Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 24, 10:16 am, Snit wrote:
Sandman stated in post
on 11/24/10 8:51 AM:





In article
,
Steve Carroll wrote:

which doesn't change the fact that your retarded interpretation
of the statements above is... well, still retarded.. :P

What's with the personal attacks, ed? Come on, you stated that you
"absolutely" disagreed with a two-part statement without any
further information. Elaborate guesswork was required by the
reader of your statement.

If you think aforementioned guesswork was too elaborate, that's
your prerogative, but I fail to see how that would warrant such
attacks and dismissal to the guessers ability to maintain a
conversation.

Be easy now, ed is one of the few good trolls we have left, we
don't want to drive him off

Hmmm... I think this brings up an advocacy ng discussion point.
What is the difference between a 'good' troll and a 'bad' one? We
all obviously have a well rounded idea of what a 'bad' troll does.
We all sorta know what a 'good' troll looks like but, if we had to
define it, what's the criteria for drawing that fine line? IOW,
what are the actions that stand right on the edge? I think this is
trickier to answer than it first appears...

I think you have to separate "good vs. bad" from "effective vs.
ineffective". I.e. some trolls may be effective in sheer number of
replies but be really bad at trolling so that most of those replies
are just people that point out how wrong that troller is in his
initial setup. Trolls like zara, Tom Elam and Muahman fit in this
category. They are really really bad trolls that count replies as
the only metric of success.

I would not say that is you, but it might be Steve. When people do
not reply to his trolling he has been known to post his "crickets
chirping" and other similar BS in a desperate attempt to get
responses.

When one analyzes the "people" I have used the term with a very clear
picture develops.


A good troll may not be very effective in the long run. Daniel
Johnsson is a pretty good troll. He pours out a lot of
misinformation, lies and misconceptions about more technical issues
that may look legit to the casual observer, but turns out to be
pure fantasy 9 times of 10.

This is neither you nor Steve. You actually seem rather technically
competent (though you are loath to admit your weaknesses); Carroll,
while he sometimes heads this way (such as his BS about Mac problems
which were clearly made up) tends to just spew nonsense and nit
picks.

Is this a reason why it's Sandman you've chosen to target with your
"professional" jealousy?


A very good troll is someone that is actually correct from time to
time. And someone who manages to keep up the steam in a thread by
continuously inserting new material, not by flaming it's
participants (mostly)

That is more of what you do - you post a lot of good info, but then
lie through your teeth and then lash out at those who point out your
lies. If they do it "too much" then you start making dishonest web
pages about them.

Minus the providing a lot of good info bit you just described what you
did on this ng before he ever did it. That he took your lead should
have been expected by you, after all. you were the one who essentially
asked him to do what he eventually ended up doing. Of course, the
difference between his implementation and yours is that his is focuses
on trolls in general, you targeted specific people with the intention
of antagonizing them. It's ironic and hypocritical of you to whine
about this for these reasons.


To a casual observer you might even seem to *believe* your lies,
given how you often do make valid points on other topics.
Interesting to see how you recognize this and label your own actions
as those of a "very good troll".

I think Edwin is a good troll (his current sock puppet is a bit lame
though) and of course, the mother of all trolls is Snit. Both are
good AND effective trolls.

I respond to trolls (such as you and Steve) - which is not the same
thing as being a troll.

So how do you account for the fact that virtually everyone you've come
into contact with in this ng has labeled you a liar, troll or worse,
yet, few of them, relatively speaking, (relative to you) have labeled
Jonas or I in similar fashion?

But part of your trolling is to obfuscate facts by calling
others what you are... but you sorta blew it this time by noting
your own actions, above.

I ask the same question here I just asked. Of course you can't answer
it here, either.

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 5:35 PM:

A good troll may not be very effective in the long run. Daniel
Johnsson is a pretty good troll. He pours out a lot of
misinformation, lies and misconceptions about more technical issues
that may look legit to the casual observer, but turns out to be
pure fantasy 9 times of 10.

This is neither you nor Steve. You actually seem rather technically
competent (though you are loath to admit your weaknesses); Carroll,
while he sometimes heads this way (such as his BS about Mac problems
which were clearly made up) tends to just spew nonsense and nit
picks.

Is this a reason why it's Sandman you've chosen to target with your
"professional" jealousy?

You are projecting. I have never claimed to be jealous of Sandman, you or
anyone in CSMA. Jealousy, however, is clearly one of the things that feeds
your obvious hatred of me. 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.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 26, 5:58*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 5:35 PM:

A good troll may not be very effective in the long run. Daniel
Johnsson is a pretty good troll. He pours out a lot of
misinformation, lies and misconceptions about more technical issues
that may look legit to the casual observer, but turns out to be
pure fantasy 9 times of 10.

This is neither you nor Steve. You actually seem rather technically
competent (though you are loath to admit your weaknesses); Carroll,
while he sometimes heads this way (such as his BS about Mac problems
which were clearly made up) tends to just spew nonsense and nit
picks.

Is this a reason why it's Sandman you've chosen to target with your
"professional" jealousy?

You are projecting.


Said the whining, delusional, lying hypocrite who flooded Sandman's
website and chased him around the ng for years because he's jealous of
Sandman's professional capabilities (that he'll never possess because
he's too busy spending his time trolling people on usenet). Remind me
again why over 100 posters have all labeled you a liar troll or worse.
LOL!

*I have never claimed to be jealous of Sandman

You "never" had to, it was obvious to everyone who ever read more than
7 of your posts.

Additional Hint: The scores (or is it hundreds?) of threads you've
created over the years with his name in the title were sort of a
giveaway.

, you or
anyone in CSMA. *Jealousy, however, is clearly one of the things that feeds
your obvious hatred of me.

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!

(snip Snit's attempt to bring Elizabot back into his life)

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:58 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 5:35 PM:

A good troll may not be very effective in the long run. Daniel
Johnsson is a pretty good troll. He pours out a lot of
misinformation, lies and misconceptions about more technical
issues that may look legit to the casual observer, but turns out
to be pure fantasy 9 times of 10.

This is neither you nor Steve. You actually seem rather
technically competent (though you are loath to admit your
weaknesses); Carroll, while he sometimes heads this way (such as
his BS about Mac problems which were clearly made up) tends to
just spew nonsense and nit picks.

Is this a reason why it's Sandman you've chosen to target with your
"professional" jealousy?

You are projecting.


Said the whining, delusional, lying hypocrite who flooded Sandman's
website and chased him around the ng for years because he's jealous of
Sandman's professional capabilities (that he'll never possess because
he's too busy spending his time trolling people on usenet). Remind me
again why over 100 posters have all labeled you a liar troll or worse.
LOL!

I have never claimed to be jealous of Sandman

You "never" had to, it was obvious to everyone who ever read more than
7 of your posts.

Additional Hint: The scores (or is it hundreds?) of threads you've
created over the years with his name in the title were sort of a
giveaway.

, you or
anyone in CSMA. Jealousy, however, is clearly one of the things that
feeds your obvious hatred of me.

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!

(snip Snit's attempt to bring Elizabot back into his life)

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 7:27 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:58 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 5:35 PM:

A good troll may not be very effective in the long run. Daniel
Johnsson is a pretty good troll. He pours out a lot of
misinformation, lies and misconceptions about more technical
issues that may look legit to the casual observer, but turns out
to be pure fantasy 9 times of 10.

This is neither you nor Steve. You actually seem rather
technically competent (though you are loath to admit your
weaknesses); Carroll, while he sometimes heads this way (such as
his BS about Mac problems which were clearly made up) tends to
just spew nonsense and nit picks.

Is this a reason why it's Sandman you've chosen to target with your
"professional" jealousy?

You are projecting.


Said the whining, delusional, lying hypocrite who flooded Sandman's
website and chased him around the ng for years because he's jealous of
Sandman's professional capabilities (that he'll never possess because
he's too busy spending his time trolling people on usenet). Remind me
again why over 100 posters have all labeled you a liar troll or worse.
LOL!

I have never claimed to be jealous of Sandman

You "never" had to, it was obvious to everyone who ever read more than
7 of your posts.

Additional Hint: The scores (or is it hundreds?) of threads you've
created over the years with his name in the title were sort of a
giveaway.

, you or
anyone in CSMA. Jealousy, however, is clearly one of the things that
feeds your obvious hatred of me.

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, and otherwise prove I am right about you being filled with rage,
hatred and jealousy.

It is not like you hide it.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 26, 7:31*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 7:27 PM:





Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:58 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 5:35 PM:

A good troll may not be very effective in the long run. Daniel
Johnsson is a pretty good troll. He pours out a lot of
misinformation, lies and misconceptions about more technical
issues that may look legit to the casual observer, but turns out
to be pure fantasy 9 times of 10.

This is neither you nor Steve. You actually seem rather
technically competent (though you are loath to admit your
weaknesses); Carroll, while he sometimes heads this way (such as
his BS about Mac problems which were clearly made up) tends to
just spew nonsense and nit picks.

Is this a reason why it's Sandman you've chosen to target with your
"professional" jealousy?

You are projecting.

Said the whining, delusional, lying hypocrite who flooded Sandman's
website and chased him around the ng for years because he's jealous of
Sandman's professional capabilities (that he'll never possess because
he's too busy spending his time trolling people on usenet). Remind me
again why over 100 posters have all labeled you a liar troll or worse.
LOL!

I have never claimed to be jealous of Sandman

You "never" had to, it was obvious to everyone who ever read more than
7 of your posts.

Additional Hint: The scores (or is it hundreds?) of threads you've
created over the years with his name in the title were sort of a
giveaway.

, you or
anyone in CSMA. Jealousy, however, is clearly one of the things that
feeds your obvious hatred of me.

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?

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:31 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 7:27 PM:





Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:58 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 5:35 PM:

A good troll may not be very effective in the long run. Daniel
Johnsson is a pretty good troll. He pours out a lot of
misinformation, lies and misconceptions about more technical
issues that may look legit to the casual observer, but turns
out to be pure fantasy 9 times of 10.

This is neither you nor Steve. You actually seem rather
technically competent (though you are loath to admit your
weaknesses); Carroll, while he sometimes heads this way (such
as his BS about Mac problems which were clearly made up) tends
to just spew nonsense and nit picks.

Is this a reason why it's Sandman you've chosen to target with
your "professional" jealousy?

You are projecting.

Said the whining, delusional, lying hypocrite who flooded Sandman's
website and chased him around the ng for years because he's
jealous of Sandman's professional capabilities (that he'll never
possess because he's too busy spending his time trolling people on
usenet). Remind me again why over 100 posters have all labeled you
a liar troll or worse. LOL!

I have never claimed to be jealous of Sandman

You "never" had to, it was obvious to everyone who ever read more
than 7 of your posts.

Additional Hint: The scores (or is it hundreds?) of threads you've
created over the years with his name in the title were sort of a
giveaway.

, you or
anyone in CSMA. Jealousy, however, is clearly one of the things
that feeds your obvious hatred of me.

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!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 9:12 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:31 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 7:27 PM:





Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:58 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 5:35 PM:

A good troll may not be very effective in the long run. Daniel
Johnsson is a pretty good troll. He pours out a lot of
misinformation, lies and misconceptions about more technical
issues that may look legit to the casual observer, but turns
out to be pure fantasy 9 times of 10.

This is neither you nor Steve. You actually seem rather
technically competent (though you are loath to admit your
weaknesses); Carroll, while he sometimes heads this way (such
as his BS about Mac problems which were clearly made up) tends
to just spew nonsense and nit picks.

Is this a reason why it's Sandman you've chosen to target with
your "professional" jealousy?

You are projecting.

Said the whining, delusional, lying hypocrite who flooded Sandman's
website and chased him around the ng for years because he's
jealous of Sandman's professional capabilities (that he'll never
possess because he's too busy spending his time trolling people on
usenet). Remind me again why over 100 posters have all labeled you
a liar troll or worse. LOL!

I have never claimed to be jealous of Sandman

You "never" had to, it was obvious to everyone who ever read more
than 7 of your posts.

Additional Hint: The scores (or is it hundreds?) of threads you've
created over the years with his name in the title were sort of a
giveaway.

, you or
anyone in CSMA. Jealousy, however, is clearly one of the things
that feeds your obvious hatred of me.

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!

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


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

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.


--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman wrote:

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.

That's our Snit... he has no one killfiled for one simple reason: He loves
any and all followups his posts get, regardelss of content or author. He
craves and loves the attention.

--
[tv]

President and CEO, Trollus Amongus LLC

May the forces of evil become lost and confused on the way to your house.

Tattoo Vampire wrote:
Sandman wrote:

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.

That's our Snit... he has no one killfiled for one simple reason: He
loves any and all followups his posts get, regardless of content or
author. He craves and loves the attention.

It is for this very reason among others that others and I have Snit
bozo-binned. He is a nasty ad hominem troll; that "Big Crotch on a Small
Fish" is a Michael Glasser sock is of no surprise.

Sandman did thorough research to prove Snit uses socks:

http://csma.sandman.net/pages/Michae...ew_Sock_Puppet

(If you look to the menu at the right of Sandman's webpage, it has other
articles of interest (or non-interest) of Snit's trolling methods.)

Yup, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish" follows in the footsteps of other Snit
socks such as Joel Crump, Rhino Plastee, ceed, Omar Murad Asfour, Steve
Carroll's Dog and ad nauseum. As these posters have stated:

26- Edward Stanfield: "Snit thinks the rules that apply to honest and
honorable people apply to him. That is absurd. He is the biggest liar in
Usenet history. Mackay posted the email to prove Snit was using sock
puppets and he still is. Snit can not give up his socks puppets and
shills. They are the only ones who ever support him." 28 Jan 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....52494d96d12229

99- Peter Kohlmann (COLA):
ceed: "Oh please, I have heard how stupid he is and his real name tons of
time. It's getting old."
Peter: "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

--
HPT

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.

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?

Sandman stated in post on
11/27/10 1:46 AM:

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.

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

Got it.

And 100% predictable.

All because Steve did not know how to make aliases. And then I showed him
how. Oh no!


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

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?

LOL!

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