Snit busted - Lied about the bot

Diesel wrote:

This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)

This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to ignore
worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.

*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the
"Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince
anyone.

Pretty-much all that thing does is lie, and then claim that no one can
quote it lying. It will read an example of its lying, and immediately
ask why you can't show an example of its lying. I'm sure that it will
do so, in response to this post.

Obviously, that thing's posts are filtered, here. Occasionally, I
post examples of its lies, obtained when others have responded to it,
in my .sig.

--
"This is common in COLA... people see me as more knowledgeable than
they do most others... your actions show YOU do." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)

chrisv
Thu, 23 Jul 2020
17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Diesel wrote:

This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)

This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.

In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with
him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore
them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on
my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an
example of.

*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the
"Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince
anyone.

My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's
true:

"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've asked him to provide MID(s) to the post(s) that called me out as
well as the post(s) where I clarified I merely! had the compiled code
to the usenet flood bot that's been making friends in COLA for a long
time (so i'm told) and recently introduced itself in
alt.computer.workshop, after Snit and some individuals who for
various reasons (everyone has Snit lying in common) arrived.

When Snit attempted to confuse the issue by spinning it around as a
misunderstanding of some kind on my end, that's essentially when the
thread I shared relevant contents of here began.

As you can see, I provided the MIDs, howardknight bookmark
quicklinks, as well as full message bodies. There's no denying that
other well known regulars from alt.computer.workshop called him out
on it too:

Message-ID:
Snit wrote:
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so
much to Diesel.

Apd responded with this:

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

*** end snippit 1

Message-ID:

Snit wrote this in response to me:

It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from
Carroll's flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he
can tell me.

Apd responded to Snit (again) with this:

No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.

For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our
run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has no
access to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the accusation
and thus he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd still believe he
has no access because of what he's been writing about the thing. If
I were a gambling man I'd place a very large bet on him having no
involvement.

*** end snippit 2

As you can see, twice Apd confirms what I accused Snit of doing; that
is, to accuse me of something I did not do. Snit has been trying to
spin the entire thing into a misunderstanding on my part since I
began requesting an Apology for the lies he wrote concerning my
knowledge of, access to, and involvement with the bot.

Message-ID:

Steve Carroll wrote this in response to Apd:
Even if you'd not made the accusation

It's not *just* an accusation (in an endless stream
of them), it's unsupported and clearly made for a
purpose in a campaign to convince readers that 'Snit
is good, Diesel is bad'. There is *no* way you don't
know this, so WTF is the story here?

That story doesn't address the fact that Snit is doing
what we can all clearly see (even DB sees it, he's only
quiet about it because Snit 'supports' his BS). You haven't
noticed the lengths that Snit has gone to in order to keep
attention focused on the bot? Or his over the top, hard sell
that I run it? Or that he's the only person who has tried
to seek benefit from it?

FromTheRafters responded to him with this:

I see it, but I skip most of the bot related posts because I am not
interested in such a lame program.

*** end snippit 3

Once again, you can clearly see two other people have also noticed
Snit lied on me, and is attempting to whitewash it away as a
misunderstanding on my part. It's nothing of the sort. Now, you have
three people, other than myself, who agree that what Snit wrote isn't
true, it wasn't ever true. Snit did infact make a series of unfounded
accusations towards me when he wrote this:

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

And the thread contents I shared with this new topic all address
every single thing he wrote, in considerable detail. Snit *LIED* on
me, and I think at this point, he knew he was lying when he wrote the
**** he did! I don't even think it was a misunderstanding on his part
at this point. I believe he did it intentionally and just didn't
expect or anticipate that I'd actually come after him for it.


Obviously, that thing's posts are filtered, here. Occasionally, I
post examples of its lies, obtained when others have responded to
it, in my .sig.

I'll resume kfing him soon enough. For the time being though, I'm
going to expose a few more of his lies he likes to tell - Since he
went well out of his way to not only lie on me multiple times, but
use the lie to try and troll me on usenet; when I haven't interacted
with the illiterate piece of ****e for days. He just doesn't learn to
leave people be. Atleast, not quickly.


--
'Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something' .--Pancho
Villa's last words (really!)

On 24/07/2020 08:13, Diesel wrote:
chrisv
Thu, 23 Jul 2020
17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Diesel wrote:

This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)

This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.

In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with
him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore
them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on
my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an
example of.

*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the
"Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince
anyone.

My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's
true:

You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-(

On 2020-07-24, David_B wrote:
On 24/07/2020 08:13, Diesel wrote:
chrisv
Thu, 23 Jul 2020
17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Diesel wrote:

This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)

This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.

In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with
him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore
them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on
my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an
example of.

*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the
"Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince
anyone.

My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's
true:

You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-(


Compared to Snit his name is gold.

Steve Carroll "Steve
Fri, 24 Jul 2020
12:55:14 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 2020-07-24, David_B wrote:
On 24/07/2020 08:13, Diesel wrote:
chrisv
Thu, 23 Jul 2020
17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Diesel wrote:

This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)

This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.

In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead
of those who could warn us about him. I'd already began
interacting with him by the time the warnings were issued. I
foolishly opted to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In
hindsight, that was a mistake on my part. As the result has
turned out being what this thread is an example of.

*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that
the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to
convince anyone.

My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of
it's true:

You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-(


Compared to Snit his name is gold.


Ayep.


--
'Your kid may be an honor student but you're still an IDIOT!'

David_B
Fri, 24 Jul 2020 10:18:17 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 24/07/2020 08:13, Diesel wrote:
chrisv
Thu, 23 Jul 2020
17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Diesel wrote:

This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)

This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.

In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting
with him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted
to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was
a mistake on my part. As the result has turned out being what
this thread is an example of.

*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that
the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to
convince anyone.

My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of
it's true:

You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-(

Heh. When you seperate the truth from the bull**** written about me,
David, I actually have a pretty decent rep on both sides of the
fence. If you had bothered to do a little more researching of me (er,
stalking, but I digress) you wouldn't have sent the first email
trying to con me into cracking into machines you didn't own or have
permission to give me to do on your behalf.

When you told me that you thought it was perfectly okay for me to
break various federal and state laws for you, I nearly fell out of my
chair. I actually went back and read that post several times before I
actually responded to you about the contents. I was dumbfounded - to
read that you finally admitted you did try to get me to break various
laws by cracking into gear you didn't own or have any rights
whatsoever to. I didn't expect to see you do that in my entire
lifetime.

If anyone were to compare me to yourself, or even Snit for that
matter, and include all of the blackhat things I've done since I was
a single digit age kid, It would be clear of the three of us, you two
are much bigger piles of **** by comparison. You both lie and steal,
and despite the things I've done as a blackhat in the past, most
people hate liars and thieves much much moreso than they ever did a
hacker, regardless of hat color.

David, I've done some really low down, ******* things in the past.
So, that's quite a comparison for me to be making. Yet, despite all
of that, a liar and a thief are still two of the top ten hated most
kinds of people, world wide. Even a former blackhat such as myself
pales by comparison to the two of you.

Do you remember those replies of yours, David? Or were you drunk at
the time of writing them? Go ahead, claim you have no idea what I'm
writing about, you know what the response to that is going to be. G

You would have known that I wouldn't have done the job for you. You
would have saved yourself considerable time and embarrassment down
the road. You wouldn't have tried to dox me into doing it for you,
either. And, as a result, Your information wouldn't be anywhere near
as easy to get as it is these days. It would still be mostly, aside
from your website registrar ****up, safe.


--
If in doubt, make it sound convincing.

On 24/07/2020 13:59, Diesel wrote:
David, I've done some really low down, ******* things in the past.

Yes, Dustin, you have.

The saddest thing of all, though, is that you show no remorse for doing
them. :-(

David_B
Fri, 24 Jul 2020 20:45:49 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 24/07/2020 13:59, Diesel wrote:
David, I've done some really low down, ******* things in the
past.

Yes, Dustin, you have.

The saddest thing of all, though, is that you show no remorse for
doing them. :-(

David, you're lying as poorly as snit does these days. Put some effort
into your work to snowjob people concerning me. Atleast pretend like
you care one way or the other. You know, for show if nothing else.





--
Sometimes the best medicine is to stop taking something.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 07:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

chrisv
Thu, 23 Jul 2020
17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Diesel wrote:

This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)

This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.

In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with
him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore
them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on
my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an
example of.

And that is how snit sets up his snit circus in whatever group he
happens to be attacking ATM.
At first snit seems harmless enough but it doesn't take long for him
to start his trickery combined with dishonest snipping, mis-quoting,
and pathological lying.

This is what turns decent groups into chaos where snit is the topic of
choice and is at the center of attention, like a ringmaster in a
circus. And this is snit's goal and has been from the day he appears
in a given group.

This is why ignoring snit from day one drives him to crawling up the
walls.

He will run this circus, adding rings as needed, until it begins to
run out of "gas" at which point snit will shift into "mode 2" in order
to keep the chaos alive.

What is mode 2?
Glad you asked eyeroll.

Mode 2 is where snit will suddenly "discover" that he made a minor
error and misread something his current victim (that's you) wrote.
At this point snit will offer a half assed apology for his
"unintentional mistake".

If the victim is foolish enough to fall for this ruse, and some have,
snit will make sure to plaster all over the group comments such as
"victim and I reached a solution to our petty disagreement, and I
commend him for admitting we were both wrong on this".

Notice how snit drags his victim into the admission of a mistake being
made so IOW snit AND his victim both screwed up.

This is very important.

Snit being the extreme narcissist that he is has never been capable of
admitting that he is solely to blame for some error being made so he
attempts to convert it into a group error so that the blame is shared.

Watch for it, because after snit tires of his current rainman routine,
he will shift to the profuse apology routine, Mode 2.

You can bet your left testicle on it.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:14:12 -0400, James wrote:

If the victim is foolish enough to fall for this ruse, and some have,
snit will make sure to plaster all over the group comments such as
"victim and I reached a solution to our petty disagreement, and I
commend him for admitting we were both wrong on this".

Both Alan Baker & Snit are characterized as Dunning-Kruger Quadrant 1:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrQGXxKXcAAFaVt.jpg

They "self assess" far (far) far greater than their actual knowledge level:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxL91TTWwAAC6Am.jpg

I've been on Usenet as long as anyone here (decades), where, given I use
vi/telnet/dictionary scripts as my "reader", it's difficult to plonk, and
yet, the only people I've ever had to killfile, are Snit, & Alan Baker.
https://www.skepticblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Dunning-Kruger.png

There is no distinction between the two based on what they post.
o Neither has ever added one iota of value to Usenet in their entire lives.

Both Alan Baker and Snit are all confidence, and literally zero knowledge:
https://scanfoam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/adpativeDKblog3.jpg

Here's an example of Snit's idiocy, for example, where he didn't even LOOK
at the Y axis before proclaiming (literally in over 200 posts!) that he had
a solution (clearly he doesn't know a decibel from a megabit!)...
o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/qSXecrnZAQAJ

Snit even stooped to publishing this hilarious video about his "genius":
https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

Yet, Alan Baker is as Dunning Kruger Quadrant 1 as is Snit, IMHO...
o I just belatedly realized why adults can't communicate with
Alan Baker & Snit - because they're too far to the left on the Dunning-Kruger scale
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MwtyT7BdxF4

Here's proof, for example of how fantastically stupid Alan Baker is, where
I estimate Alan's IQ to be no greater than 50 based on what he writes:
o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo

Both are clearly Dunning Kruger far to the left of Quadrant 1:
https://eclecticlip.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/dunning_kruger_effect.png
--
Only 2 kinds of people post to Usenet - those who add value; & those who can't.

On 24/07/2020 13:14, James wrote:
And this is snit's goal and has been from the day he appears
in a given group.

You may be interested to learn that I INVITED Snit to join me here. Our
views on many things differ, be he's a straight-forward and honest
family man who has helped me in so many different ways. :-)

What about you, James? Where have YOU sprung from?

Interestingly, you only the second other person I've ever met online who
uses blocknews.net as their newsserver. It's very good, isn't it?

Tell me how you know Snit so well?

David_B
Fri, 24 Jul 2020 13:37:01 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 24/07/2020 13:14, James wrote:
And this is snit's goal and has been from the day he appears
in a given group.

You may be interested to learn that I INVITED Snit to join me
here. Our views on many things differ, be he's a straight-forward
and honest family man who has helped me in so many different ways.
:-)

Straight forward and honest? LOL!!!

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.

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close
to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.


So why can't he answer my questions, then, David, if he's so straight
forward and honest?

Tell me how you know Snit so well?

Snit has quite the reputation in cola, David. Maybe you should bring
yourself upto speed?


--
Keep Canada beautiful. Swallow your beer cans.

On 26/07/2020 21:17, Diesel wrote:
Snit has quite the reputation in cola, David. Maybe you should bring
yourself upto speed?

If I want to know something about Snit I ask him.

He's never yet failed to provide a truthful and straight-forward answer.

James
Fri, 24 Jul 2020
12:14:12 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 07:13:49 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

chrisv
m Thu, 23 Jul 2020
17:04:37 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Diesel wrote:

This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)

This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.

In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting
with him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted
to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was
a mistake on my part. As the result has turned out being what this
thread is an example of.

And that is how snit sets up his snit circus in whatever group he
happens to be attacking ATM.
At first snit seems harmless enough but it doesn't take long for
him to start his trickery combined with dishonest snipping,
mis-quoting, and pathological lying.

I noticed all of those actions when I first engaged him - we were
discussing 3d printer technologies. He asked if I could determine
what technology was in use for a particular set of miniature
figurines. After a bit of back and forth, I realized he was clueless
and had severe reading comprehension issues. He continued trying to
claim we "Agreed" on things that we weren't even half way towards the
middle on. Usually, the "agreed" was things I wrote about that he
didn't understand, and that his response really had nothing to do
with.

He also "agreed" that I didn't know what technology was being used,
but I didn't make any such statement; infact, I provided him the
correct answer from the vendors site. He didn't know what technology
was in use, and when I showed him he could have answered his own
question, that's when he started trying to twist things around the
first time.

He pulled more **** with the AZ thread, and that's where he really
let his reading comprehension issue see the light of day. He took the
simple instructions I wrote, misunderstood them all, and took a
parting shot at me for his failure to comprehend because I specified
the ascii code table you should be using for the purposes of the
explanation as I provided it.

When I noticed he was doing that and called him out for it, he
proceeded to try and turn things around into me not knowing what
ASCII even was. Er, I've been writing software that made computers do
"things" since I was single digit age. Why wouldn't I have a firm
grasp of what ASCII is by the time I interacted with Snit, 30+
something years after the fact?

This is why ignoring snit from day one drives him to crawling up
the walls.

Heh, There's some truth to that statement. He started writing this
bull****:

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

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close
to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.

While I had him kf'd. When I ask about this post, Snit continues to
claim I 'misunderstood' him. I don't see how I could have possibly
done that. His post used very specific words, and like most words,
they actually do have a very specific meaning. According to what Snit
wrote, and going only by what he wrote, there should be atleast! one
post calling me out about the bot, and atleast one more post where I
clarified I had the compiled code. The section of a post I wrote,
that he shared for 'proof' has nothing to do with the bot itself, and
isn't proof of any kind. It's the 3rd paragraph of a reply I wrote,
calling out his lack of actual programming knowledge in front of
everyone else.

I guess he doesn't handle being wrong and shown to be wrong in public
well? Some people with large egos do suffer with that issue. He went
out of his way to write that story about me, all because he didn't
like my kf'ing him and continuing to mention him with other
conversations. My bad. But, he's a damn troll, and a liar, and he's
gone well out of his way to show that to not only myself, but damn
near anyone with an IQ above that of say, a monkey.

Mode 2 is where snit will suddenly "discover" that he made a minor
error and misread something his current victim (that's you) wrote.
At this point snit will offer a half assed apology for his
"unintentional mistake".

That won't be accepted. I've been on him for months now, slowly
adding more pressure inside the vice I've got his head snuggled in.
G I continue getting more and more specific with my questions. I
like watching him squirm and try to weasel his way out of my trap.

He really picked the wrong one this time, and he's going to learn
that, one way or another, he's going to learn. G

If the victim is foolish enough to fall for this ruse, and some
have, snit will make sure to plaster all over the group comments
such as "victim and I reached a solution to our petty
disagreement, and I commend him for admitting we were both wrong
on this".

Yes, well, I'm not going to accept anything but a full blown apology
at this point where Snit, rightfully, takes all of the blame. He's
the one who went out of his way to write the bull**** story, he's the
only one responsible for it's existance, he'll be the only one who
can apologize and take full responsibility for it, or it doesn't go
away; it'll just keep coming up, like a bad mcdonalds burger.
(assuming they ever served a decent one)

This isn't my first rodeo with a troll. I've been 0wning David Brooks
for years, I don't have a problem making a two for one combo deal.

Notice how snit drags his victim into the admission of a mistake
being made so IOW snit AND his victim both screwed up.

Yes, I have noticed this routine tried with others, and he gets mixed
results with it. He won't "wear me down" about this. I'm not going to
let it go, until I get that ****ing apology. No compromise, no
"agreement", an apology is the only thing that will get me off his
ass about that series of lies he told.

And the longer he delays, the more of his lies I'll find and question
him over, right here, in public. I'll continue getting specific with
my questions as I isolate more lies he's written (he's been here for
months now, he's provided all kinds of material I can use) about me,
too.

With me, the longer he takes to comply, the hotter the kitchen is
going to get.

Snit being the extreme narcissist that he is has never been
capable of admitting that he is solely to blame for some error
being made so he attempts to convert it into a group error so that
the blame is shared.

Yep. In this case, there's no blame to be shared. No blame to be
passed around. No misunderstanding on anyones part, at this point,
either. I won't even let him use that excuse as a way out at this
point, I already offered it; he declined. Now, my questions are more
specific. A misunderstanding didn't take place. Snit told a series of
lies, and I'm asking for an apology about them:

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.
***

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close
to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.

As you can see, Snit used very specific words in his claim; I've
since began narrowing the focus of my beam and asking about them,
specifically. He made very specific claims, there should be no
problem with him finding the MIDs to the posts to back them up,
right?

Watch for it, because after snit tires of his current rainman
routine, he will shift to the profuse apology routine, Mode 2.

He's already been given the chance, multiple times now, to do the
right thing. He declined to do so, he tried to twist it into my
having a severe reading comprehension issue (I don't), and he's tried
to claim that he didn't lie about anything, I "misunderstood".

I misnderstood, nothing. And he did lie, and i'm going to continue
requesting that apology, a full apology for the lie, not a
misunderstanding, but a series of lies, he wrote about me concerning
the google flood bot.

You can bet your left testicle on it.

I'd rather not bust up a matching set. G

--
A cat is only domestic in so far as suits its own needs.