CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc: <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote <ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote <ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:I offered conclusive evidence at the time, liar.
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you lost your own argument.
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I >> am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you >> lost your own argument.
I offered conclusive evidence at the time, liar.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I >> am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you >> lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
On May 5, 2026 at 1:51:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you >>> lost your own argument.
I offered conclusive evidence at the time, liar.
I do not even recall what the alleged lie was at this point. Don't care. It was in 2004.
Two thousand four.
LOL!
And what... Mackay offered multiple PDFs about... I do not even remember what.
Some email? Don't know or care at this point.
But you and chrisv... even if you thought you had evidence (none shown of course), you have some alleged lie from 2004 that means... what? LOL! NOTHNG. Why would anyone care about some alleged lie about some PDF from over two decades ago?If you don't care...
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrote <xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you >>> lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
On 2026-05-05 13:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:51:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
I offered conclusive evidence at the time, liar.
I do not even recall what the alleged lie was at this point. Don't care. It >> was in 2004.
Two thousand four.
LOL!
And what... Mackay offered multiple PDFs about... I do not even remember what.
Some email? Don't know or care at this point.
This is you NOT remembering is it?
You modified a PDF to make it look like someone ELSE was lying.
But you and chrisv... even if you thought you had evidence (none shown ofIf you don't care...
course), you have some alleged lie from 2004 that means... what? LOL! NOTHNG.
Why would anyone care about some alleged lie about some PDF from over two
decades ago?
...why are you replying, liar?
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I
won't read any more of them in this thread!
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I
won't read any more of them in this thread!
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
On May 5, 2026 at 1:59:24 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlnd$n6ei$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:51:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
I offered conclusive evidence at the time, liar.
I do not even recall what the alleged lie was at this point. Don't care. It >>> was in 2004.
Two thousand four.
LOL!
And what... Mackay offered multiple PDFs about... I do not even remember what.
Some email? Don't know or care at this point.
This is you NOT remembering is it?
Not in any detail. Nor do I care.
You modified a PDF to make it look like someone ELSE was lying.
But no evidence of this? Nope. Never happened. But nice try.
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I
won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I
won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I
won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I
won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I
won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
On 2026-05-05 14:06, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:59:24 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlnd$n6ei$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:51:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
I offered conclusive evidence at the time, liar.
I do not even recall what the alleged lie was at this point. Don't care. It
was in 2004.
Two thousand four.
LOL!
And what... Mackay offered multiple PDFs about... I do not even remember what.
Some email? Don't know or care at this point.
This is you NOT remembering is it?
Not in any detail. Nor do I care.
You modified a PDF to make it look like someone ELSE was lying.
But no evidence of this? Nope. Never happened. But nice try.
You claim you don't remember...
...but you can state with no equivocation that it "never happened".
Interesting.
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing
myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can’t quote about an incident no sane person cares about.
What a way to spend your time!Says the "man" who continues to reply to a subject he claims he doesn't
Hint: it’s pathetic.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:06, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:59:24 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlnd$n6ei$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:51:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
I offered conclusive evidence at the time, liar.
I do not even recall what the alleged lie was at this point. Don't care. It
was in 2004.
Two thousand four.
LOL!
And what... Mackay offered multiple PDFs about... I do not even remember what.
Some email? Don't know or care at this point.
This is you NOT remembering is it?
Not in any detail. Nor do I care.
You modified a PDF to make it look like someone ELSE was lying.
But no evidence of this? Nope. Never happened. But nice try.
You claim you don't remember...
...but you can state with no equivocation that it "never happened".
Interesting.
I know the accusation is absurd. I never modified a PDF to do anything of
the sort. Vaguely remember the accusations but didn’t care then or now.
It’s just hilarious you’re still focused on a nonissue that means nothing.It's just hilarious that you're still replying and trying to claim it
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I
won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
On May 2, 2026 at 11:48:35 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10t6r42$2n602$3@dont-email.me>:
I get the feeling some people here are not accustomed to the level
of software reuse made possible by a packaging system that can
scale to thousands of packages.
Give a place where this packaging system has been a huge benefit to
you.
And what do you see as the tradeoffs?
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I
won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I >>>>>won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrote <xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you >>> lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I
won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I >>>>>>won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
On 2026-05-05 14:29, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing
myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can’t quote about an incident no sane person cares about.
I can quote it... ...in detail.
Says the "man" who continues to reply to a subject he claims he doesn't
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it’s pathetic.
care about...
CrudeSausage wrote:I'm sure that the Prescott swamp monster will conveniently ignore
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc: <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate >steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
CrudeSausage wrote:Indeed. So you do read what you claim not to have read.
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
He's just *gotta* have the last word, even if it's just to repeat
himself over and over again. (He's changing the subject to call me a "triggered snowflake". The irony.)
On 2026-05-05 14:29, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:06, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:59:24 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlnd$n6ei$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:51:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>>>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>>>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
I offered conclusive evidence at the time, liar.
I do not even recall what the alleged lie was at this point. Don't care. It
was in 2004.
Two thousand four.
LOL!
And what... Mackay offered multiple PDFs about... I do not even remember what.
Some email? Don't know or care at this point.
This is you NOT remembering is it?
Not in any detail. Nor do I care.
You modified a PDF to make it look like someone ELSE was lying.
But no evidence of this? Nope. Never happened. But nice try.
You claim you don't remember...
...but you can state with no equivocation that it "never happened".
Interesting.
I know the accusation is absurd. I never modified a PDF to do anything of
the sort. Vaguely remember the accusations but didn’t care then or now.
You absolutely DID modify a PDF.
You downloaded a PDF from Steve Mackay's website, altered it, then
uploaded it your site claiming you'd found it altered.
It’s just hilarious you’re still focused on a nonissue that means nothing.
It's just hilarious that you're still replying and trying to claim it
didn't happen...
...while simultaneously claiming you don't remember the incident.
:-)
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I
won't read any more of them in this thread!
On May 5, 2026 at 2:43:01PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdo95$ntsm$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 14:29, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing >>> myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can?t quote about an incident no sane person cares about.
I can quote it... ...in detail.
Says the "man" who continues to reply to a subject he claims he doesn't care about...
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it?s pathetic.
I am amused by your self nuke. As you were told.
Face it, if I did not reply you would use it against me -- saying I am running. Now that I am replying you use that against me. You claim I lied IN TWO THOUSAND FOUR and use it against me. You are just looking to argue.
And you lost anyway. You agreed with yourself and lost.
It is funny.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can?t quote about an incident no sane person cares about.
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it?s pathetic.
https://usenet.sandman.net/texter/category.php/Digests? categories%5B%5D=Digests&cond=and?
On 2026-05-05 4:16 p.m., chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with thatI'm sure that the Prescott swamp monster will conveniently ignore
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc: <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
every one of those quotes.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can?t quote about an incident no sane person cares about.
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it?s pathetic.
https://usenet.sandman.net/texter/category.php/Digests? categories%5B%5D=Digests&cond=and?
On May 5, 2026 at 2:44:46PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdocf$ntsm$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 14:29, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:06, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:59:24PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlnd$n6ei$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:51:14PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55PM MST, "chrisv" wrote
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
I offered conclusive evidence at the time, liar.
I do not even recall what the alleged lie was at this point. Don't care. It
was in 2004.
Two thousand four.
LOL!
And what... Mackay offered multiple PDFs about... I do not even remember what.
Some email? Don't know or care at this point.
This is you NOT remembering is it?
Not in any detail. Nor do I care.
You modified a PDF to make it look like someone ELSE was lying.
But no evidence of this? Nope. Never happened. But nice try.
You claim you don't remember...
...but you can state with no equivocation that it "never happened".
Interesting.
I know the accusation is absurd. I never modified a PDF to do anything of >> the sort. Vaguely remember the accusations but didn?t care then or now.
You absolutely DID modify a PDF.
An allegation from TWO THOUSAND FOUR. One nobody cares about. I bet you never post any evidence. But if you do and I don't reply you will use it against me.
If I don't you will use it against me.
You are just trolling.
But the fact you are crying over a claim from 2004 shows you already lost.
You downloaded a PDF from Steve Mackay's website, altered it, then
uploaded it your site claiming you'd found it altered.
The allegation does not even make sense.
It?s just hilarious you?re still focused on a nonissue that means nothing.
It's just hilarious that you're still replying and trying to claim it didn't happen...
...while simultaneously claiming you don't remember the incident.
:-)
I know I never did as you accuse,
I mean, your logic here is stupid.
You killed a baby. What? You do not remember doing so? That means you cannot deny it.
Just daft. Logic-free. Idiotic.
You self nuked. Own it and move on already.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can?t quote about an incident no sane person cares about.
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it?s pathetic.
https://usenet.sandman.net/texter/category.php/Digests? categories%5B%5D=Digests&cond=and?
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59PM MST, "%" wrote <pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can?t quote about an incident no sane person cares about.
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it?s pathetic.
https://usenet.sandman.net/texter/category.php/Digests? categories%5B%5D=Digests&cond=and?
On 2026-05-05 14:29, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:06, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:59:24PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlnd$n6ei$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:51:14PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55PM MST, "chrisv" wrote
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
I offered conclusive evidence at the time, liar.
I do not even recall what the alleged lie was at this point. Don't care. It
was in 2004.
Two thousand four.
LOL!
And what... Mackay offered multiple PDFs about... I do not even remember what.
Some email? Don't know or care at this point.
This is you NOT remembering is it?
Not in any detail. Nor do I care.
You modified a PDF to make it look like someone ELSE was lying.
But no evidence of this? Nope. Never happened. But nice try.
You claim you don't remember...
...but you can state with no equivocation that it "never happened".
Interesting.
I know the accusation is absurd. I never modified a PDF to do anything of the sort. Vaguely remember the accusations but didn?t care then or now.
You absolutely DID modify a PDF.
You downloaded a PDF from Steve Mackay's website, altered it, then
uploaded it your site claiming you'd found it altered.
It?s just hilarious you?re still focused on a nonissue that means nothing.It's just hilarious that you're still replying and trying to claim it
didn't happen...
...while simultaneously claiming you don't remember the incident.
:-)
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can?t quote about an incident no sane person cares about.
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it?s pathetic.
https://usenet.sandman.net/texter/category.php/Digests? categories%5B%5D=Digests&cond=and?
On 03 May 2026 13:39:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 2, 2026 at 11:48:35 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10t6r42$2n602$3@dont-email.me>:
I get the feeling some people here are not accustomed to the level
of software reuse made possible by a packaging system that can
scale to thousands of packages.
Give a place where this packaging system has been a huge benefit to
you.
Shared common code -- automatic installation as needed, automatic
removal when no longer needed. A common, and automatic, update
mechanism.
See the common word there? Automatic, automatic, automatic.
And what do you see as the tradeoffs?
It leaves proprietary developers out in the cold.
Oh wait, that’s not a disadvantage ...
You claim you don't remember...
...but you can state with no equivocation that it "never happened".
Interesting.
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
On 2026-05-05, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
Yes.
There are many, many links on the net showing the snit lying his ass off.
He can claim otherwise until he is blue in his pasty white face but people are
not stupid and
can, and do check for themselves.
On 2026-05-05 13:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrote
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote <MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and interpretation of PDFs.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation * Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it doesn’t establish conclusions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was discussed long ago, years before AI was available. AI is just stating
the obvious there.
And you are using a sock to push lies you piece of shit troll.
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote <69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that means he cannot deny he did.
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
Since Michael Glasser/snit/Brock McNuggets frelwizzen spam bot was rendered useless by Google he's trying to seed the search engines with bullshit.
It's what he does.
And he does it 24x7.
On 05 May 2026 23:08:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and
interpretation of PDFs.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation
* Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of
forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it
doesn’t establish conclusions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was discussed long ago, years before AI was available. AI is just stating
the obvious there.
And you are using a sock to push lies you piece of shit troll.
Looks legit to me.
On May 5, 2026 at 4:23:50 PM MST, "Anonymous" wrote <1qmh2dextqzft.k6ifyq5v72kg.dlg@40tude.net>:
On 05 May 2026 23:08:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and
interpretation of PDFs.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation
* Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of >>> forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it >>> doesn’t establish conclusions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was discussed long ago, years before AI was available. AI is just stating
the obvious there.
And you are using a sock to push lies you piece of shit troll.
Looks legit to me.
You, a sock using piece of shit troll, says I am wrong.
And?
On May 5, 2026 at 4:09:54 PM MST, "pothead" wrote <10tdtc2$po5r$2@pothead.dont-email.me>:
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
Since Michael Glasser/snit/Brock McNuggets frelwizzen spam bot was rendered >> useless by Google he's trying to seed the search engines with bullshit.
It's what he does.
And he does it 24x7.
Ahh the trolls are coming out in force... with unsupported rubbish. But what is supported is Pothead is a white supremacist (or at least backs much of their filth):
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I >>>>>>>won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
And last but not least, here is a link to your PDF forging
scam.
Too bad for you that Usenet has a long memory.
Right snit?
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
Oh and yes, you did delet your CableOne website but after
screen shots were capture.
Again Mr. "I provide reciepts" try and squirm out of this
one you walking, talking, pile of shit.
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I >>>>>>>> won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
Sheesh. He's *still* humping my posts, despite being told that I >>>>>>>>> won't read any more of them in this thread!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
*still* humping my posts!
Dude…
Lay off the drugs already, man. You’re spiraling on a bad trip.
/s
On 05 May 2026 23:34:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:23:50 PM MST, "Anonymous" wrote
<1qmh2dextqzft.k6ifyq5v72kg.dlg@40tude.net>:
On 05 May 2026 23:08:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and >>>> interpretation of PDFs.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation
* Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of >>>> forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments >>>>
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it >>>> doesn’t establish conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>
This was discussed long ago, years before AI was available. AI is just stating
the obvious there.
And you are using a sock to push lies you piece of shit troll.
Looks legit to me.
You, a sock using piece of shit troll, says I am wrong.
And?
So where is your proof that i am a sock?
Accusing people who point out your trolling as being socks is simply
your way of refusing to acknowledge and refute the topic.
So far all you have proven Brock is that you are a liar.
Moshe Fishman wrote:
And last but not least, here is a link to your PDF forging
scam.
Too bad for you that Usenet has a long memory.
Right snit?
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
Oh and yes, you did delet your CableOne website but after
screen shots were capture.
Again Mr. "I provide reciepts" try and squirm out of this
one you walking, talking, pile of shit.
What a "surprise" to see that thing deny its lies, even when they are
so utterly obvious and thoroughly documented.
On 05 May 2026 23:33:39 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:09:54 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
<10tdtc2$po5r$2@pothead.dont-email.me>:
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
Since Michael Glasser/snit/Brock McNuggets frelwizzen spam bot was rendered >>> useless by Google he's trying to seed the search engines with bullshit.
It's what he does.
And he does it 24x7.
Ahh the trolls are coming out in force... with unsupported rubbish. But what >> is supported is Pothead is a white supremacist (or at least backs much of
their filth):
Where do you make this connection?
You claim POTHEAD is attacking you because you are Jewish?
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
He's just *gotta* have the last word, even if it's just to repeat
himself over and over again. (He's changing the subject to call me a "triggered snowflake". The irony.)
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that means he
cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
On 2026-05-05 15:40, chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:Indeed. So you do read what you claim not to have read.
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
He's just *gotta* have the last word, even if it's just to repeat
himself over and over again. (He's changing the subject to call me a
"triggered snowflake". The irony.)
:-)
On May 5, 2026 at 4:27:51 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdudo$q3m5$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate >>>> steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that means he >>> cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
Alan <10tdmor$ntt1$2@dont-email.me>:
-----
You claim you don't remember...
...but you can state with no equivocation that it "never happened".
Interesting.
-----
Based on YOUR words... You do not remember killing a baby so you cannot say for sure it "never happened".
You bring insults and accusations... I bring receipts.
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wrote <pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
On 2026-05-05 19:20, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:27:51 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdudo$q3m5$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate >>>>> steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that means he >>>> cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
Alan <10tdmor$ntt1$2@dont-email.me>:
-----
You claim you don't remember...
...but you can state with no equivocation that it "never happened".
Interesting.
-----
Based on YOUR words... You do not remember killing a baby so you cannot say >> for sure it "never happened".
Not the same...
You bring insults and accusations... I bring receipts.
...and I can bring the receipts if necessary...
...and you know it...
...because you remember your humiliation in exquisite detail.
Dude
Lay off the drugs already, man. Youre spiraling on a bad trip.
/s
-hh wrote:
Dude
Lay off the drugs already, man. Youre spiraling on a bad trip.
/s
What a "surprise" to see -highhorse take Anal's side.
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Did it leave skid marks?
Brock McNuggets wrote:
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it always does but they don't last
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>>>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>>>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Did it leave skid marks?
On May 6, 2026 at 6:59:10 AM MST, "%" wrote <leacnaxnqpbB1Gb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it always does but they don't last
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind >>>>>>>>>> the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that >>>>>>>>>> thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Did it leave skid marks?
Do they first?
What is the reason for moving it?
On May 5, 2026 at 3:40:51 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote <gbskvk1h84v31p95rgqc7rd7eso26slutl@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
He's just *gotta* have the last word, even if it's just to repeat
himself over and over again. (He's changing the subject to call me a
"triggered snowflake". The irony.)
You attack and your targets respond. THE HORROR! People should let you attack and not respond. The nerve of some people!
LOL!
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that means he
cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate >>>> steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that means he >>> cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
well claim something then
Brock McNuggets wrote:[....]
What is the reason for moving it?it's a bi-law every 3 years
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 6:59:10 AM MST, "%" wroteit's a bi-law every 3 years
<leacnaxnqpbB1Gb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it always does but they don't last
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>>>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear >>>>>>>>>>> explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Did it leave skid marks?
Do they first?
What is the reason for moving it?
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate >>>> steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that means he >>> cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
well claim something then
On 2026-05-06 11:22 a.m., % wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he >>>>> ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that
means he
cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
well claim something then
There is no point in following him. There is no substance to any of his posts and he simply denies anything that makes Apple or himself look
bad. We're all better off binning him as we do Snit Michael Glasser
Prescott Computer Guy.
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-06 11:22 a.m., % wrote:snit is my friend
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if
he ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that
means he
cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
well claim something then
There is no point in following him. There is no substance to any of
his posts and he simply denies anything that makes Apple or himself
look bad. We're all better off binning him as we do Snit Michael
Glasser Prescott Computer Guy.
On May 6, 2026 at 8:17:38 AM MST, "%" wrote <Y6adnR8tv_rgxmb0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 6:59:10 AM MST, "%" wroteit's a bi-law every 3 years
<leacnaxnqpbB1Gb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it always does but they don't last
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing, >>>>>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's >>>>>>>>>>>> that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear >>>>>>>>>>>> explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Did it leave skid marks?
Do they first?
What is the reason for moving it?
Can you sell the laws?
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate >>>> steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that means he >>> cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
well claim something then
On 2026-05-06 11:22 a.m., % wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he >>>>> ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that
means he
cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
well claim something then
There is no point in following him. There is no substance to any of his posts and he simply denies anything that makes Apple or himself look
bad. We're all better off binning him as we do Snit Michael Glasser
Prescott Computer Guy.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:40:51 PM MST, "chrisv" wrotei made that a rule in one group ,
<gbskvk1h84v31p95rgqc7rd7eso26slutl@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate >>>> steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
He's just *gotta* have the last word, even if it's just to repeat
himself over and over again. (He's changing the subject to call me a
"triggered snowflake". The irony.)
You attack and your targets respond. THE HORROR! People should let you attack
and not respond. The nerve of some people!
LOL!
there's no saying what i'm saying ,
know what i'm saying
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 8:17:38 AM MST, "%" wroteyou can by junk at the law sales ,
<Y6adnR8tv_rgxmb0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 6:59:10 AM MST, "%" wroteit's a bi-law every 3 years
<leacnaxnqpbB1Gb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it always does but they don't last
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing, >>>>>>>>>>>>> lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying >>>>>>>>>>>>> shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear >>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Did it leave skid marks?
Do they first?
What is the reason for moving it?
Can you sell the laws?
people have them right out on the front law
On May 6, 2026 at 9:36:33 AM MST, "%" wrote <GOudnYFaLu6E82b0nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 8:17:38 AM MST, "%" wroteyou can by junk at the law sales ,
<Y6adnR8tv_rgxmb0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 6:59:10 AM MST, "%" wroteit's a bi-law every 3 years
<leacnaxnqpbB1Gb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it always does but they don't last
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wroteis this going to be anything
<ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Did it leave skid marks?
Do they first?
What is the reason for moving it?
Can you sell the laws?
people have them right out on the front law
Many of our laws are not worth much.
On 2026-05-06 12:34 p.m., % wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-06 11:22 a.m., % wrote:snit is my friend
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if >>>>>>> he ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that
means he
cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
well claim something then
There is no point in following him. There is no substance to any of
his posts and he simply denies anything that makes Apple or himself
look bad. We're all better off binning him as we do Snit Michael
Glasser Prescott Computer Guy.
You need higher standards.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 9:36:33 AM MST, "%" wrotewater them and kill the ants
<GOudnYFaLu6E82b0nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 8:17:38 AM MST, "%" wroteyou can by junk at the law sales ,
<Y6adnR8tv_rgxmb0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 6:59:10 AM MST, "%" wroteit's a bi-law every 3 years
<leacnaxnqpbB1Gb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it always does but they don't last
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:is this going to be anything
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Did it leave skid marks?
Do they first?
What is the reason for moving it?
Can you sell the laws?
people have them right out on the front law
Many of our laws are not worth much.
On 2026-05-04 7:59 p.m., Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 4, 2026 at 4:29:42 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69f92be6$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-04 6:34 p.m., Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 4, 2026 at 3:21:57 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69f91c05$0$21$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
Friend, you don't have to provide evidence with me.
Can't... because it does not exist.
And I am amused at how freaked out you trolls get. :)
You and I know very well that evidence of what kind of a waste of time
was provided to you years ago in comp.os.linux.advocacy. Heck, it's the
reason you don't bother to hang around there anymore. Absolutely
everyone sees through you and the only people who bother to read your
posts are people who are too bored to care that you are incapable of
participating in a normal, human conversation without immediately making >>> it about you or bombarding them with idiotic questions. You even play
the same kind of game of semantics Anal does.
No MID. No quotes.
You made this all about you and how angry and insecure you are.
Back into the bin you go.
chrisv wrote:
What a "surprise" to see -highhorse take Anal's side.
(snipped, unread)
-hh wrote:
chrisv wrote:
What a "surprise" to see -highhorse take Anal's side.
(snipped, unread)
I guess that the Mactards feel the need to support each other.
Anal got spanked and then ignored for his snotty behavior. "WolfFan"
saw this and attacked me with *lies*. When "WolfFan" was called-out,
rather than withdraw his claim and apologize, he chose to take a few
more shots at me.
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
On 05 May 2026 23:33:39 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:09:54 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
<10tdtc2$po5r$2@pothead.dont-email.me>:
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
Since Michael Glasser/snit/Brock McNuggets frelwizzen spam bot was rendered >>> useless by Google he's trying to seed the search engines with bullshit.
It's what he does.
And he does it 24x7.
Ahh the trolls are coming out in force... with unsupported rubbish. But what >> is supported is Pothead is a white supremacist (or at least backs much of
their filth):
Where do you make this connection?
You claim POTHEAD is attacking you because you are Jewish?
How the fuck do you reach that conclusion?
Do you have a single message where POTHEAD mentions attacking you
because you are Jewish?
Post it please.
And before you attempt to post your bogus MID I checked every single
one and not a single MID confirms your accusations against POTHEAD.
Not one.
You are fucking crazy.
You really are.
On 2026-05-05, Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> wrote:
On 05 May 2026 23:33:39 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:09:54 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
<10tdtc2$po5r$2@pothead.dont-email.me>:
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
Since Michael Glasser/snit/Brock McNuggets frelwizzen spam bot was rendered
useless by Google he's trying to seed the search engines with bullshit. >>>>
It's what he does.
And he does it 24x7.
Ahh the trolls are coming out in force... with unsupported rubbish. But what
is supported is Pothead is a white supremacist (or at least backs much of >>> their filth):
Where do you make this connection?
You claim POTHEAD is attacking you because you are Jewish?
How the fuck do you reach that conclusion?
Do you have a single message where POTHEAD mentions attacking you
because you are Jewish?
Post it please.
He can't and that's because none exist.
Examples: 1. I don't support open borders.
2. Government programs, ie:welfare, are
being scammed by migrants.
On 2026-05-05, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
It's great entertainment watching snit attempt to defend his obvious dishonesty.
Sandman was a real thorn in snit's liver.
Snit is completely unable to refute the facts that get posted so he resorts to
calling everything a lie, posted by a sock puppet and so forth.
And as you noticed, he never offers any proof of his disagreement other than some
AI generated B.S.
His latest dodge is to ask for quotes, MID's and so forth even though the entire
threads demonstrating his dishonesty and lies have been posted dozens of times.
Based upon snit's recent behavior I suspect he is mentally retarded as well as
autistic because he displays common traits of both mental defects.
Maybe due to FAS as his mom was a drunk?
Doesn't matter, except maybe to snit himself.
And even that puzzles me because he obviously isn't seeking treatment because if he
were he wouldn't continue to behave like he does.
On May 6, 2026 at 12:39:16 PM MST, "%" wrote <hB2dnbe6YpSPBGb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 9:36:33 AM MST, "%" wrotewater them and kill the ants
<GOudnYFaLu6E82b0nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 8:17:38 AM MST, "%" wroteyou can by junk at the law sales ,
<Y6adnR8tv_rgxmb0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 6:59:10 AM MST, "%" wroteit's a bi-law every 3 years
<leacnaxnqpbB1Gb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it always does but they don't last
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:is this going to be anything
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations, calling honest people liars, etc: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Did it leave skid marks?
Do they first?
What is the reason for moving it?
Can you sell the laws?
people have them right out on the front law
Many of our laws are not worth much.
Drown them and start over.
chrisv wrote:
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc: >><https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
It's great entertainment watching snit attempt to defend his obvious dishonesty.
Sandman was a real thorn in snit's liver.
Snit is completely unable to refute the facts that get posted so he resorts to >calling everything a lie, posted by a sock puppet and so forth.
And as you noticed, he never offers any proof of his disagreement other than some
AI generated B.S.
His latest dodge is to ask for quotes, MID's and so forth even though the entire
threads demonstrating his dishonesty and lies have been posted dozens of times.
Based upon snit's recent behavior I suspect he is mentally retarded as well as >autistic because he displays common traits of both mental defects.
pothead wrote:
chrisv wrote:
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
It's great entertainment watching snit attempt to defend his obvious
dishonesty.
Sandman was a real thorn in snit's liver.
Sandman was great at what he did.
The "Snit" thing responds to all
proof of its twisting and lying with yet more twisting and lying.
Almost everyone eventually just gives-up. But Sandman's database
skills allowed him to easily provide all of the evidence on demand.
Snit is completely unable to refute the facts that get posted so he resorts to
calling everything a lie, posted by a sock puppet and so forth.
And as you noticed, he never offers any proof of his disagreement other than >> some
AI generated B.S.
I haven't been reading its garbage, even if someone else has quoted
it. I'd had enough of that thing's snittish games *years* ago.
His latest dodge is to ask for quotes, MID's and so forth even though the
entire
threads demonstrating his dishonesty and lies have been posted dozens of times.
Based upon snit's recent behavior I suspect he is mentally retarded as well as
autistic because he displays common traits of both mental defects.
Only the baldest of bald-faced liars, like that thing, would claim
that the honest person "is just pissed I caught him in some lies"
while forging documents and lying its ass off, *knowing* that the
other person is correct.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 12:39:16 PM MST, "%" wroteyou've got stuff buried there to do it
<hB2dnbe6YpSPBGb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 9:36:33 AM MST, "%" wrotewater them and kill the ants
<GOudnYFaLu6E82b0nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 8:17:38 AM MST, "%" wroteyou can by junk at the law sales ,
<Y6adnR8tv_rgxmb0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 6:59:10 AM MST, "%" wroteit's a bi-law every 3 years
<leacnaxnqpbB1Gb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it always does but they don't last
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>:is this going to be anything
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations, calling honest people liars, etc: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Did it leave skid marks?
Do they first?
What is the reason for moving it?
Can you sell the laws?
people have them right out on the front law
Many of our laws are not worth much.
Drown them and start over.
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-06 12:34 p.m., % wrote:no , i don't need anything
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-06 11:22 a.m., % wrote:snit is my friend
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if >>>>>>>> he ate
steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that >>>>>>> means he
cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
well claim something then
There is no point in following him. There is no substance to any of
his posts and he simply denies anything that makes Apple or himself
look bad. We're all better off binning him as we do Snit Michael
Glasser Prescott Computer Guy.
You need higher standards.
On 2026-05-05, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
It's great entertainment watching snit attempt to defend his obvious dishonesty.
Sandman was a real thorn in snit's liver.
Snit is completely unable to refute the facts that get posted so he resorts to
calling everything a lie, posted by a sock puppet and so forth.
And as you noticed, he never offers any proof of his disagreement other than some
AI generated B.S.
His latest dodge is to ask for quotes, MID's and so forth even though the entire
threads demonstrating his dishonesty and lies have been posted dozens of times.
Based upon snit's recent behavior I suspect he is mentally retarded as well as
autistic because he displays common traits of both mental defects.
Maybe due to FAS as his mom was a drunk?
Doesn't matter, except maybe to snit himself.
And even that puzzles me because he obviously isn't seeking treatment because if he
were he wouldn't continue to behave like he does.
On 2026-05-06 4:38 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2026-05-05, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear
explanations, calling honest people liars, etc:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
It's great entertainment watching snit attempt to defend his obvious
dishonesty.
Sandman was a real thorn in snit's liver.
Snit is completely unable to refute the facts that get posted so he resorts to
calling everything a lie, posted by a sock puppet and so forth.
And as you noticed, he never offers any proof of his disagreement other than >> some
AI generated B.S.
His latest dodge is to ask for quotes, MID's and so forth even though the
entire
threads demonstrating his dishonesty and lies have been posted dozens of times.
Based upon snit's recent behavior I suspect he is mentally retarded as well as
autistic because he displays common traits of both mental defects.
Maybe due to FAS as his mom was a drunk?
Doesn't matter, except maybe to snit himself.
And even that puzzles me because he obviously isn't seeking treatment because
if he
were he wouldn't continue to behave like he does.
There _is_ a chance that Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Computer Guy is autistic though.
On 2026-05-05, Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> wrote:
On 05 May 2026 23:33:39 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:09:54 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
<10tdtc2$po5r$2@pothead.dont-email.me>:
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
Since Michael Glasser/snit/Brock McNuggets frelwizzen spam bot was rendered
useless by Google he's trying to seed the search engines with bullshit. >>>>
It's what he does.
And he does it 24x7.
Ahh the trolls are coming out in force... with unsupported rubbish. But what
is supported is Pothead is a white supremacist (or at least backs much of >>> their filth):
Where do you make this connection?
You claim POTHEAD is attacking you because you are Jewish?
How the fuck do you reach that conclusion?
Do you have a single message where POTHEAD mentions attacking you
because you are Jewish?
Post it please.
He can't and that's because none exist.
Snit makes up fantasies which live in his head.
He really believes that I pick on him because he is Jewish.
Alan and I disagree on most things, excepting technology because I respect Apple products.
So am I attacking Alan because *he* is Jewish?
Same with many others in various political groups I post in.
It's faulty logic on snit's part and completely ludicrous.
Snit believes if he keeps mentioning it that people will believe him.
You aren't the first person to examine snit's claims and you aren't the
first person to reach the same conclusion which is snit's accusations against me are 100% made up fantasies that reside in his diseased skull.
And before you attempt to post your bogus MID I checked every single
one and not a single MID confirms your accusations against POTHEAD.
Not one.
Snit is unable to use logic and come up with a reasonable analysis of
people who disagree with him, and there are many, so he plugs various statements
into AI, which he worships like a God of sorts, and manipulates the prompts to
achieve the results he wants.
Examples: 1. I don't support open borders. 2. Government programs, ie:welfare, are
being scammed by migrants.
Both are 80/20 issues with the public and sure a white supremacist would agree however
just because someone believes those 80/20 issues doesn't make them a white supremacist.
If that were true, 80% of the public would be white supremacists.
This is a basic example of snit's faulty logic at work.
You are fucking crazy.
You really are.
Indeed.
Mentally retarded and possibly autistic as well.
On 2026-05-05, Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> wrote:
On 05 May 2026 23:33:39 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:09:54 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
<10tdtc2$po5r$2@pothead.dont-email.me>:
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
Since Michael Glasser/snit/Brock McNuggets frelwizzen spam bot was
rendered useless by Google he's trying to seed the search engines
with bullshit.
It's what he does.
And he does it 24x7.
Ahh the trolls are coming out in force... with unsupported rubbish.
But what is supported is Pothead is a white supremacist (or at least
backs much of their filth):
Where do you make this connection?
You claim POTHEAD is attacking you because you are Jewish?
How the fuck do you reach that conclusion?
Do you have a single message where POTHEAD mentions attacking you
because you are Jewish?
Post it please.
He can't and that's because none exist.
Snit makes up fantasies which live in his head.
He really believes that I pick on him because he is Jewish.
Alan and I disagree on most things, excepting technology because I
respect Apple products.
So am I attacking Alan because *he* is Jewish?
Same with many others in various political groups I post in.
It's faulty logic on snit's part and completely ludicrous.
Snit believes if he keeps mentioning it that people will believe him.
You aren't the first person to examine snit's claims and you aren't the
first person to reach the same conclusion which is snit's accusations
against me are 100% made up fantasies that reside in his diseased skull.
And before you attempt to post your bogus MID I checked every single
one and not a single MID confirms your accusations against POTHEAD. Not
one.
Snit is unable to use logic and come up with a reasonable analysis of
people who disagree with him, and there are many, so he plugs various statements into AI, which he worships like a God of sorts, and
manipulates the prompts to achieve the results he wants.
Examples: 1. I don't support open borders. 2. Government programs, ie:welfare, are being scammed by migrants.
Both are 80/20 issues with the public and sure a white supremacist would agree however just because someone believes those 80/20 issues doesn't
make them a white supremacist.
If that were true, 80% of the public would be white supremacists.
This is a basic example of snit's faulty logic at work.
You are fucking crazy.
You really are.
Indeed.
Mentally retarded and possibly autistic as well.
I too checked those receipts of snit's and you are correct that they have nothing in them that shows you as being a racist.
On May 6, 2026 at 2:20:05 PM MST, "%" wrote <Lu6dnYetHtM5LWb0nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 12:39:16 PM MST, "%" wroteyou've got stuff buried there to do it
<hB2dnbe6YpSPBGb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 9:36:33 AM MST, "%" wrotewater them and kill the ants
<GOudnYFaLu6E82b0nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 8:17:38 AM MST, "%" wroteyou can by junk at the law sales ,
<Y6adnR8tv_rgxmb0nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 6, 2026 at 6:59:10 AM MST, "%" wroteit's a bi-law every 3 years
<leacnaxnqpbB1Gb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:it always does but they don't last
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:21:59 PM MST, "%" wroteit's on 2 by 10 skids it slides to wear i pull it
<pxicnTEnyPEJ8Gf0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:44:49 PM MST, "%" wrotewe moved the outhouse today
<xH6dndofI8Vcy2f0nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:16:55 PM MST, "chrisv" wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ldjkvkthrq22n8e2d33227b8ql81rviupe@4ax.com>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is this going to be anything
CrudeSausage wrote:
Back into the bin you go.
"I now have both of your PDF's posted to my site." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Mackay is just pissed I caught him in some lies" - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Full *hilarious* thread, the "Snit" circus in full switch, with that
thing forging documents, lying its ass off, denying clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanations, calling honest people liars, etc: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/UBoZtO1I4fg/2LKHHKv3fNYJ>
You offer no evidence of my lying, but even if you did... if your claim is I
am somehow less honest than you because of some alleged lie(s) in 2004, you
lost your own argument.
Nice self-nuke. :)
Oh the trolls will glom onto it.
THERE IS AN ALLEGED LIE FROM 2004!!!!!
Who cares? I mean, really, who cares one whit? But this is the best the trolls
can do. Pathetic.
A shitty move.
Did it leave skid marks?
Do they first?
What is the reason for moving it?
Can you sell the laws?
people have them right out on the front law
Many of our laws are not worth much.
Drown them and start over.
Bury it deeper.
On Wed, 6 May 2026 20:52:53 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2026-05-05, Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> wrote:
On 05 May 2026 23:33:39 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
was >>>> rendered useless by Google he's trying to seed the searchOn May 5, 2026 at 4:09:54 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
<10tdtc2$po5r$2@pothead.dont-email.me>:
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
Since Michael Glasser/snit/Brock McNuggets frelwizzen spam bot
engines >>>> with bullshit.
rubbish. >>> But what is supported is Pothead is a white supremacist
It's what he does.
And he does it 24x7.
Ahh the trolls are coming out in force... with unsupported
(or at least >>> backs much of their filth):
Where do you make this connection?
You claim POTHEAD is attacking you because you are Jewish?
How the fuck do you reach that conclusion?
Do you have a single message where POTHEAD mentions attacking you
because you are Jewish?
Post it please.
He can't and that's because none exist.
Snit makes up fantasies which live in his head.
He really believes that I pick on him because he is Jewish.
Alan and I disagree on most things, excepting technology because I
respect Apple products.
So am I attacking Alan because he is Jewish?
Same with many others in various political groups I post in.
It's faulty logic on snit's part and completely ludicrous.
Snit believes if he keeps mentioning it that people will believe
him. You aren't the first person to examine snit's claims and you
aren't the first person to reach the same conclusion which is
snit's accusations against me are 100% made up fantasies that
reside in his diseased skull.
single >> one and not a single MID confirms your accusations againstAnd before you attempt to post your bogus MID I checked every
POTHEAD. Not >> one.
Snit is unable to use logic and come up with a reasonable analysis
of people who disagree with him, and there are many, so he plugs
various statements into AI, which he worships like a God of sorts,
and manipulates the prompts to achieve the results he wants.
Examples: 1. I don't support open borders. 2. Government programs, ie:welfare, are being scammed by migrants.
Both are 80/20 issues with the public and sure a white supremacist
would agree however just because someone believes those 80/20
issues doesn't make them a white supremacist.
If that were true, 80% of the public would be white supremacists.
This is a basic example of snit's faulty logic at work.
You are fucking crazy.
You really are.
Indeed.
Mentally retarded and possibly autistic as well.
Snit is batshit crazy.
As others have said, snit is crazy as a bedbug.
I too checked those receipts of snit's and you are correct that they
have nothing in them that shows you as being a racist.
I have a local copy of the BN server going back to 2004 or so and I
see nothing in there indicating that you are racist.
Snit is once again making up tall tales.
As for fetal alcohol syndrome which snit admits to having, there is a
very close association with the type of person snit shows himself to
be.
https://share.google/aimode/E0RLDpVi54MTSdXue
It's good that you laugh at snit making an asshole of himself in
public because that is what most of us are doing and it's one fucking
hell of a comedy act!
I don't know why he keeps replying to you when you have him kill
filed? Snit is a strange fucker for sure.
Glock wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2026 20:52:53 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2026-05-05, Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> wrote:was >>>> rendered useless by Google he's trying to seed the search
On 05 May 2026 23:33:39 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:09:54 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
<10tdtc2$po5r$2@pothead.dont-email.me>:
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
Since Michael Glasser/snit/Brock McNuggets frelwizzen spam bot
engines >>>> with bullshit.
rubbish. >>> But what is supported is Pothead is a white supremacist
It's what he does.
And he does it 24x7.
Ahh the trolls are coming out in force... with unsupported
(or at least >>> backs much of their filth):
single >> one and not a single MID confirms your accusations against
Where do you make this connection?
You claim POTHEAD is attacking you because you are Jewish?
How the fuck do you reach that conclusion?
Do you have a single message where POTHEAD mentions attacking you
because you are Jewish?
Post it please.
He can't and that's because none exist.
Snit makes up fantasies which live in his head.
He really believes that I pick on him because he is Jewish.
Alan and I disagree on most things, excepting technology because I
respect Apple products.
So am I attacking Alan because he is Jewish?
Same with many others in various political groups I post in.
It's faulty logic on snit's part and completely ludicrous.
Snit believes if he keeps mentioning it that people will believe
him. You aren't the first person to examine snit's claims and you
aren't the first person to reach the same conclusion which is
snit's accusations against me are 100% made up fantasies that
reside in his diseased skull.
And before you attempt to post your bogus MID I checked every
POTHEAD. Not >> one.
Snit is unable to use logic and come up with a reasonable analysis
of people who disagree with him, and there are many, so he plugs
various statements into AI, which he worships like a God of sorts,
and manipulates the prompts to achieve the results he wants.
Examples: 1. I don't support open borders. 2. Government programs,
ie:welfare, are being scammed by migrants.
Both are 80/20 issues with the public and sure a white supremacist
would agree however just because someone believes those 80/20
issues doesn't make them a white supremacist.
If that were true, 80% of the public would be white supremacists.
This is a basic example of snit's faulty logic at work.
You are fucking crazy.
You really are.
Indeed.
Mentally retarded and possibly autistic as well.
Snit is batshit crazy.
As others have said, snit is crazy as a bedbug.
How do you know bedbugs are crazy?
Just kidding.
I too checked those receipts of snit's and you are correct that they
have nothing in them that shows you as being a racist.
I have a local copy of the BN server going back to 2004 or so and I
see nothing in there indicating that you are racist.
Snit is once again making up tall tales.
I also checked a couple of his links and while he does take some
liberties with language, I find them mostly accurate.
Do you have any specific examples?
As for fetal alcohol syndrome which snit admits to having, there is a
very close association with the type of person snit shows himself to
be.
https://share.google/aimode/E0RLDpVi54MTSdXue
It's not good karma to wish bad things on people.
It will come back to haunt you someday.
It's good that you laugh at snit making an asshole of himself in
public because that is what most of us are doing and it's one fucking
hell of a comedy act!
I don't know why he keeps replying to you when you have him kill
filed? Snit is a strange fucker for sure.
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts.
That's what I do.
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts.
That's what I do.
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
< snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their
dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts.
That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy
_is_ boring.
Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen
it need to find a hobby.
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
< snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their
dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts.
That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy
_is_ boring. Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen
it need to find a hobby.
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
< snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their
dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts.
That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy
_is_ boring. Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen
it need to find a hobby.
Incubus is posting from the same MAC only Usenet client and same version as snit Brock McNuggest Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy. Not many posters use that particular client.
Also the ASCII art is the same as snit's.
Looks to me like yet another sock has escaped from snit's sock drawer.
Or maybe another person has slipped into snit's house and posted to Usenet using snit's computer. That was snit's explanation of getting caught socking up as Sigmond.
LOL!
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
< snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their
dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts.
That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy
_is_ boring. Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen
it need to find a hobby.
Incubus is posting from the same MAC only Usenet client and same version
as snit Brock McNuggest Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer
Guy. Not many posters use that particular client.
Also the ASCII art is the same as snit's.
Looks to me like yet another sock has escaped from snit's sock drawer.
Or maybe another person has slipped into snit's house and posted to
Usenet using snit's computer. That was snit's explanation of getting
caught socking up as Sigmond.
LOL!
On 2026-05-07 1:55 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
< snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their >>>> dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts.
That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy
_is_ boring. Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen
it need to find a hobby.
Incubus is posting from the same MAC only Usenet client and same version
as snit Brock McNuggest Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer
Guy. Not many posters use that particular client.
Also the ASCII art is the same as snit's.
Looks to me like yet another sock has escaped from snit's sock drawer.
Or maybe another person has slipped into snit's house and posted to
Usenet using snit's computer. That was snit's explanation of getting
caught socking up as Sigmond.
LOL!
The perks of being an unemployed, divorced parasite, I suppose. I can
only imagine what fool took pity on Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Computer Guy this time and shipped him a MacBook Air.
On 2026-05-07 1:55 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
< snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their >>>> dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts.
That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy
_is_ boring. Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen
it need to find a hobby.
Incubus is posting from the same MAC only Usenet client and same version as snit Brock McNuggest Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy. Not many posters use that particular client.
Also the ASCII art is the same as snit's.
Looks to me like yet another sock has escaped from snit's sock drawer.
Or maybe another person has slipped into snit's house and posted to Usenet using snit's computer. That was snit's explanation of getting caught socking up as Sigmond.
LOL!
The perks of being an unemployed, divorced parasite, I suppose. I can
only imagine what fool took pity on Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Computer Guy this time and shipped him a MacBook Air.
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 1:55 p.m., pothead wrote:Hopefully this time, Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
< snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their >>>>> dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts. >>>>> That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy >>>> _is_ boring. Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen >>>> it need to find a hobby.
Incubus is posting from the same MAC only Usenet client and same version as snit Brock McNuggest Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy. Not many posters use that particular client.
Also the ASCII art is the same as snit's.
Looks to me like yet another sock has escaped from snit's sock drawer.
Or maybe another person has slipped into snit's house and posted to Usenet using snit's computer. That was snit's explanation of getting caught socking up as Sigmond.
LOL!
The perks of being an unemployed, divorced parasite, I suppose. I can
only imagine what fool took pity on Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser
Prescott Computer Guy this time and shipped him a MacBook Air.
Prescott Computer Guy doesn't list it for sale on ebay.
He is such a lowlife.
On 2026-05-07 2:47 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 1:55 p.m., pothead wrote:Hopefully this time, Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
< snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their >>>>>> dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts. >>>>>> That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy >>>>> _is_ boring. Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen >>>>> it need to find a hobby.
Incubus is posting from the same MAC only Usenet client and same
version as snit Brock McNuggest Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and
Computer Guy. Not many posters use that particular client.
Also the ASCII art is the same as snit's.
Looks to me like yet another sock has escaped from snit's sock drawer. >>>>
Or maybe another person has slipped into snit's house and posted to
Usenet using snit's computer. That was snit's explanation of getting
caught socking up as Sigmond.
LOL!
The perks of being an unemployed, divorced parasite, I suppose. I can
only imagine what fool took pity on Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser >>> Prescott Computer Guy this time and shipped him a MacBook Air.
Prescott Computer Guy doesn't list it for sale on ebay.
He is such a lowlife.
Marek _did_ give it to him, so I suppose he has the right to sell it if
it is no longer of any use to him. The fact is that he received a
machine from a decent human being then proceeded to insult him to show
him how grateful he is.
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 1:55 p.m., pothead wrote:Hopefully this time, Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
< snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their >>>>> dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts. >>>>> That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy >>>> _is_ boring. Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen >>>> it need to find a hobby.
Incubus is posting from the same MAC only Usenet client and same
version as snit Brock McNuggest Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and
Computer Guy. Not many posters use that particular client.
Also the ASCII art is the same as snit's.
Looks to me like yet another sock has escaped from snit's sock drawer.
Or maybe another person has slipped into snit's house and posted to
Usenet using snit's computer. That was snit's explanation of getting
caught socking up as Sigmond.
LOL!
The perks of being an unemployed, divorced parasite, I suppose. I can
only imagine what fool took pity on Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser
Prescott Computer Guy this time and shipped him a MacBook Air.
Prescott Computer Guy doesn't list it for sale on ebay.
He is such a lowlife.
On 2026-05-07 2:47 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 1:55 p.m., pothead wrote:Hopefully this time, Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
<snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their >>>>>> dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts. >>>>>> That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy >>>>> _is_ boring. Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen >>>>> it need to find a hobby.
Incubus is posting from the same MAC only Usenet client and same version as
snit Brock McNuggest Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy. >>>> Not many posters use that particular client.
Also the ASCII art is the same as snit's.
Looks to me like yet another sock has escaped from snit's sock drawer. >>>>
Or maybe another person has slipped into snit's house and posted to Usenet >>>> using snit's computer. That was snit's explanation of getting caught
socking up as Sigmond.
LOL!
The perks of being an unemployed, divorced parasite, I suppose. I can
only imagine what fool took pity on Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser >>> Prescott Computer Guy this time and shipped him a MacBook Air.
Prescott Computer Guy doesn't list it for sale on ebay.
He is such a lowlife.
Marek _did_ give it to him, so I suppose he has the right to sell it if
it is no longer of any use to him. The fact is that he received a
machine from a decent human being then proceeded to insult him to show
him how grateful he is.
On 2026-05-07 2:47 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 1:55 p.m., pothead wrote:Hopefully this time, Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
< snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their >>>>>> dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts. >>>>>> That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy >>>>> _is_ boring. Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen >>>>> it need to find a hobby.
Incubus is posting from the same MAC only Usenet client and same version as snit Brock McNuggest Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy. Not many posters use that particular client.
Also the ASCII art is the same as snit's.
Looks to me like yet another sock has escaped from snit's sock drawer. >>>>
Or maybe another person has slipped into snit's house and posted to Usenet using snit's computer. That was snit's explanation of getting caught socking up as Sigmond.
LOL!
The perks of being an unemployed, divorced parasite, I suppose. I can
only imagine what fool took pity on Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser >>> Prescott Computer Guy this time and shipped him a MacBook Air.
Prescott Computer Guy doesn't list it for sale on ebay.
He is such a lowlife.
Marek _did_ give it to him, so I suppose he has the right to sell it if
it is no longer of any use to him. The fact is that he received a
machine from a decent human being then proceeded to insult him to show
him how grateful he is.
Glock wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2026 20:52:53 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2026-05-05, Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> wrote:was >>>> rendered useless by Google he's trying to seed the search
On 05 May 2026 23:33:39 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:09:54 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
<10tdtc2$po5r$2@pothead.dont-email.me>:
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
Since Michael Glasser/snit/Brock McNuggets frelwizzen spam bot
engines >>>> with bullshit.
rubbish. >>> But what is supported is Pothead is a white supremacist
It's what he does.
And he does it 24x7.
Ahh the trolls are coming out in force... with unsupported
(or at least >>> backs much of their filth):
single >> one and not a single MID confirms your accusations against
Where do you make this connection?
You claim POTHEAD is attacking you because you are Jewish?
How the fuck do you reach that conclusion?
Do you have a single message where POTHEAD mentions attacking you
because you are Jewish?
Post it please.
He can't and that's because none exist.
Snit makes up fantasies which live in his head.
He really believes that I pick on him because he is Jewish.
Alan and I disagree on most things, excepting technology because I
respect Apple products.
So am I attacking Alan because he is Jewish?
Same with many others in various political groups I post in.
It's faulty logic on snit's part and completely ludicrous.
Snit believes if he keeps mentioning it that people will believe him.
You aren't the first person to examine snit's claims and you aren't
the first person to reach the same conclusion which is snit's
accusations against me are 100% made up fantasies that reside in his
diseased skull.
And before you attempt to post your bogus MID I checked every
POTHEAD. Not >> one.
Snit is unable to use logic and come up with a reasonable analysis of
people who disagree with him, and there are many, so he plugs various
statements into AI, which he worships like a God of sorts,
and manipulates the prompts to achieve the results he wants.
Examples: 1. I don't support open borders. 2. Government programs,
ie:welfare, are being scammed by migrants.
Both are 80/20 issues with the public and sure a white supremacist
would agree however just because someone believes those 80/20 issues
doesn't make them a white supremacist.
If that were true, 80% of the public would be white supremacists.
This is a basic example of snit's faulty logic at work.
You are fucking crazy.
You really are.
Indeed.
Mentally retarded and possibly autistic as well.
Snit is batshit crazy.
As others have said, snit is crazy as a bedbug.
How do you know bedbugs are crazy?
Just kidding.
I too checked those receipts of snit's and you are correct that they
have nothing in them that shows you as being a racist.
I have a local copy of the BN server going back to 2004 or so and I see
nothing in there indicating that you are racist.
Snit is once again making up tall tales.
I also checked a couple of his links and while he does take some
liberties with language, I find them mostly accurate.
Do you have any specific examples?
As for fetal alcohol syndrome which snit admits to having, there is a
very close association with the type of person snit shows himself to
be.
https://share.google/aimode/E0RLDpVi54MTSdXue
It's not good karma to wish bad things on people.
It will come back to haunt you someday.
It's good that you laugh at snit making an asshole of himself in
public because that is what most of us are doing and it's one fucking
hell of a comedy act!
I don't know why he keeps replying to you when you have him kill filed?
Snit is a strange fucker for sure.
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts.
That's what I do.
On Thu, 7 May 2026 14:38:37 -0000 (UTC), Incubus wrote:
Glock wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2026 20:52:53 -0000 (UTC), pothead wrote:
On 2026-05-05, Anonymous <anonttymtous@localhost.com> wrote:was >>>> rendered useless by Google he's trying to seed the search
On 05 May 2026 23:33:39 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:09:54 PM MST, "pothead" wrote
<10tdtc2$po5r$2@pothead.dont-email.me>:
You're replying a lot... ..for someone who doesn't care.
Since Michael Glasser/snit/Brock McNuggets frelwizzen spam bot
engines >>>> with bullshit.
rubbish. >>> But what is supported is Pothead is a white supremacist
It's what he does.
And he does it 24x7.
Ahh the trolls are coming out in force... with unsupported
(or at least >>> backs much of their filth):
single >> one and not a single MID confirms your accusations against
Where do you make this connection?
You claim POTHEAD is attacking you because you are Jewish?
How the fuck do you reach that conclusion?
Do you have a single message where POTHEAD mentions attacking you
because you are Jewish?
Post it please.
He can't and that's because none exist.
Snit makes up fantasies which live in his head.
He really believes that I pick on him because he is Jewish.
Alan and I disagree on most things, excepting technology because I
respect Apple products.
So am I attacking Alan because he is Jewish?
Same with many others in various political groups I post in.
It's faulty logic on snit's part and completely ludicrous.
Snit believes if he keeps mentioning it that people will believe him.
You aren't the first person to examine snit's claims and you aren't
the first person to reach the same conclusion which is snit's
accusations against me are 100% made up fantasies that reside in his
diseased skull.
And before you attempt to post your bogus MID I checked every
POTHEAD. Not >> one.
Snit is unable to use logic and come up with a reasonable analysis of
people who disagree with him, and there are many, so he plugs various
statements into AI, which he worships like a God of sorts,
and manipulates the prompts to achieve the results he wants.
Examples: 1. I don't support open borders. 2. Government programs,
ie:welfare, are being scammed by migrants.
Both are 80/20 issues with the public and sure a white supremacist
would agree however just because someone believes those 80/20 issues
doesn't make them a white supremacist.
If that were true, 80% of the public would be white supremacists.
This is a basic example of snit's faulty logic at work.
You are fucking crazy.
You really are.
Indeed.
Mentally retarded and possibly autistic as well.
Snit is batshit crazy.
As others have said, snit is crazy as a bedbug.
How do you know bedbugs are crazy?
Just kidding.
Bedbugs crazy?
Could be. It's a saying.
Snit crazy?
No question about it. Fact.
I too checked those receipts of snit's and you are correct that they
have nothing in them that shows you as being a racist.
I have a local copy of the BN server going back to 2004 or so and I see
nothing in there indicating that you are racist.
Snit is once again making up tall tales.
I also checked a couple of his links and while he does take some
liberties with language, I find them mostly accurate.
Do you have any specific examples?
Snit doesn't take liberties with language he simply has horrible reading comprehension skills which leads to him misinterpreting what he reads,
even simple sentences and prompts him to post the trash he posts.
Examples?
He gave you plenty of examples but is you need more here is what Chatgpt
has to say and realize it is being kind.
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69fd0f674ef88191ae0d8bf13185f349
The last sentence says it all.
"There’s no objective basis for me to diagnose whether Michael Glasser has “reading comprehension problems.” What is clear from archived Usenet discussions is that he was an extremely polarizing figure and that many
other posters repeatedly accused him of misreading posts, arguing pedantically, moving goalposts, or engaging in trolling behavior.
At the same time, a lot of those sources are themselves hostile flame-war material from advocacy groups like comp.sys.mac.advocacy and comp.os.linux.advocacy, where exaggeration and personal attacks were
common. So they are evidence of reputation and community perception, not reliable clinical assessment.
If your question is basically “did many Usenet users think he
misunderstood arguments or argued in bad faith?”, then yes — that theme shows up over and over in archived threads."
As for fetal alcohol syndrome which snit admits to having, there is a
very close association with the type of person snit shows himself to
be.
https://share.google/aimode/E0RLDpVi54MTSdXue
It's not good karma to wish bad things on people.
It will come back to haunt you someday.
You should tell that to snit because he is the one hoping
people will drop dead, choke on a bone and such.
It's good that you laugh at snit making an asshole of himself in
public because that is what most of us are doing and it's one fucking
hell of a comedy act!
I don't know why he keeps replying to you when you have him kill filed?
Snit is a strange fucker for sure.
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their
dander up when he posts?
He doesn't which is why I rarely reply to him.
I just don't appreciate liars and snit is one of the most prolific liars.
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts.
That's what I do.
I have although I let him out once in a while to see how far into the
septic system he has sunk. It doesn't last long before he is back in the
bin.
Pothead claims to have done the same yet snit replies to his every post.
I don't know who you are nor do I care however it's interesting that
someone would support snit's trolling because that seems to be quite rare
in the scheme of things.
You seem to be alone in that case.
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 2:47 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 1:55 p.m., pothead wrote:Hopefully this time, Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser
On 2026-05-07, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-07 10:38 a.m., Incubus wrote:
<snip >
TBH I find snit quite boring. I'm not sure why so many people get their >>>>>>> dander up when he posts?
Why not simply score him down and move on to more interesting posts. >>>>>>> That's what I do.
Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy >>>>>> _is_ boring. Anyone who allows him to tie them in a never-ending
argument where this idiot continuously plays semantic games to lengthen >>>>>> it need to find a hobby.
Incubus is posting from the same MAC only Usenet client and same version >>>>> as snit Brock McNuggest Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer >>>>> Guy. Not many posters use that particular client.
Also the ASCII art is the same as snit's.
Looks to me like yet another sock has escaped from snit's sock drawer. >>>>>
Or maybe another person has slipped into snit's house and posted to Usenet
using snit's computer. That was snit's explanation of getting caught >>>>> socking up as Sigmond.
LOL!
The perks of being an unemployed, divorced parasite, I suppose. I can
only imagine what fool took pity on Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser >>>> Prescott Computer Guy this time and shipped him a MacBook Air.
Prescott Computer Guy doesn't list it for sale on ebay.
He is such a lowlife.
Marek _did_ give it to him, so I suppose he has the right to sell it if
it is no longer of any use to him. The fact is that he received a
machine from a decent human being then proceeded to insult him to show
him how grateful he is.
Fair points.
There is something seriously wrong with the snit though.
On 03 May 2026 13:39:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 2, 2026 at 11:48:35 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10t6r42$2n602$3@dont-email.me>:
I get the feeling some people here are not accustomed to the level
of software reuse made possible by a packaging system that can
scale to thousands of packages.
Give a place where this packaging system has been a huge benefit to
you.
Shared common code -- automatic installation as needed, automatic
removal when no longer needed. A common, and automatic, update
mechanism.
See the common word there? Automatic, automatic, automatic.
And what do you see as the tradeoffs?
It leaves proprietary developers out in the cold.
Oh wait, that’s not a disadvantage ...
Alan and I disagree on most things, excepting technology because I
respect
Apple products.
So am I attacking Alan because *he* is Jewish?
Same with many others in various political groups I post in.
It's faulty logic on snit's part and completely ludicrous.
Snit believes if he keeps mentioning it that people will believe him.
You aren't the first person to examine snit's claims and you aren't the
first person to reach the same conclusion which is snit's accusations
against
me are 100% made up fantasies that reside in his diseased skull.
I disagree with Anal because I try to be objective. He clearly is
incapable of doing anything except defend Apple to the death.
On May 5, 2026 at 2:43:01 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdo95$ntsm$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 14:29, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing >>>> myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can’t quote about an incident no sane person cares about.
I can quote it... ...in detail.
Says the "man" who continues to reply to a subject he claims he doesn't
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it’s pathetic.
care about...
I am amused by your self nuke. As you were told.
Face it, if I did not reply you would use it against me -- saying I am running. Now that I am replying you use that against me. You claim I lied IN TWO THOUSAND FOUR and use it against me. You are just looking to argue.
And you lost anyway. You agreed with yourself and lost.
It is funny.
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote <MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and interpretation of PDFs.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation * Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it doesn’t establish conclusions.
On May 5, 2026 at 7:58:52 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10teapc$r5gt$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 19:20, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:27:51 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdudo$q3m5$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate >>>>>> steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that means he >>>>> cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
Alan <10tdmor$ntt1$2@dont-email.me>:
-----
You claim you don't remember...
...but you can state with no equivocation that it "never happened". >>> Interesting.
-----
Based on YOUR words... You do not remember killing a baby so you cannot say >>> for sure it "never happened".
Not the same...
How is it different? You likely claim you do not remember killing babies. That
means -- you say -- the cannot state with no equivocation that it "never happened". YOUR words.
On 2026-05-05 15:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 2:43:01 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdo95$ntsm$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 14:29, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing >>>>> myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can’t quote about an incident no sane person cares about.
I can quote it... ...in detail.
Says the "man" who continues to reply to a subject he claims he doesn't
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it’s pathetic.
care about...
I am amused by your self nuke. As you were told.
Face it, if I did not reply you would use it against me -- saying I am
running. Now that I am replying you use that against me. You claim I lied IN >> TWO THOUSAND FOUR and use it against me. You are just looking to argue.
And you lost anyway. You agreed with yourself and lost.
It is funny.
It IS funny that you can remember exactly when the incident occurred...
...but also claim you don't remember anything about it.
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and
interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation
* Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of
forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it
doesn’t establish conclusions.
Steve Mackay posted a PDF.
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website claiming
it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address is original showed, and overlaying with the same information deliberately
in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he was lying.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved
from beneath your alteration...
...and the number was no different.
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making people believe Steve had changed the IP...
...would be you.
On 2026-05-05 21:25, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 7:58:52 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10teapc$r5gt$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 19:20, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 4:27:51 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdudo$q3m5$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 15:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:37:43 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<69fa7137$2$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
On 2026-05-05 3:59 p.m., chrisv wrote:
chrisv wrote:
*crickets*
Alan response to the above was deleted, unread.
You're doing the right thing. Anal is what Snit would be like if he ate >>>>>>> steroids instead of excrement for breakfast.
Alan is claiming since he does not remember killing a baby that means he >>>>>> cannot deny he did.
No. I'm claiming nothing of the sort.
Alan <10tdmor$ntt1$2@dont-email.me>:
-----
You claim you don't remember...
...but you can state with no equivocation that it "never happened". >>>> Interesting.
-----
Based on YOUR words... You do not remember killing a baby so you cannot say
for sure it "never happened".
Not the same...
How is it different? You likely claim you do not remember killing babies. That
means -- you say -- the cannot state with no equivocation that it "never
happened". YOUR words.
Because you're both trying to claim that you don't recall the incident...
...but you are the one who dated this incident you claim not to remember
to the year 2004.
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and
interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation
* Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of
forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it
doesn’t establish conclusions.
Steve Mackay posted a PDF.
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website claiming
it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address is original showed, and overlaying with the same information deliberately
in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he was lying.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved
from beneath your alteration...
...and the number was no different.
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making people believe Steve had changed the IP...
...would be you.
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an
adversarial write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on
selective posts and interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party
validation * Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are
not proof of forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who
created or altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions;
it doesn’t establish conclusions.
Steve Mackay posted a PDF.
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website claiming
it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address is original showed, and overlaying with the same information deliberately
in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he was lying.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved
from beneath your alteration...
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making people believe Steve had changed the IP...
...would be you.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> news:10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me Fri, 08 May 2026 02:24:13 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an
adversarial write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on
selective posts and interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Snit has been repeating himself quite a bit lately.
He's quick to try and deny any wrong doing.
He pulled the same stunt with me when he accused me of
having a copy of the floodbot that used to use google groups.
Either in
source or compiled form. He couldn't decide which.
On May 7, 2026 at 7:24:13 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and
interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation
* Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of >>> forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it >>> doesn’t establish conclusions.
Steve Mackay posted a PDF.
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website claiming
it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address is
original showed, and overlaying with the same information deliberately
in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he was lying.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved
from beneath your alteration...
...and the number was no different.
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making people
believe Steve had changed the IP...
...would be you.
You claim:
1) Mackay posted a PDF,
2) Someone "forged" a PDF by having the same IP being on top of it.
3) They sued OmniGraffle (which is not for that).
That makes no sense.
But even if they did, how would a the same text on top of the text help them? A layer on top of the text which said the same? Is that what you mean?
And you were the mastermind who uncovered if but only after Sandman did? Or what?
Seriously, I have vague memories of this nonsense from 2004 but moved on LONG ago. Not sure why you are still stuck there.
On May 7, 2026 at 7:24:13 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and
interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation
* Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of >>> forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it >>> doesn’t establish conclusions.
Steve Mackay posted a PDF.
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website claiming
it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address is
original showed, and overlaying with the same information deliberately
in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he was lying.
How would a font "prove" a lie? And elsewhere you said OmniGraffle was used.
OmniGraffle is not a PDF editor. Why would "I" not have used Illustrator or PageMaker -- both of which I had access to at the time -- for font editing?
Your story makes less sense the more details you add.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved
from beneath your alteration...
If you add a layer on top of another what would prevent the retrieval?
...and the number was no different.
So the same number "forged" in a different font? I do not follow this at all. I doubt you do.
You would have benefited by discrediting Steve's original...
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making people
believe Steve had changed the IP...
...would be you.
How have I benefitted? Right now YOU are benefiting from it with your trolling. So far you and ONLY you benefit from this nonsense.
On May 7, 2026 at 7:20:42 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tjh9q$2hmhi$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 15:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 2:43:01 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdo95$ntsm$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 14:29, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:I can quote it... ...in detail.
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you.
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing >>>>>> myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can’t quote about an incident no sane person cares about. >>>>
Says the "man" who continues to reply to a subject he claims he doesn't >>>> care about...
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it’s pathetic.
I am amused by your self nuke. As you were told.
Face it, if I did not reply you would use it against me -- saying I am
running. Now that I am replying you use that against me. You claim I lied IN
TWO THOUSAND FOUR and use it against me. You are just looking to argue.
And you lost anyway. You agreed with yourself and lost.
It is funny.
It IS funny that you can remember exactly when the incident occurred...
...but also claim you don't remember anything about it.
You posted a link you silly goose.
On 2026-05-07 21:24, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 7, 2026 at 7:24:13 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and >>>> interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation
* Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of >>>> forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments >>>>
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it >>>> doesn’t establish conclusions.
Steve Mackay posted a PDF.
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website claiming
it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address is
original showed, and overlaying with the same information deliberately
in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he was lying.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved
from beneath your alteration...
...and the number was no different.
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making people
believe Steve had changed the IP...
...would be you.
You claim:
1) Mackay posted a PDF,
Because he did.
2) Someone "forged" a PDF by having the same IP being on top of it.
That was you.
3) They sued OmniGraffle (which is not for that).
I never claimed anything about OmniGraffle.
That makes no sense.
But even if they did, how would a the same text on top of the text help them?
A layer on top of the text which said the same? Is that what you mean?
Because the argument they were trying to make was that the IP address
was forged in the original, and you wanted to "discover" that.
Your aim was to discredit the original.
And you were the mastermind who uncovered if but only after Sandman did? Or >> what?
Seriously, I have vague memories of this nonsense from 2004 but moved on LONG
ago. Not sure why you are still stuck there.
I thought you didn't remember it at all.
Interesting
On 2026-05-07 21:36, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 7, 2026 at 7:24:13 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and >>>> interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation
* Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of >>>> forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments >>>>
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it >>>> doesn’t establish conclusions.
Steve Mackay posted a PDF.
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website claiming
it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address is
original showed, and overlaying with the same information deliberately
in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he was lying.
How would a font "prove" a lie? And elsewhere you said OmniGraffle was used.
Did I? Not in this thread.
So why do you bring it up?
I thought you didn't remember this at all?
OmniGraffle is not a PDF editor. Why would "I" not have used Illustrator or >> PageMaker -- both of which I had access to at the time -- for font editing?
OmniGraffle could open and edit PDFs.
Your story makes less sense the more details you add.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved
from beneath your alteration...
If you add a layer on top of another what would prevent the retrieval?
How is that relevant to whether you understood that at the time.
What I KNOW for a fact is that the version that you presented on YOUR
website as being Steve's original was altered.
...and the number was no different.
So the same number "forged" in a different font? I do not follow this at all.
I doubt you do.
It was in a different font so you could "discover" a forgery you created
in a lame attempt to discredit the original.
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making people
believe Steve had changed the IP...
...would be you.
How have I benefitted? Right now YOU are benefiting from it with your
trolling. So far you and ONLY you benefit from this nonsense.
You would have benefited by discrediting Steve's original...
...but your forgery was discovered.
You're suddenly remembering a whole lot, huh?
On 2026-05-07 21:17, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 7, 2026 at 7:20:42 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10tjh9q$2hmhi$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 15:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 2:43:01 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdo95$ntsm$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 14:29, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:I can quote it... ...in detail.
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you. >>>>>>>>>
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing >>>>>>> myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can’t quote about an incident no sane person cares about. >>>>>
Says the "man" who continues to reply to a subject he claims he doesn't >>>>> care about...
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it’s pathetic.
I am amused by your self nuke. As you were told.
Face it, if I did not reply you would use it against me -- saying I am >>>> running. Now that I am replying you use that against me. You claim I lied IN
TWO THOUSAND FOUR and use it against me. You are just looking to argue. >>>>
And you lost anyway. You agreed with yourself and lost.
It is funny.
It IS funny that you can remember exactly when the incident occurred...
...but also claim you don't remember anything about it.
You posted a link you silly goose.
Really? In what message?
But it's irrelevant as you're already backpedalling from your "I dont' remember anything about it" stance.
But it's irrelevant as you're already backpedalling from your "I dont' remember anything about it" stance.
On May 7, 2026 at 9:47:58 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote <XnsB446822342C4HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> news:10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me Fri, 08 May
2026 02:24:13 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s
an adversarial write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on
selective posts and interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Snit has been repeating himself quite a bit lately.
You say that a lot.
He's quick to try and deny any wrong doing.
You and other trolls are quick to make accusations against those you see
as above you. You treat me like the market leader.
He pulled the same stunt with me when he accused me of
having a copy of the floodbot that used to use google groups.
MID? Quote?
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.
Either in
source or compiled form. He couldn't decide which.
You have that backwards. And I can quote it and provide MIDs:
You see, Gremlin, evidence matters.
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> news:69fd74e4$0$24$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Fri, 08 May 2026 05:30:13
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On May 7, 2026 at 9:47:58 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB446822342C4HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> news:10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me Fri, 08 May
2026 02:24:13 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s
an adversarial write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on
selective posts and interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Snit has been repeating himself quite a bit lately.
You say that a lot.
He's quick to try and deny any wrong doing.
You and other trolls are quick to make accusations against those you see
as above you. You treat me like the market leader.
He pulled the same stunt with me when he accused me of
having a copy of the floodbot that used to use google groups.
MID? Quote?
Your denying it? :)
Okay.
From: Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: Please note.
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 22:05:53 -0700
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <hhk7lhFue2dU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <o2fsG.77364$fk3.33122@fx26.ams1>
<hheifoFogdjU1@mid.individual.net>
<XnsABB76B32E964HT1@8P1PQ2e52.7r7wsG43c>
In-Reply-To: <XnsABB76B32E964HT1@8P1PQ2e52.7r7wsG43c>
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 piss 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:
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
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.
***
Either in
source or compiled form. He couldn't decide which.
You have that backwards. And I can quote it and provide MIDs:
See above. MIDs already provided. Not only does it clearly show you didn't know what I was writing about, it also continues to show how much of a fucking easily shown to be liar you are, dumbass.
You see, Gremlin, evidence matters.
Indeed, it does.
some thing wrote:
So the same number "forged" in a different font? I do not follow this at all.
I doubt you do.
It was in a different font so you could "discover" a forgery you created
in a lame attempt to discredit the original.
Alan wrote:
some thing wrote:
So the same number "forged" in a different font? I do not follow this at all.
I doubt you do.
It was in a different font so you could "discover" a forgery you created
in a lame attempt to discredit the original.
This is the crux of the matter. But no matter how clearly it is
explained, or how many times it is explained, the "Snit" thing will
pretend to not understand it. It will lie and deny until the end of
time.
Below are a couple more lies from the old thread, the "Snit" thing
blatantly accusing the honest person of doing what "Snit" himself did!
"I am *very* interested to see if an IP can be found under or behind
the changed font that Mackay placed there." - some thing, lying
shamelessly
"let me guess, your name and the fact that you have multiple PDF's
that you edited on your site will be left out." - some thing, lying shamelessly
On May 7, 2026 at 11:44:49 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tk0p2$2m7cd$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-07 21:24, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 7, 2026 at 7:24:13 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence –
it’s an adversarial write-up from a long-running feud, built
mostly on selective posts and interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party
validation * Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps
are not proof of forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and
counterarguments
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not
who created or altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises
questions; it doesn’t establish conclusions.
Steve Mackay posted a PDF.
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website
claiming it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address
is original showed, and overlaying with the same information
deliberately in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he
was lying.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved
from beneath your alteration...
...and the number was no different.
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making
people believe Steve had changed the IP...
...would be you.
You claim:
1) Mackay posted a PDF,
Because he did.
OK. Perhaps true but no evidence shown. If I recall correctly, and based
on Sandman's trolling page I skimmed, it was an email of some sort. I do
see where Sandman hilariously uses the WayBackMachine as his evidence
when elsewhere he has insisted the WayBackMachine saying he had faulty
CSS is not valid. It clearly showed he used:
<div style="padding: 3px; align: center;">
So why is the WayBackMachine not valid for that but somehow a magic
source of truth merely for quoting what someone had on their site
(something which is not in question as far as I know).
Mackay apparently had a number of different PDFs on his site... or at
least Sandman claims that!
2) Someone "forged" a PDF by having the same IP being on top of it.
That was you.
Not true and does not even make sense.
3) They sued OmniGraffle (which is not for that).
I never claimed anything about OmniGraffle.
Ah, that was Sandman who made that up: https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
If you are going to use his lies you might as well try to know what they
are.
:)
That makes no sense.
But even if they did, how would a the same text on top of the text
help them? A layer on top of the text which said the same? Is that
what you mean?
Because the argument they were trying to make was that the IP address
was forged in the original, and you wanted to "discover" that.
If the same IP was over itself how does that show it is a forged IP?
Your aim was to discredit the original.
Speak for yourself, not others. I have no such aim.
My aim here is to note how insane your accusation is and show you are trolling me over something you claim happened in 2004, and have fun
showing you do not even know your own accusation! You know, like your ignorance of the OmniGraffle part of it. But your logic error, discussed below, was more fun.
And you were the mastermind who uncovered if but only after Sandman
did? Or what?
Seriously, I have vague memories of this nonsense from 2004 but moved
on LONG ago. Not sure why you are still stuck there.
I thought you didn't remember it at all.
Interesting
You're clearly playing games here. This was an ongoing trolling bit of nonsense from folks in COLA for some time. I do not recall all who --
knew it was Sandman and Carroll but did not even recall you were a part
of it. Don't care. But I do have vague meaningless memories of it.
So why are you hung up on an unsupported accusation from 2004 that did
not even involve you? Heck, did not involve me, either, other than being
the target of trolling.
But note you have not shown a single quote or MID or shred of evidence against me. And you will not.
David has asked you to check it against phone book urls he shared
with you.
I am well aware that those who seek to attack do so out of their own weaknesses and insecurities. Even with those I disagree with, say
Gremlin and Carroll, I try to note good things about them... and am
sincere when I do so. And even when I am not nice in responding to
trolling I am honest, and I try to not sink to their level.
Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can
read about here?
https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores
On Aug 12, 2020 at 12:19:32 AM MST, "David_B" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can
read about here?
https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores
Not there.
OK. Thanks for looking.
Please try here:-
https://www.yellowpages.com/kingsport-tn/computer-stores
121 results! Sorry there are so many to check.
Again, to clarify for FTR and Apd, it's not a little white lie that
everybody tells. This was a fully concocted bullshit story that he
actually spent more than a few seconds to write up. I'm not going to
let that slide as a little white lie we all tell from time to time.
I'm not calling Snit a liar for stupid silly shit, I'm calling him
out as a liar for the story he wrote:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
While i'm not surprised that neither of you think it's a big deal,
because he hasn't focused his lies on either of you,
I do consider it
a bit more than a 'your hair looks great honey!" kind of a lie.
And I don't appreciate, what appeared to me, to downplay what he
did here, by either of you.
On 6/11/20 5:19 PM, Apd wrote:
"Steve Carroll - fretwizzer" wrote:
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some code
other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK. Maybe I missed
the context -- but if so then what code did he mean. He never says. That shoots down his own argument.
[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so
much to Diesel.
Diesel wrote:
Snit wrote:
On 6/12/20 3:11 AM, Apd wrote:
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
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 wrote:
"Snit" wrote:
Diesel wrote:
Snit wrote:
On 6/12/20 3:11 AM, Apd wrote:
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
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.
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.
How?
On 6/16/20 6:08 PM, Apd wrote:
"Snit" wrote:
Apd wrote:
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.
How?
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source
code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs
output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code'
example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like
its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not have
the executable program). That is what I think happened, too... he just
moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood bot code to speaking about general methods even ones that were not relevant.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no
topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I was,
then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its code.
See Diesel's post:
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
He split things up a bit there. Here it is with more complete context:
<hbjcp6F4eckU1@mid.individual.net>
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
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 am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Diesel responded with (in part) -- the post you pointed to:
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
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.
-----
Assuming Diesel did not have the executable to disassemble, he is NOT speaking of of the topic I was: Carroll's Usenet flood bot. He has
changed the topic.
Apd wrote:
"Snit" wrote:
On 6/16/20 6:08 PM, Apd wrote:
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the
source code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the
program's output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-
source-code' example of how a program disassembly, despite looking
nothing like its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not
have the executable program). That is what I think happened, too...
he just moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood
bot code to speaking about general methods even ones that were not
relevant.
It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover
things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the
original source.
Specificity, at least in part, with having the executable to
disassemble. Sure. Diesel was quite clear on that. In reference to
the bot code I did not think he had the executable, but his comments suggested otherwise.
Why else bring up the executable in reference to Carroll's bot?
I think he just went off topic and wanted to brag a bit about what he
thought I would not know. Now while I might not be able to disassemble
code I do understand the basic concept.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was
no topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I
was, then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its
code.
It was relevant to the topic which was not changed.
The topic of Carroll's flood bot code. That was what I was speaking
of.
Maybe the whole misunderstanding is he missed that? Not really that
important to me but clearly it is to him.
See Diesel's post:
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
He split things up a bit there. Here it is with more complete
context:
You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in
the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text
(yours) and more.
My point if he snipped my comments and that may have led to him not
seeing
the context.
<hbjcp6F4eckU1@mid.individual.net>
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
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 am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be
seen in order to say if the code is up to scratch.
Close. One needs more then JUST the output for that specific code. One
must know the goals. If one does not know the goals one cannot know if
the output reaches those goals or how well or how poorly it does so.
But, sure, if you know the goals you can speak to how well it works to
match them. And if you have the code or even the executable you can
learn more. I think we all agree on that. Maybe not.
But the focus by me was solely on Carroll's flood bot. With that we
can infer the goals:
* Google seeding
* Carroll playing victim
* Carroll trolling me
* Carroll manipulating others to argue with me
* Carroll controlling conversations and pushing discord.
I listed others elsewhere. And on those I think his bot is rather
successful. If those are the goals then it works.
If the goals are otherwise then perhaps it does not.
Diesel responded with (in part) -- the post you pointed to:
Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen,
he wrote:
Wait: what quote where I said the code had to be seen?
"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".
Then he provided the example of not seeing the source...
Where he spoke of disassembling the code... with the context being in response to me speaking of Carroll's flood bot code.
One cannot disassemble code one does not have the executable for, as
far as I know.
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
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.
-----
...which is an example of determining what the program does without
having the source code.
Specifically in response to Carroll's code. And disassembly.
The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying
the code has to be seen.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else.
On 6/17/20 2:40 PM, Apd wrote:[...]
"Snit" wrote:
I *would* like to hear from Diesel and you and others on any RELEVANT analysis of Carroll's bot code. What can we tell from it (I have
written some about that).
I don't believe he misunderstood.
Fair enough. I have said my piece. We can disagree.
But if you agree "someone" has those goals -- fine. If you think the
goals are otherwise, that is also fine. I am curious as to what you
think the goals are and how well you think the bot meets those goals.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else.
Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How
well he addressed it is another matter.
Right: I think he has been clear he does not have the code. I accept
there is no evidence he does (if the misunderstanding I speak of above
is true, or something akin to it, his comments in relation to it are
not evidence of him having the code).
On May 8, 2026 at 1:02:02 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote <XnsB446290963206HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
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 BOOM! I showed a MID / quote where YOU said exactly what I said you
said.
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.
It shows you said exactly what I said you did. LOL! And not the only
time:
If you can understand what you read you will come to the same conclusion
as ChatGPT, which I shared the full posts with:
You later changed your story and denied you had insider knowledge.
And you just self nuked. Again. LOL!
You did so in trying to quote me -- where you show I merely was quoting
you -- and in showing you do not get the proper way to use Usenet.
On May 7, 2026 at 11:44:49 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tk0p2$2m7cd$1@dont-email.me>:You are far too tedious and repetitive to bother with.
On 2026-05-07 21:24, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 7, 2026 at 7:24:13 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and >>>>> interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation
* Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of >>>>> forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments >>>>>
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it >>>>> doesn’t establish conclusions.
Steve Mackay posted a PDF.
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website claiming >>>> it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address is >>>> original showed, and overlaying with the same information deliberately >>>> in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he was lying.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved
from beneath your alteration...
...and the number was no different.
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making people >>>> believe Steve had changed the IP...
...would be you.
You claim:
1) Mackay posted a PDF,
Because he did.
OK. Perhaps true but no evidence shown.
On May 7, 2026 at 11:48:47 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tk10f$2m7cd$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-07 21:36, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 7, 2026 at 7:24:13 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence – it’s an adversarial
write-up from a long-running feud, built mostly on selective posts and >>>>> interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party validation
* Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps are not proof of >>>>> forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and counterarguments >>>>>
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not who created or
altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises questions; it >>>>> doesn’t establish conclusions.
Steve Mackay posted a PDF.
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website claiming >>>> it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address is >>>> original showed, and overlaying with the same information deliberately >>>> in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he was lying.
How would a font "prove" a lie? And elsewhere you said OmniGraffle was used.
Did I? Not in this thread.
I stand corrected -- I saw that on Sandman's site. My mistake, but why not try
to get your accusations consistent with each other
On May 7, 2026 at 11:50:08 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tk130$2m7cd$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-07 21:17, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 7, 2026 at 7:20:42 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10tjh9q$2hmhi$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 15:40, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 2:43:01 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdo95$ntsm$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 14:29, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:I can quote it... ...in detail.
On 2026-05-05 14:07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 1:56:14 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tdlhf$n6ei$3@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 13:55, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-05 13:39, Brock McNuggets wrote:
(snipped, unread)
Yeah...
...nothing says "Not completely triggered"...
...by replying like that to a post not even replying to you. >>>>>>>>>>
:-)
Like you did here:
<10tdl83$n6ei$2@dont-email.me>
Nope. That's the post to which you just replied, and /I/ was addressing
myself to the text chrisv wrote.
You two are both trolling over some alleged but unproved lie from TWO THOUSAND
FOUR!
Your lie was absolutely proven, liar.
And I LOVE that it bothers you so much.
Proof you can’t quote about an incident no sane person cares about. >>>>>>
Says the "man" who continues to reply to a subject he claims he doesn't >>>>>> care about...
What a way to spend your time!
Hint: it’s pathetic.
I am amused by your self nuke. As you were told.
Face it, if I did not reply you would use it against me -- saying I am >>>>> running. Now that I am replying you use that against me. You claim I lied IN
TWO THOUSAND FOUR and use it against me. You are just looking to argue. >>>>>
And you lost anyway. You agreed with yourself and lost.
It is funny.
It IS funny that you can remember exactly when the incident occurred... >>>>
...but also claim you don't remember anything about it.
You posted a link you silly goose.
Really? In what message?
Ah, it was chrisv. See, I do not even care enough about this to remember which
troll pushing this nonsense said what.
On May 7, 2026 at 11:50:08 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10tk130$2m7cd$3@dont-email.me>:
But it's irrelevant as you're already backpedalling from your "I dont'
remember anything about it" stance.
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> news:69fda07a$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Fri, 08 May 2026 08:36:10
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On May 8, 2026 at 1:02:02 AM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB446290963206HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
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 BOOM! I showed a MID / quote where YOU said exactly what I said you
said.
Thanks for sharing the MID. I pulled the full post using it with my script.
Here's the full content of what you cherry picked to share and claim was proof. <G>
From: Diesel <nobody@haph.org>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: Bot droppings
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:40:47 -0000 (UTC)
You wrote this:
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 to that 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.
***
It's piss easy to see how you quoted me out of context to try and support your floodbot accusation, bud.
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> news:69fd8cea$0$25$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Fri, 08 May 2026 07:12:42
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
1) Mackay posted a PDF,
Because he did.
OK. Perhaps true but no evidence shown. If I recall correctly, and based
on Sandman's trolling page I skimmed, it was an email of some sort. I do
see where Sandman hilariously uses the WayBackMachine as his evidence
when elsewhere he has insisted the WayBackMachine saying he had faulty
CSS is not valid. It clearly showed he used:
<div style="padding: 3px; align: center;">
So why is the WayBackMachine not valid for that but somehow a magic
source of truth merely for quoting what someone had on their site
(something which is not in question as far as I know).
Mackay apparently had a number of different PDFs on his site... or at
least Sandman claims that!
2) Someone "forged" a PDF by having the same IP being on top of it.
That was you.
Not true and does not even make sense.
3) They sued OmniGraffle (which is not for that).
I never claimed anything about OmniGraffle.
Ah, that was Sandman who made that up:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
If you are going to use his lies you might as well try to know what they
are.
:)
That makes no sense.
But even if they did, how would a the same text on top of the text
help them? A layer on top of the text which said the same? Is that
what you mean?
Because the argument they were trying to make was that the IP address
was forged in the original, and you wanted to "discover" that.
If the same IP was over itself how does that show it is a forged IP?
Your aim was to discredit the original.
Speak for yourself, not others. I have no such aim.
My aim here is to note how insane your accusation is and show you are
trolling me over something you claim happened in 2004, and have fun
showing you do not even know your own accusation! You know, like your
ignorance of the OmniGraffle part of it. But your logic error, discussed
below, was more fun.
And you were the mastermind who uncovered if but only after Sandman
did? Or what?
Seriously, I have vague memories of this nonsense from 2004 but moved
on LONG ago. Not sure why you are still stuck there.
I thought you didn't remember it at all.
Interesting
You're clearly playing games here. This was an ongoing trolling bit of
nonsense from folks in COLA for some time. I do not recall all who --
knew it was Sandman and Carroll but did not even recall you were a part
of it. Don't care. But I do have vague meaningless memories of it.
So why are you hung up on an unsupported accusation from 2004 that did
not even involve you? Heck, did not involve me, either, other than being
the target of trolling.
But note you have not shown a single quote or MID or shred of evidence
against me. And you will not.
I'm tired of that bullshit excuse of yours.
On 2026-05-08 00:33, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 7, 2026 at 11:50:08 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10tk130$2m7cd$3@dont-email.me>:
But it's irrelevant as you're already backpedalling from your "I dont'
remember anything about it" stance.
You are far too tedious and repetitive to bother with.
There is not one person reading this messages that thinks you're telling
the truth.
Not one.
On 2026-05-08 00:28, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Ah, it was chrisv. See, I do not even care enough about this to remember which
troll pushing this nonsense said what.
You are far too tedious and repetitive to bother with.
There is not one person reading this messages that thinks you're telling
the truth.
Not one.
Did I? Not in this thread.
I stand corrected -- I saw that on Sandman's site. My mistake, but why not try
to get your accusations consistent with each other
You are far too tedious and repetitive to bother with.
There is not one person reading this messages that thinks you're telling
the truth.
Not one.
You are far too tedious and repetitive to bother with.1) Mackay posted a PDF,
Because he did.
OK. Perhaps true but no evidence shown.
There is not one person reading this messages that thinks you're telling
the truth.
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> news:69fd8cea$0$25$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Fri, 08 May 2026 07:12:42
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On May 7, 2026 at 11:44:49 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10tk0p2$2m7cd$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-07 21:24, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 7, 2026 at 7:24:13 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10tjhge$2hmhi$5@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-05-05 16:08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 5, 2026 at 3:54:12 PM MST, "Moshe Fishman" wrote
<MPG.44643f23a85e95dc98972c@usnews.blocknews.net>:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/snit_pdflies
https://chatgpt.com/share/69fa77ff-c524-83ea-9a07-3ead39376409
--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> - The “Snit PDF forgery” page is not reliable evidence –
it’s an adversarial write-up from a long-running feud, built
mostly on selective posts and interpretation of PDFs.
It is utterly reliable.
I was the one who uncovered your forgery.
Main problems:
* Biased source: one side arguing a case, not neutral analysis
* No independent verification: no chain of custody, no third-party >>>>>> validation * Weak technical claims: PDF metadata, fonts, timestamps >>>>>> are not proof of forgery
* Logical flaws: circular reasoning and shifting burden of proof
* Cherry-picking: ignores alternative explanations and
counterarguments
Wayback links only prove a file existed at a certain time – not
who created or altered it.
Bottom line:
There’s no solid proof of forgery here. At best it raises
questions; it doesn’t establish conclusions.
Steve Mackay posted a PDF.
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website
claiming it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address >>>>> is original showed, and overlaying with the same information
deliberately in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he
was lying.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved >>>>> from beneath your alteration...
...and the number was no different.
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making
people believe Steve had changed the IP...
...would be you.
You claim:
1) Mackay posted a PDF,
Because he did.
OK. Perhaps true but no evidence shown. If I recall correctly, and based
on Sandman's trolling page I skimmed, it was an email of some sort. I do
see where Sandman hilariously uses the WayBackMachine as his evidence
when elsewhere he has insisted the WayBackMachine saying he had faulty
CSS is not valid. It clearly showed he used:
<div style="padding: 3px; align: center;">
So why is the WayBackMachine not valid for that but somehow a magic
source of truth merely for quoting what someone had on their site
(something which is not in question as far as I know).
Mackay apparently had a number of different PDFs on his site... or at
least Sandman claims that!
2) Someone "forged" a PDF by having the same IP being on top of it.
That was you.
Not true and does not even make sense.
3) They sued OmniGraffle (which is not for that).
I never claimed anything about OmniGraffle.
Ah, that was Sandman who made that up:
https://usenet.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
If you are going to use his lies you might as well try to know what they
are.
:)
That makes no sense.
But even if they did, how would a the same text on top of the text
help them? A layer on top of the text which said the same? Is that
what you mean?
Because the argument they were trying to make was that the IP address
was forged in the original, and you wanted to "discover" that.
If the same IP was over itself how does that show it is a forged IP?
Your aim was to discredit the original.
Speak for yourself, not others. I have no such aim.
My aim here is to note how insane your accusation is and show you are
trolling me over something you claim happened in 2004, and have fun
showing you do not even know your own accusation! You know, like your
ignorance of the OmniGraffle part of it. But your logic error, discussed
below, was more fun.
And you were the mastermind who uncovered if but only after Sandman
did? Or what?
Seriously, I have vague memories of this nonsense from 2004 but moved
on LONG ago. Not sure why you are still stuck there.
I thought you didn't remember it at all.
Interesting
You're clearly playing games here. This was an ongoing trolling bit of
nonsense from folks in COLA for some time. I do not recall all who --
knew it was Sandman and Carroll but did not even recall you were a part
of it. Don't care. But I do have vague meaningless memories of it.
So why are you hung up on an unsupported accusation from 2004 that did
not even involve you? Heck, did not involve me, either, other than being
the target of trolling.
But note you have not shown a single quote or MID or shred of evidence
against me. And you will not.
I'm tired of that bullshit excuse of yours. So, I'm going to show everyone
a nice quote from you with MID and then the proof that you were lying. I'd very much like to see how you try to weasel out of this one:
From: Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: Ha! Ads be gone!
Date: 18 Aug 2020 17:06:20 GMT
Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology
Message-ID: <hq2g4c...@mid.individual.net>
References: <op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass> <XnsAC17C66BDB815HT1@4uMkH0FFER6s72gSy7J8N4B67.Mht3WTC373bt67J31gn> <hpjh75F...@mid.individual.net> <XnsAC1D794DE5AD5HT1@889n4Sx8GWE.MNnkz50hZNVS.fh0SYyRp>
On Aug 18, 2020 at 8:49:01 AM MST, "Gremlin" <nob...@haph.org> wrote:
David has asked you to check it against phone book urls he shared
with you.
This is a direct lie from you. He did no such thing.
*** end copy
a direct lie from me, right? That he did no such thing, right? That's what you wrote, right, bud?
So, how do you explain this:
Message-ID: <9KMYG.136546$hs5.63426@fx05.ams1>
From: David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
Message-ID: <9KMYG.136546$hs5.63426@fx05.ams1>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@blocknews.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 07:19:33 UTC
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:19:32 +0100
I am well aware that those who seek to attack do so out of their own
weaknesses and insecurities. Even with those I disagree with, say
Gremlin and Carroll, I try to note good things about them... and am
sincere when I do so. And even when I am not nice in responding to
trolling I am honest, and I try to not sink to their level.
Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can
read about here?
https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores
Message-ID: <hphkj5Fkie0U3@mid.individual.net>
From: Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !!
Date: 12 Aug 2020 07:38:13 GMT
Message-ID: <hphkj5Fkie0U3@mid.individual.net>
References: <MPG.399afb30dee85d4b989691@nntp.aioe.org> <XaMYG.135634$Ai5.61414@fx30.ams1> <hphicvFkie0U1@mid.individual.net> <9KMYG.136546$hs5.63426@fx05.ams1>
Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can
read about here?
https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores
Not there.
Message-ID: <XJQYG.264806$dTb.89649@fx41.ams1>
From: David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@blocknews.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:52:23 UTC
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:52:23 +0100
On 12/08/2020 08:38, Snit wrote:
On Aug 12, 2020 at 12:19:32 AM MST, "David_B" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:
Perhaps you can match the number you have with the businesses you can
read about here?
https://www.yellowpages.com/johnson-city-tn/computer-stores
Not there.
OK. Thanks for looking.
Please try here:- https://www.yellowpages.com/kingsport-tn/computer-stores
Message-ID: <hpio33Fkie0U14@mid.individual.net>
From: Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: WOW! Snit was really hitting the gluebag this weekend !!
Date: 12 Aug 2020 17:44:03 GMT
Message-ID: <hpio33Fkie0U14@mid.individual.net>
References: <MPG.399afb30dee85d4b989691@nntp.aioe.org> <hphkj5Fkie0U3@mid.individual.net> <XJQYG.264806$dTb.89649@fx41.ams1> <F7RYG.69875$8b2.3773@fx07.ams1>
On Aug 12, 2020 at 5:19:49 AM MST, "David_B" <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
OK. Thanks for looking.
Please try here:-
https://www.yellowpages.com/kingsport-tn/computer-stores
121 results! Sorry there are so many to check.
Not a big deal -- just five pages. Did a search for the last four
digits... no matches.
*** end share
Would you like to see a copy of the most generic as possible 'apology' to nobody specifically concerning this that you wrote? I don't care if you do
or not, I'm sharing it too. <G>
From: Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows- 10,alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy ,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ha! Ads be gone!
Date: 27 Aug 2020 16:00:24 GMT
Organization: Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology
Message-ID: <hqq3ko...@mid.individual.net>
References: <op.0oxuv7shwdg98l@glass> <XnsAC1D794DE5AD5HT1@889n4Sx8GWE.MNnkz50hZNVS.fh0SYyRp> <hq2g4c...@mid.individual.net> <XnsAC1EBCDBAAD5EHT1@0ydV5Cg6OLqWT90unHZ34QVT6yqk8KnKb.nd>
I did incorrectly say he had not asked me to "research" or whatever
-- not considering such a quick look to really count. But from your perspective, I suppose, where doing a quick search on a list is not completely trivial, it counts. Sorry for my error on that.
***
Need any more MIDs or quotes to show what a liar you are, bud? I've got
tons of them. <G>
Fuck it, I'm in a sharing mood. So, I'm going to share a chat you had with Apd over my comments concerning the floodbot and coding in general. For
those who don't know why I have such a problem with you.
First, we'll start with this post:
Message-ID: <rco0an$2fj$1@apd.eternal-september.org>
From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,alt.2600
Subject: Re: Ping: SNIT - Can you help with this? (was - Discord spam
bot?) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:02:20 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <rco0an$2fj$1@apd.eternal-september.org>
References: <5eb897f6.20813375@istillthinkyousuckatthis.com> <nm8uG.60584$_u3.46641@fx15.ams1> <M9duG.283624$Xk.106760@fx46.iad> <dcajbf5uupc11m012gd8g3lhjum26br01e@4ax.com> <5eb9aaba.91153156@istillthinkyousuckatthis.com> <2bcjbftgpbc87utl85q7tcgfqifu0bar42@4ax.com> <5eb9b5cc.93987078@istillthinkyousuckatthis.com> <5ebabb49.95392359@istillthinkyousuckatthis.com> <cRjuG.142916$xV.52220@fx29.ams1> <XnsABBB3E7B14CB8HT1@cv40pa2k83n4lW661EB2igwB7T5C5100SR32r.01xgMdbspTJ45ZPB APui> <9sAuG.72323$vu3.19412@fx21.ams1> <hi0bbfFgvvhU1@mid.individual.net> <OQEuG.43321$wn3.4338@fx36.ams1>
<XnsABBD1D814D05DHT1@DxtA1R8p9C89N.q7CRqg> <XnsABDE37AE038ABHT1@HHBBpXUm053.y616suD5Ccbu.g32pu7d> <Wk4GG.31189$o16.15958@fx14.ams1> <XnsABDF2D4255359HT1@R9wCnNq03.wp> <hkv1hmFgvrpU9@mid.individual.net> <XnsABE3303B9947DHT1@XXqx6Asi5bL2viHcUglZ2heL72.Ik98aioxvx58w20xQ.Jl7> Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 16:02:31 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="390b4206c8be54d3993aca276015eb24"; logging-data="2547"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVk
X1/edSFKkBA1ANZoSEJmuviW" Cancel-Lock: sha1:txNLmfaLQnKh/oYYr3SjvzvIEIU= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org alt.computer.workshop:49105 alt.2600:84899
"Diesel" wrote:
Again, to clarify for FTR and Apd, it's not a little white lie that
everybody tells. This was a fully concocted bullshit story that he
actually spent more than a few seconds to write up. I'm not going to
let that slide as a little white lie we all tell from time to time.
I'm not calling Snit a liar for stupid silly shit, I'm calling him
out as a liar for the story he wrote:
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Agree with what you say.
While i'm not surprised that neither of you think it's a big deal,
because he hasn't focused his lies on either of you,
I'm not saying that here. Obviously it's important for you and it's
your business to challenge what's said about you. I havent't been
saying it's no big deal because it's not me and I have backed your
comment about code, as you know.
I do consider it
a bit more than a 'your hair looks great honey!" kind of a lie.
Absolutely.
And I don't appreciate, what appeared to me, to downplay what he
did here, by either of you.
Certainly not downplaying what he said to you. Sorry for giving that impression.
Message-ID: <rbvkfm$vrq$2@apd.eternal-september.org> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549554500
From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:11:58 +0100
"Snit" wrote:
On 6/11/20 5:19 PM, Apd wrote:
"Steve Carroll - fretwizzer" wrote:
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some code
other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK. Maybe I missed
the context -- but if so then what code did he mean. He never says. That
shoots down his own argument.
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece of
software. He said as much.
[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.
You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that.
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so
much to Diesel.
None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.
*** end evidence submission 1 :)
Message-ID: <rc7i2q$an4$1@apd.eternal-september.org> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549611800
From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:20:02 +0100
Message-ID: <rc7i2q$an4$1@apd.eternal-september.org>
"Snit" wrote:
Diesel wrote:
Snit wrote:
On 6/12/20 3:11 AM, Apd wrote:
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our
run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has no access
to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the accusation and thus
he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd still believe he has no
access because of what he's been writing about the thing. If I were a gambling man I'd place a very large bet on him having no involvement.
** end of evidence submission 2
Message-ID: <rcbqfm$pj4$1@apd.eternal-september.org> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549668500
From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 02:08:02 +0100
Message-ID: <rcbqfm$pj4$1@apd.eternal-september.org>
"Snit" wrote:
Apd wrote:
"Snit" wrote:
Diesel wrote:
Snit wrote:
On 6/12/20 3:11 AM, Apd wrote:
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source
code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs
output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code'
example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no
topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
See Diesel's post:
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
** end of evidence submission 3
Message-ID: <rccv08$qch$1@apd.eternal-september.org> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549688000
From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:31:14 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Message-ID: <rccv08$qch$1@apd.eternal-september.org>
"Snit" wrote:
On 6/16/20 6:08 PM, Apd wrote:
"Snit" wrote:
Apd wrote:
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.
How?
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source
code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs
output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code'
example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like
its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not have
the executable program). That is what I think happened, too... he just
moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood bot code to
speaking about general methods even ones that were not relevant.
It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover
things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the original source.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no
topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I was,
then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its code.
It was relevant to the topic which was not changed.
See Diesel's post:
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
He split things up a bit there. Here it is with more complete context:
You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in
the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text
(yours) and more.
<hbjcp6F4eckU1@mid.individual.net>
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
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 am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be seen
in order to say if the code is up to scratch.
Diesel responded with (in part) -- the post you pointed to:
Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen, he
wrote:
"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".
Then he provided the example of not seeing the source...
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
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.
-----
....which is an example of determining what the program does without
having the source code.
Assuming Diesel did not have the executable to disassemble, he is NOT
speaking of of the topic I was: Carroll's Usenet flood bot. He has
changed the topic.
The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying the
code has to be seen.
** end of evidence submission 4
Message-ID: <rce2o7$1000$1@gioia.aioe.org> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549710300
From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 22:40:26 +0100
Message-ID: <rce2o7$1000$1@gioia.aioe.org>
"Snit" wrote:
Apd wrote:
"Snit" wrote:
On 6/16/20 6:08 PM, Apd wrote:
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the
source code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the
program's output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-
source-code' example of how a program disassembly, despite looking
nothing like its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not
have the executable program). That is what I think happened, too...
he just moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood
bot code to speaking about general methods even ones that were not
relevant.
It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover
things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the
original source.
Specificity, at least in part, with having the executable to
disassemble. Sure. Diesel was quite clear on that. In reference to
the bot code I did not think he had the executable, but his comments
suggested otherwise.
They didn't suggest that to me. And there's no reason to think there's
an executable. It's more likely to be a script.
Why else bring up the executable in reference to Carroll's bot?
As an analysis example.
I think he just went off topic and wanted to brag a bit about what he
thought I would not know. Now while I might not be able to disassemble
code I do understand the basic concept.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was
no topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I
was, then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its
code.
It was relevant to the topic which was not changed.
The topic of Carroll's flood bot code. That was what I was speaking
of.
I know.
Maybe the whole misunderstanding is he missed that? Not really that
important to me but clearly it is to him.
I don't believe he misunderstood.
See Diesel's post:
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
He split things up a bit there. Here it is with more complete
context:
You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in
the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text
(yours) and more.
My point if he snipped my comments and that may have led to him not
seeing
the context.
I saw no snippage. He commented on all you quoted and more.
<hbjcp6F4eckU1@mid.individual.net>
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
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 am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be
seen in order to say if the code is up to scratch.
Close. One needs more then JUST the output for that specific code. One
must know the goals. If one does not know the goals one cannot know if
the output reaches those goals or how well or how poorly it does so.
But, sure, if you know the goals you can speak to how well it works to
match them. And if you have the code or even the executable you can
learn more. I think we all agree on that. Maybe not.
I'll accept knowing the goal(s) is one consideration.
But the focus by me was solely on Carroll's flood bot. With that we
can infer the goals:
* Google seeding
* Carroll playing victim
* Carroll trolling me
* Carroll manipulating others to argue with me
* Carroll controlling conversations and pushing discord.
Substitute "someone" for "Carroll".
I listed others elsewhere. And on those I think his bot is rather
successful. If those are the goals then it works.
If the goals are otherwise then perhaps it does not.
Diesel responded with (in part) -- the post you pointed to:
Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen,
he wrote:
Wait: what quote where I said the code had to be seen?
The quoted text in this very post where you said:
"One has to see the code to know that".
"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".
Then he provided the example of not seeing the source...
Where he spoke of disassembling the code... with the context being in
response to me speaking of Carroll's flood bot code.
One cannot disassemble code one does not have the executable for, as
far as I know.
Correct. It was an example of seeing how something works without having
the original source code.
<XnsAB6E44E6AFE1AHT1@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
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.
-----
...which is an example of determining what the program does without
having the source code.
Specifically in response to Carroll's code. And disassembly.
Just as an example of analysis.
The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying
the code has to be seen.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else.
Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How
well he addressed it is another matter.
** end of evidence submission5
Message-ID: <rcfmha$rjs$1@apd.eternal-september.org> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549737900
From: "Apd" <not@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:26:18 +0100
Message-ID: <rcfmha$rjs$1@apd.eternal-september.org>
References: <hkv1hpFgvrpU15@mid.individual.net> <rce2o7$1000$1@gioia.aioe.org> <hkvjrpFknq3U1@mid.individual.net> "Snit" wrote:
On 6/17/20 2:40 PM, Apd wrote:[...]
"Snit" wrote:
I *would* like to hear from Diesel and you and others on any RELEVANT
analysis of Carroll's bot code. What can we tell from it (I have
written some about that).
I haven't done any, other than to note the text is copied from other
posts usually with name changes, and probably wont.
I don't believe he misunderstood.
Fair enough. I have said my piece. We can disagree.
I'll leave it at that.
But if you agree "someone" has those goals -- fine. If you think the
goals are otherwise, that is also fine. I am curious as to what you
think the goals are and how well you think the bot meets those goals.
I see no point to it apart from annoying people who use Google Groups,
like Carroll does. That's something that makes you a suspect. It doesn't really meet that goal since he is able to work around it. Most people
can't filter in GG.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else.
Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How
well he addressed it is another matter.
Right: I think he has been clear he does not have the code. I accept
there is no evidence he does (if the misunderstanding I speak of above
is true, or something akin to it, his comments in relation to it are
not evidence of him having the code).
I've snipped most of your comprehensive reply where you've explained
why the context appeared different to you and other matters. I won't
argue about it but there's enough there for Diesel to get his teeth
into if he wishes.
***
I did tell you that my client saves posts, entire threads, and all of my replies, right, bud? Well, now you know. :)
I am looking forward to your effort to spin a response to this. It should
be greatly amusing.
I did tell you that my client saves posts, entire threads, and all of my
replies, right, bud? Well, now you know. :)
I am looking forward to your effort to spin a response to this. It should
be greatly amusing.
Great job. There is no way for Snit Brock McNuggers Michael Glasser
Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy to defend this behaviour, but you
know that whether with socks, a barrage of lies or manipulation, he'll try.
On May 8, 2026 at 4:37:34 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote <2tuLR.534326$ZRIe.478812@fx22.iad>:
On 5/8/2026 7:15 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 8, 2026 at 4:02:18 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<ZXtLR.316421$3L1.224468@fx45.iad>:
On 5/8/2026 5:45 PM, Kerwin wrote:
Alan wrote:
There is not one person reading this messages that thinks you're
telling the truth.
Not one.
Speak for yourself.
Brock McNuggets explanation makes far more sense than yours.
Why do you make shit up, expect readers to believe it and then
when they don't, you raise your white flag and run away?
My mind isn't small enough to follow the alleged evidence any one
of the posters are referencing - but when Alan makes Snit AKA Brock
his enemy, it smells rather fishy. Alan's entire life is devoted
to defending the greediest corporation in the history of the earth,
Apple, and Snit is a major enthusiast of Apple's products going
back as long as I've known him and more. It reeks of Alan
succumbing to the peer pressure, here on 2026 Usenet, trying to
bully Snit. It's pathetic. I hate Apple and yet Snit is my
friend. Alan is one of the bullies. What gives?!
OK, forget if his accusation is true or not. He says I "forged"
a PDF. I say I did not. Whatever. What is the full accusation
even? I do not get it. From what I can gather (and again I admit
I might be wrong!):
It was something like "I" posted a PDF where "I" tried to forge
an IP by covering the IP with the same IP on a different layer.
Somehow a different font made it seem "forged". The text was not
even edited, and meta data not even slightly "fixed". And then
"I" posted this to my own site with the idea that someone else
posted it first. But how does that even work?
My recollection is someone (Mackay maybe?) had multiple versions
and names for similar files and I did grab them and share copies
so people could see a timeline... but I think I goofed on my
naming or... who knows. Again, 2004 and I neither know nor care.
But with the idea of a "forgery by font change" not being
explained, and the idea the "forgery" was done to be as easy to
discover as possible, what he describes sounds like someone was
trying to frame me. Was in Mackay? Sandman? Alan himself (he
claims he discovered this forgery). I barely remember and both
don't know and don't really care. It was... again... 2004. I
think we can safely move on from some PDF silliness from then
that hurt nobody (that has been claimed anyway).
Just weird he and chrisv both got stuck on it all these years
later. Don't get it... just happy it seems both have backed off
a bit.
Even though I can't make sense of anyone's alleged evidence, I tend
to believe you because I've never known you to bullshit.
Thank you. I did not forge a PDF. Full stop. But in this case the
question to me is what the accusation even is. Usually at least they
can make that coherent... idiotic stuff like I made a plea bargain.
While provably false in my case, at least it is a coherent story!
Alan is a
stand-up guy *most* of the time - but he's been known to succumb to
emotion.
I agree. Marek was like that, years ago. He and I talked with the
agreement to not share -- but I think it is OK to say there is a lot
of peer pressure to hate the folks the trolls call "bad guys". People
fear the ostracization. That is my best guess here.
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in news:69fe7554$0$25$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
On May 8, 2026 at 4:37:34 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<2tuLR.534326$ZRIe.478812@fx22.iad>:
On 5/8/2026 7:15 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 8, 2026 at 4:02:18 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<ZXtLR.316421$3L1.224468@fx45.iad>:
On 5/8/2026 5:45 PM, Kerwin wrote:
Alan wrote:
There is not one person reading this messages that thinks you're >>>>>>> telling the truth.
Not one.
Speak for yourself.
Brock McNuggets explanation makes far more sense than yours.
Why do you make shit up, expect readers to believe it and then
when they don't, you raise your white flag and run away?
My mind isn't small enough to follow the alleged evidence any one
of the posters are referencing - but when Alan makes Snit AKA Brock
his enemy, it smells rather fishy. Alan's entire life is devoted
to defending the greediest corporation in the history of the earth,
Apple, and Snit is a major enthusiast of Apple's products going
back as long as I've known him and more. It reeks of Alan
succumbing to the peer pressure, here on 2026 Usenet, trying to
bully Snit. It's pathetic. I hate Apple and yet Snit is my
friend. Alan is one of the bullies. What gives?!
OK, forget if his accusation is true or not. He says I "forged"
a PDF. I say I did not. Whatever. What is the full accusation
even? I do not get it. From what I can gather (and again I admit
I might be wrong!):
It was something like "I" posted a PDF where "I" tried to forge
an IP by covering the IP with the same IP on a different layer.
Somehow a different font made it seem "forged". The text was not
even edited, and meta data not even slightly "fixed". And then
"I" posted this to my own site with the idea that someone else
posted it first. But how does that even work?
My recollection is someone (Mackay maybe?) had multiple versions
and names for similar files and I did grab them and share copies
so people could see a timeline... but I think I goofed on my
naming or... who knows. Again, 2004 and I neither know nor care.
But with the idea of a "forgery by font change" not being
explained, and the idea the "forgery" was done to be as easy to
discover as possible, what he describes sounds like someone was
trying to frame me. Was in Mackay? Sandman? Alan himself (he
claims he discovered this forgery). I barely remember and both
don't know and don't really care. It was... again... 2004. I
think we can safely move on from some PDF silliness from then
that hurt nobody (that has been claimed anyway).
Just weird he and chrisv both got stuck on it all these years
later. Don't get it... just happy it seems both have backed off
a bit.
Even though I can't make sense of anyone's alleged evidence, I tend
to believe you because I've never known you to bullshit.
Thank you. I did not forge a PDF. Full stop. But in this case the
question to me is what the accusation even is. Usually at least they
can make that coherent... idiotic stuff like I made a plea bargain.
While provably false in my case, at least it is a coherent story!
Alan is a
stand-up guy *most* of the time - but he's been known to succumb to
emotion.
I agree. Marek was like that, years ago. He and I talked with the
agreement to not share -- but I think it is OK to say there is a lot
of peer pressure to hate the folks the trolls call "bad guys". People
fear the ostracization. That is my best guess here.
Snit, you are a FUCKING LIAR!
Here is but one thread where you make false claims about Marek Novotny.
And there are many more where you attacked him even after he gifted you a laptop for your wife to use.
You are a real piece of shit Michael Glasser / snit /Brock McNuggets
And make sure you read the other comments in the thread because people pounced on your lies.
What a fucking piece of shit you are snit.
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/7DIWTgWQEdM/m/Rl- GpPnhBAAJ
"Marek knows some CLI tools well, but he threatened my wife because I
noted
he was wrong about Linux:
Marek:
-----
Linux is a Server, A Cloud, A service, A mobile Platform, A
developers dream come true, A super cluster, a Main frame and a
DESKTOP. It's not JUST a desktop. You're a two-bit bullshit coward
who refuses to face what Linux actually is. It's too much for you,
obviously.
-----
Snit (referencing to the above quote):
----
But it is not all of those things. Not even close. It is USED by
those things but it is NOT those things.
-----
Marek then admitted I was right, claimed I did not know what I had taught
him (what?) and then threatened my wife.
The fact he did not even know this basic concept about Linux shows he is
NOT
very technically skilled in a general sense... even if he has some
focused
knowledge.
--
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.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>"
On 2026-05-08 8:10 p.m., Chris wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in
news:69fe7554$0$25$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
On May 8, 2026 at 4:37:34 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<2tuLR.534326$ZRIe.478812@fx22.iad>:
On 5/8/2026 7:15 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 8, 2026 at 4:02:18 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<ZXtLR.316421$3L1.224468@fx45.iad>:
On 5/8/2026 5:45 PM, Kerwin wrote:
Alan wrote:
There is not one person reading this messages that thinks you're >>>>>>>> telling the truth.
Not one.
Speak for yourself.
Brock McNuggets explanation makes far more sense than yours.
Why do you make shit up, expect readers to believe it and then
when they don't, you raise your white flag and run away?
My mind isn't small enough to follow the alleged evidence any one
of the posters are referencing - but when Alan makes Snit AKA Brock >>>>>> his enemy, it smells rather fishy. Alan's entire life is devoted
to defending the greediest corporation in the history of the earth, >>>>>> Apple, and Snit is a major enthusiast of Apple's products going
back as long as I've known him and more. It reeks of Alan
succumbing to the peer pressure, here on 2026 Usenet, trying to
bully Snit. It's pathetic. I hate Apple and yet Snit is my
friend. Alan is one of the bullies. What gives?!
OK, forget if his accusation is true or not. He says I "forged"
a PDF. I say I did not. Whatever. What is the full accusation
even? I do not get it. From what I can gather (and again I admit
I might be wrong!):
It was something like "I" posted a PDF where "I" tried to forge
an IP by covering the IP with the same IP on a different layer.
Somehow a different font made it seem "forged". The text was not
even edited, and meta data not even slightly "fixed". And then
"I" posted this to my own site with the idea that someone else
posted it first. But how does that even work?
My recollection is someone (Mackay maybe?) had multiple versions
and names for similar files and I did grab them and share copies
so people could see a timeline... but I think I goofed on my
naming or... who knows. Again, 2004 and I neither know nor care.
But with the idea of a "forgery by font change" not being
explained, and the idea the "forgery" was done to be as easy to
discover as possible, what he describes sounds like someone was
trying to frame me. Was in Mackay? Sandman? Alan himself (he
claims he discovered this forgery). I barely remember and both
don't know and don't really care. It was... again... 2004. I
think we can safely move on from some PDF silliness from then
that hurt nobody (that has been claimed anyway).
Just weird he and chrisv both got stuck on it all these years
later. Don't get it... just happy it seems both have backed off
a bit.
Even though I can't make sense of anyone's alleged evidence, I tend
to believe you because I've never known you to bullshit.
Thank you. I did not forge a PDF. Full stop. But in this case the
question to me is what the accusation even is. Usually at least they
can make that coherent... idiotic stuff like I made a plea bargain.
While provably false in my case, at least it is a coherent story!
Alan is a
stand-up guy *most* of the time - but he's been known to succumb to
emotion.
I agree. Marek was like that, years ago. He and I talked with the
agreement to not share -- but I think it is OK to say there is a lot
of peer pressure to hate the folks the trolls call "bad guys". People
fear the ostracization. That is my best guess here.
Snit, you are a FUCKING LIAR!
Universally recognized.
Here is but one thread where you make false claims about Marek Novotny.
And there are many more where you attacked him even after he gifted you a
laptop for your wife to use.
You are a real piece of shit Michael Glasser / snit /Brock McNuggets
And make sure you read the other comments in the thread because people
pounced on your lies.
What a fucking piece of shit you are snit.
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/7DIWTgWQEdM/m/Rl-
GpPnhBAAJ
"Marek knows some CLI tools well, but he threatened my wife because I
noted
he was wrong about Linux:
Marek:
-----
Linux is a Server, A Cloud, A service, A mobile Platform, A
developers dream come true, A super cluster, a Main frame and a
DESKTOP. It's not JUST a desktop. You're a two-bit bullshit coward
who refuses to face what Linux actually is. It's too much for you,
obviously.
-----
Snit (referencing to the above quote):
----
But it is not all of those things. Not even close. It is USED by
those things but it is NOT those things.
-----
Marek then admitted I was right, claimed I did not know what I had taught
him (what?) and then threatened my wife.
The fact he did not even know this basic concept about Linux shows he is
NOT
very technically skilled in a general sense... even if he has some
focused
knowledge.
--
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.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>"
The mere fact that Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott
Parasite and Computer Guy would claim that Marek admitted he was right
is a laugh.
In every possible way, Marek was more knowledgeable about
everything than our parasitic friend is.
As for threatening his wife, no
such thing ever happened. This is yet more evidence of what kind of a snot-nosed punk we are dealing with.
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote in news:69fe7554$0$25$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
I agree. Marek was like that, years ago. He and I talked with the
agreement to not share -- but I think it is OK to say there is a lot
of peer pressure to hate the folks the trolls call "bad guys". People
fear the ostracization. That is my best guess here.
Snit, you are a FUCKING LIAR!
Here is but one thread where you make false claims about Marek Novotny.
And there are many more where you attacked him even after he gifted you a laptop for your wife to use.
You are a real piece of shit Michael Glasser / snit /Brock McNuggets
And make sure you read the other comments in the thread because people pounced on your lies.
What a fucking piece of shit you are snit.
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/7DIWTgWQEdM/m/Rl- GpPnhBAAJ
"Marek knows some CLI tools well, but he threatened my wife because I
noted
he was wrong about Linux:
Marek:
-----
Linux is a Server, A Cloud, A service, A mobile Platform, A
developers dream come true, A super cluster, a Main frame and a
DESKTOP. It's not JUST a desktop. You're a two-bit bullshit coward
who refuses to face what Linux actually is. It's too much for you,
obviously.
-----
Snit (referencing to the above quote):
----
But it is not all of those things. Not even close. It is USED by
those things but it is NOT those things.
-----
The mere fact that Snit Brock McNuggets Michael Glasser Prescott
Parasite and Computer Guy would claim that Marek admitted he was right
is a laugh.
In every possible way, Marek was more knowledgeable about
everything than our parasitic friend is. As for threatening his wife, no
such thing ever happened. This is yet more evidence of what kind of a snot-nosed punk we are dealing with.
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/7DIWTgWQEdM/m/Rl-GpPnhBAAJ
some thing wrote:
Joel W. Crump wrote:
some thing wrote:
(snittery snipped)
Even though I can't make sense of anyone's alleged evidence, I tend
to believe you because I've never known you to bullshit.
(snittery snipped)
Snit, you are a FUCKING LIAR!
Chris wrote:
some thing wrote:
Joel W. Crump wrote:
some thing wrote:
(snittery snipped)
Even though I can't make sense of anyone's alleged evidence, I tend
to believe you because I've never known you to bullshit.
OMG
(snittery snipped)
This thing can claim that it didn't "forge" a PDF all it wants, but it
*did* alter the original PDF and make it available on its Web site.
Its motive was to deny that it had been busted-for and was lying-about
using a sock-puppet.
THE "SNIT" THING'S WEB SITE WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ALTERED PDF'S.
The thing then *did* dishonestly rename the original and asserted that
the original was the altered version. The thing *did* *lie* and claim
that Steve Mackey altered the original.
Snit, you are a FUCKING LIAR!
That thing is a *shameless* fscking liar. Full stop.
some thing wrote:
Alan wrote:
some thing wrote:
Alan wrote:
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website claiming >>>>> it was still Steve's original.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address is >>>>> original showed, and overlaying with the same information deliberately >>>>> in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he was lying.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved >>>>> from beneath your alteration...
...and the number was no different.
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making people >>>>> believe Steve had changed the IP ... would be you.
You claim:
1) Mackay posted a PDF,
Because he did.
OK. Perhaps true but no evidence shown.
You are far too tedious and repetitive to bother with.
There is not one person reading this messages that thinks you're telling
the truth.
Not one.
Alan wrote:
some thing wrote:
Alan wrote:
some thing wrote:
Alan wrote:
You took that PDF, altered it, then posted it on your website claiming >>>>>> it was still Steve's original.
Fact.
You were trying to create a "gotcha" moment by taking the IP address is >>>>>> original showed, and overlaying with the same information deliberately >>>>>> in a different font. So that you could "prove" that he was lying.
Yep.
Only you didn't know that the original IP address could be retrieved >>>>>> from beneath your alteration...
...and the number was no different.
The solid proof is that the only one who would benefit by making people >>>>>> believe Steve had changed the IP ... would be you.
Exactly.
All to impugn the evidence of its earlier *lies* and to attack the
honest person as the liar. What a POS!
You claim:
1) Mackay posted a PDF,
Because he did.
OK. Perhaps true but no evidence shown.
You are far too tedious and repetitive to bother with.
There is not one person reading this messages that thinks you're telling
the truth.
Not one.
It's easy for that filthy, lying thing to *claim* that there is "no evidence".
Years have gone by and the victim, Steve Mackay, is no
longer available to testify. Mackay's home.wi.rr.com page, on which
he archived the files and that proved when each of them was uploaded,
is no longer there.
But we still have the transcript of the "trial", and the evidence and testimony *is* overwhelming.
The fact that that thing *still* denies its rampant, filthy lying demonstrates that it's as dishonorable and shitty a liar as ever.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,116 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 86:53:43 |
| Calls: | 14,305 |
| Files: | 186,338 |
| D/L today: |
1,016 files (320M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,525,511 |