On Mar 16, 2022 at 3:42:18 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
<eJtYJ.120085$fIV5.26278@fx12.ams1>:

> 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 am only now starting to read his posts again. Just responded to one... and
in that post he shows his poor character. He does so endlessly, and repeatedly
plays victim over my not giving him the attention he craves. Well, now I am
giving him some... and I can predict with 100% certainty he will play victim
over that, too. He will insist my noting his poor behavior as he attacks me
somehow makes me the bad guy.

>
>> 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.

Several are people Carroll accused of being my socks.

>
>> 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.

I would be happy to join that... do a three way call.

Carroll, I predict, will decline. His form of trolling depends heavily on
snipping, cutting sentences in half, etc. That does not work nearly as well in
a real time conversation.

--
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 3:39:36 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
<t0tov7$j43$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:

> 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.

I just noted YOUR behavior. In this thread. No digging back. You are the one
who asked why one would be "bothered" by derogatory attacks made in public.
The quote is still above.

I merely noted it: and you play victim. Exactly as I predicted you would.

You will get attention for a bit here... then you will go back to auto-read.
And you will play victim over that as well.

It is not like you game has changed much since 2004. My response has.

--
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 3:23:26 PM MST, "Snit" wrote
<yrtYJ.11149$zT.1897@fx27.iad>:

> 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.

I just posted comments on how Carroll's trolling is dependent on snipping
pertinent information and this is key to why he will NEVER take up David or
myself on a real-time conversation.

Carroll once again proves me right about him. And he will prove me right as he
rejects the idea of a real time conversation. It is not like his trolling is
hard to predict, at least in broad strokes.

--
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 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

.... is you trying to be an 'interpreter' AGAIN. You were obviously
"bothered" enough to 'bother' responding. See how reality is 'just
there' YET?

(snip same ol' projecting crap)

>>>> 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

Other than the fact that he also has a questionable online personality,
you mean?

> -- but notice where Carroll works to speak FOR you.

No, why don't you point it out, Mr. Interpreter.

> You have never said, suggested, hinted, or implied what Carroll tries to
> attribute to you.

Now *that* is "vague", Mr. Projector.

> 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.

If you're in reference to his view that when someone says something it
must be the truth, I *have* pointed it out and anyone who 'bothered'
following my posts on this topic is well aware of that fact.

>>>> 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.

As I never did 'carry it out', that's not possible.

> How would I prove he also contacted co-worker and neighbors and more?

You can't "prove" what never happened.

> Share their emails? Not gonna happen. Carroll just wants me to help
> him find who has shared his attacks with me.

How convenient an excuse is that? I realize it must be a tough pill to
swallow (and that has to be one *big* pill for YOU to have trouble) but
people are not as stupid as you need them to be, they just aren't. Deal
with it... and sober up.

On Mar 16, 2022 at 3:26:56 PM MST, "Snit" wrote
<QutYJ.62596$dln7.14156@fx03.iad>:

> 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.

Once again Carroll proved me right about his trolling. His style of trolling
depends on snipping sentences apart and removing context. He will NEVER give
honest answers. He will NEVER admit that harassing someone's employer with his
insane lies was wrong. He will NEVER stop playing victim. And he will keep
speaking FOR others and not listening to what they really say.

Carroll cannot see where he is wrong to speak for others as he says: "Not
according to YOUR logic: If someone says it, it's true." David never said
anything that suggested anything of the sort. There is no truth to what
Carroll says... but it furthers his trolling nonsense.

--
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:

(snip)

>>> 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.

Stop projecting. The fact is you didn't even really address when DB
called out your bullsh*t story about that English kid (I think DB
finally realized *how* far out there you actually are with that one).

(snip usual 'psych degree' BS and more lying)

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

(snip red herring/OLAS)

>> I've absolutely no idea what the "r word" is that you mention.
>
> I have no clue what he means either.

LOL!

My OLAS: Are the letters at the bottom of this post some kind of key?

--
Did not get the second to last letter in the author's last name. Other than
that, a couple false starts but not too bad.

I need to update my tool show it shows me what letters I have not already
used. Would make some of this easier.

RUCIYLVHIWOHMMOPQBETSTAFYN
--

Why don't you just write a tool in AS or use one of the online versions?

On 16/03/2022 22:48, Snit wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2022 at 3:42:18 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
> <eJtYJ.120085$fIV5.26278@fx12.ams1>:
>
>> 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 am only now starting to read his posts again. Just responded to one... and
> in that post he shows his poor character. He does so endlessly, and repeatedly
> plays victim over my not giving him the attention he craves. Well, now I am
> giving him some... and I can predict with 100% certainty he will play victim
> over that, too. He will insist my noting his poor behavior as he attacks me
> somehow makes me the bad guy.

Please don't let his comments get under your skin.

Forget the past - and start afresh. That's my advice to the pair of you!

>>> 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.
>
> Several are people Carroll accused of being my socks.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> I would be happy to join that... do a three way call.
>
> Carroll, I predict, will decline. His form of trolling depends heavily on
> snipping, cutting sentences in half, etc. That does not work nearly as well in
> a real time conversation.

I'm happy to chat to you at any mutually convenient time. :-)

On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Michael Glasser.

Climb down off that horse, fool ;)

On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2022 at 3:39:36 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
><t0tov7$j43$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> 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.
>
> I just noted YOUR behavior. In this thread. No digging back. You are the one
> who asked why one would be "bothered" by derogatory attacks made in public.

Not "one", YOU, and anyone familiar with your antics knows why.

On 2022-03-16, Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> wrote:
> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>
> ... is you trying to be an 'interpreter' AGAIN. You were obviously
> "bothered" enough to 'bother' responding. See how reality is 'just
> there' YET?
>
> (snip same ol' projecting crap)
>
>>>>> 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
>
> Other than the fact that he also has a questionable online personality,
> you mean?
>
>> -- but notice where Carroll works to speak FOR you.
>
> No, why don't you point it out, Mr. Interpreter.
>
>> You have never said, suggested, hinted, or implied what Carroll tries to
>> attribute to you.
>
> Now *that* is "vague", Mr. Projector.
>
>> 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.
>
> If you're in reference to his view that when someone says something it
> must be the truth, I *have* pointed it out and anyone who 'bothered'
> following my posts on this topic is well aware of that fact.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> As I never did 'carry it out', that's not possible.
>
>> How would I prove he also contacted co-worker and neighbors and more?
>
> You can't "prove" what never happened.
>
>> Share their emails? Not gonna happen. Carroll just wants me to help
>> him find who has shared his attacks with me.
>
> How convenient an excuse is that? I realize it must be a tough pill to
> swallow (and that has to be one *big* pill for YOU to have trouble) but
> people are not as stupid as you need them to be, they just aren't. Deal
> with it... and sober up.

Now you gone and done it.
You've triggered snit !
That's a very bad thing to do.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

On Mar 16, 2022 at 4:02:39 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
<t0tqaf$j43$4@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:

> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>>> 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.

The original text:

What you snipped:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice you largely ignore it... snipping away. You want me to play your
trolling games. I used to. Not gonna happen. You have no interest in a
conversation in good faith, at least on your clearly immoral behavior.

....

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

>> I have no clue what he means either.

> LOL!

You likely are in reference to some ancient debate or some more recent posts
of yours I have not read. And now you want to play games over it. Whatever.

>
> My OLAS: Are the letters at the bottom of this post some kind of key?
>
> --
> Did not get the second to last letter in the author's last name. Other than
> that, a couple false starts but not too bad.
>
> I need to update my tool show it shows me what letters I have not already
> used. Would make some of this easier.
>
> RUCIYLVHIWOHMMOPQBETSTAFYN
> --

Yes, it is some kind of key.

>
> Why don't you just write a tool in AS or use one of the online versions?

Why use AS when the tool I have made works quite well? The only think I would
want to add, and I might, is a list of letters I have already used.

With that said, I think your work is rather impressive. You are going

--
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, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 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 suggest you worry about your own online persona.

>> 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.

You may want to entertain the idea.

>> 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.

There's no "air" that can be 'cleared' there that can't be cleared
better here (because there's a written record of it).

On Mar 16, 2022 at 4:03:54 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
<v1uYJ.609229$_5r7.381658@fx09.ams1>:

> On 16/03/2022 22:48, Snit wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2022 at 3:42:18 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
>> <eJtYJ.120085$fIV5.26278@fx12.ams1>:
>>
>>> 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 am only now starting to read his posts again. Just responded to one... and
>> in that post he shows his poor character. He does so endlessly, and repeatedly
>> plays victim over my not giving him the attention he craves. Well, now I am
>> giving him some... and I can predict with 100% certainty he will play victim
>> over that, too. He will insist my noting his poor behavior as he attacks me
>> somehow makes me the bad guy.
>
> Please don't let his comments get under your skin.

For the most part I do not. I do not find them of value and largely do not
read them.

> Forget the past - and start afresh. That's my advice to the pair of you!
>

I have offered that time and time again. I doubt it will ever be accepted by
him.

>>>> 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.
>>
>> Several are people Carroll accused of being my socks.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I would be happy to join that... do a three way call.
>>
>> Carroll, I predict, will decline. His form of trolling depends heavily on
>> snipping, cutting sentences in half, etc. That does not work nearly as well in
>> a real time conversation.
>
> I'm happy to chat to you at any mutually convenient time. :-)

Same here.

--
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 3:34:43 PM MST, "Snit" wrote
<7CtYJ.122276$Lbb6.109124@fx45.iad>:

> 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.
>

Carroll responded by snipping much of this way and posting derogatory attacks.
The irony is amazing.

--
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 3:50:21 PM MST, "Snit" wrote
<NQtYJ.107197$4JN7.87928@fx05.iad>:

> On Mar 16, 2022 at 3:39:36 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
> <t0tov7$j43$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> 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.
>
> I just noted YOUR behavior. In this thread. No digging back. You are the one
> who asked why one would be "bothered" by derogatory attacks made in public.
> The quote is still above.
>
> I merely noted it: and you play victim. Exactly as I predicted you would.
>
> You will get attention for a bit here... then you will go back to auto-read.
> And you will play victim over that as well.
>
> It is not like you game has changed much since 2004. My response has.

Carroll did very much what I said he would. He truly cannot stop himself...
and as he engages in his snip-trolling I will response, as I see fit, with my
method to bypass it. He will play victim over this as well. Then I will grow
bored and put him back in auto-read. He will insist that is a victory for him,
even as he lies and insists I *must* be reading his posts.

His trolling is quite predictable.

--
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:

(snip)

> I am only now starting to read his posts again.

Stop that crap, it's goofy.

> Just responded to one... and
> in that post he shows his poor character. He does so endlessly, and repeatedly
> plays victim over my not giving him the attention he craves. Well, now I am
> giving him some... and I can predict with 100% certainty he will play victim
> over that, too. He will insist my noting his poor behavior as he attacks me
> somehow makes me the bad guy.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Several are people Carroll accused of being my socks.

Stop projecting, fool, that list is filled with people you have accused
of being my socks. Why aren't you responding to the post about Slimer?

On Mar 16, 2022 at 4:10:22 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
<t0tqou$j43$7@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:

> On 2022-03-16, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 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 suggest you worry about your own online persona.

Another thinly veiled online insult.

>
>>> 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.
>
> You may want to entertain the idea.

Your quote list is a testament to your own failure... you cannot show me doing
as you claim, so you point to an obsessively scavenged and forged list of
quotes, one that includes people you accused of being my socks.

In short: where I can point out your current behavior and comments and note
your lack of morals, you have to resort to such nonsense to even try to make
me seem as immoral as you are.

>
>>> 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.
>
> There's no "air" that can be 'cleared' there that can't be cleared
> better here (because there's a written record of it).

We can record the conversation. But, as predicted, you will avoid any real
time conversation where your snipping and twisting does not work as well. Your
trolling depends on you having that level of control... and you are good at
it. Would not work in real time nearly as well. You will ALWAYS avoid such
conversations. It is your right, of course, but just funny how predictable you
are with your trolling.

--
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 3:48:17 PM MST, "Snit" wrote
<ROtYJ.142833$mF2.42730@fx11.iad>:

> On Mar 16, 2022 at 3:42:18 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
> <eJtYJ.120085$fIV5.26278@fx12.ams1>:
>
>> 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 am only now starting to read his posts again. Just responded to one... and
> in that post he shows his poor character. He does so endlessly, and repeatedly
> plays victim over my not giving him the attention he craves. Well, now I am
> giving him some... and I can predict with 100% certainty he will play victim
> over that, too. He will insist my noting his poor behavior as he attacks me
> somehow makes me the bad guy.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Several are people Carroll accused of being my socks.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> I would be happy to join that... do a three way call.
>
> Carroll, I predict, will decline. His form of trolling depends heavily on
> snipping, cutting sentences in half, etc. That does not work nearly as well in
> a real time conversation.

Carroll responded with mindless attacks, avoiding actually talking about what
I noted. He also did as I predicted and showed he could not imagine me not
reading his posts.

He truly is delusional.

--
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, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
> On 2022-03-16, Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> wrote:
>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> ... is you trying to be an 'interpreter' AGAIN. You were obviously
>> "bothered" enough to 'bother' responding. See how reality is 'just
>> there' YET?
>>
>> (snip same ol' projecting crap)
>>
>>>>>> 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
>>
>> Other than the fact that he also has a questionable online personality,
>> you mean?
>>
>>> -- but notice where Carroll works to speak FOR you.
>>
>> No, why don't you point it out, Mr. Interpreter.
>>
>>> You have never said, suggested, hinted, or implied what Carroll tries to
>>> attribute to you.
>>
>> Now *that* is "vague", Mr. Projector.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> If you're in reference to his view that when someone says something it
>> must be the truth, I *have* pointed it out and anyone who 'bothered'
>> following my posts on this topic is well aware of that fact.
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> As I never did 'carry it out', that's not possible.
>>
>>> How would I prove he also contacted co-worker and neighbors and more?
>>
>> You can't "prove" what never happened.
>>
>>> Share their emails? Not gonna happen. Carroll just wants me to help
>>> him find who has shared his attacks with me.
>>
>> How convenient an excuse is that? I realize it must be a tough pill to
>> swallow (and that has to be one *big* pill for YOU to have trouble) but
>> people are not as stupid as you need them to be, they just aren't. Deal
>> with it... and sober up.
>
> Now you gone and done it.
> You've triggered snit !

LOL! Unfortunately, very early on in his life he learned that 'acting
triggered' *gets* him things, so that's how he conducts his life. The
problem is, once you're out of adolescence it no longer works (if it
even worked for that long).

On Mar 16, 2022 at 4:32:38 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
<t0ts2l$j43$9@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:

>>>
>>> How convenient an excuse is that? I realize it must be a tough pill to
>>> swallow (and that has to be one *big* pill for YOU to have trouble) but
>>> people are not as stupid as you need them to be, they just aren't. Deal
>>> with it... and sober up.
>>
>> Now you gone and done it.
>> You've triggered snit !
>
> LOL! Unfortunately, very early on in his life he learned that 'acting
> triggered' *gets* him things, so that's how he conducts his life. The
> problem is, once you're out of adolescence it no longer works (if it
> even worked for that long).

Notice where you feel the need to lash out with attacks. Do you understand
what this says about you? No. Or if you do you will never admit it.

But your attacks are FAR more about you than your targets.

--
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 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.

Nah, it's just common sense. No "professional" in their right mind would
say you "handle the stresses of life better than average", let alone a
"number" of them.

> You are speaking FOR me instead of seeking to
> understand.

Nope, I'm using simple common sense and the history or your 'story
telling'.

>> 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".

And you may actually have that, in fact, it could explain a lot of the
bizarre activity we've seen from you over the years.

>> The second (which should probably be the first): Is *any* of that true?
>
> You assume others are as dishonest as you. Noted.

There, I assumed you probably did what you had been doing all along
('story telling').

>> 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've seen "a number of" them and claim they all "have consistently
agreed" you "handle the stresses of life better than average", are "well
adjusted, and are "in no need of any psychological counseling". Making
up 'stories' isn't handling "the stresses of life" (we don't even need
to go into the "better than average" lie).

>> 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.

So why have so many noticed your antics and pointed them out to your
repeated denials?

>> But we've all seen how they manifest,
>
> Vague insult and attack... again based on your own issues.

There's nothing vague about it, many of us have gone into details over
and over.

>> 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?

<http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159898367900>
<BB90EDA3.27F09%snit@cableon.net>

<https://thefaceofmentalillness.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/the-face-of-mental-illness-1122014/>

<https://www.fasdwaterlooregion.ca/strategies-tools/sub-page-test-2/storytelling>

<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>

On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

>> My OLAS: Are the letters at the bottom of this post some kind of key?
>>
>> --
>> Did not get the second to last letter in the author's last name. Other than
>> that, a couple false starts but not too bad.
>>
>> I need to update my tool show it shows me what letters I have not already
>> used. Would make some of this easier.
>>
>> RUCIYLVHIWOHMMOPQBETSTAFYN
>> --
>
> Yes, it is some kind of key.

How does it work, why are there two M's, two O's?

>> Why don't you just write a tool in AS or use one of the online versions?
>
> Why use AS when the tool I have made works quite well?

Because you can write a much better tool using it, obviously. IMO this
would be a good project to learn JS with but I know how you feel about
that. You might reconsider, though, if you wanted to nudge your kids
towards learning a little about programming for all the benefits it
provides to one's thinking. My kids didn't like it but they're glad I
kept pushing them towards it and music (also great for the same reason).

> The only think I would
> want to add, and I might, is a list of letters I have already used.

Yeah, I thought that... as I kept adding crap to my crapcode ;)

> With that said, I think your work is rather impressive. You are going

Where?

On 2022-03-16 6:40 p.m., Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>> My OLAS: Are the letters at the bottom of this post some kind of key?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Did not get the second to last letter in the author's last name. Other than
>>> that, a couple false starts but not too bad.
>>>
>>> I need to update my tool show it shows me what letters I have not already
>>> used. Would make some of this easier.
>>>
>>> RUCIYLVHIWOHMMOPQBETSTAFYN
>>> --
>>
>> Yes, it is some kind of key.
>
> How does it work, why are there two M's, two O's?
>
>>> Why don't you just write a tool in AS or use one of the online versions?
>>
>> Why use AS when the tool I have made works quite well?
>
> Because you can write a much better tool using it, obviously. IMO this
> would be a good project to learn JS with but I know how you feel about
> that. You might reconsider, though, if you wanted to nudge your kids
> towards learning a little about programming for all the benefits it
> provides to one's thinking. My kids didn't like it but they're glad I
> kept pushing them towards it and music (also great for the same reason).
>
>> The only think I would
>> want to add, and I might, is a list of letters I have already used.
>
> Yeah, I thought that... as I kept adding crap to my crapcode ;)
>
>> With that said, I think your work is rather impressive. You are going
>
> Where?
>
is your search engine broken

On Mar 16, 2022 at 7:37:36 PM MST, "%" wrote
<O4adnXOsCIVyA6__nZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com>:

> On 2022-03-16 6:40 p.m., Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>>> My OLAS: Are the letters at the bottom of this post some kind of key?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Did not get the second to last letter in the author's last name. Other than
>>>> that, a couple false starts but not too bad.
>>>>
>>>> I need to update my tool show it shows me what letters I have not already
>>>> used. Would make some of this easier.
>>>>
>>>> RUCIYLVHIWOHMMOPQBETSTAFYN
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Yes, it is some kind of key.
>>
>> How does it work, why are there two M's, two O's?
>>
>>>> Why don't you just write a tool in AS or use one of the online versions?
>>>
>>> Why use AS when the tool I have made works quite well?
>>
>> Because you can write a much better tool using it, obviously. IMO this
>> would be a good project to learn JS with but I know how you feel about
>> that. You might reconsider, though, if you wanted to nudge your kids
>> towards learning a little about programming for all the benefits it
>> provides to one's thinking. My kids didn't like it but they're glad I
>> kept pushing them towards it and music (also great for the same reason).
>>
>>> The only think I would
>>> want to add, and I might, is a list of letters I have already used.
>>
>> Yeah, I thought that... as I kept adding crap to my crapcode ;)
>>
>>> With that said, I think your work is rather impressive. You are going
>>
>> Where?
>>
> is your search engine broken

His brain is.

--
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 6:40:14 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
<t0u3hu$rud$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:

> On 2022-03-16, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>> My OLAS: Are the letters at the bottom of this post some kind of key?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Did not get the second to last letter in the author's last name. Other than
>>> that, a couple false starts but not too bad.
>>>
>>> I need to update my tool show it shows me what letters I have not already
>>> used. Would make some of this easier.
>>>
>>> RUCIYLVHIWOHMMOPQBETSTAFYN
>>> --
>>
>> Yes, it is some kind of key.
>
> How does it work, why are there two M's, two O's?

Let's see if we can make deal: stop attacking me and lying about me non-stop
and I am happy to help explain it to you. I did already post info on it and
showed images, and maybe even videos, on how it worked (though I have done
some updates since then).

>>> Why don't you just write a tool in AS or use one of the online versions?
>>
>> Why use AS when the tool I have made works quite well?
>
> Because you can write a much better tool using it, obviously.

You have made it clear you know little if anything about the tool I use, and
you know I am a "shitty scripter", but you push the idea I should do things
how YOU want, and come to a conclusion based on your own knowledge, tastes,
and experience. I will grant that for once you "allow" for AppleScript and do
not push your favored tool (JavaScript). How grand of you.

Stop pushing your desires onto me. Stop pretending I am asking for your help.
Stop trolling and lying and trying to control. Be an adult, if you can.

> IMO this
> would be a good project to learn JS with but I know how you feel about
> that.

Ah, so you are sorta leaning toward pushing JavaScript. Oy. Yeah, your
nonsense is very predictable.

> You might reconsider, though, if you wanted to nudge your kids
> towards learning a little about programming for all the benefits it
> provides to one's thinking. My kids didn't like it but they're glad I
> kept pushing them towards it and music (also great for the same reason).

And now you are an expert on my kids, as if you know their tastes and skills
and focus. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? You are the one who has
written about how your kids bully others and copy you as they do so. You have
talked about being a stay-at-home dad who feels the need to have others watch
your kids. You do not even say if Ryan Sullivan is your son... and he almost
surely is.

Stop trying to control others.

>> The only think I would
>> want to add, and I might, is a list of letters I have already used.
>
> Yeah, I thought that... as I kept adding crap to my crapcode ;)

I was thinking you had that. If not I think the only thing you really have
with yours that might be a benefit is being able to change more than one
letter at a time, and some of the tracking. Really, though, neither of those
fit how I work on these puzzles. Mine likely works roughly as well as yours
FOR ME. Not putting you down for your tool -- as I said from what I have seen
it is impressive. Happy you are doing it. I suspected when I saw you starting
it you were doing so at least in large part so you could troll me and try to
push me to do things as you do. I was right. Your trolling is very
predictable... your obsession with me is never-ending.

>> With that said, I think your work is rather impressive. You are going
>
> Where?

I do not care, but hopefully you go there soon and leave me the hell alone. As
if. You literally CANNOT do that.

--
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.