On 14/03/2022 16:07, Mike Easter wrote:
> David Brooks wrote:
>> Wolffan wrote:
>>
>>> You’ve been stalking ClamXAV. EtreCheck. and their devs for years.
>>>
> True.  Except I prefer the term 'sliming'.  I reserve 'stalking' for
> another behavior.
>
>>> You have also attempted to stalk Gremlin... and _me_.
>
> True.  Except I would say 'discredit' rather than stalk.
>
>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.

You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!

> In this exchange, you are the liar and W is the truth teller.

That's simply untrue.

>> EtreCheck, the 'Pro' version, provides a breakdown of all the various
>>  anti-malware software which in use by the users of EtreCheck.
>>
> OLAS.

Yay! I've found the graphic to show you. :-D

https://ibb.co/3rWFbK8

>> There is not a single incidence of anyone using ClamXav
>>
> Stupid remark.

Whatever, it is true. There are a number of AV providers mentioned but
ClamXav is NOT amongst them.

>> Canimaan Software Ltd is an independent cybersecurity company based
>> in Edinburgh, UK. They took ClamXAV, their trusted
>> antivirus/antimalware product for macOS, commercial in 2015 and it
>> now has a large and loyal following of home and enterprise customers.
>> ClamXAV is available on an annual subscription, in 10 languages,
>> selling worldwide in more than 125 countries, and they are continuing
>> to expand into new territories with expansion and product development
>> ambitions globally.
>>
>> Canimaan Software remains an independently run company and is
>> currently a proud member of the Royal Bank of Scotland Entrepreneur
>> Accelerator programme.

I've read all of that too!

THIS IS WHAT ETRECHECK SAYS:-

Security

Probably one of the most widely misunderstood topics is computer
security. First of all, remember that Apple provides multiple layers of
antivirus and malware protection in the macOS operating system itself.
You don’t need any 3rd party antivirus protection. When you first turned
on your Mac, it was probably the most secure that it has ever been. Most
suggestions posted on the internet to install software or change system
settings will make your computer less secure. Many popular 3rd party
security products are simply scams and give you no protection of any kind.

Most of the popular media headlines about security exploits do not
concern your Macintosh. Do not pay attention to news media or bloggers.
Trust Apple. Apple has a team of professional software engineers who
specialize in system security. If your computer needs an update for
security, Apple will provide it.

The only security issue that is really a problem for Mac users is
adware. Technically speaking, Adware is legal, although not ethical, and
produced by actual companies, sometimes large companies. Adware uses
deception and scams to trick you into installing it. Apple’s built-in
security will not protect you from adware. Many popular 3rd security
products also provide no protection from adware.

EtreCheck will detect, and help you disable, virtually any current or
new adware. Unlike traditional security software, EtreCheck does not
rely exclusively on a signature list of known adware. Instead, EtreCheck
looks at the behaviour and characteristics of software on your system in
order to classify it as adware or not. EtreCheck only disables adware,
rendering it a harmless file. EtreCheck cannot completely remove adware.
There are a handful of other software products that can effectively and
completely remove adware, but they require system modifications that
could make your computer slow down or crash. These other products also
cannot detect brand new adware as effectively as EtreCheck. If you have
any questions about software that might be adware, EtreCheck allows you
to ask for help from Apple Support Communities or directly from Etresoft
itself.

=

Since EtreCheck also detects adware and malware, these insights can show
the performance of each major 3rd party antivirus tool. We can count how
many EtreCheck reports showed files from each 3rd party antivirus
product alongside adware files that the product should have removed. In
this analysis, our control group is those EtreCheck reports that show
adware files, but no 3rd party antivirus products.

Of course, no 3rd party antivirus product is perfect and none claim to
be. Some do better than others. All of the most popular 3rd party
antivirus tool show fewer cases of adware files than with no 3rd party
antivirus product installed at all.

It is important to remember that the macOS operating system includes
built-in protection from unwanted software. But the user always has the
ability to bypass warnings and install any software. Apple’s built-in
malware protections do a good job of protecting the computer from
malware. Third party antivirus products are useful to protect the
computer from the user.

https://ibb.co/6F3YTtY

--
Kind regards,
David

On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
(in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):

> >
> > > YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>
> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!

and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one. I
posted on the 14th. Today is the 16th. You replied to snit (I think) who
replied to me... but did not point out any lies. You replied to Mike Easter,
repeated your assertion, and still didn’t point out any lies. Gee. One
wonders why this may be so.
>
>
> > In this exchange, you are the liar and W is the truth teller.
>
> That's simply untrue.

the truth continues to burn you, vile one

On 16/03/2022 12:22, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>
>>>
>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>
>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>
> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one. I
> posted on the 14th. Today is the 16th. You replied to snit (I think) who
> replied to me... but did not point out any lies. You replied to Mike Easter,
> repeated your assertion, and still didn’t point out any lies. Gee. One
> wonders why this may be so.

WTF? You *KNOW* you are a *LIAR*|- inveterate!

>>> In this exchange, you are the liar and W is the truth teller.
>>
>> That's simply untrue.
>
> the truth continues to burn you, vile one

Nope! Read here so that you may better understand:-

https://ibb.co/f16Ln7J

The link shows you the image wich goes with this dialogue:-

During World War II, fighter planes would come back from battle with
bullet holes. The Allies found the areas that were most commonly hit by
enemy fire. They sought to strengthen the most commonly damaged parts of
the planes to reduce the number that was shot down.

A mathematician, Abraham Wald, pointed out that perhaps there was
another way to look at the data. Perhaps the reason certain areas of the
planes weren't covered in bullet holes was that planes that were shot in
those areas did not return. This insight led to the armor being
re-enforced on the parts of the plane where there were no bullet holes.

The story behind the data is arguably more important than the data
itself. Or more precisely, the reason behind why we are missing certain
pieces of data may be more meaningful than the data we have. Don’t only
listen to what is being said. *Listen more to what is not being said*.

On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
<0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:

> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>
>>>
>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>
>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>
> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.

You repeatedly lie about David drinking.

> I
> posted on the 14th. Today is the 16th. You replied to snit (I think) who
> replied to me... but did not point out any lies.

You repeatedly lie about David drinking.

> You replied to Mike Easter,
> repeated your assertion, and still didn’t point out any lies. Gee. One
> wonders why this may be so.
>>
>>
>>> In this exchange, you are the liar and W is the truth teller.
>>
>> That's simply untrue.
>
> the truth continues to burn you, vile one

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

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

On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
(in article <tCmYJ.152034$sga6.111727@fx10.ams1>):

> On 16/03/2022 12:22, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
> > (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
> >
> > > >
> > > > > YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
> > >
> > > You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
> >
> > and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one. I
> > posted on the 14th. Today is the 16th. You replied to snit (I think) who
> > replied to me... but did not point out any lies. You replied to Mike Easter,
> > repeated your assertion, and still didn’t point out any lies. Gee. One
> > wonders why this may be so.
>
> WTF? You *KNOW* you are a *LIAR*|- inveterate!

and yet again you fsail to point out even one lie. Not even one.
>
>
> > > > In this exchange, you are the liar and W is the truth teller.
> > >
> > > That's simply untrue.
> >
> > the truth continues to burn you, vile one
>
> Nope! Read here so that you may better understand:-
>
> https://ibb.co/f16Ln7J
>
> The link shows you the image wich goes with this dialogue:-
>
> During World War II, fighter planes would come back from battle with
> bullet holes. The Allies found the areas that were most commonly hit by
> enemy fire. They sought to strengthen the most commonly damaged parts of
> the planes to reduce the number that was shot down.
>
> A mathematician, Abraham Wald, pointed out that perhaps there was
> another way to look at the data. Perhaps the reason certain areas of the
> planes weren't covered in bullet holes was that planes that were shot in
> those areas did not return. This insight led to the armor being
> re-enforced on the parts of the plane where there were no bullet holes.
>
> The story behind the data is arguably more important than the data
> itself. Or more precisely, the reason behind why we are missing certain
> pieces of data may be more meaningful than the data we have. Don’t only
> listen to what is being said. *Listen more to what is not being said*.

what’s not being said is you pointing out even one lie in my post. This
would be because you can’t. You’re upset because the truth burns you.

I notice that you xposted to uk.c.s.m, knowing that Mike Easter doesn’t do
crossposts. This way he’d never reply to your post... There’sa no
low-down dirty trick that you won’t try. You are truly the vilest of the
vile.

On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
><0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>
>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>
>>>>
>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>
>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>
>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>
> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.

Even if true, why would that bother YOU?

On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>
>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>
>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>
>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>
>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>
> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?

Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*

Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.

It would be good if folk like you, Steve, asked to see evidence of
Wolffan's claims.

On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>
>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>
>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>
>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>
> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*

He can 'emphasize' all day long, what he can't do is show why it should
bother him without his being what we all know he is (aside from his
being a patholgical liar), a hypocrite.

> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.

Not according to YOUR logic: If someone says it, it's true.

> It would be good if folk like you, Steve, asked to see evidence of
> Wolffan's claims.

Hey, I'm merely following your lead made in pursuance of you 'defending'
your 'friend'. You never asked Snit for "evidence" of all the many false
claims he's made about me, remember? And you've repeatedly stated he's
never lied to you (that you're aware of, to hear you tell it) remember?
Do that math <shrug>.

On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
(in article <dVqYJ.752082$9Y33.306352@fx06.ams1>):

> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > On 2022-03-16, Snit<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
> > > <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
> > >
> > > > On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
> > > > (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
> > > >
> > > > and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
> > >
> > > You repeatedly lie about David drinking.

snit boy, it’s my opinion that ol yellowstain chugs down the alcohol...
because if he isn’t a raging alky, he’s even more stupid than he appears
to be. Among other points. and as you know dsamn well that you’re
killfiled...
> >
> > Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>
> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*

nope. you still haven’t shown even one lie. not even one.
>
>
> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.

so point out even one lie in the post in question, the one from the 14th. You
can’t.
>
>
> It would be good if folk like you, Steve, asked to see evidence of
> Wolffan's claims.

everything in that post was absolutely correct.

you are beyond any doubt, the vilest of the vile.

On 16/03/2022 19:45, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>>
>>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>>
>>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>>
>>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>>
>> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>
> He can 'emphasize' all day long, what he can't do is show why it should
> bother him without his being what we all know he is (aside from his
> being a patholgical liar), a hypocrite.

He didn't say he was "bothered". As I see it, he was supporting me.
It's almost exactly four years since I quit 'drinking'.
The 21st March is the anniversary date.

>> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>
> Not according to YOUR logic: If someone says it, it's true.

What *I* have told you is the truth.

>> It would be good if folk like you, Steve, asked to see evidence of
>> Wolffan's claims.
>
> Hey, I'm merely following your lead made in pursuance of you 'defending'
> your 'friend'. You never asked Snit for "evidence" of all the many false
> claims he's made about me, remember? And you've repeatedly stated he's
> never lied to you (that you're aware of, to hear you tell it) remember?
> Do that math <shrug>.

I'm unaware of any lies he has told about you. I've never reviewed your
past history in any depth but I have seen you trying to harass Snit here
in ACW. Why not just let it go and forgive him for any past behaviour.
You would feel so much better if you did so.

On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/03/2022 19:45, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>>>
>>>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>>>
>>>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>>>
>>> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>>
>> He can 'emphasize' all day long, what he can't do is show why it should
>> bother him without his being what we all know he is (aside from his
>> being a patholgical liar), a hypocrite.
>
> He didn't say he was "bothered".

He "bothered" to respond.

> As I see it, he was supporting me.

I see a hypocrite.

> It's almost exactly four years since I quit 'drinking'.
> The 21st March is the anniversary date.
>
>>> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>>
>> Not according to YOUR logic: If someone says it, it's true.
>
> What *I* have told you is the truth.

Your position is if someone says something, in your case the "someone"
being Glasser, it's true. I'm just extending that 'logic' to include
"others". Any reason why that shouldn't work?

On 16/03/2022 20:33, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16/03/2022 19:45, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>>>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>>>>
>>>> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>>>
>>> He can 'emphasize' all day long, what he can't do is show why it should
>>> bother him without his being what we all know he is (aside from his
>>> being a patholgical liar), a hypocrite.
>>
>> He didn't say he was "bothered".
>
> He "bothered" to respond.
>
>> As I see it, he was supporting me.
>
> I see a hypocrite.
>
>> It's almost exactly four years since I quit 'drinking'.
>> The 21st March is the anniversary date.
>>
>>>> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>>>
>>> Not according to YOUR logic: If someone says it, it's true.
>>
>> What *I* have told you is the truth.
>
> Your position is if someone says something, in your case the "someone"
> being Glasser, it's true. I'm just extending that 'logic' to include
> "others". Any reason why that shouldn't work?

My off-Usenet relationship with Snit leads me to believe that he's had
difficulty defending himself from you. You appear to attack him at every
opportunity.

On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/03/2022 20:33, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 16/03/2022 19:45, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>>>>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>>>>>
>>>>> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>>>>
>>>> He can 'emphasize' all day long, what he can't do is show why it should
>>>> bother him without his being what we all know he is (aside from his
>>>> being a patholgical liar), a hypocrite.
>>>
>>> He didn't say he was "bothered".
>>
>> He "bothered" to respond.
>>
>>> As I see it, he was supporting me.
>>
>> I see a hypocrite.
>>
>>> It's almost exactly four years since I quit 'drinking'.
>>> The 21st March is the anniversary date.
>>>
>>>>> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>>>>
>>>> Not according to YOUR logic: If someone says it, it's true.
>>>
>>> What *I* have told you is the truth.
>>
>> Your position is if someone says something, in your case the "someone"
>> being Glasser, it's true. I'm just extending that 'logic' to include
>> "others". Any reason why that shouldn't work?
>
> My off-Usenet relationship with Snit leads me to believe that he's had
> difficulty defending himself from you.

There's a simple explanation for that and we all know what it is, the
'r' word (IOW, it's not *me* he has a difficult time with).

Glasser likes having "off-Usenet" relationships with people from usenet
newsgroups for one reason, and that reason is tied to what I just
alluded to. You're not the first useful idiot he's tried to paint
alternate versions of 'truth' for... but the 'r' word eventually kicks
in (FWIW, you still have a ways to go to break the record).

> You appear to attack him at every opportunity.

Stop buying in to his projection bullsh*t. My alleged "attacks"
challenge his ridiculous lies and blatant hypocrisy. Why do you think he
has me kf'd? Because even he knows he can't address what I post to him
so he finds fools like you to do it based on 'sympathy' and they fail
for the same reason they always have: the 'r' word. Like death, the 'r'
word always looms.

On 16/03/2022 21:20, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 16/03/2022 20:33, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 16/03/2022 19:45, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>>>>>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>>>>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>>>>>
>>>>> He can 'emphasize' all day long, what he can't do is show why it should
>>>>> bother him without his being what we all know he is (aside from his
>>>>> being a patholgical liar), a hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>> He didn't say he was "bothered".
>>>
>>> He "bothered" to respond.
>>>
>>>> As I see it, he was supporting me.
>>>
>>> I see a hypocrite.
>>>
>>>> It's almost exactly four years since I quit 'drinking'.
>>>> The 21st March is the anniversary date.
>>>>
>>>>>> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to YOUR logic: If someone says it, it's true.
>>>>
>>>> What *I* have told you is the truth.
>>>
>>> Your position is if someone says something, in your case the "someone"
>>> being Glasser, it's true. I'm just extending that 'logic' to include
>>> "others". Any reason why that shouldn't work?
>>
>> My off-Usenet relationship with Snit leads me to believe that he's had
>> difficulty defending himself from you.
>
> There's a simple explanation for that and we all know what it is, the
> 'r' word (IOW, it's not *me* he has a difficult time with).

You DO appear, to me, to be a VERY difficult individual.

> Glasser likes having "off-Usenet" relationships with people from usenet
> newsgroups for one reason, and that reason is tied to what I just
> alluded to. You're not the first useful idiot he's tried to paint
> alternate versions of 'truth' for... but the 'r' word eventually kicks
> in (FWIW, you still have a ways to go to break the record).

I hope I have helped Snit in some small way.

>> You appear to attack him at every opportunity.
>
> Stop buying in to his projection bullsh*t. My alleged "attacks"
> challenge his ridiculous lies and blatant hypocrisy. Why do you think he
> has me kf'd? Because even he knows he can't address what I post to him
> so he finds fools like you to do it based on 'sympathy' and they fail
> for the same reason they always have: the 'r' word. Like death, the 'r'
> word always looms.

//EtreCheckPro is frequently recommended on internet discussion forums
such as Apple Support Communities. Apple Support Communities, although
hosted by Apple, Inc. is a public internet discussion forum like any
other. The people providing technical support on Apple Support
Communities are *usually not Apple, Inc. employees*.

They are other Apple, Inc. customers like yourself.

Etresoft, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy of any suggestions you may
receive on an internet discussion forum or web site. Please review Apple
Support Communities’ Terms of Use Agreement before posting an EtreCheck
report on Apple Support Communities. Double-check your report for any
personal information.

The Power User package, available as an in-app purchase, provides access
to solutions for your reports using our diagnostic engine. You can
always contact Apple Support directly or an Apple Authorized Service
Provider. They can provide one-on-one assistance either in-person or via
internet screen-sharing.//

I've absolutely no idea what the "r word" is that you mention.

Are you aware that one can sign into the ASC forums using a false Apple ID?

On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:

(snip)

>>> My off-Usenet relationship with Snit leads me to believe that he's had
>>> difficulty defending himself from you.
>>
>> There's a simple explanation for that and we all know what it is, the
>> 'r' word (IOW, it's not *me* he has a difficult time with).
>
> You DO appear, to me, to be a VERY difficult individual.

For people who pretend reality isn't what it is, I'd suppose that's true.

>> Glasser likes having "off-Usenet" relationships with people from usenet
>> newsgroups for one reason, and that reason is tied to what I just
>> alluded to. You're not the first useful idiot he's tried to paint
>> alternate versions of 'truth' for... but the 'r' word eventually kicks
>> in (FWIW, you still have a ways to go to break the record).
>
> I hope I have helped Snit in some small way.

You can't help him with his main problem, only people who are qualified
*may* be able do so. And, of them, if Glasser is to be believed, he's
apparently fooled all of those he's been to. At least, to hear him tell
it, he must have and this has been known for almost two decades:

"Hmmmm, I do not remember pointing out any trolling by you... so what is your
support for your claim.

Please keep in mind that based on my anxiety disorder I have seen a number
of professionals who have consistently agreed I handle the stresses of life
better than average, am well adjusted, and am in no need of any
psychological counseling.

Ahhhh, trolls... what say you?"

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/Xa2yL-Y4NU8/m/YRP_RD7V9M8J>

The first obvious question is: Why did he see "a number of professionals"?

The second (which should probably be the first): Is *any* of that true?

I'm not seeing it... most of what I've *ever* seen from him are
'stories' in place of reality as a way of handling "the stresses of
life" and I'm pretty sure Glasser still believes he needs no
"psychological counseling" (at the least, he wants readers to believe
this).

Notably, even YOU said he has issues and even *he* has admitted to
having these mental issues, he's just in denial regarding how they
manifest.

But we've all seen how they manifest, even you once (and only once that
I ever saw) called out one of his goofy bullsh*t stories (about an
'English lad' being my son). Notably, it was only when YOU challenged
the veracity of his 'story' that he softened his stance (he should've
done more than he did but that's not his way).

So you see, reality is always 'just there', and this is true no matter
how hard or how many times you try to bang your head against it in an
attempt to make it disappear.

Does it not occur to you that many of the people on his quotes list were
not only once his 'friends' but people with whom he had "off-Usenet"
relationships with? Do you think you're special in some regard?

On Mar 16, 2022 at 12:30:16 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
<dVqYJ.752082$9Y33.306352@fx06.ams1>:

> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>
>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>
>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>
>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>
> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>
> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>
> It would be good if folk like you, Steve, asked to see evidence of
> Wolffan's claims.

Carroll cannot understand why derogatory attacks might be "bothersome". Sigh.
He repeatedly reveals his lack of moral character.

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

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

On Mar 16, 2022 at 1:39:11 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
<PVrYJ.213429$TXc5.9165@fx14.ams1>:

> On 16/03/2022 20:33, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 16/03/2022 19:45, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>>>>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>>>>>
>>>>> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>>>>
>>>> He can 'emphasize' all day long, what he can't do is show why it should
>>>> bother him without his being what we all know he is (aside from his
>>>> being a patholgical liar), a hypocrite.
>>>
>>> He didn't say he was "bothered".
>>
>> He "bothered" to respond.
>>
>>> As I see it, he was supporting me.
>>
>> I see a hypocrite.
>>
>>> It's almost exactly four years since I quit 'drinking'.
>>> The 21st March is the anniversary date.
>>>
>>>>> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>>>>
>>>> Not according to YOUR logic: If someone says it, it's true.
>>>
>>> What *I* have told you is the truth.
>>
>> Your position is if someone says something, in your case the "someone"
>> being Glasser, it's true. I'm just extending that 'logic' to include
>> "others". Any reason why that shouldn't work?
>
> My off-Usenet relationship with Snit leads me to believe that he's had
> difficulty defending himself from you. You appear to attack him at every
> opportunity.

Carroll stays vague and does not even hint at what he thinks might be lies. He
simply wants to be seen as a victim.

Meanwhile here are some of his posts.

<aceb70f7-26f7-4c44-9e8b-5d37333303f7@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
<4aba2245-a0e9-408e-a837-fd05fa49228b@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
<ddcd50e2-74a5-4ed5-89ba-cb73a9bce3b3@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>

I am sure if you read his last ten posts you will see absurd attacks against
me. Even when I do not read his posts he cannot stop himself -- going back to
2004.

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

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

On Mar 16, 2022 at 1:27:27 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
<QKrYJ.61934$fGj4.60842@fx04.ams1>:

> On 16/03/2022 19:45, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>>>
>>>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>>>
>>>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>>>
>>> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>>
>> He can 'emphasize' all day long, what he can't do is show why it should
>> bother him without his being what we all know he is (aside from his
>> being a patholgical liar), a hypocrite.
>
> He didn't say he was "bothered". As I see it, he was supporting me.
> It's almost exactly four years since I quit 'drinking'.
> The 21st March is the anniversary date.

What we see here is Carroll cannot understand why derogatory attacks against
someone are wrong, even when completely unsupported. Carroll sides with the
bullies and those who troll.

>>> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>>
>> Not according to YOUR logic: If someone says it, it's true.
>
> What *I* have told you is the truth.

No reason to doubt that -- but notice where Carroll works to speak FOR you.
You have never said, suggested, hinted, or implied what Carroll tries to
attribute to you. He cannot quote you doing so. It is only with his "pretzel
logic" he could even try to defend his nonsense. And he will NEVER let it go.
He will insist, contrary to all reason and logic, he is right about YOUR
views, and you must be wrong about them.

>
>>> It would be good if folk like you, Steve, asked to see evidence of
>>> Wolffan's claims.
>>
>> Hey, I'm merely following your lead made in pursuance of you 'defending'
>> your 'friend'. You never asked Snit for "evidence" of all the many false
>> claims he's made about me, remember? And you've repeatedly stated he's
>> never lied to you (that you're aware of, to hear you tell it) remember?
>> Do that math <shrug>.
>
> I'm unaware of any lies he has told about you. I've never reviewed your
> past history in any depth but I have seen you trying to harass Snit here
> in ACW. Why not just let it go and forgive him for any past behaviour.
> You would feel so much better if you did so.

I just posted three messages from Carroll that back my noting he threatened
to, and carried out, his contacting of one of my employers. How would I prove
he also contacted co-worker and neighbors and more? Share their emails? Not
gonna happen. Carroll just wants me to help him find who has shared his
attacks with me.

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

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

On Mar 16, 2022 at 2:32:54 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
<bIsYJ.831958$9Y33.176690@fx06.ams1>:

> On 16/03/2022 21:20, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 16/03/2022 20:33, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 16/03/2022 19:45, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>>>>>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He can 'emphasize' all day long, what he can't do is show why it should
>>>>>> bother him without his being what we all know he is (aside from his
>>>>>> being a patholgical liar), a hypocrite.
>>>>>
>>>>> He didn't say he was "bothered".
>>>>
>>>> He "bothered" to respond.
>>>>
>>>>> As I see it, he was supporting me.
>>>>
>>>> I see a hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>>> It's almost exactly four years since I quit 'drinking'.
>>>>> The 21st March is the anniversary date.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not according to YOUR logic: If someone says it, it's true.
>>>>>
>>>>> What *I* have told you is the truth.
>>>>
>>>> Your position is if someone says something, in your case the "someone"
>>>> being Glasser, it's true. I'm just extending that 'logic' to include
>>>> "others". Any reason why that shouldn't work?
>>>
>>> My off-Usenet relationship with Snit leads me to believe that he's had
>>> difficulty defending himself from you.
>>
>> There's a simple explanation for that and we all know what it is, the
>> 'r' word (IOW, it's not *me* he has a difficult time with).
>
> You DO appear, to me, to be a VERY difficult individual.
>
>> Glasser likes having "off-Usenet" relationships with people from usenet
>> newsgroups for one reason, and that reason is tied to what I just
>> alluded to. You're not the first useful idiot he's tried to paint
>> alternate versions of 'truth' for... but the 'r' word eventually kicks
>> in (FWIW, you still have a ways to go to break the record).
>
> I hope I have helped Snit in some small way.
>
>>> You appear to attack him at every opportunity.
>>
>> Stop buying in to his projection bullsh*t. My alleged "attacks"
>> challenge his ridiculous lies and blatant hypocrisy. Why do you think he
>> has me kf'd? Because even he knows he can't address what I post to him
>> so he finds fools like you to do it based on 'sympathy'

I have "addressed" your insane attacks, your doxxing, your contacting of my
employers and co-workers and family and more, etc. for years -- off and on. It
does not stop you and you do not ever admit to wrong doing. Even in the last
24 hours I have seen where you have been quoted admitting you cannot imagine
why it would bother folks to have derogatory and unsupported attacks posted in
a public forum. You actively back those who bully and troll. You are not
interested in a conversation in good faith -- you merely want to be seen as a
victim even as you lash out with false attacks since 2004. And you BEG me
repeatedly to engage more directly and more frequently with you... you think
you are entitled to more of my time and energy. You are not. I did give you
FAR more than I should have, no doubt... and now you are addicted and looking
for your next "fix".

This fits with you personality where you have repeatedly, for years, spoken of
substance abuse of various types. You project these issues onto others, but as
with most of your attacks, you almost surely are just seeing others as you
are.

>> and they fail
>> for the same reason they always have: the 'r' word. Like death, the 'r'
>> word always looms.

> //EtreCheckPro is frequently recommended on internet discussion forums
> such as Apple Support Communities. Apple Support Communities, although
> hosted by Apple, Inc. is a public internet discussion forum like any
> other. The people providing technical support on Apple Support
> Communities are *usually not Apple, Inc. employees*.
>
> They are other Apple, Inc. customers like yourself.
>
> Etresoft, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy of any suggestions you may
> receive on an internet discussion forum or web site. Please review Apple
> Support Communities’ Terms of Use Agreement before posting an EtreCheck
> report on Apple Support Communities. Double-check your report for any
> personal information.
>
> The Power User package, available as an in-app purchase, provides access
> to solutions for your reports using our diagnostic engine. You can
> always contact Apple Support directly or an Apple Authorized Service
> Provider. They can provide one-on-one assistance either in-person or via
> internet screen-sharing.//
>
> I've absolutely no idea what the "r word" is that you mention.

I have no clue what he means either.

>
> Are you aware that one can sign into the ASC forums using a false Apple ID?

I am now. :)

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

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

On Mar 16, 2022 at 11:02:03 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
<0001HW.27E25D9B0054A9EA70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:

> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
> (in article <tCmYJ.152034$sga6.111727@fx10.ams1>):
>
>> On 16/03/2022 12:22, Wolffan wrote:
>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>
>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>
>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one. I
>>> posted on the 14th. Today is the 16th. You replied to snit (I think) who
>>> replied to me... but did not point out any lies. You replied to Mike Easter,
>>> repeated your assertion, and still didn’t point out any lies. Gee. One
>>> wonders why this may be so.
>>
>> WTF? You *KNOW* you are a *LIAR*|- inveterate!
>
> and yet again you fsail to point out even one lie. Not even one.

You post derogatory accusations to cause harm. That is indefensible behavior.

>>
>>
>>>>> In this exchange, you are the liar and W is the truth teller.
>>>>
>>>> That's simply untrue.
>>>
>>> the truth continues to burn you, vile one
>>
>> Nope! Read here so that you may better understand:-
>>
>> https://ibb.co/f16Ln7J
>>
>> The link shows you the image wich goes with this dialogue:-
>>
>> During World War II, fighter planes would come back from battle with
>> bullet holes. The Allies found the areas that were most commonly hit by
>> enemy fire. They sought to strengthen the most commonly damaged parts of
>> the planes to reduce the number that was shot down.
>>
>> A mathematician, Abraham Wald, pointed out that perhaps there was
>> another way to look at the data. Perhaps the reason certain areas of the
>> planes weren't covered in bullet holes was that planes that were shot in
>> those areas did not return. This insight led to the armor being
>> re-enforced on the parts of the plane where there were no bullet holes.
>>
>> The story behind the data is arguably more important than the data
>> itself. Or more precisely, the reason behind why we are missing certain
>> pieces of data may be more meaningful than the data we have. Don’t only
>> listen to what is being said. *Listen more to what is not being said*.
>
> what’s not being said is you pointing out even one lie in my post. This
> would be because you can’t. You’re upset because the truth burns you.
>
> I notice that you xposted to uk.c.s.m, knowing that Mike Easter doesn’t do
> crossposts. This way he’d never reply to your post... There’sa no
> low-down dirty trick that you won’t try. You are truly the vilest of the
> vile.

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

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

On Mar 16, 2022 at 12:56:28 PM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
<0001HW.27E2786C005AF2FA70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:

> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
> (in article <dVqYJ.752082$9Y33.306352@fx06.ams1>):
>
>> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-16, Snit<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>>
>>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>>
>>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>
> snit boy, it’s my opinion that ol yellowstain chugs down the alcohol...

You post derogatory accusations to cause harm. That is indefensible behavior.
Trying to defend it by saying it is your opinion is a failure. You are still
clearly and unambiguously in the wrong.

> because if he isn’t a raging alky, he’s even more stupid than he appears
> to be. Among other points. and as you know dsamn well that you’re
> killfiled...

>>>
>>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>>
>> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>
> nope. you still haven’t shown even one lie. not even one.
>>
>>
>> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>
> so point out even one lie in the post in question, the one from the 14th. You
> can’t.
>>
>>
>> It would be good if folk like you, Steve, asked to see evidence of
>> Wolffan's claims.
>
> everything in that post was absolutely correct.
>
> you are beyond any doubt, the vilest of the vile.

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

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

On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2022 at 12:30:16 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
><dVqYJ.752082$9Y33.306352@fx06.ams1>:
>
>> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>>
>>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>>
>>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>>
>>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>>
>> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>>
>> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>>
>> It would be good if folk like you, Steve, asked to see evidence of
>> Wolffan's claims.
>
> Carroll cannot understand why derogatory attacks might be "bothersome". Sigh.
> He repeatedly reveals his lack of moral character.

Sopt projecting, it's goofy and it doesn't work on anyone.

On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2022 at 1:39:11 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
><PVrYJ.213429$TXc5.9165@fx14.ams1>:
>
>> On 16/03/2022 20:33, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 16/03/2022 19:45, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/03/2022 19:10, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 5:22:06 AM MST, "Wolffan" wrote
>>>>>>>> <0001HW.27E20DEE0041FD4D70000C97338F@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2022 Mar 16, David Brooks wrote
>>>>>>>>> (in article <BmkYJ.608143$_5r7.477288@fx09.ams1>):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU, Wolffan, are an irrelevant and inveterate *LIAR*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are mistaken, Mike. *Wolffan IS an inveterate liar*!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and yet you still cannot point out even one lie in my post. Not even one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You repeatedly lie about David drinking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if true, why would that bother YOU?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Snit is simply emphasising that *Wolffan is a LIAR*
>>>>>
>>>>> He can 'emphasize' all day long, what he can't do is show why it should
>>>>> bother him without his being what we all know he is (aside from his
>>>>> being a patholgical liar), a hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>> He didn't say he was "bothered".
>>>
>>> He "bothered" to respond.
>>>
>>>> As I see it, he was supporting me.
>>>
>>> I see a hypocrite.
>>>
>>>> It's almost exactly four years since I quit 'drinking'.
>>>> The 21st March is the anniversary date.
>>>>
>>>>>> Wolffan has made many claims about me - all untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to YOUR logic: If someone says it, it's true.
>>>>
>>>> What *I* have told you is the truth.
>>>
>>> Your position is if someone says something, in your case the "someone"
>>> being Glasser, it's true. I'm just extending that 'logic' to include
>>> "others". Any reason why that shouldn't work?
>>
>> My off-Usenet relationship with Snit leads me to believe that he's had
>> difficulty defending himself from you. You appear to attack him at every
>> opportunity.
>
> Carroll stays vague and does not even hint at what he thinks might be lies.

Vague?! People in this newsgroup and others are beyond sick of the
detail I (and many others) have gone into when talking about your lies.
This may be your goofiest 'story' yet.

On 16/03/2022 22:06, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>>> My off-Usenet relationship with Snit leads me to believe that he's had
>>>> difficulty defending himself from you.
>>>
>>> There's a simple explanation for that and we all know what it is, the
>>> 'r' word (IOW, it's not *me* he has a difficult time with).
>>
>> You DO appear, to me, to be a VERY difficult individual.
>
> For people who pretend reality isn't what it is, I'd suppose that's true.
>
>>> Glasser likes having "off-Usenet" relationships with people from usenet
>>> newsgroups for one reason, and that reason is tied to what I just
>>> alluded to. You're not the first useful idiot he's tried to paint
>>> alternate versions of 'truth' for... but the 'r' word eventually kicks
>>> in (FWIW, you still have a ways to go to break the record).
>>
>> I hope I have helped Snit in some small way.
>
> You can't help him with his main problem, only people who are qualified
> *may* be able do so. And, of them, if Glasser is to be believed, he's
> apparently fooled all of those he's been to. At least, to hear him tell
> it, he must have and this has been known for almost two decades:
>
> "Hmmmm, I do not remember pointing out any trolling by you... so what is your
> support for your claim.
>
> Please keep in mind that based on my anxiety disorder I have seen a number
> of professionals who have consistently agreed I handle the stresses of life
> better than average, am well adjusted, and am in no need of any
> psychological counseling.
>
> Ahhhh, trolls... what say you?"
>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/Xa2yL-Y4NU8/m/YRP_RD7V9M8J>
>
> The first obvious question is: Why did he see "a number of professionals"?
>
> The second (which should probably be the first): Is *any* of that true?

I've had a quick scan - but that was in 2004.

I suggest you move on and deal with thing pertinent now.

> I'm not seeing it... most of what I've *ever* seen from him are
> 'stories' in place of reality as a way of handling "the stresses of
> life" and I'm pretty sure Glasser still believes he needs no
> "psychological counseling" (at the least, he wants readers to believe
> this).
>
> Notably, even YOU said he has issues and even *he* has admitted to
> having these mental issues, he's just in denial regarding how they
> manifest.
>
> But we've all seen how they manifest, even you once (and only once that
> I ever saw) called out one of his goofy bullsh*t stories (about an
> 'English lad' being my son). Notably, it was only when YOU challenged
> the veracity of his 'story' that he softened his stance (he should've
> done more than he did but that's not his way).
>
> So you see, reality is always 'just there', and this is true no matter
> how hard or how many times you try to bang your head against it in an
> attempt to make it disappear.
>
> Does it not occur to you that many of the people on his quotes list were
> not only once his 'friends' but people with whom he had "off-Usenet"
> relationships with?

No, that has never occurred to me.

> Do you think you're special in some regard?

Yes, I do think I am special in this regard.

How about you and I have a video call to discuss matters face to face?

Clear the air, so to speak.

On Mar 16, 2022 at 3:06:50 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
<t0tn1p$59i$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:

> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>>> My off-Usenet relationship with Snit leads me to believe that he's had
>>>> difficulty defending himself from you.
>>>
>>> There's a simple explanation for that and we all know what it is, the
>>> 'r' word (IOW, it's not *me* he has a difficult time with).
>>
>> You DO appear, to me, to be a VERY difficult individual.
>
> For people who pretend reality isn't what it is, I'd suppose that's true.

Gonna regret this, but back to responding to your trolling.

Notice here you play victim. It is what you do.

>
>>> Glasser likes having "off-Usenet" relationships with people from usenet
>>> newsgroups for one reason, and that reason is tied to what I just
>>> alluded to. You're not the first useful idiot he's tried to paint
>>> alternate versions of 'truth' for... but the 'r' word eventually kicks
>>> in (FWIW, you still have a ways to go to break the record).
>>
>> I hope I have helped Snit in some small way.
>
> You can't help him with his main problem, only people who are qualified
> *may* be able do so. And, of them, if Glasser is to be believed, he's
> apparently fooled all of those he's been to.

This is a claim you fabricated. You are speaking FOR me instead of seeking to
understand.

> At least, to hear him tell
> it, he must have and this has been known for almost two decades:
>
> "Hmmmm, I do not remember pointing out any trolling by you... so what is your
> support for your claim.
>
> Please keep in mind that based on my anxiety disorder I have seen a number
> of professionals who have consistently agreed I handle the stresses of life
> better than average, am well adjusted, and am in no need of any
> psychological counseling.
>
> Ahhhh, trolls... what say you?"
>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/Xa2yL-Y4NU8/m/YRP_RD7V9M8J>
>
> The first obvious question is: Why did he see "a number of professionals"?

You just quoted the fact I speak of an "anxiety disorder". I have that, tied
to an atypical form of dysautonomia / POTS. You have mocked me relentlessly
for years over having these health challenges. You try to shame people over
seeking appropriate treatment over such challenges.

This shows your lack of character, and lack of honesty.

Also notice you do not answer the question about your speaking of gays with
kids as "parasites". It is just one example of your extreme bigotry. Your only
"defense" is to point out where, year ago, I do what I do -- gave you the
benefit of doubt. I was in error to do so, as you have proved time and time
again since then.

> The second (which should probably be the first): Is *any* of that true?

You assume others are as dishonest as you. Noted.

> I'm not seeing it... most of what I've *ever* seen from him are
> 'stories' in place of reality as a way of handling "the stresses of
> life" and I'm pretty sure Glasser still believes he needs no
> "psychological counseling" (at the least, he wants readers to believe
> this).

There is nothing wrong with seeing a counselor. You should to get help with
your obvious challenges. But for you seeking help is seen as wrong and a
weakness. And it shows. You will likely never get the help you obviously need.

> Notably, even YOU said he has issues and even *he* has admitted to
> having these mental issues, he's just in denial regarding how they
> manifest.

This is you pushing derogatory attacks based on your own issues. You see
nothing wrong with that.

> But we've all seen how they manifest,

Vague insult and attack... again based on your own issues.

> even you once (and only once that
> I ever saw) called out one of his goofy bullsh*t stories (about an
> 'English lad' being my son). Notably, it was only when YOU challenged
> the veracity of his 'story' that he softened his stance (he should've
> done more than he did but that's not his way).

Do you deny you have a som who goes by Ryan Sullivan?

> So you see, reality is always 'just there', and this is true no matter
> how hard or how many times you try to bang your head against it in an
> attempt to make it disappear.
>
> Does it not occur to you that many of the people on his quotes list were
> not only once his 'friends' but people with whom he had "off-Usenet"
> relationships with? Do you think you're special in some regard?

Your quote list is merely a sign of how you cannot actually quote me doing as
you accuse, but instead you point to an obsessively scavenged and forged lists
of quotes. It is a testament to your failure to actually show me doing as you
accuse. Meanwhile it is trivial to show you speaking of harassing my employer.

<aceb70f7-26f7-4c44-9e8b-5d37333303f7@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
<4aba2245-a0e9-408e-a837-fd05fa49228b@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
<ddcd50e2-74a5-4ed5-89ba-cb73a9bce3b3@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>

Of course there has been MUCH more quoted from you... including the above I
just quoted. You repeatedly demonstrate your lack of morals.

--
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.