What day and time works for you? Happy to do it. Would be fun!
Heck, we can both post it to make sure all is fair and honest.

Ahh. Yes, both post it... rofl. Dude, you aren't honest so far on
usenet, I have no reason to think that would change via video. The only
thing video would do is provide David more information on me. And, I
just don't see any advantage for me to do that.


He would see your face... and hear your voice. He already knows how badly you
understand things and how poorly you support your claims. It would be fun to
show it in a different medium.

But you will not. That is for certain. It was trivial to predict.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.



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

Snit
Wed, 05 Aug 2020 01:44:08 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Aug 4, 2020 at 6:12:34 PM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

Snit
Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:25:42
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

John Doe wrote:
Chronic nym-shifting deranged troll...


Diesel / Gremlin / whatever other names he uses is flipping out.

Ah yes, the flipping out routine.

Can you do something other than that?

It's not my routine, so how would I know what else you can/cannot
do, snit. It's one of several comments you're known for making to
avoid answering questions or otherwise engage in two way productive
dialogue.
That's covered in the snitlist,
too.

Remember when you denied how much Carroll manipulated you... now
you brag about it.

The snitlist as it's known has nothing to do with carroll. it's a
collection of quotes written by various posters, all about, you. And
you're well aware of that, too. You've even gone so far as to claim
it's a pile of forgeries by carroll and otherwise, completely made
up bull**** about you designed to make people dislike you before
they have the chance to get to know anything about you. Atleast,
that's what you'd very much like for myself and others to believe is
the case.

I know some of the people who's quotes are part of the snitlist,
too. I respect their professional opinions. And none of them, as far
as I've been able to determine so far are 'forgies' of any kind,
either. The people credited for writing the post sections on the
list are not denying they wrote the comments, Snit. I've yet to read
a single post from someone quoted on that list denying they wrote
the material in question.

The problem is that, well, I can show examples of your interactions
with myself alone that covers almost all, if not all of the
examples, on that snitlist. If the contents of the list were nothing
more than a slimeballs attempt to besmirch you, no actual examples
of you doing what you're accused of would exist. But, they do.

You actually are as described by various people who's quotes are on
that list. The MIDs are included for each post. From those MIDs, you
can pull the entire thread in full context to see that nothing being
quoted about you was either forged or otherwise, untrue, or, posted
by a forger.

Not a single example on the snitlist is something a normal adult
would be striving to achieve, but then we have you. Not only do you
work hard to ensure the accuracy of the so called snit list, you
take a certain amount of pride in your trolling. I really don't know
what it is you actually get from your interactions and well earned
usenet reputation, I really don't. Alas, I don't claim to understand
everything all the time either. Computers make much more sense to me
than the behavior of most humans...

And we've already seen how quick you'll accuse Carroll of a post,
even if there's no ****ing way in hell he wrote it. Take your recent
accusation towards me concerning a reply I wrote - Despite the reply
being signed with Gremlin over Diesel, the actual contents of the
reply clealy indicated who the author of the reply was. You've been
using the Diesel/Gremlin thing as a smokescreen to cover up the fact
you really *cannot read well*; and I cite the recent, first post I
did with Gremlin as an example of that. That post was riding you
over mistakes you made concerning MY AZ program and it's algorithm.
We went round and round over that for a period of time, too.

So.. If you actually read my reply, before you opted to respond with
a "you're carroll and/or a sock", you would have known who wrote it.
It becomes quite evident, even for you at this point, you have
serious problems understanding the written word. You can't hide it,
you can't deflect from it. You continue to demonstrate your life
long learning disability along with the maturity of a small child
with almost every single of your replies to myself and various
others.

You lie about people, and when caught doing it, outright caught, you
still continue to claim you were misunderstood; that you didn't lie,
except that well, you did. And I'm not writing about little white
lies here - I'm writing about your efforts to sell a story that I
had anything whatsoever to do with the usenet bot that floods here.
A bot, I've noticed has gone silent since I started really grilling
you about that particular set of lies.

It's probably just a coincidence, or, maybe who ever is behind the
bot has taken some of what I've written and checked it out, seen for
themselves that I haven't been bsing and aren't as interested in
taking unnecessary risk to themselves for a little usenet
entertainment. I could very well be wrong though.

I do hope I am. As, well, if the bot owner has smartened up, and I
eventually do learn who's behind it, I can't exactly drill them
retroactively and not look like a total ****ing asshole to my peers
as I did so. If you had peers, you'd understand that concept.
Suffice to say, peer pressure is real. The struggle is real mannnn!

Are you still going to tell us that everything written about you
in the so called snitlist is completely untrue and otherwise
bull**** written by your detractors to slime you?

I will note I have responded to this many times and it would be
great if you learned to understand what you read. Remember when
you used to claim you did?

You're welcome to continue repeating your bs story about me, but
don't expect to make very many sales, and do expect to have to
accept returns due to a fraudulent transaction on your part, Snit.

Snit, the problem is, myself and others have been checking out the
contents of that list. The MIDs have been provided for all the
quotes. They couldn't all be carroll socks, on your best day -
Especially considering that I've known several individuals quoted on
that list for a very long time, and I have a great amount of respect
for their professional opinions. I have no reason to doubt them.

You've given me no reason whatsoever to take anything you write at
face value without supporting evidence to confirm what you write is
true. You've provided far too many examples where this isn't the
case. And, you're still trying to defend your bot post accusations
towards me. Although, as "projected" by the snitlist, you've been
attempting to change it into a misunderstanding. There was no
misunderstanding on my end at any point in time, and you didn't
misunderstand the words you used when you specifically claimed I was
called out for having it, and later clarified I had the executable
version of the program.

You event went so far as to ask a question about how I got the code
to the bot; would I ever tell. As if to directly claim what you
wrote previous to that question had already been well established as
the truth. At no time, was anything you wrote about my involvement
with the bot true.

There are no posts calling me out, and no posts where I clarified I
had the bot in compiled form. You would have shared MIDs to them by
now to properly shut me up about this - but you can't very well
share what doesn't exist. Posting an invalid MID (one you made up)
won't work for those of us who can search using them. And, I'm sure
even you realize that. So, no MIDs to support what you claimed took
place he

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:


-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

*** end paste

You made it up, and tried to use something completely unrelated that
you quoted out of context to try and support your accusations. It
doesn't and you can't. And, you've been trying to deflect/divert and
otherwise project, basically, anything to avoid answering my
questions about what you wrote. You've provided 14 MIDs where you
repeat yourself by claiming if I wasn't writing about the floodbot
specifically, what was I writing about. Both Apd and myself answered
that question, multiple times, for you. You quickly dismissed BOTH
OF US because what we told you didn't support your narrative. Sorry,
snit, but I know damn well what I meant by what I wrote, and so does
everyone else who doesn't have a reading comprehension problem.
Which is why Apd told you the same thing I did concerning what you
quoted me out of context above:


Message-ID:

"Snit" wrote:
On 6/11/20 5:19 PM, Apd wrote:
"Steve Carroll - fretwizzer" wrote:
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel right
now.

Yup.

Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some
code other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK. Maybe
I missed the context -- but if so then what code did he mean. He
never says. That shoots down his own argument.

He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece of
software. He said as much.

[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.

You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that.

[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so
much to Diesel.

None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.

** end

And yes, for the record, you did accuse me of helping carroll in the
same post as the one you made up about my involvement with the
floodbot here.

If what I wrote isn't what has taken place Snit, why does Apd feel
the same about your post as myself? We both agree, you falsely
accused me of something I didn't have anything to do with.

Here's more of the post I've been sharing, Snit. The lines above
what I shared previously, actually. As you and everyone else can
see, when I provide more of your post, it's even more obvious you
lied about the entire thing, and I'm starting to suspect you knew
you were lying when you wrote it. Let's get specific with a few more
of them now.


"Diesel made it clear he could find the IP of the person running the
bot. And he made it clear it would be easy for him to make a
Sandman-like time table of posting, but showing Carroll and the bot
and myself."

I've already checked my sent items, so I've already verified for
myself what I actually wrote about the bots IP address. And, what I
wrote does NOT support what you claimed, there. So, that's a lie.

Wanna start keeping count? It's just additional lies, all
intended to support the primary lie you tried to sell - That I had
the bot itself, in compiled code form no less. That's a lie, snit.
an unproven lie, written by you about me.

"Was he lying when he said that? Maybe. But I do not think so. And
if he was merely lying he would not have access to the program
itself, which he makes VERY clear he did."

When you take into consideration that at no point in time did I make
it clear I could find the bots IP address, I'd have to say I wasn't
lying, no; you're simply making that up. So, that's lie number 2!

Now, on we go to your claim that I made it very clear I had access
to the program itself. Where are the MIDs which support your
accusation, Snit? There aren't any. So, that's lie number 3!

"Diesel and Carroll were trolling together."

We've covered this, you backpeddled with Apd, but haven't done as
Apd advised and made your retraction clear with me. You know, the
one you accused. I'm pretty sure "trolling together" means I was
helping Carroll in snit language. Proof:

[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.

You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that.

"The bot goes silent."

Being as I have the bot filtered with my client, I wouldn't know
from using my client whether the bot has gone silent or not. Since
you started with your bs story concerning my involvement with it
though, I have been double checking the newsgroup via GG where
nothing is filtered. In any event, whatever the bot is or isn't
doing has nothing to do with me, as I've maintained all along -
despite your unfounded (read: lies) to the contrary.

So, that's lie number 4! Snit.

"Diesel then says if the bot is just turned off he will let it slide. "Does that sound like Diesel to you?"

I did state that, yes. As far as what you think I sound like, quite
recently, you claimed Carroll was responsible for a post I authored;
despite the post riding you about my AZ program; you still tried to
claim it was Carroll himself and/or a sock. All to cover up the fact
you have a severe, well demonstrated, reading comprehension problem.

There's no other possible reason for you to have assumed Carroll
wrote a post that was riding you about your ****ups with my AZ
program.

And he also say this:

-----
-----
It needs to be recoded anyway, it's a seriously **** poor
example of writing software.
-----

** end share

Indeed, I did. I provided my expert opinion on the bot. Yep. It's a
piece of ****, and if it's author can't write code/script any better
than that, they shouldn't even bother. I've seen better code samples
from a third grader.

I am always open to reviewing new evidence though, so if you can
provide MIDs to posts where people are questioning the snitlist by
claiming they didn't write what is quoted on that list, feel free to
share those MIDS and I will spend the time to review them as I can.
And, I'll get back to you on what I learned as a result.

[snip]

Snit, you avoid discussing anything you've been writing so far.

A direct lie on your part. But not surprising.

Obviously, it's not a direct lie on my part. How many times have I
been asking you to apologize for your bull**** story about my
involvement with the bot now? And, that's not even the only lie
you've told about me since you got here. It's just one i'm holding
onto for the time being. I've got several more, and i'll introduce
them as time goes on.

[snip]

Isn't your business known?

Yep. I've got quite the reputation as a "computer wizard" in this
"small town" Would you like to read some news articles about me? Or,
would that be bragging or otherwise trying to impress you, Snit? I
seek clarification.

You lie, I know you lie, I have an issue with your lying about me
specifically and I just don't see how a video chat with you is going
to resolve that. I can see how it might be a benefit to David for
stalking purposes, though.

Unless you're going to tell me the video call is going to be
different somehow? If so, please, enlighten me, how this would be
any different than our "interactions" here on usenet so far, Snit.

I'd have to be a ****ing idiot to think this video
idea is entirely your doing.

I did not come up with the idea of video chats, but that does not
prove you are NOT, as you say, "a ****ing idiot".

I didn't say you came up with the idea of video chats, moron.
Especially considering I was already doing this, albeit across the
local network in highschool with windows 3.11 and novell systems in
the early 90s; before 'webcamming' over the internet took off.

Harddiskless 386sx machines no less. They booted off their nics into
a novell login prompt, snit. Originally setup on a large token ring
network. I later assisted the school in switching out all of the
networking gear from token ring to cat5. That meant the switches, as
well as all of the network cards in each machine; a four floor
building with a lot of computers inside, Snit. A rather large,
isolated, non internet aware, network. And it wasn't a matter of
popping the case open and switching out the card and moving onto the
next machine. The card had to be configured via jumpers for each
install. And, you had to run a setup.exe file to configure the rest
of the eeprom to tell the nic to load an OS from the network, not
the local hard drive; since the majority of the computers on the
network didn't have any hard drives.

I'll tell you a funny story about a prank I pulled with that network
if you'd like, I just want to make sure you won't accuse me of
bragging before I do. It is an example of hacking AND cracking (yes,
they are related, but actually different subjects). If you're
interested just let me know in your no doubt, very short, and snarky
reply evading everything I wrote, as usual.

What I wrote, and mistakenly assumed would be clear was this video
idea you've presented isn't entirely your own idea. In other words,
I believe David suggested this, or you asked his opinion and he
suggested you should make the offer. He's been dying to see what my
lab looks like, Snit. I've held a very old video over his head for
years. He's solicited the help of several people in cracking it open
for him, too. So far, the algorithm I originally developed as a
single digit age kid on a tandy color computer 3 is still holding.

As well, it should. It's reasonably strong crypto, done right. Yep,
I've been porting it along as I moved from system to system growing
up snit, that's how long I've been writing serious code.

It would give you a chance to have a discussion you keep begging
to have. And it would be fun.

That doesn't make any sense, Snit. You're unwilling so far, atleast,
to answer the majority of my questions here on usenet. Why would a
video chat be any different?

You can't hold a conversation with me on usenet, I seriously
doubt a video chat would be any different.

Your comprehension might be better on video chat than on text. I
would love to test that.

My comprehension is fine. I do find it rather amusing that you're
basically trying to throw something I wrote about you back at me,
though. My question for that is, has that ever worked out with a
positive result, even a single time, for you?

You've been trying that ruse for awhile now. Quite telling. I really
struck a chord didn't I...I bet if I were to go exploring a little
further, there's probably a junction box and/or a mainbus of nerves
I could get results from probing in the same general area. Heh, I'll
have to ponder on that more - mental note to self if you will.

Infact, it would be worse for you,
because, your facial expressions would be available for reading
and analysis when you responded to my questions, if you actually
did so.

And yet it is you, not I, who is saying no to this chat. I welcome
it. I think it would be a hoot!

It's your idea, snit. I don't have the same opinions of this idea as
you do. I don't see how it would be any different than usenet has
been so far - Why would you refuse to answer my questions over
usenet, but be willing to do so via a video call? That doesn't make
any sense. Especially when you've stated you will share the
resulting video. Well, I'd be asking you the same questions and
homing in on what you wrote, specifically, just as I've done here on
usenet.

I have no reason to think your avoidance/projection and diversion
efforts would be any different - just easier to nail you on screen
is all. But, no point in doing that either. I've already been able
to establish that you're a liar who won't/can't backup what he
writes about other people, and I didn't need a video chat with you
to do that.

So, explain what you think would be different about this, snit, and
I'll give it more consideration. I'm guessing your available pretty
much any time of day or night, right? Well, I don't have such
freetime luxuries as that. So, if you want to do a video chat, I
have to see a real, valid, and useful answer as to why I should
humour you.

I'd have to take time away from something else; or dig into my own
personal time as I do when I respond to you on usenet. Either way, I
have to give up something to do this, due to the fact I WORK FOR A
LIVING, so what's in it for me, Snit? What can I possibly gain by
interacting with you over video?

But I also expect you to not do it. You do not owe me, of course
but your excuses are quite telling!

Heh, just like the snitlist claims:

10. Lies by reversing implication, e.g., "Firetrucks are red,
this apple is red, therefore this apple is a firetruck."

You avoid them here, so I don't see why you wouldn't try the same
ruse on zoom. With your facial expressions available on video
when I ask my questions, you wouldn't be able to con anyone (not
that you actually have) concerning any misunderstanding about the
false accusations you've continued making against me. Not to
mention your snide remarks concerning what you think I do/don't
know. I'd just own you on video same as I already do on usenet.
No question about it.

And this is part of the reason you will not do what I think would
be fun. LOL!

Heh, answer my aforementioned questions snit, and I'll take your
request more seriously.

I bet Carroll pretends to believe you.

I don't even know what you mean by that. I predict that instead of
explaining what you meant, you'll claim I have a problem
understanding what I read instead and leave it at that.

But I bet he refuses.

Yea.. another prediction right?

And a correct one. It is not like you are hard to predict... or
the first to troll me!

Well snit, I'm not going to jump off a 100 story building just
because someone asked me to do so either. It's easy to predict i'm
not suicidal and realize, I can't fly like a bird. It's also easy to
predict that I know the flight itself isn't the problem, it's the
rather sudden stop at the end which ruins my otherwise, especially,
fantastic day.

If you noticed a Carlin resemblence, it was intentional. If you
didn't, you need to experience the Carlin. A man beyond his years in
wisdom, and DAMN GOOD comedy. RIP. (1937-2008)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IvmVqGycEo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy-sVByUHqE

Btw, check the headers before you respond, The previous dumbass
added an additional newsgroup while they professed inability to
setup a filter on their client.

As predictable as you tend to be, I will say I did not expect you
to openly speak about how you feel you are a "dumbass" when you
add groups. See, you CAN be surprising still.

Heh. Snit, you really are making this too easy for me. I'd prefer a
challenge. You bore me.

Message-ID: XnsAC0A19958B19AHT1@WQfND4ubf5P1A5ycOs38eyNyCr69n S17N8.45P

That's my original post which started this thread.

Message-ID:

Is jackass joes post. With the addition of another newsgroup, free.spam.

Tell us all again how you have no reading comprehension problem. You
accused me of being carroll in another post, although even a semi
literate individual with severe learning disabilities would have
known Gremlin=Diesel NOT Gremlin=Carroll.

And now, you're directly accusing ME of adding an additional newsgroup
to this thread. I didn't, the asshat I was trying warn you to watch
out for, did. And there you go, trying to spin what I wrote into
something else entirely, much like an immature child.

Care to talk about it over Zoom

Talk about what Snit? it's obvious what childish **** you just tried
to pull there.

I bet not.

What would be the difference between how you fail to address
questions asked of you here, and take responsibility for things
you've written here vs that of having a video chat with you, Snit?

How would the video chat be any different? Are you going to answer
the questions I've asked via usenet on video? You aren't answering
them here.. So... If not, what's the point in the video chat?

I don't know why you bother trying to limit your reply to a single
newsgroup... I'm just going to fix it with my reply that quotes
yours, so, uhh you aren't going to be running out from underneath my
spotlight, cockroach. I selected these newsgroups for a reason,
specifically for you, snit. Please, leave the headers alone, ok?


--
Let me control the world's oxygen supply and I don't care who makes the laws.

chrisv
Wed, 05 Aug 2020
11:57:48 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Gremlin wrote:

some thing wrote:

Diesel / Gremlin / whatever other names he uses is flipping out.

Ah yes, the flipping out routine. That's covered in the snitlist,
too.

Are you still going to tell us that everything written about you in
the so called snitlist is completely untrue and otherwise bull****
written by your detractors to slime you?

That thing will claim that no one has been able to quote it lying.
Ever.

I know. It continues to try and use that same ruse with me. Despite
my catching it directly, in all kinds of lies. it's best one so far
is the accusation that I had anything to do with the bot it's so
fascinated with and wants to discuss so badly. Squirrel!

It lies without shame, man. Lying is pretty-much all that it does.

Sadly, I've noticed this. I prefer not to pre-judge, so I just gave
snit all the rope it wanted to hang itself with. I just had no idea
how much would be taken. Might have to start on another roll and
bond them together. S/h/n/its going deep into the hole.




--
When cows laugh, does milk come out of their nose?

Snit
Wed, 05 Aug 2020 01:52:31 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

Hey, that's not too bad of an idea, except for a few little
problems I can think of off the top of my head. Snit, due to
previous, and quite severe 'misunderstandings', I'm being *very*
sarcastic by using the word 'little'. I do hope I've dumbed this
down enough so that you understand without issue, but I won't bet
on it.

Here come your excuses for not having a Zoom session.

excuses?


The reality is you fear being utterly humiliated in a new medium.
You clearly have a lot of trouble understanding the written word,
but for you to show you cannot understand interactive voice even
with a video would be even worse for you.

I don't fear anything of the sort, but, I do agree, one of us has a
severe reading comprehension problem. Let's see an example of it
he

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159667571100

This is what you were provided from the AZ documentation, fully
explaining the algorithm:

ENCODING IN THE AZ FORMAT EXPLAINED:


Step 1. Determine the ASCII value of the character we intend to
encode

Step 2. Set A1 and A2 variables at the ascii value for A (On the IBM
platform that value is 65) Set counter to 0.

Step 3. Check to see if counter is equal to the ascii value obtained
in
Step 1. if so, convert A1 and A2, each to a character.
Combine
them in reverse order, as in A2 A1. This is our 2 byte
encoded
"AZ" format. Write this to the output file and return to Step
1.
If the counter and the ascii value do not match, add 1 to A1.
If
A1 goes past the ascii value for Z (which is 90 on IBM),
reset it
to A (65 on IBM) and add 1 to A2. Add 1 to the counter and
repeat
Step 3.

DECODING IN THE AZ FORMAT EXPLAINED:

Step 1. Determine the "AZ" code to process. (As in read it from a
file
or a device, be sure to read in two characters :-))

Step 2. Set A1 and A2 variables at the ascii value for A (On the IBM
platform that value is 65) Set counter to 0.

Step 3. Convert A1 and A2, each to a character. Combine them in
reverse
order, as in A2 A1. This is a test "AZ" code to match with
the
one we read in, If they match, convert the counter into its
character value and write it to the device or file (we have
found
the match, and the original code, we can now return to step 1
for
more "AZ" codes). If they do not match, add one to the
counter,
and A1, if A1 is greater then 90, reset it to 65 and add one
to
A2. Return to step 3. If the counter hits 255, then no
possible
match has been found, Return to step 1.

And this is your reply. I've also included the entire thread so
anyone else can see for themselves how bad your comprehension
actually is.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!se...er.workshop/az
$20snit%7Csort:date/alt.computer.workshop/T5-Mammb0IA/SIvvu0IxBQAJ

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159658625100


OK, looking at the encoding provided by Diesel... seems odd. Could be
my
lack of understanding in places, but clearly he also has some areas
of
confusion.

-----
ENCODING IN THE AZ FORMAT EXPLAINED:

Step 1. Determine the ASCII value of the character we
intend to encode
-----

Presumably this is just the first character. Then the second. Then
the
third. Until we get to the end. In simple language:

Repeat with theCharacter from 1 to count of characters in theText

Maybe it is count -1 since he seems to look at two characters at a
time
(though he never really says that). But so far so good.

-----
Step 2. Set A1 and A2 variables at the ascii value for A
(On the IBM platform that value is 65) Set counter
to 0.
-----

This is odd. Why not just set A1 and A2 to 65 given how that is
ALWAYS
the ASCII value of "A". This is true not only of 7 bit ASCII, but
also 8
bit (extended) ASCII. So to use our simple language it is just:

Set A1 to 65
Set A2 to 65
Set Counter to 0

So far so good. Ish. Why not just say that?

-----
Step 3. Check to see if counter is equal to the ascii
value obtained in Step 1. if so, convert A1 and
A2, each to a character. Combine them in reverse
order, as in A2 A1. This is our 2 byte encoded
"AZ" format. Write this to the output file and
return to Step 1. If the counter and the ascii
value do not match, add 1 to A1. If A1 goes past
the ascii value for Z (which is 90 on IBM), reset
it to A (65 on IBM) and add 1 to A2. Add 1 to the
counter and repeat Step 3.
------

This is where things get weird, at least to me. The Counter is set to
the ASCII value of A, and then in the next round to the value of B.
But
with the A1 and A2 he is just rotating them 1 (similar to what I said
with ROT-13 but only one character). And he has the wrap-around... so
"A" becomes "B", "B" becomes "C".... "Z" becomes "A". But he has no
such
wrap around described for the counter... so after the first 26
additions
to the Counter the value of Counter goes past the values of A-Z and
would never match the ASCII value of a character. Seems the counter
would have to be reset. And having the counter and comparing it to
the
value really adds very little except the occasional "bumping" of a
character to rotate more than once. Oh, and does he ever say to look
at
the next character?

He again talks about the ASCII value on "IBM", as if a "American
Standard Code for Information Interchange" would be different on
different systems when it is, by definition, a "standard". Seems
amazingly odd a programmer would not know this... not putting Diesel
down here but I am curious as to what he was thinking when he wrote
that!

Anyway, seems the counter needs to go back to the value of "A" (65)
but
he never says that.

Again, maybe I am missing something. Diesel, can you explain?

-----
As you can see, the AZ format is really not that hard to code
for
other programs such as OffLine Mail Readers and the like.
-----

At least from what I can tell, and I might be wrong, you did not
describe it correctly.

*** end paste

As various others in the thread all point out to you, the only one
who has the problem with understanding things concerning AZ was and
still is, you. And, only you. Everyone else understood the material
I shared, except for you. And as anyone can see in the post here,
everytime you ****up and don't understand something (which was a lot
in this case), you try and make the other person share some/all of
the blame. It's never your fault. Except, here, it clearly was; and
various others even corrected your efforts to try and pin anything
on me.

I rest my case. mic drop


3) I'm really not too keen on providing David Brooks any video
background of my shop. I have a real problem doing that, for what
should be obvious reasons. as I realize you're clueless about
that too, intentionally, I'll dumb this down further too:

Zoom has the ability to have a backdrop. Does not look great but
who cares? I would be happy to teach you how.

Thanks, but, I sometimes use Zoom for clients, so I already know how
to use it. G

Heck, you can even invite Carroll to back you up... after all you
would need it. I would love it.

I don't need Carroll for anything.

5) The video result would be the same as the video I selected for
this threads Creation. I'd be playing the role of Matt, and you'd
be playing one of the callers who doesn't comprehend logic
thought for a nanosecond.

And yet you, not I, are the one who is refusing. Again, you do not
owe me -- but the excuses you give are hilarious!

Yep, I have no real interest in wasting my time to interact with you
via video if the results are going to be the same as they already are
on usenet. If you aren't willing to answer my questions here, there's
absolutely no logical reason to assume you'd act any differently via
a video call.

No excuses, it's just how it is.

How funny your excuses are. Face it -- you are simply scared. You
could not push the crap you do in real time as easily as you do in
a forum like this. It is also why Carroll will NEVER agree to such
a conversation.

I'm not scared of anything, Snit.

Ahh. Yes, both post it... rofl. Dude, you aren't honest so far on
usenet, I have no reason to think that would change via video.
The only thing video would do is provide David more information
on me. And, I just don't see any advantage for me to do that.


He would see your face... and hear your voice. He already knows
how badly you understand things and how poorly you support your
claims. It would be fun to show it in a different medium.

He's already seen my face and already knows my voice. I'm not
concerned with that. Actually, snit, here's what he's written about
me:

Dustin and I have been in contact by email. He knows full well my
'agenda' and I hope that the skills he has learnt whilst a really
bad boy will enable him to track down any malpractice at Annex
and/or Dogagent. I just hope that my judgement is justified - I
really do believe in what I call 'the greater consciousness of
mankind' or what others sometimes call the Holy Spirit. Time will
tell! g On MS groups, he's just playing the same game as
me! wink=

That's from one of the emails David sent me, Snit. It's dated from
2007. So, David has known about me and my past for a very long time.
I can assure you, he's keeping you very much in the dark concerning
me, Snit. I continue to show great restraint by not taking things
outside of usenet and giving you a well deserved and proper
skull****ing at this point. As far back as 2007 Snit, David doesn't
deny I can do this to you. It's WHY he reached out to me.

He becomes quite the impatient ****ing pest in the emails as times
goes on too, Snit. I'm not doing what he wants done 'fast enough'; it
starts with answering a few technical questions; and he's fact
checking me (doesn't know I'm aware of this); I pass (obviously), I
confirm my identity (he asks me directly if I'm also known as Raid
formally of the SLAM virus writing group. I confirm that I am) and
things go on from there. He wants my help, and by help, he wants me
to break into gear he doesn't own, and he knows I can do this because
he's read about my already having done it, lots and lots of times.

He just wants me to do it again, despite the fact i'm a retired
blackhat who's a grayhat now, as I explained to him via email. As
I've tried to explain to him, over a ****ing decade later, on usenet.
David didn't have any problems with me, OR HHI Snit, (Yes, I told him
about HHI via email, way back in 2007) until he knew for certain he
wasn't going to be able to convince me to do anything malicious to
those sites, period. Full stop. I wasn't going to do what he wanted
me to do.

So, to get my attention, outside of email, he tried to dox me on
usenet by publishing a gsv of what he thought was my house all over
usenet. It wasn't restricted to a single newsgroup, Snit. Nor was it
xposted. It was a new post for each newsgroup, some of which I didn't
even lurk in. He was trying to get my attention; I basically told him
if he wants to send me links to what he thinks points to malware,
I'll check it out and report back, but I won't crack into the sites
for him. He took this to mean I was telling him to **** off, and he
responded accordingly via usenet with the aforementioned doxing
attempt.

Would you like to see the thread where myself and various others call
him out on it, the first time around? It was over a decade ago.

David is a stalker, Snit. You don't realize it, or maybe you do, but
since he's the only ally you have here, you can't afford to be
choosy. Watch your ass around him.



--
'I think so, Brain, but this time you wear the tutu.' -- Pinky

Snit
Wed, 05 Aug 2020 14:53:53 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Snit wrote:
On Aug 4, 2020 at 6:12:35 PM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

Snit
Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:25:41
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Gremlin wrote:
A video perspective of the experience one can look forward to
when interacting with Snit.

In this video, Keith will be playing the role of Snit. The
voice is a pretty close match, wouldn't you agree? Matt will
be playing the role of myself and anyone else who's had the
misfortune of dealing with Snit.

Yes folks, someone who thinks with the logic of Snit; the
keith. Just listen as they make a ****load of mistakes and
ramble on, and then, try to link it all together. Uh huh. Just
like Snit does with their obnoxious trolling replies and posts
about various others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAue1i58GOQ

Hey, let’s do a Zoom session and record it and share it with
others! You can ask me whatever you want. And I get to do the
same with you.

Hey, that's not too bad of an idea, except for a few little
problems I can think of off the top of my head. Snit, due to
previous, and quite severe 'misunderstandings', I'm being *very*
sarcastic by using the word 'little'. I do hope I've dumbed this
down enough so that you understand without issue, but I won't
bet on it.

Here come your excuses for not having a Zoom session. The reality
is you fear being utterly humiliated in a new medium. You clearly
have a lot of trouble understanding the written word, but for you
to show you cannot understand interactive voice even with a video
would be even worse for you.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.

I don't sit at this particular computer all day, waiting to see a
reply on usenet, Snit. Unlike you, I work for a living. And, I did
reply to this nonsense already:

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159668700200

I don't fear anything of the sort, but, I do agree, one of us has a
severe reading comprehension problem. Let's see an example of it
he

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159667571100

I assure you I would be happy to give you plenty of time to dig
your hole. It would be fun to watch it, really!

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.

14. Lies by claiming the person he's attacking "ran away" if they
don't obey his commands and meet his demands exactly.

It would be open. You or I can use it as we want. Others likely
would. Whatever. I have no fear.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.

14. Lies by claiming the person he's attacking "ran away" if they
don't obey his commands and meet his demands exactly.


Zoom has the ability to have a backdrop. Does not look great but
who cares? I would be happy to teach you how.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel. Maybe he thinks the lesson is
too advanced for him.

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159668700200

Thanks, but, I sometimes use Zoom for clients, so I already know how
to use it. G

And you can use a curtain if you do not like that or cannot
figure it out. It is not that hard but it might be a bit advanced
for a beginner.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.

17. Lies by introducing personal attacks and nonsense arguments
and claims into the discussion, in order to motivate the person
he's attacking to withdraw from the discussion. Glasser then
claims victory.


And yet you, not I, are the one who is refusing. Again, you do
not owe me -- but the excuses you give are hilarious!

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.

17. Lies by introducing personal attacks and nonsense arguments
and claims into the discussion, in order to motivate the person
he's attacking to withdraw from the discussion. Glasser then
claims victory.

He would see your face... and hear your voice. He already knows
how badly you understand things and how poorly you support your
claims. It would be fun to show it in a different medium.

But you will not. That is for certain. It was trivial to predict.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.

17. Lies by introducing personal attacks and nonsense arguments
and claims into the discussion, in order to motivate the person
he's attacking to withdraw from the discussion. Glasser then
claims victory.

All item numbers are taken from the official Snitlist as preserved
via archive.org


--
Rubber bands have snappy endings!

Steve Carroll "Steve
Wed, 05 Aug 2020
15:13:31 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 2020-08-05, Snit wrote:
Snit wrote:
On Aug 4, 2020 at 6:12:35 PM MST, "Gremlin"
wrote:

[snip]

Here come your excuses for not having a Zoom session. The
reality is you fear being utterly humiliated in a new medium.
You clearly have a lot of trouble understanding the written
word, but for you to show you cannot understand interactive
voice even with a video would be even worse for you.

No response from Gremlin AKA Diesel.

LOL! Are you back to begging people to Skype (now it's Zoom) with
you?




Evidently, he is, yes.


--
Dont get smart with me! Youre not qualified!

On 8/4/2020 6:12 PM, Gremlin wrote:
Snit
Thu, 30 Jul 2020 07:25:42 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

John Doe wrote:
Chronic nym-shifting deranged troll...


Diesel / Gremlin / whatever other names he uses is flipping out.

Ah yes, the flipping out routine. That's covered in the snitlist,
too.

Are you still going to tell us that everything written about you in
the so called snitlist is completely untrue and otherwise bull****
written by your detractors to slime you?

As well, You used one of your known lines with your asshat response,
is why I'm asking.

But I will still be happy to do a Zoom session with him. Would
love it. He can try to impress me all he wants! He can repeat all
his accusations and let me respond in real time.

Snit, you avoid discussing anything you've been writing so far. I
have no intentions to let David get a birds eye view of my location,
inside or out. I'd have to be a ****ing idiot to think this video
idea is entirely your doing. And, I see no possible benefit to doing
this, other than providing David additional stalking information.

Sounds like fun!

You can't hold a conversation with me on usenet, I seriously doubt a
video chat would be any different. Infact, it would be worse for you,
because, your facial expressions would be available for reading and
analysis when you responded to my questions, if you actually did so.
You avoid them here, so I don't see why you wouldn't try the same
ruse on zoom. With your facial expressions available on video when I
ask my questions, you wouldn't be able to con anyone (not that you
actually have) concerning any misunderstanding about the false
accusations you've continued making against me. Not to mention your
snide remarks concerning what you think I do/don't know. I'd just own
you on video same as I already do on usenet. No question about it.

But I bet he refuses.

Yea.. another prediction right?

Btw, check the headers before you respond, The previous dumbass added
an additional newsgroup while they professed inability to setup a
filter on their client.



LOL

tldr