David Brooks - copyright infringer *multiple*

Snit
Mon, 08 Jun 2020 02:29:32 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

I am speaking of the facts. What you think of the facts, or what I
do for that matter, neither strengthens nor weakens the
overwhelming evidence against Carroll.

So am I. Here's an example of what you consider as facts, when they
aren't:

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

On 5/7/20 9:36 PM, Diesel wrote:

....

Now you go and find some old source code you don't understand and
ask for Snits advice concerning it? The idiot didn't even realize
what you were asking about and provided you no answer.

Ah, more trolling of me by you. So more reminding you of your past
nonsense.




Diesel XnsAB6D6F1BFA61HT1@
3dOIZISX3.IwU6R1OH8iz29MMTN26bF08TPFtT157gyFB5:

Snit, if you're running the bot you have an easy way out
that won't cost you any respect, face, or anything else.
Just stop. That's it. Simple right?



The last time the bot had posted was more than three hours before.
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.

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.

Diesel and Carroll were trolling together. The bot goes silent.
Diesel then says if the bot is just turned off he will let it slide.
Does that sound like Diesel to you? And he also say this:

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


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.


In my case, you were clearly quoting me out of context to try and
prove that not only did I have access to the bot, I also knew who was
behind it, I was protecting their identity, AND helping them improve
the bot. None of what you wrote is true, and nothing I wrote that you
lifted out of context even came close to stating otherwise, at any
point in time.

What you actually did by doing that was demonstrate for us all to see
that you do have a reading comprehension issue; you aren't faking it,
and it's nothing to do with any potential drug use. It's just you.

Then it's not evidence. It's conjecture at this point.

Given how I have not shown the posts it is not strong evidence.
Sure. But it is true.

See your own post above. That's not evidence either, it's ALL
conjecture and poorly provided at that. You have done the same thing
towards Carroll as you did with me in that post I shared from you
above. So no, I do not trust anything you provide as evidence or
proof of anything on the face of it, unless I can review the entire
post it comes from, in full context. You've demonstrated that you
have awful on a good day reading comprehension skills, along with
being willing and certainly able to LIE ABOUT SOMEONE (me in this
case). Any evidence you provide must be fact checked for the
aforementioned reasons, obviously.

Unless/until you can provide MIDs to support the allegation, it's
not a fact. It *was* dishonest of you not to go ahead and
disclose the fact you have no way of supporting the comment,
previously. If I hadn't of asked for MIDs and pushed the issue,
would you have disclosed on your own that you didn't have any?

If you do not ask my shoe size I will not disclose that, either.

That's all well and good, but withholding information as you did
in this manner isn't an honest thing to be doing. you should be using
full disclosure - just to keep things level and prevent anyone from
wrongfully accusing you of being shady or sketchy in any way shape or
form.

There are many things I do not "disclose" until asked (and even
then I am not obligated to). Do not get me wrong: I have no issue
with you asking (it was completely reasonable) but it is not wrong
that I did not answer your question BEFORE you asked it. Can you
understand that?

Can I? Are you questioning my intelligence level here, Snit?
Wouldn't the proper and mutually respectful question be 'Do I
understand that?' In other words, it comes across as a little more
than slightly insulting, Snit. As if to infer that I'm dumb or
otherwise 'stupid' in some manner here. I assure you, I'm not, even
on my worst days without sleep for days. G

There wasn't anything per say wrong in how you went about things,
but, just to keep things on the level; you should have gone ahead and
disclosed the fact you didn't have header information for some
alleged carroll snipped posts you shared to support your side of your
arguement. You get enough flack for being dishonest and shady as it
is from your detractors; why add to it?

If I take the time, I might find what you're writing about? Snit,
I'm not the one making accusations towards either of you, that's
what the two of you have been doing towards each other.

You have no obligation to do such a search. I would certainly
appreciate it if you did, but you have no obligation.

heh, I'm sure you would. You know what I'd appreciate? It's a very
simple thing too. I'm easy to please. Can you guess what it might be?
I'll give you a hint:

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

On 5/7/20 9:36 PM, Diesel wrote:

....

Now you go and find some old source code you don't understand and
ask for Snits advice concerning it? The idiot didn't even realize
what you were asking about and provided you no answer.

Ah, more trolling of me by you. So more reminding you of your past
nonsense.




Diesel XnsAB6D6F1BFA61HT1@
3dOIZISX3.IwU6R1OH8iz29MMTN26bF08TPFtT157gyFB5:

Snit, if you're running the bot you have an easy way out
that won't cost you any respect, face, or anything else.
Just stop. That's it. Simple right?



The last time the bot had posted was more than three hours before.
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.

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.

Diesel and Carroll were trolling together. The bot goes silent.
Diesel then says if the bot is just turned off he will let it slide.
Does that sound like Diesel to you? And he also say this:

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


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 share


How about a ****ing apology for having LIED ON ME AS YOU DID THERE,
SNIT? I'd appreciate that, very much so.

The fact he did is, well, a fact. I do not have my original "list"
for this -- but this is from one of Carroll's repostings of it. He
may have changed some of the account names to similar ones (he has
been found doing that before). I am not going to go through the
whole thing again:

Clearly, what you call facts and try to pass off as such are not. See
your post above there for several examples of that. I didn't do
ANYTHING YOU ACCUSED ME OF DOING THERE. And I certainly was NOT
WORKING WITH CARROLL (or you) to troll anyone else, at any point in
time.

YOU DID NOT understand what I was writing about at any point in time
in the discussions from which you lifted snippits of my posts from.
You were beyond slightly confused. I didn't have access to the bot to
disassemble or reverse engineer. And I told you that, already, MANY
TIMES, too. I explained in detail what I was writing about, when I
wrote it, and after when you questioned it.

Fact is, and this actually is a fact, YOU LIED about all of it, AND
YOU PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to backup ANY OF IT.

So already Carroll's story is unlikely.

Bull****. I see you doing the same thing you did with me to Carroll
with this routine, Snit. I don't even have to double check myself and
review every single post you did provide an MID for to see this for
myself. I can see right through it, it's the SAME EXACT routine you
tried that I shared above in this reply.

At this point Snit, even if you can at some point provide real
evidence, you've falsely cried wolf so much ALONG WITH LIED, that it
may not be taken into consideration. You could very well be letting
Carroll off the hook here if he is responsible for it, just because
of the massive amounts of doubt and lack of trust on display about
you for others to see.

Yep, sadly, even if you actually did provide proof at some point in
the future, you've provided so much bull**** beforehand that nobody
is going to want to spend the time to fact check you again; they'll
just assume it's horse **** like it was the previous times they did
so. And just like that, real solid, beyond any ****ing doubt, let
alone reasonable proof that your arch nemesis is behind it and you
were right the whole time, slips by; just like that. And, you will,
truely only have yourself to blame for it if it happens.

That being said, I don't think for a damn second you have any real
proof, because you've clearly shown me what passes for proof to you
and it's not even close. Not by a long shot.

In any case, this whole thing seems to be you wanting to rehash
old debates. I skimmed from this point forward. No offense but
such re-hashing is not really something I care to do. I *have*
offered that favor to others many time, but that does not obligate
me to do so for all.

Actually, no. I was interested in learning why you decided to lie
about me.


In any case, if you want to talk about NEW things with me I am
open to it. If you just want to play Carrollesque games of
rehashing dead debates I am not really interested. Carroll however
LOVES such games.

There was no rehashing of any dead debates, I didn't respond to this
post of yours in particular. you seem to have misunderstood something
about my clients filtering abilities, Snit. Filtering your posts
simply made them unavailable for viewing; and disregarded any of your
replies to me from being selected. It did not actually delete or
otherwise not include your posts in the threads. So, I was able with
the filtering disabled to re-thread and pull the 'missing' posts from
my screen. Your missing posts specifically. One of which I included
in this reply to you.

You and he can play them together.

You lied about me, Snit. You made several false and somewhat, dare I
say, dillusional claims concerning me. I'd like an answer for why you
did that as well as an apology.

Best wishes.

You don't get off that easily, Snit. I told you, I was in the process
of reviewing some of your posts that I didn't previously read. I'm
still parsing them. I have no intentions of reviewing or responding
to them all, or even asking you about all of them, but this one in
particular.. yes, I'm asking you about it, and calling you out for
the liar you are; atleast with this post:

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

On 5/7/20 9:36 PM, Diesel wrote:

....

Now you go and find some old source code you don't understand and
ask for Snits advice concerning it? The idiot didn't even realize
what you were asking about and provided you no answer.

Ah, more trolling of me by you. So more reminding you of your past
nonsense.




Diesel XnsAB6D6F1BFA61HT1@
3dOIZISX3.IwU6R1OH8iz29MMTN26bF08TPFtT157gyFB5:

Snit, if you're running the bot you have an easy way out
that won't cost you any respect, face, or anything else.
Just stop. That's it. Simple right?



The last time the bot had posted was more than three hours before.
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.

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.

Diesel and Carroll were trolling together. The bot goes silent.
Diesel then says if the bot is just turned off he will let it slide.
Does that sound like Diesel to you? And he also say this:

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


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.


--
A good way to deal with predators is to taste terrible.

On 6/7/20 10:38 PM, Diesel wrote:
Snit
Mon, 08 Jun 2020 02:29:32 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

I am speaking of the facts. What you think of the facts, or what I
do for that matter, neither strengthens nor weakens the
overwhelming evidence against Carroll.

So am I. Here's an example of what you consider as facts, when they
aren't:

These are the facts being discussed:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Carrolll repeatedly lied to get me to talk about what I
said could be done with AppleScript:





2) Carroll posted with multiple versions of his name: "Steve
Carroll - fretwizzer", ", and "Steve Carroll"

3) The bot changed names ONCE and posted with that name 12 times
in rapid succession (1-3 minutes apart)

4) Carroll spoke of altering his GG script to deal with such
name changes:

-----
And now that stupid bot is making me have to
change the plugin again. Why doesn't it use your name
for the next 6-7 years?!
-----

Carroll went into more detail he

------
Carroll, wouldn't it be easier for your script to parse
the from line, specifically looking for a matching email
address?

Of course, but that slowed the plugin down considerably.
Remember, this is GG, not something like slrn (which I
also use).
-----
Note: not it WOULD slow it down... it DID.

And still later (after the rapid name changing):

-----
I don't see floodbot posts unless i want to so I miss this
stuff.
-----

Amazing that right as Carroll is finding a way to be able
to block the bot's new name-change trick the bot happens
to be using that trick.

5) The bot started changing names with every post.

6) Carroll denied his comment about his GG script:

-----
I actually never mentioned what it was that prompted me to
change my plugin, despite it possibly appearing that way.
-----

7) Carroll worked to confuse the timeline:

-----
LOL! You *just* used the term"after", not "right before",
even in *your* version of the timeline
-----

8) Carroll predicted the bot would start wrapping lines:

-----
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 00:13:39 +0000
...
As soon as Snit works out the carriage return/line feed
issue on the 'AZ code' he's working on in ACW, he'll add
it to his flood bot.
-----
And, gee, another prediction by Carroll comes true:


Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 03:02:57 +0000

The prior posts, at the very least in COLA, did not wrap:




Less than three hours after his "prediction" the bot made a
very specific change based on a design goal Carroll spoke
of. I cannot find where this goal was mentioned before.

Carroll tried to tie this to *me* he

-----
It mostly works but ignores line breaks.

Imagine that! You have a line break issue... now what else
have we seen a lot of that has the same problem? I just
know it'll come to me eyeroll.
-----

My comment was about INPUT for reading lines where it was
not seeing the line breaks. NOTHING to do with ANYTHING
Carroll pushed it as. Once again he takes things out of
context and shows he is able to make predictions about the
flood bot in amazingly specific ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

On 5/7/20 9:36 PM, Diesel wrote:

....

Now you go and find some old source code you don't understand and
ask for Snits advice concerning it? The idiot didn't even realize
what you were asking about and provided you no answer.

Ah, more trolling of me by you. So more reminding you of your past
nonsense.




Diesel XnsAB6D6F1BFA61HT1@
3dOIZISX3.IwU6R1OH8iz29MMTN26bF08TPFtT157gyFB5:

Snit, if you're running the bot you have an easy way out
that won't cost you any respect, face, or anything else.
Just stop. That's it. Simple right?



The last time the bot had posted was more than three hours before.
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.

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.

Diesel and Carroll were trolling together. The bot goes silent.
Diesel then says if the bot is just turned off he will let it slide.
Does that sound like Diesel to you? And he also say this:

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


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.


In my case, you were clearly quoting me out of context

1) Notice you changed the topic away from the evidence being discussed.
You went, well, out of context.

2) Accepting your change of context, if there was other code being
discussed than Carroll's bot code please quote what code you meant. I
asked before and do not think you ever answered. If you did reference
other code then, sure, you moved to another context there, too, and I
just failed to see it. But as you did here, it would mean you jumped
topics / contexts.


to try and
prove that not only did I have access to the bot, I also knew who was
behind it, I was protecting their identity, AND helping them improve
the bot. None of what you wrote is true, and nothing I wrote that you
lifted out of context even came close to stating otherwise, at any
point in time.

What you actually did by doing that was demonstrate for us all to see
that you do have a reading comprehension issue; you aren't faking it,
and it's nothing to do with any potential drug use. It's just you.

Then it's not evidence. It's conjecture at this point.

Given how I have not shown the posts it is not strong evidence.
Sure. But it is true.

See your own post above. That's not evidence either, it's ALL
conjecture and poorly provided at that. You have done the same thing
towards Carroll as you did with me in that post I shared from you
above. So no, I do not trust anything you provide as evidence or
proof of anything on the face of it, unless I can review the entire
post it comes from, in full context. You've demonstrated that you
have awful on a good day reading comprehension skills, along with
being willing and certainly able to LIE ABOUT SOMEONE (me in this
case). Any evidence you provide must be fact checked for the
aforementioned reasons, obviously.

Unless/until you can provide MIDs to support the allegation, it's
not a fact. It *was* dishonest of you not to go ahead and
disclose the fact you have no way of supporting the comment,
previously. If I hadn't of asked for MIDs and pushed the issue,
would you have disclosed on your own that you didn't have any?

If you do not ask my shoe size I will not disclose that, either.

That's all well and good, but withholding information as you did
in this manner isn't an honest thing to be doing. you should be using
full disclosure - just to keep things level and prevent anyone from
wrongfully accusing you of being shady or sketchy in any way shape or
form.

There are many things I do not "disclose" until asked (and even
then I am not obligated to). Do not get me wrong: I have no issue
with you asking (it was completely reasonable) but it is not wrong
that I did not answer your question BEFORE you asked it. Can you
understand that?

Can I? Are you questioning my intelligence level here, Snit?

I said nothing of your intelligence. I asked a simple question: Can you
understand why someone would not answer a question BEFORE it is asked?

Skimmed the rest -- did not even read it. There was a lot of repetition
of things already replied to and side issues and stuff I am just not
interested in. Please spend some time to shorten your posts and focus a
bit. That is if you want to have a more complete response from me. If
there is something I missed of value please feel free to repeat it, but
be direct and concise.


--
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 2020-06-08, Snit wrote:
On 6/7/20 10:38 PM, Diesel wrote:
Snit
Mon, 08 Jun 2020 02:29:32 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

I am speaking of the facts. What you think of the facts, or what I
do for that matter, neither strengthens nor weakens the
overwhelming evidence against Carroll.

So am I. Here's an example of what you consider as facts, when they
aren't:

These are the facts being discussed:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Carrolll repeatedly lied to get me to talk about what I
said could be done with AppleScript:





2) Carroll posted with multiple versions of his name: "Steve
Carroll - fretwizzer", ", and "Steve Carroll"

3) The bot changed names ONCE and posted with that name 12 times
in rapid succession (1-3 minutes apart)

4) Carroll spoke of altering his GG script to deal with such
name changes:

-----
And now that stupid bot is making me have to
change the plugin again. Why doesn't it use your name
for the next 6-7 years?!
-----
Aside from the fact that even the guy who gives you cover debunked this
BS story, who begins a "prediction" with words like:

"And now that stupid bot is making me..."

That's clearly a reactive statement, you over-medicated moron.


Carroll went into more detail he

------
Carroll, wouldn't it be easier for your script to parse
the from line, specifically looking for a matching email
address?

Of course, but that slowed the plugin down considerably.
Remember, this is GG, not something like slrn (which I
also use).
-----
Note: not it WOULD slow it down... it DID.

And? How is that a "prediction"?

And still later (after the rapid name changing):

-----
I don't see floodbot posts unless i want to so I miss this
stuff.
-----

Amazing that right as Carroll is finding a way to be able
to block the bot's new name-change trick the bot happens
to be using that trick.


Not "right as"! AGAIN, I clearly reacted, I didn't 'predict' anything
WRT to the name changing. Sober up.

5) The bot started changing names with every post.

And I showed how easy that was to do, also... it uses the same single
line of JS that is 100% of the JS required from within an AppleScript to
do all the things your goofy bot does WRT to selecting and clicking HTML
elements (a thing that you, a 'pro web dev' claims is 'beyond his skill
set', total BS).

6) Carroll denied his comment about his GG script:

-----
I actually never mentioned what it was that prompted me to
change my plugin, despite it possibly appearing that way.
-----

And that's a fact. Do you know what I did? Nope. See how reality stands
in your way AGAIN? Of course, it's not for lack of you trying, you've
been trying to get me to talk about how my plugin works since day one...
and it's more than obvious why. In fact, that's probably all this red
herring BS is, a ruse to get me to disclose it. Not gonna happen

7) Carroll worked to confuse the timeline:

-----
LOL! You *just* used the term"after", not "right before",
even in *your* version of the timeline
-----

My having pointed out another 'mistake' by you isn't 'confusing'
anything, pathological liar.

8) Carroll predicted the bot would start wrapping lines:

And that one was easy, offering yet more evidence it's your bot...
which is why you're working so hard to tie this to me.


-----
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 00:13:39 +0000
...
As soon as Snit works out the carriage return/line feed
issue on the 'AZ code' he's working on in ACW, he'll add
it to his flood bot.
-----
And, gee, another prediction by Carroll comes true:

Not "another" but an obvious one... and I was right about it. You were
told by someone about the character issue and your bot very quickly
solved the same issue.


Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 03:02:57 +0000

The prior posts, at the very least in COLA, did not wrap:




Less than three hours after his "prediction" the bot made a
very specific change based on a design goal Carroll spoke
of. I cannot find where this goal was mentioned before.

Your bot changed. I merely 'predicted' the obvious. You probably only
implemented it so you can do what you're doing now, pretend it sits in
a pack of 'predictions'... but it doesn't.

Carroll tried to tie this to *me* he

-----
It mostly works but ignores line breaks.

Imagine that! You have a line break issue... now what else
have we seen a lot of that has the same problem? I just
know it'll come to me eyeroll.
-----

My comment was about INPUT for reading lines where it was
not seeing the line breaks.

Line breaks are line breaks, Snit. Your comment is irrelevant to being
able to deal with them programmatically, or not. AGAIN! People are *not*
as stupid as you need them to be, they just aren't.

NOTHING to do with ANYTHING
Carroll pushed it as. Once again he takes things out of
context and shows he is able to make predictions about the
flood bot in amazingly specific ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

On 5/7/20 9:36 PM, Diesel wrote:

....

Now you go and find some old source code you don't understand and
ask for Snits advice concerning it? The idiot didn't even realize
what you were asking about and provided you no answer.

Ah, more trolling of me by you. So more reminding you of your past
nonsense.




Diesel XnsAB6D6F1BFA61HT1@
3dOIZISX3.IwU6R1OH8iz29MMTN26bF08TPFtT157gyFB5:

Snit, if you're running the bot you have an easy way out
that won't cost you any respect, face, or anything else.
Just stop. That's it. Simple right?



The last time the bot had posted was more than three hours before.
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.

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.

Diesel and Carroll were trolling together. The bot goes silent.
Diesel then says if the bot is just turned off he will let it slide.
Does that sound like Diesel to you? And he also say this:

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


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.


In my case, you were clearly quoting me out of context

1) Notice you changed the topic away from the evidence being discussed.

There is no "evidence being discussed". Your BS stories aren't evidence.

You went, well, out of context.

2) Accepting your change of context, if there was other code being
discussed than Carroll's bot code please quote what code you meant.i

He meant that any idiot could write a goofy bot like this flood bot
and that's true.

I
asked before and do not think you ever answered. If you did reference
other code then, sure, you moved to another context there, too, and I
just failed to see it. But as you did here, it would mean you jumped
topics / contexts.


to try and
prove that not only did I have access to the bot, I also knew who was
behind it, I was protecting their identity, AND helping them improve
the bot. None of what you wrote is true, and nothing I wrote that you
lifted out of context even came close to stating otherwise, at any
point in time.

What you actually did by doing that was demonstrate for us all to see
that you do have a reading comprehension issue; you aren't faking it,
and it's nothing to do with any potential drug use. It's just you.

Then it's not evidence. It's conjecture at this point.

Given how I have not shown the posts it is not strong evidence.
Sure. But it is true.

See your own post above. That's not evidence either, it's ALL
conjecture and poorly provided at that. You have done the same thing
towards Carroll as you did with me in that post I shared from you
above. So no, I do not trust anything you provide as evidence or
proof of anything on the face of it, unless I can review the entire
post it comes from, in full context. You've demonstrated that you
have awful on a good day reading comprehension skills, along with
being willing and certainly able to LIE ABOUT SOMEONE (me in this
case). Any evidence you provide must be fact checked for the
aforementioned reasons, obviously.

Unless/until you can provide MIDs to support the allegation, it's
not a fact. It *was* dishonest of you not to go ahead and
disclose the fact you have no way of supporting the comment,
previously. If I hadn't of asked for MIDs and pushed the issue,
would you have disclosed on your own that you didn't have any?

If you do not ask my shoe size I will not disclose that, either.

That's all well and good, but withholding information as you did
in this manner isn't an honest thing to be doing. you should be using
full disclosure - just to keep things level and prevent anyone from
wrongfully accusing you of being shady or sketchy in any way shape or
form.

There are many things I do not "disclose" until asked (and even
then I am not obligated to). Do not get me wrong: I have no issue
with you asking (it was completely reasonable) but it is not wrong
that I did not answer your question BEFORE you asked it. Can you
understand that?

Can I? Are you questioning my intelligence level here, Snit?

I said nothing of your intelligence.

LOL! You don't have to, your entire MO is based on your ridiculous
belief that people are as stupid as you need them to be.

I asked a simple question: Can you
understand why someone would not answer a question BEFORE it is asked?

Skimmed the rest -- did not even read it.

Translation: You had no answer for it and you won't apologize for your
bizarre behavior.

There was a lot of repetition
of things already replied to and side issues and stuff I am just not
interested in. Please spend some time to shorten your posts and focus a
bit. That is if you want to have a more complete response from me. If
there is something I missed of value please feel free to repeat it, but
be direct and concise.

Snit
Mon, 08 Jun 2020 07:16:05 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 6/7/20 10:38 PM, Diesel wrote:
Snit
Mon, 08 Jun 2020 02:29:32
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

I am speaking of the facts. What you think of the facts, or what
I do for that matter, neither strengthens nor weakens the
overwhelming evidence against Carroll.

So am I. Here's an example of what you consider as facts, when
they aren't:

These are the facts being discussed:

*sigh* I feel like i'm on a merry go round. Except that I haven't
actually seen one let alone boarded one in decades...

I provided the reference material, your post basically for the
purposes of comparison. I took the time previously to detail in
various replies where/how you were wrong with your assumptions
concerning myself and my involvement/knowledge level of the usenet
flood bot. And it fell entirely on deaf ears. I also previously
stated that due to the way in which you seem to handle posts from
others, and assume things which aren't true, I'd have no reason not
to think you haven't done the same thing with Carroll as you've done
with me.


In my case, you were clearly quoting me out of context

1) Notice you changed the topic away from the evidence being
discussed. You went, well, out of context.

Actually, I didn't. The subject is still the same. Your claims of
evidence not being what you state they are. Carroll or myself, we're
interchangeable as examples with your evidence routine. And that's
what I demonstrated with my previous reply. You quote out of context,
material you don't understand and try to use that as evidence of some
kind of wrong doing by the other party. When infact, it's nothing of
the sort.

2) Accepting your change of context, if there was other code being
discussed than Carroll's bot code please quote what code you
meant. I asked before and do not think you ever answered. If you
did reference other code then, sure, you moved to another context
there, too, and I just failed to see it. But as you did here, it
would mean you jumped topics / contexts.

There was no change of context for you to accept or not. The context
is the same. YOU misquoted me, and Carroll and instead of owning up
to that and taking responsibility for it, you go and try to introduce
whatever you quoted out of context as evidence to support an
accusation you've made against one or more of us.

I've told you, several times now, that I didn't have bot source code
or binary, don't know who's responsible for it, and haven't worked
with anyone to improve it. I really don't know how I could possibly
be any more clear than that. What you wrote, ALL of what you wrote
concerning me and the bot isn't true, not a single part of it. None
of your claims against me, with the 'evidence' you thought you had,
cherry picked, is true or is evidence supporting your claims in any
way shape or form.

Your partially lifted section where I discuss reverse engineering by
disassembling an executable program was NOT anything, at all! to do
with the usenet flood bot; It wasn't even the same discussion. And I
told you that, when you asked about it, the first time around.

If you want to re-read the entire post, in context for a change,
you'll find that it is not evidence of any wrong doing or involvement
with the bot on my end - YOU misunderstood what you read and tried to
use it as evidence showing something that wasn't/isn't true, and
never has been true at any point in time.

You also can't find a post supporting your claim that I said I could
find the IP that there's no way it could be hidden. That is an
outright, lie on your part snit. I discussed several ways in which it
may be possible to acquire the IP address, but I made it perfectly
clear as I outlined the options there was NO GUARANTEE OF ANY KIND.

There's no ****ing way you can claim to have not seen those posts or
misunderstood me on that one. You can't even quote me out of context
and 'misundertand' it as you did when you tried to claim my
discussing executable code was proof that I had the bot.

As I wrote before, what you consider proof, let alone proof beyond a
reasonable doubt is anything but. It gives me the distinct impression
you've watched alot of daytime tv dramas about the courts and legal
system and you're basing your knowledge of what you've seen on tv.

Otherwise, even a first year lawyer to be knows what you're using as
evidence isn't, on your best day.
There are many things I do not "disclose" until asked (and even
then I am not obligated to). Do not get me wrong: I have no
issue with you asking (it was completely reasonable) but it is
not wrong that I did not answer your question BEFORE you asked
it. Can you understand that?

Can I? Are you questioning my intelligence level here, Snit?

I said nothing of your intelligence. I asked a simple question:
Can you understand why someone would not answer a question BEFORE
it is asked?

You're doing it again, Snit.

Skimmed the rest -- did not even read it.

I'm not surprised.

I am just not interested in.

Regardless of your interest or lack there of when you lied about me,
I find it interesting enough to ask you why.

Please spend some time to shorten your posts and focus a bit.

We can save a considerable amount of time if you'd just accept the
fact that you falsely accused me of several things, and provided
nothing to support any of your accusations.

It's simply a matter of acting like a mature adult in this case,
Snit. You clearly ****ed up, went out of your way to ****up; no
different really than the anoncowards story about knowing people
personally familiar with an arrest and prosecution that never took
place. A mature adult, when caught, would have apologized by now.
A mature, responsible adult, wouldn't have made the first accusation
without something that actually is/was evidence to support it.

Nobody appreciates it when someone goes well out of their way to tell
not one small lie, but a small pile of well, not small lies about a
person.

Like these:

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

On 5/7/20 9:36 PM, Diesel wrote:

....

Now you go and find some old source code you don't understand and
ask for Snits advice concerning it? The idiot didn't even realize
what you were asking about and provided you no answer.

Ah, more trolling of me by you. So more reminding you of your past
nonsense.




Diesel XnsAB6D6F1BFA61HT1@
3dOIZISX3.IwU6R1OH8iz29MMTN26bF08TPFtT157gyFB5:

Snit, if you're running the bot you have an easy way out
that won't cost you any respect, face, or anything else.
Just stop. That's it. Simple right?



The last time the bot had posted was more than three hours before.
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.

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.

Diesel and Carroll were trolling together. The bot goes silent.
Diesel then says if the bot is just turned off he will let it slide.
Does that sound like Diesel to you? And he also say this:

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


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.


In my case, you were clearly quoting me out of context to try and
prove that not only did I have access to the bot, I also knew who was
behind it, I was protecting their identity, AND helping them improve
the bot. None of what you wrote is true, and nothing I wrote that you
lifted out of context even came close to stating otherwise, at any
point in time.

What you actually did by doing that was demonstrate for us all to see
that you do have a reading comprehension issue; you aren't faking it,
and it's nothing to do with any potential drug use. It's just you.

Then it's not evidence. It's conjecture at this point.

Given how I have not shown the posts it is not strong evidence.
Sure. But it is true.

See your own post above. That's not evidence either, it's ALL
conjecture and poorly provided at that. You have done the same thing
towards Carroll as you did with me in that post I shared from you
above. So no, I do not trust anything you provide as evidence or
proof of anything on the face of it, unless I can review the entire
post it comes from, in full context. You've demonstrated that you
have awful on a good day reading comprehension skills, along with
being willing and certainly able to LIE ABOUT SOMEONE (me in this
case). Any evidence you provide must be fact checked for the
aforementioned reasons, obviously.

Unless/until you can provide MIDs to support the allegation, it's
not a fact. It *was* dishonest of you not to go ahead and
disclose the fact you have no way of supporting the comment,
previously. If I hadn't of asked for MIDs and pushed the issue,
would you have disclosed on your own that you didn't have any?

If you do not ask my shoe size I will not disclose that, either.

That's all well and good, but withholding information as you did
in this manner isn't an honest thing to be doing. you should be using
full disclosure - just to keep things level and prevent anyone from
wrongfully accusing you of being shady or sketchy in any way shape or
form.

There are many things I do not "disclose" until asked (and even
then I am not obligated to). Do not get me wrong: I have no issue
with you asking (it was completely reasonable) but it is not wrong
that I did not answer your question BEFORE you asked it. Can you
understand that?

Can I? Are you questioning my intelligence level here, Snit?
Wouldn't the proper and mutually respectful question be 'Do I
understand that?' In other words, it comes across as a little more
than slightly insulting, Snit. As if to infer that I'm dumb or
otherwise 'stupid' in some manner here. I assure you, I'm not, even
on my worst days without sleep for days. G

There wasn't anything per say wrong in how you went about things,
but, just to keep things on the level; you should have gone ahead and
disclosed the fact you didn't have header information for some
alleged carroll snipped posts you shared to support your side of your
arguement. You get enough flack for being dishonest and shady as it
is from your detractors; why add to it?

If I take the time, I might find what you're writing about? Snit,
I'm not the one making accusations towards either of you, that's
what the two of you have been doing towards each other.

You have no obligation to do such a search. I would certainly
appreciate it if you did, but you have no obligation.

heh, I'm sure you would. You know what I'd appreciate? It's a very
simple thing too. I'm easy to please. Can you guess what it might be?
I'll give you a hint:

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

On 5/7/20 9:36 PM, Diesel wrote:

....

Now you go and find some old source code you don't understand and
ask for Snits advice concerning it? The idiot didn't even realize
what you were asking about and provided you no answer.

Ah, more trolling of me by you. So more reminding you of your past
nonsense.




Diesel XnsAB6D6F1BFA61HT1@
3dOIZISX3.IwU6R1OH8iz29MMTN26bF08TPFtT157gyFB5:

Snit, if you're running the bot you have an easy way out
that won't cost you any respect, face, or anything else.
Just stop. That's it. Simple right?



The last time the bot had posted was more than three hours before.
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.

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.

Diesel and Carroll were trolling together. The bot goes silent.
Diesel then says if the bot is just turned off he will let it slide.
Does that sound like Diesel to you? And he also say this:

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


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 share


How about a ****ing apology for having LIED ON ME AS YOU DID THERE,
SNIT? I'd appreciate that, very much so.

The fact he did is, well, a fact. I do not have my original "list"
for this -- but this is from one of Carroll's repostings of it. He
may have changed some of the account names to similar ones (he has
been found doing that before). I am not going to go through the
whole thing again:

Clearly, what you call facts and try to pass off as such are not. See
your post above there for several examples of that. I didn't do
ANYTHING YOU ACCUSED ME OF DOING THERE. And I certainly was NOT
WORKING WITH CARROLL (or you) to troll anyone else, at any point in
time.

YOU DID NOT understand what I was writing about at any point in time
in the discussions from which you lifted snippits of my posts from.
You were beyond slightly confused. I didn't have access to the bot to
disassemble or reverse engineer. And I told you that, already, MANY
TIMES, too. I explained in detail what I was writing about, when I
wrote it, and after when you questioned it.

Fact is, and this actually is a fact, YOU LIED about all of it, AND
YOU PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to backup ANY OF IT.

That is if you want to have a more complete response from me.

I'd just like for you to demonstrate being a mature and responsible
adult. Apologize for your false accusation and totally bull**** story
you wrote above to support it. I think my request is more than
reasonable.

If there is something I missed of value please feel free to repeat
it, but be direct and concise.

You LIED about me, and i'd like an apology for you having done so. Is
that direct enough for you?


--
Golfer: "Please stop checking your watch all the time, caddy. It's
distracting!"
Caddy: "This isn't a watch Sir, it's a compass!"

On 6/10/20 5:49 PM, Diesel wrote:
Snit
Mon, 08 Jun 2020 07:16:05 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 6/7/20 10:38 PM, Diesel wrote:
Snit
Mon, 08 Jun 2020 02:29:32
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

I am speaking of the facts. What you think of the facts, or what
I do for that matter, neither strengthens nor weakens the
overwhelming evidence against Carroll.

So am I. Here's an example of what you consider as facts, when
they aren't:

These are the facts being discussed:

*sigh* I feel like i'm on a merry go round.

Yes, you go around and around. And you want me to follow. I keep telling
you I am not really interested but, to your defense, I *do* keep at
least responding to SOME. I am gonna do a LOT of snipping -- but if you
think I snip anything new or of value or that has not been responded to
before please let me know.
....

In my case, you were clearly quoting me out of context

1) Notice you changed the topic away from the evidence being
discussed. You went, well, out of context.

Actually, I didn't.

Do you even know what quotes of yours are being discussed? The ones you
say I misrepresent? If so, please quote them.

2) Accepting your change of context, if there was other code being
discussed than Carroll's bot code please quote what code you
meant. I asked before and do not think you ever answered. If you
did reference other code then, sure, you moved to another context
there, too, and I just failed to see it. But as you did here, it
would mean you jumped topics / contexts.

Notice you do not point to any other code.

There was no change of context for you to accept or not. The context
is the same. YOU misquoted me, and Carroll and instead of owning up
to that and taking responsibility for it, you go and try to introduce
whatever you quoted out of context as evidence to support an
accusation you've made against one or more of us.

See: no other code being quoted. Not a line. Not a reference to a
program. Nothing. If you think I took things out of context of Carroll's
bot code, then what code did you mean? And please reference where you
noted it before.

....

There are many things I do not "disclose" until asked (and even
then I am not obligated to). Do not get me wrong: I have no
issue with you asking (it was completely reasonable) but it is
not wrong that I did not answer your question BEFORE you asked
it. Can you understand that?

Can I? Are you questioning my intelligence level here, Snit?

I said nothing of your intelligence. I asked a simple question:
Can you understand why someone would not answer a question BEFORE
it is asked?

You're doing it again, Snit.

Your complaint seems to be I did not answer your question about message
IDs before you asked it. To me is seems pretty clear that questions are
generally answered AFTER they are asked, not before.


Anyway, you seem to think I lied about what code you were talking about
as we talked about Carroll's bot code. This can be cleared up very
easily -- just note what code you meant, and, of course, where you
stated it.

Or don't and we can just move on. As I have told you, I am not really
interested in this. Seems you got confused about what code was being
referenced or whatever -- so what? Can you just move on? We all make
mistakes -- I am not gonna harp on what seems to be yours, here.
Meanwhile you seem unable to let it go.

....


--
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
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:22:33 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

*sigh* I feel like i'm on a merry go round.

Yes, you go around and around. And you want me to follow.

Not hardly. You make far too many assumptions about what you think
others want you to do, or want from you. You'd think after being
wrong nearly one hundred percent of the time, you'd try another
routine.

telling you I am not really interested but, to your defense, I
*do* keep at least responding to SOME. I am gonna do a LOT of
snipping -- but if you think I snip anything new or of value or
that has not been responded to before please let me know.

My defense? I'm not the one who made several false accusations, Snit.
You did, towards me. I've since asked for an apology for what you
wrote he

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

You actually wrote this:

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.

And cherry picked the third and last paragraph from part of a reply
to your question to support your insane claim above it.

When taken in full context though, it becomes quite clear that what
you're trying to pass off as evidence of, is anything but:

I clarified it to be the compiled code huh? And you based that on the
third paragraph of a reply I wrote questioning your programming
background and severe lack of knowledge of even the most basic
reverse engineering principles. You took what I tried to explain to
you completely out of context. I clarified NOTHING OF THE SORT.

YOU LIED, SNIT. Plain and simple. Let's see it again:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
Message-ID:

You wrote this, showing that you have next to no useful/practical
knowledge of how reverse engineering works:

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
that.

And I responded with this:

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

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.

*** end full share

Nothing I wrote as a reply to you supports the accusation you made
that I had the bot, in source code OR COMPILED FORM. What is
clarified, crystal clear at this point, is one of two possible things
going on with you.

Either you have a serious, disabling level learning disability, OR,
you're a very very dishonest individual. It's one or the other. Now,
which one do you think I'm more likely to believe is the accurate
diagnosis after several interactions with you where I've been able to
see what you do, first hand. And in some cases, atleast two with me
so far, observe you for myself, quote me entirely out of context and
make false accusations against me on two seperate subjects now? In
case your memory is as bad as brooks, I'm writing about your
accusations he

So, you either have one of the worst cases of reading comprehension
difficulty I've seen in my entire life, OR, you are dishonest at the
level of being on equal footing with David Brooks.

Convince me it's the former and not the latter Snit.


So, let's cut to the chase of it, then. Is an apology forth coming or
not, Snit?

Do you even know what quotes of yours are being discussed? The
ones you say I misrepresent? If so, please quote them.

Of course I do. What's more, I understand how the quotes you provided
about me, as 'evidence' to support what you wrote is the same thing
you've been providing about carroll as 'evidence' to support your
claim that he's behind the bot. Some of us call those things
'comparisons' snit. Not a change of subject, nothing taken out of
context, but a comparison of two different individuals, treated
mostly the same way by what you consider to be 'evidence' of our
crimes.

In my case, I know for a fact it's not evidence of what you accused
me of above, repeatedly. And I seriously doubt, more so than I did
previously, that the 'evidence' you're offering about carroll is
accurate or is even close to remotely related to what you've
repeatedly accused him of.

You just don't do well with actual evidence, and by don't do well, I
do mean and I intend absolutely no misunderstanding in any possible
way when I write this: you don't provide any. Evidence that is. You
seem to be allergic to it.

You've also shown me either a severe learning disability, or
intentional dishonesty on your part; because you cherry picked the
last paragraph from a three paragraph reply to you discussing reverse
engineering principles in general, because you were wrong in what you
wrote; what you expressed as your understanding of what we can/cannot
learn from somethings output.

My effort of trying to help you out with what I wrote, you tried to
use against me to support the lie you tried to peddle concerning my
involvement and knowledge level of the bot in question.

2) Accepting your change of context, if there was other code
being discussed than Carroll's bot code please quote what code
you meant. I asked before and do not think you ever answered. If
you did reference other code then, sure, you moved to another
context there, too, and I just failed to see it. But as you did
here, it would mean you jumped topics / contexts.

Notice you do not point to any other code.

See above. You may apologize for your concocted story at any point in
time. I'm in no rush.

There was no change of context for you to accept or not. The
context is the same. YOU misquoted me, and Carroll and instead of
owning up to that and taking responsibility for it, you go and
try to introduce whatever you quoted out of context as evidence
to support an accusation you've made against one or more of us.

See: no other code being quoted. Not a line. Not a reference to a
program. Nothing. If you think I took things out of context of
Carroll's bot code, then what code did you mean? And please
reference where you noted it before.

See above. You may apologize for your concocted story about my
involvement with the bot at any time. I'm in no rush. I'll be around
for a long time. I'm not going to drop the subject or forget or give
you a free pass on this one, Snit. You don't deserve that. What you
deserve is what I'm doing; calling you out for the lies you told and
asking for an apology where you told the lies, right here in the
public open. It's only right.


There are many things I do not "disclose" until asked (and
even then I am not obligated to). Do not get me wrong: I have
no issue with you asking (it was completely reasonable) but it
is not wrong that I did not answer your question BEFORE you
asked it. Can you understand that?

Can I? Are you questioning my intelligence level here, Snit?

I said nothing of your intelligence. I asked a simple question:
Can you understand why someone would not answer a question
BEFORE it is asked?

You're doing it again, Snit.

Your complaint seems to be I did not answer your question about
message IDs before you asked it. To me is seems pretty clear that
questions are generally answered AFTER they are asked, not before.

Uhh, no, you clearly missed my complaint. It was the way in which you
asked if I could understand your desire to keep privacy. Obviously,
your question wasn't necessary.

This is another case where you make an assumption, and don't get it
right and provide an answer based on what you thought I was asking
you about. or, in this case, commenting about.

And this is where I can't determine for sure if you're jerking us all
around and playing games, or, it's not your fault in so much as it's
a real medical condition. And, I can't trust you at all to tell me
which it is, and really; I don't need to know anything about you of
such a personal nature. I'm just writing this to let you know that
I've noticed you do have something going on with you, and if I've
noticed it, you can bet your arse others have too. I won't take
advantage of it, but, you can't be sure others won't.

Regardless of whether or not you man up and apologize for what you
wrote about me, I still recommend that you watch your ass here. You
don't really know David or anyone else here as well as you think you
might. and that includes me. I wouldn't try to convince you I should
be treated any differently - although I've noticed you're
confrontational with me from the jump in nearly all of your replies
and not so with everyone else; aside from Carroll. It seems that you
are weapons ready when you respond to either of us.

Is there a particular reason you're doing that?

Anyway, you seem to think I lied about what code you were talking
about as we talked about Carroll's bot code. This can be cleared
up very easily -- just note what code you meant, and, of course,
where you stated it.

No, Snit, you lied when you wrote the contents of this post:

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100


You actually wrote this:

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.

And cherry picked the third and last paragraph from part of a reply
to your question to support your insane claim above it.

When taken in full context though, it becomes quite clear that what
you're trying to pass off as evidence of, is anything but:

I clarified it to be the compiled code huh? And you based that on the
third paragraph of a reply I wrote questioning your programming
background and severe lack of knowledge of even the most basic
reverse engineering principles. You took what I tried to explain to
you completely out of context. I clarified NOTHING OF THE SORT.

YOU LIED, SNIT. Plain and simple. Let's see it again:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
Message-ID:

You wrote this, showing that you have next to no useful/practical
knowledge of how reverse engineering works:

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
that.

And I responded with this:

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

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.

*** end full share

Notice it's the third paragraph of my reply that you selected to try
and use as evidence supporting your claim:
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:

The third paragraph snit, taken ever so carefully out of context.
It's actually PART OF a reply I wrote, correcting one of your
misunderstandings concerning how reverse engineering is done. You
literally, heh, tried to use a question I asked you, in spite, no
doubt, by trying to spin it into this:

"Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:"

I did no such thing, and you certainly didn't call me out for
anything (nobody else did either, Snit) nor did I clarify anything.
You made ALL OF THAT UP, Snit. Yes, you did. And, you cherry picked,
as in totally isolated something unrelated to what you claimed to
support it. Going so far as to isolate a piece of a reply I wrote
questioning your knowledge of reverse engineering.

Nothing I wrote as a reply to you supports the accusation you made
that I had the bot, in source code OR COMPILED FORM. What is
clarified, crystal clear at this point, is one of two possible things
going on with you.

Or don't and we can just move on. As I have told you, I am not
really interested in this.

Oh, but I am. I'm interested in learning why you felt it necessary to
write multiple lies about me, and proceed with it for so long as
you're continuing to do? It's a known, proven fact, by now, snit,
even you have to have realized this that I've got you by the short
and curlies on this one.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...rt+and+curlies

have (one) by the short and curlies
To have complete control or dominance over someone; to have someone
at one's mercy. "The short and curlies" refers to the hairs on one's
neck (not pubic hairs, despite popular misconceptions). With all that
evidence against you, I'd say the police have you by the short and
curlies. Sometimes, I think Mark's wife has him by the short and
curlies.
See also: and, by, curly, have, short
Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. © 2015 Farlex, Inc, all rights reserved.

Seems you got confused about what code was being referenced or
whatever

Wow, Snit. Where do you come up with this stuff?


We all make mistakes -- I am not gonna harp on what seems to be
yours, here.

My mistake? Uhh, snit, you made several false accusations against me
concerning my involvement and knowledge of the bot and it's owner(s).
I'd say the mistake clearly lies with you here. So I don't really see
how you could justify any harping on it?

Meanwhile you seem unable to let it go.

Let it go? Let the fact, you LIED ABOUT ME multiple times in a single
post go without an apology from you for having done it? Is that what
you mean, Snit?

Why should I just ignore what you did, multiple times here. Just give
you a free pass for lieing about me, that's what your saying I should
do?

I didn't get confused about anything. here's what I wrote, in full
context; all three paragraphs, not the last one you cherry picked,
completely out of context.

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
Message-ID:

You wrote this, showing that you have next to no useful/practical
knowledge of how reverse engineering works:

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
that.

I responded with this:

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

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.

*** end share

Nothing I wrote as a reply to you supports the accusation you made
that I had the bot, in source code OR COMPILED FORM. What is
clarified, crystal clear at this point, is one of two possible things
going on with you.

Either you have a serious, disabling level learning disability, OR,
you're a very very dishonest individual. It's one or the other. Now,
which one do you think I'm more likely to believe is the accurate
diagnosis after several interactions with you where I've been able to
see what you do, first hand for myself, not relying on what anyone
else has written about you? Do you think I've been impressed by your
behavior so far?

I've personally observed you quote me entirely out of context and
make false accusations against me on two seperate subjects
now...Probably more if I took the time to think about it. Don't
worry, I've no interest in previous discussions where you lied about
me. I'm only interested in this recent enough one.

So, you either have one of the worst cases of reading comprehension
difficulty I've seen in my entire life, OR, you are dishonest at the
level of being on equal footing with David Brooks.

Convince me it's the former and not the latter Snit.


--
Scitum est inter caecos luscum regnare posse -- Gerard Didier Erasmus

On 6/11/20 3:17 AM, Diesel wrote:
Snit
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 01:22:33 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

*sigh* I feel like i'm on a merry go round.

Yes, you go around and around. And you want me to follow.

Not hardly. You make far too many assumptions about what you think
others want you to do, or want from you. You'd think after being
wrong nearly one hundred percent of the time, you'd try another
routine.

telling you I am not really interested but, to your defense, I
*do* keep at least responding to SOME. I am gonna do a LOT of
snipping -- but if you think I snip anything new or of value or
that has not been responded to before please let me know.

My defense? I'm not the one who made several false accusations, Snit.
You did, towards me. I've since asked for an apology for what you
wrote he

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100

You actually wrote this:

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.

And cherry picked the third and last paragraph from part of a reply
to your question to support your insane claim above it.

When taken in full context though, it becomes quite clear that what
you're trying to pass off as evidence of, is anything but:

I clarified it to be the compiled code huh? And you based that on the
third paragraph of a reply I wrote questioning your programming
background and severe lack of knowledge of even the most basic
reverse engineering principles. You took what I tried to explain to
you completely out of context. I clarified NOTHING OF THE SORT.

YOU LIED, SNIT. Plain and simple. Let's see it again:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
Message-ID:

You wrote this, showing that you have next to no useful/practical
knowledge of how reverse engineering works:

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
that.

And I responded with this:

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

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.

*** end full share

Nothing I wrote as a reply to you supports the accusation you made
that I had the bot, in source code OR COMPILED FORM. What is
clarified, crystal clear at this point, is one of two possible things
going on with you.

Either you have a serious, disabling level learning disability, OR,
you're a very very dishonest individual. It's one or the other. Now,
which one do you think I'm more likely to believe is the accurate
diagnosis after several interactions with you where I've been able to
see what you do, first hand. And in some cases, atleast two with me
so far, observe you for myself, quote me entirely out of context and
make false accusations against me on two seperate subjects now? In
case your memory is as bad as brooks, I'm writing about your
accusations he

So, you either have one of the worst cases of reading comprehension
difficulty I've seen in my entire life, OR, you are dishonest at the
level of being on equal footing with David Brooks.

Convince me it's the former and not the latter Snit.


So, let's cut to the chase of it, then. Is an apology forth coming or
not, Snit?

Do you even know what quotes of yours are being discussed? The
ones you say I misrepresent? If so, please quote them.

Of course I do. What's more, I understand how the quotes you provided
about me, as 'evidence' to support what you wrote is the same thing
you've been providing about carroll as 'evidence' to support your
claim that he's behind the bot. Some of us call those things
'comparisons' snit. Not a change of subject, nothing taken out of
context, but a comparison of two different individuals, treated
mostly the same way by what you consider to be 'evidence' of our
crimes.

In my case, I know for a fact it's not evidence of what you accused
me of above, repeatedly. And I seriously doubt, more so than I did
previously, that the 'evidence' you're offering about carroll is
accurate or is even close to remotely related to what you've
repeatedly accused him of.

You just don't do well with actual evidence, and by don't do well, I
do mean and I intend absolutely no misunderstanding in any possible
way when I write this: you don't provide any. Evidence that is. You
seem to be allergic to it.

You've also shown me either a severe learning disability, or
intentional dishonesty on your part; because you cherry picked the
last paragraph from a three paragraph reply to you discussing reverse
engineering principles in general, because you were wrong in what you
wrote; what you expressed as your understanding of what we can/cannot
learn from somethings output.

My effort of trying to help you out with what I wrote, you tried to
use against me to support the lie you tried to peddle concerning my
involvement and knowledge level of the bot in question.

2) Accepting your change of context, if there was other code
being discussed than Carroll's bot code please quote what code
you meant. I asked before and do not think you ever answered. If
you did reference other code then, sure, you moved to another
context there, too, and I just failed to see it. But as you did
here, it would mean you jumped topics / contexts.

Notice you do not point to any other code.

See above. You may apologize for your concocted story at any point in
time. I'm in no rush.

There was no change of context for you to accept or not. The
context is the same. YOU misquoted me, and Carroll and instead of
owning up to that and taking responsibility for it, you go and
try to introduce whatever you quoted out of context as evidence
to support an accusation you've made against one or more of us.

See: no other code being quoted. Not a line. Not a reference to a
program. Nothing. If you think I took things out of context of
Carroll's bot code, then what code did you mean? And please
reference where you noted it before.

See above. You may apologize for your concocted story about my
involvement with the bot at any time. I'm in no rush. I'll be around
for a long time. I'm not going to drop the subject or forget or give
you a free pass on this one, Snit. You don't deserve that. What you
deserve is what I'm doing; calling you out for the lies you told and
asking for an apology where you told the lies, right here in the
public open. It's only right.


There are many things I do not "disclose" until asked (and
even then I am not obligated to). Do not get me wrong: I have
no issue with you asking (it was completely reasonable) but it
is not wrong that I did not answer your question BEFORE you
asked it. Can you understand that?

Can I? Are you questioning my intelligence level here, Snit?

I said nothing of your intelligence. I asked a simple question:
Can you understand why someone would not answer a question
BEFORE it is asked?

You're doing it again, Snit.

Your complaint seems to be I did not answer your question about
message IDs before you asked it. To me is seems pretty clear that
questions are generally answered AFTER they are asked, not before.

Uhh, no, you clearly missed my complaint. It was the way in which you
asked if I could understand your desire to keep privacy. Obviously,
your question wasn't necessary.

This is another case where you make an assumption, and don't get it
right and provide an answer based on what you thought I was asking
you about. or, in this case, commenting about.

And this is where I can't determine for sure if you're jerking us all
around and playing games, or, it's not your fault in so much as it's
a real medical condition. And, I can't trust you at all to tell me
which it is, and really; I don't need to know anything about you of
such a personal nature. I'm just writing this to let you know that
I've noticed you do have something going on with you, and if I've
noticed it, you can bet your arse others have too. I won't take
advantage of it, but, you can't be sure others won't.

Regardless of whether or not you man up and apologize for what you
wrote about me, I still recommend that you watch your ass here. You
don't really know David or anyone else here as well as you think you
might. and that includes me. I wouldn't try to convince you I should
be treated any differently - although I've noticed you're
confrontational with me from the jump in nearly all of your replies
and not so with everyone else; aside from Carroll. It seems that you
are weapons ready when you respond to either of us.

Is there a particular reason you're doing that?

Anyway, you seem to think I lied about what code you were talking
about as we talked about Carroll's bot code. This can be cleared
up very easily -- just note what code you meant, and, of course,
where you stated it.

No, Snit, you lied when you wrote the contents of this post:

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100


You actually wrote this:

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.

And cherry picked the third and last paragraph from part of a reply
to your question to support your insane claim above it.

When taken in full context though, it becomes quite clear that what
you're trying to pass off as evidence of, is anything but:

I clarified it to be the compiled code huh? And you based that on the
third paragraph of a reply I wrote questioning your programming
background and severe lack of knowledge of even the most basic
reverse engineering principles. You took what I tried to explain to
you completely out of context. I clarified NOTHING OF THE SORT.

YOU LIED, SNIT. Plain and simple. Let's see it again:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
Message-ID:

You wrote this, showing that you have next to no useful/practical
knowledge of how reverse engineering works:

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
that.

And I responded with this:

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

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.

*** end full share

Notice it's the third paragraph of my reply that you selected to try
and use as evidence supporting your claim:
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:

The third paragraph snit, taken ever so carefully out of context.
It's actually PART OF a reply I wrote, correcting one of your
misunderstandings concerning how reverse engineering is done. You
literally, heh, tried to use a question I asked you, in spite, no
doubt, by trying to spin it into this:

"Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:"

I did no such thing, and you certainly didn't call me out for
anything (nobody else did either, Snit) nor did I clarify anything.
You made ALL OF THAT UP, Snit. Yes, you did. And, you cherry picked,
as in totally isolated something unrelated to what you claimed to
support it. Going so far as to isolate a piece of a reply I wrote
questioning your knowledge of reverse engineering.

Nothing I wrote as a reply to you supports the accusation you made
that I had the bot, in source code OR COMPILED FORM. What is
clarified, crystal clear at this point, is one of two possible things
going on with you.

Or don't and we can just move on. As I have told you, I am not
really interested in this.

Oh, but I am. I'm interested in learning why you felt it necessary to
write multiple lies about me, and proceed with it for so long as
you're continuing to do? It's a known, proven fact, by now, snit,
even you have to have realized this that I've got you by the short
and curlies on this one.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...rt+and+curlies

have (one) by the short and curlies
To have complete control or dominance over someone; to have someone
at one's mercy. "The short and curlies" refers to the hairs on one's
neck (not pubic hairs, despite popular misconceptions). With all that
evidence against you, I'd say the police have you by the short and
curlies. Sometimes, I think Mark's wife has him by the short and
curlies.
See also: and, by, curly, have, short
Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. © 2015 Farlex, Inc, all rights reserved.

Seems you got confused about what code was being referenced or
whatever

Wow, Snit. Where do you come up with this stuff?


We all make mistakes -- I am not gonna harp on what seems to be
yours, here.

My mistake? Uhh, snit, you made several false accusations against me
concerning my involvement and knowledge of the bot and it's owner(s).
I'd say the mistake clearly lies with you here. So I don't really see
how you could justify any harping on it?

Meanwhile you seem unable to let it go.

Let it go? Let the fact, you LIED ABOUT ME multiple times in a single
post go without an apology from you for having done it? Is that what
you mean, Snit?

Why should I just ignore what you did, multiple times here. Just give
you a free pass for lieing about me, that's what your saying I should
do?

I didn't get confused about anything. here's what I wrote, in full
context; all three paragraphs, not the last one you cherry picked,
completely out of context.

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
Message-ID:

You wrote this, showing that you have next to no useful/practical
knowledge of how reverse engineering works:

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the output
shows the code to be good or not. One has to see the code to know
that.

I responded with this:

How long have you been writing code of any kind? The resulting output
(most programmers, and all coders know this) certainly does give an
individual a very good idea of the coding behind it. Ie: how it's
being generated, what algorithms are likely in use.

One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled.

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.

*** end share

Nothing I wrote as a reply to you supports the accusation you made
that I had the bot, in source code OR COMPILED FORM. What is
clarified, crystal clear at this point, is one of two possible things
going on with you.

Either you have a serious, disabling level learning disability, OR,
you're a very very dishonest individual. It's one or the other. Now,
which one do you think I'm more likely to believe is the accurate
diagnosis after several interactions with you where I've been able to
see what you do, first hand for myself, not relying on what anyone
else has written about you? Do you think I've been impressed by your
behavior so far?

I've personally observed you quote me entirely out of context and
make false accusations against me on two seperate subjects
now...Probably more if I took the time to think about it. Don't
worry, I've no interest in previous discussions where you lied about
me. I'm only interested in this recent enough one.

So, you either have one of the worst cases of reading comprehension
difficulty I've seen in my entire life, OR, you are dishonest at the
level of being on equal footing with David Brooks.

Convince me it's the former and not the latter Snit.


See: you keep insisting I lied even though you have no evidence of it.
You say I was wrong to think you were speaking of Carroll's flood bot
code. I have accepted this as possible *IF* you were speaking of other
code (either by app name or code snippets or whatever). As far as I know
you have never suggested what other code you could have meant. This
suggests you simply made an error. If so, whatever. I am still happy to
move on. You repeatedly insist you will move on if and ONLY IF I am
willing to lie to you and say I think you are correct about something
you have no evidence for. I will not lie to you, even to get what I want
(moving forward in peace). Can you understand where I will not lie to
please you, even if that means I fail to get the peace I seek?



--
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.