Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

Re-read your own comments, Steve. You call me names, accuse of
things I never did,

Are you claiming that you never flooded Sandman's site? Or that you
never authored bunches of threads with his name in the title? Are
you saying that Sandman's "evidence" that you flooded his site
isn't "strong" ? Or that the Google archive is in error when it
shows you as the author of those many threads over the years?

LOL!

Once again you realize you are wrong so you spew accusations and
insults. You cannot help but show your hatred and your jealousy.

Those were called questions, Snit.

LOL!

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

Sandman wrote:
In article ,
"Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish wrote:

Sure... I really want to be a whining, delusional, lying
hypocrite to the level you are but I just can't seem to pull if
off, LOL! You were jealous when your ex/non-ex started giving me
*unwanted* attention, and you are jealous of my greater tech
understanding and understanding of logic. It is not like you
hide this, Steve. LOL!

Re-read your own comments, Steve. You call me names, accuse of
things I never did,

Are you claiming that you never flooded Sandman's site? Or that you
never authored bunches of threads with his name in the title? Are
you saying that Sandman's "evidence" that you flooded his site isn't
"strong" ? Or that the Google archive is in error when it shows you
as the author of those many threads over the years?

LOL!

So basically, to keep up the illusion that Snit has Steve killfiled,
he has now introduced a new sock that replies with "LOL" to Steve,
which means that Snit can reply (five minutes later) to his sock
puppet and pretend he never saw the original post.

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/27/10 8:09 AM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

Re-read your own comments, Steve. You call me names, accuse of
things I never did,

Are you claiming that you never flooded Sandman's site? Or that you
never authored bunches of threads with his name in the title? Are
you saying that Sandman's "evidence" that you flooded his site
isn't "strong" ? Or that the Google archive is in error when it
shows you as the author of those many threads over the years?

LOL!

Once again you realize you are wrong so you spew accusations and
insults. You cannot help but show your hatred and your jealousy.

Those were called questions, Snit.

LOL!

So let's take the first "question". Did I flood Sandman's site... of course
not. Sandman lied and when called on his lie he posted "evidence" in the
form of a text file which would take five minutes to create. In other
words, he offered *no* evidence. But years later Steve is still backing
Sandman... even bringing it up years later. This is tit-for-tat. Now that
Steve has made a complete ass out of himself and shown how desperate he is
to get my attention (using socks, etc.), Sandman is jumping up and down to
support Carroll.

Completely transparent trolling by the two of them. And completely
predictable... this is what happens when Steve has one of his tantrums - he
is proved to be a liar and then his buddies jump in to his rescue, as Steve
supports their lies.

So the only question is who is stupid enough to fall for their obvious BS -
so far HPT and Tattoo Vampire have claimed to be that gullible as to believe
these two liars. Anyone else?


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:

Proof that Steve's BS has humiliated him - his "crew" will now jump in and
start defending him and lying for him.

I thought it was a "herd" and not a "crew".

--
[tv]

President and CEO, Trollus Amongus LLC

A crucifix? Oy vey, have you got the wrong vampire!

On Nov 27, 8:23*am, Snit wrote:

(snip)

So let's take the first "question". *Did I flood Sandman's site... of course
not.

Are people supposed to believe you didn't flood his site merely
because you say you didn't? Let's pretend Jonas never posted the
evidence that he did about you flooding his site as we ask:

If you're not to be presumed innocent up front then how should you be
considered? Presumed guilty?

Sandman lied and when called on his lie he posted "evidence" in the
form of a text file which would take five minutes to create.

What we have here is a situation where you didn't present evidence for
something you've claimed about me (being on your site for hours - you
only talked about having evidence for that), contrasted with Sandman
"actually" presenting evidence for his claim about you flooding his
site. Strangely, you expect to be believed and expect people to not
believe him. Totally hypocritical and totally absurd.


*In other words, he offered *no* evidence.

LOL! You just wrote:

"...he posted "evidence" in the form of a text file"

I looked at it the evidence... as others may have (certainly you
looked, that's how you even knew it was a text file).

*But years later Steve is still backing Sandman...

I happen to believe him over you... and I doubt I'd be the only
person in this ng to do so. You have given people a lot of "evidence"
that you are dishonest... as "evidenced" by the quotes list.

So the only question is who is stupid enough to fall for their obvious BS -

So your only "defense" that you *didn't* flood his site is your claim
that you didn't... got it.

so far HPT and Tattoo Vampire have claimed to be that gullible as to believe
these two liars. *Anyone else?

Why stop with Jonas? Why not call the entire list of people on your
quotes list "liars"? After all, they have all labeled you a liar,
troll or worse.

Cool! Another set of asshole crossposters to kill file!

"Steve Carroll" wrote in message
...
On Nov 27, 8:23 am, Snit wrote:

(snip)

So let's take the first "question". Did I flood Sandman's site... of
course
not.

Are people supposed to believe you didn't flood his site merely
because you say you didn't? Let's pretend Jonas never posted the
evidence that he did about you flooding his site as we ask:

If you're not to be presumed innocent up front then how should you be
considered? Presumed guilty?

Sandman lied and when called on his lie he posted "evidence" in the
form of a text file which would take five minutes to create.

What we have here is a situation where you didn't present evidence for
something you've claimed about me (being on your site for hours - you
only talked about having evidence for that), contrasted with Sandman
"actually" presenting evidence for his claim about you flooding his
site. Strangely, you expect to be believed and expect people to not
believe him. Totally hypocritical and totally absurd.


In other words, he offered *no* evidence.

LOL! You just wrote:

"...he posted "evidence" in the form of a text file"

I looked at it the evidence... as others may have (certainly you
looked, that's how you even knew it was a text file).

But years later Steve is still backing Sandman...

I happen to believe him over you... and I doubt I'd be the only
person in this ng to do so. You have given people a lot of "evidence"
that you are dishonest... as "evidenced" by the quotes list.

So the only question is who is stupid enough to fall for their obvious
BS -

So your only "defense" that you *didn't* flood his site is your claim
that you didn't... got it.

so far HPT and Tattoo Vampire have claimed to be that gullible as to
believe
these two liars. Anyone else?

Why stop with Jonas? Why not call the entire list of people on your
quotes list "liars"? After all, they have all labeled you a liar,
troll or worse.

cshenk stated in post on
11/27/10 12:06 PM:

Cool! Another set of asshole crossposters to kill file!

"Steve Carroll" wrote in message
...
On Nov 27, 8:23 am, Snit wrote:

(snip)

So let's take the first "question". Did I flood Sandman's site... of
course
not.

Are people supposed to believe you didn't flood his site merely
because you say you didn't?

What "people"? You? You are going to pretend to believe it even though
there is no evidence. It is just what you do, Steve: you lie.

But, of course, Sandman and his site are irrelevant to your current
humiliation: you are embarrassed that you did not know how to make multiple
aliases - I showed you - you still failed to be able to do so in any view
other than icon view - so I showed you how to do it in other views.

For most people this would not be a big deal - we all learn and we all have
things we do not know. But you were so embarrassed you freaked out, started
posted with socks *again* and then cross posted all over the place.

....
But years later Steve is still backing Sandman...

I happen to believe him over you...

You will claim to, even though the evidence shows he is a liar... even his
own site is filled with lies. But you are a liar, too. Oh well. It is not
like this will change because I call you out on your lies.



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 27, 12:26*pm, Snit wrote:


So let's take the first "question". Did I flood Sandman's site... of
course
not.

Are people supposed to believe you didn't flood his site merely
because you say you didn't?

What "people"?

Anyone reading your drivel, obviously. Do you know *anyone* that
*doesn't* believe you'd flood a website?

*You? *You are going to pretend to believe it even though
there is no evidence.

Why do you keep saying there is no evidence when you just admitted
there was evidence?

"...he posted "evidence" in the form of a text file" - Snit

You will claim to, even though the evidence shows he is a liar

Incorrect. I've seen no evidence by you that you didn't flood his
site... a thing you can't possibly produce unless you can show you
were away from a computer at the time. How do you propose to do that?

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 27, 12:26 pm, Snit wrote:


So let's take the first "question". Did I flood Sandman's site...
of course
not.

Are people supposed to believe you didn't flood his site merely
because you say you didn't?

What "people"?

Anyone reading your drivel, obviously. Do you know *anyone* that
*doesn't* believe you'd flood a website?

You? You are going to pretend to believe it even though
there is no evidence.

Why do you keep saying there is no evidence when you just admitted
there was evidence?

"...he posted "evidence" in the form of a text file" - Snit

You will claim to, even though the evidence shows he is a liar

Incorrect. I've seen no evidence by you that you didn't flood his
site... a thing you can't possibly produce unless you can show you
were away from a computer at the time. How do you propose to do that?

LOL!

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

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 27, 8:23 am, Snit wrote:

(snip)

So let's take the first "question". Did I flood Sandman's site... of
course not.

Are people supposed to believe you didn't flood his site merely
because you say you didn't? Let's pretend Jonas never posted the
evidence that he did about you flooding his site as we ask:

If you're not to be presumed innocent up front then how should you be
considered? Presumed guilty?

Sandman lied and when called on his lie he posted "evidence" in the
form of a text file which would take five minutes to create.

What we have here is a situation where you didn't present evidence for
something you've claimed about me (being on your site for hours - you
only talked about having evidence for that), contrasted with Sandman
"actually" presenting evidence for his claim about you flooding his
site. Strangely, you expect to be believed and expect people to not
believe him. Totally hypocritical and totally absurd.


In other words, he offered *no* evidence.

LOL! You just wrote:

"...he posted "evidence" in the form of a text file"

I looked at it the evidence... as others may have (certainly you
looked, that's how you even knew it was a text file).

But years later Steve is still backing Sandman...

I happen to believe him over you... and I doubt I'd be the only
person in this ng to do so. You have given people a lot of "evidence"
that you are dishonest... as "evidenced" by the quotes list.

So the only question is who is stupid enough to fall for their
obvious BS -

So your only "defense" that you *didn't* flood his site is your claim
that you didn't... got it.

so far HPT and Tattoo Vampire have claimed to be that gullible as to
believe these two liars. Anyone else?

Why stop with Jonas? Why not call the entire list of people on your
quotes list "liars"? After all, they have all labeled you a liar,
troll or worse.

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/27/10 2:33 PM:

Why stop with Jonas? Why not call the entire list of people on your
quotes list "liars"? After all, they have all labeled you a liar,
troll or worse.

LOL!

It is not a mere claim that Sandman lied - his lies are still on his site -
pages and pages of lies:

* * 1 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Gibberish
* * 2 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Css_Validation
* * 3 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Quote_Forging
* * 4 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Tilde
* * 5 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
* * 6 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet
7 http://csma.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit
8 http://csma.sandman.net/plain/ascii.php?name=Snit

Let me guess: those lies of his do not count. LOL!

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 27, 2:40*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/27/10 2:33 PM:

Why stop with Jonas? Why not call the entire list of people on your
quotes list "liars"? After all, they have all labeled you a liar,
troll or worse.

LOL!

It is not a mere claim that Sandman lied

Prove that Sandman "lied" when he supplied "evidence" that you flooded
his site.

(snip off topic delusions by a gluehead)

Staty away from open flames tonight, Snit

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 27, 2:40 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/27/10 2:33 PM:

Why stop with Jonas? Why not call the entire list of people on your
quotes list "liars"? After all, they have all labeled you a liar,
troll or worse.

LOL!

It is not a mere claim that Sandman lied

Prove that Sandman "lied" when he supplied "evidence" that you flooded
his site.

(snip off topic delusions by a gluehead)

Staty away from open flames tonight, Snit

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/27/10 3:11 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 27, 2:40 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/27/10 2:33 PM:

Why stop with Jonas? Why not call the entire list of people on your
quotes list "liars"? After all, they have all labeled you a liar,
troll or worse.

LOL!

It is not a mere claim that Sandman lied - his lies are still on his site -
pages and pages of lies:

* * 1 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Gibberish
* * 2 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Css_Validation
* * 3 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Quote_Forging
* * 4 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_Tilde
* * 5 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/PDFforgery
* * 6 http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michael_Digest_New_Sock_Puppet
7 http://csma.sandman.net/TrollScoring/Snit
8 http://csma.sandman.net/plain/ascii.php?name=Snit

Let me guess: those lies of his do not count. LOL!

Prove that Sandman "lied" when he supplied "evidence" that you flooded
his site.

LOL! I was exactly right. The fact that Sandman is a proved liar has no
bearing on Steve's need to "believe" him.

Yeah, Steve, your hatred and irrationality does not get the better of you.
LOL!


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article
,
Steve Carroll wrote:

On Nov 27, 1:46*am, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
*"Big Crotch on a Small Fish" BigCrotch@SmallFish wrote:





Sure... I really want to be a whining, delusional, lying hypocrite
to the level you are but I just can't seem to pull if off, LOL!
You were jealous when your ex/non-ex started giving me *unwanted*
attention, and you are jealous of my greater tech understanding
and understanding of logic. It is not like you hide this, Steve.
LOL!

Re-read your own comments, Steve. You call me names, accuse of
things I never did,

Are you claiming that you never flooded Sandman's site? Or that you
never authored bunches of threads with his name in the title? Are you
saying that Sandman's "evidence" that you flooded his site isn't
"strong" ? Or that the Google archive is in error when it shows you as
the author of those many threads over the years?

LOL!

So basically, to keep up the illusion that Snit has Steve killfiled,
he has now introduced a new sock that replies with "LOL" to Steve,
which means that Snit can reply (five minutes later) to his sock
puppet and pretend he never saw the original post.

Weird, isn't it?

No, it's Snit. It's fully expected.


--
Sandman[.net]