Snit Digest: Wife denial
12/19/2015
Hello and welcome to another Snit digest. Here we will quote and document one of his latest lies - that his wife is not his wife!
So it all started with this post:
12/15/2015 Mrs. Snit bemoans her life
Dr. John Grubor <.invalid>

I simply can't do it all. Guess what that means for us? Our house is *far* from *perfect*! It means our dishes stack up, clean laundry sits either in the dryer or basket for days sometimes, and other things just don't get done. That's O.K. My kids know I love them with all my heart and that's the most important thing to me.
Poor Anne, having to clean up after kids and a child-like adult.
dcourier.com...John Grubor
Now, just to be clear, I don't condone bringing in the personal life of anyone on USENET as an argumentative point, but then again, it's not like Snit hasn't done similar things to others in the past.
Secondly, the quote in itself isn't very incriminating, John is clearly reading more into this than meets the eye. And again, not something Snit hasn't done to others, but the point is that Snit could have answered with a simple "Yeah, so what? Dishes stacks up sometimes, it happens, that's life" and be done with it, but no - not Snit. Being a pathological liar, he can't take the honest and honorable route. He needs to deny it all, because... well, I'm not sure why, like I said, ignoring or acknowledging the comment wouldn't have meant anything to him.
Anyway, he quickly removed his wife's comment, another way his wife's use of social media is being limited. And said this:
12/15/2015 Re: Mrs. Snit bemoans her life
Snit <>

The comment is not from anyone in my family... it is someone (likely Carroll though I have no proof) who is forging the name. Already reported it to Facebook... will have to see if they do anything.Snit
There it is - he is explicitly stating that "the comment" did not came from his wife, and explicitly stated that whoever made the comment was forging his wife.
The problem with this is, of course, that the comment was made using the Facebook comment plugin, meaning that one could click the profile name and end up on the persons Facebook page, which was this page: www.facebook.com...
Snit, having removed the comment, thought he had covered his tracks and now wanted to pretend that there is nothing that shows that the comment came from that FB profile. Anticipating this, I had already made a screen dump of the page in question (note the link in the status bar):
anne_comment
Which, ironically, he implied was forged, but for obvious reasons couldn't substantiate.
And there you have it, Snit in his effort to lie to try to prevent his private life being exposed on usenet led to his private life being even more exposed on usenet. Because, had he not lied about it, there would have been no need to investigate this any further.

Forging

A few days later, after having denied all the support for his lies, Snit tries another way, forging stuff to try to falsify the support. Steve Carroll is on to him early on
12/22/2015 Re: Snit removes his wife's website
Steve Carroll <> (2601:280:4300:9298:49e4:b9ca:b594:de4a)

I find it weird that 'Anne Glasser' now has a new FB account:
www.facebook.com...
Something tells me the other one:
www.facebook.com...
... will be going away soon, after her friends all connect to the new one.Steve Carrol
Now, when I clicked that new link, all I got was this:
Screenshot_2015-12-23_104548
So whatever was going on had already been closed. But someone had created the page and then closed it. But why? It is soon revealed when Snit posts with his sock puppet:
12/23/2015 Sandman and Petruzzellis (AKA Carroll) lied - proved
tmelmosfire (Snit) <> (198.50.145.72)

The real one does not say "Battle Creek, Michigan" where the false one does.
And with that claim, he posts this image:
snit_fb_forge
Which is the search function of FB. Snit is here claiming, supposedly, that the "real one" is the first hit with the smiley face, while this supposed false one is the other hit with the smiley face.
So Snit again is trying to forge things to disprove substantiated facts. The "real one" is this one: www.facebook.com... and as can be seen, it clearly states "From Battle Creek, Michigan", and if he manages to change that in the future, further damaging his wife social network presence, here's a screenshot of the profile:
anneglasser37
As you can see, Anne has on her actual FB profile stated where she is from, and that is "Battle Creek, Michigan".
What probably happened was that Snit created a similar-looking FB profile and was going to use that as proof of who was and wasn't his wife and who made that comment. But Steve caught him while doing it and he had to take a screenshot and then close the new profile and since he didn't manage to populate the new profile with convincing data, he couldn't actually screenshot it with a link to it, and data from it to support it. He could only screenshot the FB auto-completion search function and make claims based on that. It's called obfuscation and since this is all based on a lie of his, it just means he dug a deeper hole.