Tim Adams wrote:
Snit wrote:
Tim Adams stated:
Snit wrote:
Tim Adams stated:

Your video didn't show anything but icon view.

The first video - sure. Steve merely said it could not be done.

and I'm sure you can provide a link where he says 'it can't be done'
sometime next year.

His exact words were "but you can only do one app at a time this way".

So you LIED when you claimed he said 'it could not be done'. Thanks for
clearing that up.

99- Peter Kohlmann (cola): "Snot Glasser is invading this group with his
inane drivel, so he has to bear what people think about that dishonest
retard. And just for the record: You *are* a Glasser sock" 30 Jan 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....166f6fda92641b

And, below, you just snip and make things up. Boring.

Removed your added BS. Your 'facts' don't agree with google, but then,
if you couldread, you'd already know that.

42- -hh (to Snit): 'Perversion has utterly nothing to do with the
definition of "synonymous". It is, however, a very clear example of how
you attempt to maliciously debase against anyone who disagrees with you.
As such, I consider this to be a purposeful attempt by you to try to libel
me. This is your only warning to consider rescinding your remark, with
the reminder that you, and you alone are responsible for that accusation,
both in the ethical as well as the full legal meaning of the word
"responsible".' 25 Feb 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....96641a3426293a

I proved him wrong.

Only AFTER he pointed out how it was done - NOT before. IOW, he proved
YOU wrong, and you were still calling it 'an Apple Bug'. Something it
never was!

See:

Yes, I see your lies don't agree with reality.

When he changed his mind and decided it could be done in icon view
but not the other views, I proved him wrong there, too.

http://goo.gl/beyx

But since Steve was right about a quirk in doing so in some views, he
insisted the video did not show him how to do it. Even though I show
him the hot keys and everything.

You 'showed him' AFTER he pointed out to you how it was done. Why
don't you at least try and get your facts right once?

And you made that up, too.

Sorry to say, your 'facts' don't agree with google. IOW you're the one
making it up. More babbling by the trolling idiot michael glasser
snipped

RonB: (COLA): "Why do you bother responding to Snit? He makes no point, he
simply gainsays whatever you say. Just another version of Hadron's 'you're
a liar' mantra, which is about all he can muster nowadays." 27 May 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....9210dd877d7aa0

--
HPT

On Nov 26, 5:45*pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

I have explained both the bug and your error many times, Steve.

Said Snit as he used yet another sock puppet, this time for the
purpose of pretending it's mine so he doesn't have to break his vow to
not talk to me directly (yes Snit, your games are *that* obvious).
Maybe you'll grow up next year.

wow, I have used multiple
terms, Steve's head will spin!).

No, I'm well used to your tautologies and the confusion only you have
over them.

The fact

.... that you called the same thing different names, one of them being
"user error" is documented in the google archive, as I have repeatedly
shown.

There is *a* way that you can copy
multiple aliases in icon view that does not work in the other views,
but there is also *a* way (or maybe more) that works in all of the
views.

So you finally wrapped your head around this concept... good for you.

You are very proud you found an inconsistency in how the views work.

I am honest that I found an inconsistency using the "way" that I
mentioned, you know, the same "way" that you initially agreed was
inconsistent (and are still agreeing), despite also labeling it as
"user error".

Steve, initially, was wrong about there not being a way

But *I didn't say there wasn't "a way", I specifically said that he
couldn't do it "this way" (the "way" I was doing it at the time).

Just when you appeared to be making your "way" forward too... such a
shame. LOL!

Your "defense

I don't need a "defense" from your delusions, Snit... no one ever did.

Reality check from google... (again): "...but you can only do one app
at a time this way. Even so, thirty apps shouldn't take too long to
do, even this way." - Steve Carroll

"this way" - Steve Carroll
"even this way" - Steve Carroll

Notably, not *a single one of your videos
showed you trying to do it the "way" I said it couldn't be done.

The videos show the correct way. *

LOL! Now we have yet another "way" thrown into the mix by you.

You seem to forget that the google archive shows me talking about me
accomplishing this another "way" and it worked just fine. How do you
know the "way" you are referencing here is the "correct way"?

Poor Steve: cannot deal with the fact he was wrong.

Your claims that I was "wrong" and that a "bug" or an "inconsistency"
are the same thing as "user error" have no support. Restating the
claims ad infinitum don't make them real... no matter how much glue
you've sniffed

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:45 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

I have explained both the bug and your error many times, Steve.

Said Snit as he used yet another sock puppet, this time for the
purpose of pretending it's mine so he doesn't have to break his vow to
not talk to me directly (yes Snit, your games are *that* obvious).
Maybe you'll grow up next year.

wow, I have used multiple
terms, Steve's head will spin!).

No, I'm well used to your tautologies and the confusion only you
have over them.

The fact

... that you called the same thing different names, one of them being
"user error" is documented in the google archive, as I have repeatedly
shown.

There is *a* way that you can copy
multiple aliases in icon view that does not work in the other
views, but there is also *a* way (or maybe more) that works in
all of the views.

So you finally wrapped your head around this concept... good for
you.

You are very proud you found an inconsistency in how the views work.

I am honest that I found an inconsistency using the "way" that I
mentioned, you know, the same "way" that you initially agreed was
inconsistent (and are still agreeing), despite also labeling it as
"user error".

Steve, initially, was wrong about there not being a way

But I didn't say there wasn't "a way", I specifically said that he
couldn't do it "this way" (the "way" I was doing it at the time).

Just when you appeared to be making your "way" forward too... such
a shame. LOL!

Your "defense

I don't need a "defense" from your delusions, Snit... no one ever did.

Reality check from google... (again): "...but you can only do one app
at a time this way. Even so, thirty apps shouldn't take too long to
do, even this way." - Steve Carroll

"this way" - Steve Carroll
"even this way" - Steve Carroll

Notably, not a single one of your videos
showed you trying to do it the "way" I said it couldn't be done.

The videos show the correct way.

LOL! Now we have yet another "way" thrown into the mix by you.

You seem to forget that the google archive shows me talking about me
accomplishing this another "way" and it worked just fine. How do you
know the "way" you are referencing here is the "correct way"?

Poor Steve: cannot deal with the fact he was wrong.

Your claims that I was "wrong" and that a "bug" or an "inconsistency"
are the same thing as "user error" have no support. Restating the
claims ad infinitum don't make them real... no matter how much glue
you've sniffed

LOL!

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 7:28 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:45 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

I have explained both the bug and your error many times, Steve.

Said Snit as he used yet another sock puppet, this time for the
purpose of pretending it's mine so he doesn't have to break his vow to
not talk to me directly (yes Snit, your games are *that* obvious).
Maybe you'll grow up next year.

One: that has nothing to do with the topic - your confusion over how Apple
can have an inconsistency *and* how you can fail to know how to do
something. It is not like this is a complex concept, but it is one you are
showing no sign of understanding. Oh well. Not like I expect better of you
or think you will actually gain understanding and *admit* to it. Just as
you will never admit I showed you how to make multiple aliases, despite the
video proof, you will never admit you understand this simple concept even if
you someday do.

Two: I *am* replying to you directly. It is not like you are even using a
different Usenet client for your socks. Just interesting to see how
desperate you will get. And you get very, very desperate.


wow, I have used multiple
terms, Steve's head will spin!).

No, I'm well used to your tautologies and the confusion only you
have over them.

The fact I used different (though accurate) terms is confusing you. Oh
well.

... that you called the same thing different names, one of them being
"user error" is documented in the google archive, as I have repeatedly
shown.

As I note, above, the fact there can be an Apple bug *and* you can not know
how to do something is *not* something you will admit. You will trust, lie,
call me names, and play your other games as you show off how ignorant you
are. It makes you happy to do so. I hope.


There is *a* way that you can copy
multiple aliases in icon view that does not work in the other
views, but there is also *a* way (or maybe more) that works in
all of the views.

So you finally wrapped your head around this concept... good for
you.

You are very proud you found an inconsistency in how the views work.
Lovely. You earn a gold star.

I am honest that I found an inconsistency using the "way" that I
mentioned, you know, the same "way" that you initially agreed was
inconsistent (and are still agreeing), despite also labeling it as
"user error".

Nope. But you are proving me right *again* about how confusing a *simple*
concept is to you: there is both an inconsistency *and* you were clearly
ignorant of how to do something (as even you admitted... you pretended to
get an email that explained how to do what I had already showed you).

Steve, initially, was wrong about there not being a way

But I didn't say there wasn't "a way", I specifically said that he
couldn't do it "this way" (the "way" I was doing it at the time).

Just when you appeared to be making your "way" forward too... such
a shame. LOL!

Your "defense" is you were not denying it could be done. Which is clearly a
lie. You are lying, Steve.

I don't need a "defense" from your delusions, Snit... no one ever did.

Reality check from google... (again): "...but you can only do one app
at a time this way. Even so, thirty apps shouldn't take too long to
do, even this way." - Steve Carroll

"this way" - Steve Carroll
"even this way" - Steve Carroll

See: you are using the very defense I noted you were. And you snipped. You
are pretending to have denied it could be done. You are lying. It is not
like this is complex.

Notably, not a single one of your videos
showed you trying to do it the "way" I said it couldn't be done.

And you did this several hours after I showed you. Yippee... several
*hours* after being shown the above videos you figured out how to do what
you were shown.

And you are proud. Good. You get a second gold star.

LOL! Now we have yet another "way" thrown into the mix by you.

Nope. I showed one way... the way that works. I showed that one way
working in both icon view and another view.

You seem to forget that the google archive shows me talking about me
accomplishing this another "way" and it worked just fine. How do you
know the "way" you are referencing here is the "correct way"?

You claimed the way you were talking about did not work. You even repeat
that, above. You cannot keep your story consistent in the same post, no
less over time. You are lying. Or stupid. I do not care which.

The videos show the correct way. The last one, in particular, shows your
comments and then shows why they are wrong.

Poor Steve: cannot deal with the fact he was wrong.

Your claims that I was "wrong" and that a "bug" or an "inconsistency"
are the same thing as "user error" have no support. Restating the
claims ad infinitum don't make them real... no matter how much glue
you've sniffed

LOL!

See: you repeat your same nonsense. If you post again with the type
snipping and lying you did in this post you will *not* get my attention
again. Even if you do as you did here and resend the exact same message
with a sock.

And since you are a desperate little troll just begging for my attention,
perhaps that will get you to actually quote in a more honest way. Maybe
not. Your dishonesty is so deeply ingrained in you that you simply might
not be able to stop yourself.

This whole "debate" is stupid. You did not know how to do something, you
were shown how, from this you learned but based on an inconsistency in OS X
you did not think it would work in other views, you were shown you were
wrong there too... and then you learned you could do it in the other views
even though the inconsistency exists.

There is no reason this needs to be a debate. There is no reason for you to
be so angry. Just accept you are learning and that learning is not a reason
for your obvious embarrassment - you should be happy you are learning. There
is no shame in it. And, of note, I never mocked you for not knowing - I
did, however, note your lies and your other poor behavior. Your learning I
commend.



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 26, 7:48*pm, Snit wrote:

One: that has nothing to do with the topic

Your sock puppets never did have anything to do with the topic. So why
do you keep using them?

"this way" - Steve Carroll
"even this way" - Steve Carroll

See:

I "see" that I used the google archive to prove I used the term "this
way"... despite you trying to pretend I didn't or that it didn't
specifically reference a certain "way".


LOL! Now we have yet another "way" thrown into the mix by you.

Nope. *I showed one way... the way that works.

So, if a "way" happens to be one that "works" it's the "correct" way.
That is what you just argued. Fine... then I pointed to a "correct"
way, too.

You claimed the way you were talking about did not work.

Incorrect: I didn't just *claim* it, I got you to agree with it as you
labeled it 3 different things.

There is no reason this needs to be a debate.

I agree, especially being that you admitted I found an
"inconsistency". But that's you...generally found arguing 'stupid
debates' based on personalities.

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:48 pm, Snit wrote:

One: that has nothing to do with the topic

Your sock puppets never did have anything to do with the topic. So why
do you keep using them?

"this way" - Steve Carroll
"even this way" - Steve Carroll

See:

I "see" that I used the google archive to prove I used the term "this
way"... despite you trying to pretend I didn't or that it didn't
specifically reference a certain "way".


LOL! Now we have yet another "way" thrown into the mix by you.

Nope. I showed one way... the way that works.

So, if a "way" happens to be one that "works" it's the "correct" way.
That is what you just argued. Fine... then I pointed to a "correct"
way, too.

You claimed the way you were talking about did not work.

Incorrect: I didn't just *claim* it, I got you to agree with it as you
labeled it 3 different things.

There is no reason this needs to be a debate.

I agree, especially being that you admitted I found an
"inconsistency". But that's you...generally found arguing 'stupid
debates' based on personalities.

LOL!

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 8:32 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:48 pm, Snit wrote:

One: that has nothing to do with the topic

Your sock puppets never did have anything to do with the topic. So why
do you keep using them?

"this way" - Steve Carroll
"even this way" - Steve Carroll

See:

I "see" that I used the google archive to prove I used the term "this
way"... despite you trying to pretend I didn't or that it didn't
specifically reference a certain "way".


LOL! Now we have yet another "way" thrown into the mix by you.

Nope. I showed one way... the way that works.

So, if a "way" happens to be one that "works" it's the "correct" way.
That is what you just argued. Fine... then I pointed to a "correct"
way, too.

You claimed the way you were talking about did not work.

Incorrect: I didn't just *claim* it, I got you to agree with it as you
labeled it 3 different things.

There is no reason this needs to be a debate.

I agree, especially being that you admitted I found an
"inconsistency". But that's you...generally found arguing 'stupid
debates' based on personalities.

LOL!

If I keep giving you attention, Steve, how long will you continue to make an
ass out of yourself again? Remember: this is not hard - you did not know
how something was done... I showed you... you were still confused and said
it could only be done in one view... I showed you that you were wrong.
Along the way you noted an inconsistency in how something works.

And that should be that. But it is not: you insist on trolling and lying
and spewing accusations - proving your deep hatred and jealousy. It really
is that simple.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 26, 9:18*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 8:32 PM:





Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:48 pm, Snit wrote:

One: that has nothing to do with the topic

Your sock puppets never did have anything to do with the topic. So why
do you keep using them?

"this way" - Steve Carroll
"even this way" - Steve Carroll

See:

I "see" that I used the google archive to prove I used the term "this
way"... despite you trying to pretend I didn't or that it didn't
specifically reference a certain "way".

LOL! Now we have yet another "way" thrown into the mix by you.

Nope. I showed one way... the way that works.

So, if a "way" happens to be one that "works" it's the "correct" way.
That is what you just argued. Fine... then I pointed to a "correct"
way, too.

You claimed the way you were talking about did not work.

Incorrect: I didn't just *claim* it, I got you to agree with it as you
labeled it 3 different things.

There is no reason this needs to be a debate.

I agree, especially being that you admitted I found an
"inconsistency". But that's you...generally found arguing 'stupid
debates' based on personalities.

LOL!

If I keep giving you attention, Steve

There's no "if in that, Snit... you *will* give me attention, you
can't stop yourself from giving me attention

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 8:32 PM:





Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:48 pm, Snit wrote:

One: that has nothing to do with the topic

Your sock puppets never did have anything to do with the topic. So
why do you keep using them?

"this way" - Steve Carroll
"even this way" - Steve Carroll

See:

I "see" that I used the google archive to prove I used the term
"this way"... despite you trying to pretend I didn't or that it
didn't specifically reference a certain "way".

LOL! Now we have yet another "way" thrown into the mix by you.

Nope. I showed one way... the way that works.

So, if a "way" happens to be one that "works" it's the "correct"
way. That is what you just argued. Fine... then I pointed to a
"correct" way, too.

You claimed the way you were talking about did not work.

Incorrect: I didn't just *claim* it, I got you to agree with it as
you labeled it 3 different things.

There is no reason this needs to be a debate.

I agree, especially being that you admitted I found an
"inconsistency". But that's you...generally found arguing 'stupid
debates' based on personalities.

LOL!

If I keep giving you attention, Steve

There's no "if in that, Snit... you *will* give me attention, you
can't stop yourself from giving me attention

LOL! Ain't that the truth!

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch

In article ,
Snit wrote:

Tim Adams stated in post
on
11/26/10 4:01 PM:

...
You 'showed him' AFTER he pointed out to you how it was done. Why don't
you
at
least try and get your facts right once?

And you made that up, too.

Sorry to say, your 'facts' don't agree with google. IOW you're the one
making
it
up.

More babbling by the trolling idiot michael glasser snipped

--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm

And more detail

That's already been addressed. Google proves you wrong. live with it.

--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/27/10 8:11 AM:

If I keep giving you attention, Steve, how long will you continue to make an
ass out of yourself again? Remember: this is not hard - you did not know
how something was done... I showed you... you were still confused and said
it could only be done in one view... I showed you that you were wrong.
Along the way you noted an inconsistency in how something works.

And that should be that. But it is not: you insist on trolling and lying
and spewing accusations - proving your deep hatred and jealousy. It really
is that simple.

There's no "if in that, Snit... you *will* give me attention, you
can't stop yourself from giving me attention

LOL! Ain't that the truth!

Ah, Steve freaked out over his admission of not knowing how to make aliases
and the great "insult" I offered by showing him how... and now is blaming
his little break down on the fact that I respond to his socks. It is not
*his* fault he lied and freaked out... it is all *my* fault because I
respond to his socks. How dare I!

LOL!


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article ,
Snit wrote:

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 8:32 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:48 pm, Snit wrote:

One: that has nothing to do with the topic

Your sock puppets never did have anything to do with the topic. So why
do you keep using them?

"this way" - Steve Carroll
"even this way" - Steve Carroll

See:

I "see" that I used the google archive to prove I used the term "this
way"... despite you trying to pretend I didn't or that it didn't
specifically reference a certain "way".


LOL! Now we have yet another "way" thrown into the mix by you.

Nope. I showed one way... the way that works.

So, if a "way" happens to be one that "works" it's the "correct" way.
That is what you just argued. Fine... then I pointed to a "correct"
way, too.

You claimed the way you were talking about did not work.

Incorrect: I didn't just *claim* it, I got you to agree with it as you
labeled it 3 different things.

There is no reason this needs to be a debate.

I agree, especially being that you admitted I found an
"inconsistency". But that's you...generally found arguing 'stupid
debates' based on personalities.

LOL!

If I keep giving you attention, Steve, how long will you continue to make an
ass out of yourself again?

The problem with that is - Steve is proving michael glasser to be the ass! Of
course, with michael's (documented) poor reading comprehension skills, michael
still doesn't understand that simple FACT!

--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm

Tim Adams stated in post
on
11/27/10 8:22 AM:

--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm


--
"YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the name of the
hard drive only." -- Tim Adams

Tim Adams stated in post
on
11/27/10 8:23 AM:

....
And more detail for you, from a past post (not worth re-wording for you...
given how it is 100% predictable you will snip, run and lie in response to
the following):

Yes, he found a quirk (a bug, an inconsistency... wow, I have used multiple
terms, Steve's head will spin!). There is *a* way that you can copy multiple
aliases in icon view that does not work in the other views, but there is also
*a* way (or maybe more) that works in all of the views. Steve, initially, was
wrong about there not being a way... and then after he changed his mind about
that and learned there was a way in icon view, he was wrong about there not
being a way in the other views.

As you have seen... and as Steve was shown and thus, if he was not an idiot,
learned:

http://goo.gl/cd8X Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:17:27 GMT
http://goo.gl/CVc4C Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:25:30 GMT
http://goo.gl/beyx Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:39:06 GMT

The three videos that I made, each done before Steve *claimed* to finally
figure it out based on an anonymous email he got. Oh, an anonymous email
that must remain private. Tee hee. But let us say he actually got one...
which is unlikely given his history of lying, but whatever... say he got one.
So? So someone finally explained to him what he could not figure out on his
own *or* with the videos I provided him. That is right: Steve claims he was
too stupid to figure it out from the video and needed an anonymous email.

LOL!

Even when Steve tries to look clever he just ends up claiming he is an idiot.

Oh, and even more fun. The first post where Steve claimed to have gotten
this email was http://goo.gl/roRor. Oct. 14 at 6:58 PM (over 16 hours
*after* the posting of the video which he and Tim Adams claim came after
Steve's email):

-----
This person emailed me with the following text:
"Steve, When selecting the files, when you select the very last
one you want to make an alias of, select and drag it. That way you
are not de-selecting anything in the list. Works for me on an iMac
and a MBP, in icon, list and column view."
-----

But my videos, which anyone can verify, were posted *before* that. Yes. Easy
to verify... javascript:alert(document.lastModified) on the videos will work
just fine to prove it for example... and is how I got the info for above.

But, even more funny:

Steve Carroll, 5 Nov 2010
-----
BTW... there is an email but I can't divulge it unless the person
who wrote it gives me permission. See, unlike you, I don't divulge
private emails while I make a claim about being "honest and
honorable".
-----

LOL! Steve had already "divulged" the email in his past lies... he then
turns around and denies that he would ever sink to such a level.

Too damned funny! Once again, Steve piles his lies higher and higher and
they just come toppling down on him!

That's already been addressed. Google proves you wrong. live with it.

Oh, do please point to the post where the above was proved wrong (hint, if
you look hard I actually do make an error... but nobody has found it... and
the error is in a detail that does not alter the overall point I make).

--
"A non-powered hub that will only support non-powered devices. IOW,
basically useless." -- Tim Adams

Tim Adams stated in post
on
11/27/10 8:28 AM:

If I keep giving you attention, Steve, how long will you continue to make an
ass out of yourself again?

The problem with that is - Steve is proving michael glasser to be the ass!

Right - how *dare* I show Steve how to do something he claimed could not be
done. What an *ass* I was to help him learn. Man, that was just rude of
me.

LOL!

Remember: http://goo.gl/beyx

Not like it is not easy to show where Steve was wrong... but he will never
admit to it. And the fact he has humiliated himself is clear in the fact
you and Sandman are now jumping up and down trying to rescue him!

Of course, with michael's (documented) poor reading comprehension skills,
michael still doesn't understand that simple FACT!

--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]