linuxiac
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:38:27 -0800, Steve Carroll wrote:

Steve Carroll
On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 9:31:10 AM UTC-7, Snit (using his Barry H sock puppet ) wrote:

Barry H (Snit)
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:23:26 -0500, Slimer wrote:

Slimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256

On 2015-12-19 5:18 AM, Sandman wrote:

Sandman
In article <D299E365.6764E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:

Snit
[1176] ... You snipped most of the key content

Sandman
[X] Obfuscation (http://tinyurl.com/ot32axl) [X] Ignoring evidence (http://tinyurl.com/nz5x39v) [X] Projection (http://tinyurl.com/nr52vt4) [X] Lying (http://tinyurl.com/ncvfhl2)

30 Snit: 0

Here is what you're running from:

I'll try to be more clear. This is your claim:

Snit 12/15/2015 09:05:33 PM <D295C09D.67140%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

"The comment is not from anyone in my family..."

"The comment" was a comment on a web page that was made by this profile account:

Snit
A claim you make with no support. You will neither support it nor rescind it, going against your own claim that you will do so. In other words you are breaking your word.

Sandman
I already did, remember?

<>

Note the link in the status bar.

Snit
The ease at forging that would be trivial.

Sandman
Maybe, but remember - this is how I found your wife's FB page, via this comment.

Snit
I challenge you to back this claim.

Sandman
What claim? That this is how I found your wife's FB page? Certainly. I know you think that by removing the comment, you removed every trace of her involvement on that page. If you visit that page now, there is no comment by Anne Glasser, going there and searching for the text "Anne Glasser" shows no hits.

Fortunately, since the FB plugin is asynchronous, it behaves differently when google indexes it, so if you search for "Anne Glasser" on that site on google:

<https://www.google.com/search?&q=anne+glasser+site:dcourier.com>

The second hit is that very page, and that's there for the sole reason that that comment page looked like this:

<>

I saved the google result as screenshot since at some point, google will re- index this page and the second hit will disappear since you have removed the comment. At this point, you will obviously claim that the evidence is invalid:

<>

Regardless, it isn't forged,

Snit
I challenge you to back this claim?

Sandman
Sorry, that was a response to your implication that it was forged. Not until you provide substantiation that it is forged would I have need to disprove it. Since you cannot provide such substantiation, I needn't disprove it.

and I have sufficiently substantiated that the comment came from your wife. If you want to disprove my substantiation, be my guest, but merely claiming it is forged are just empty words.

So, proof of my claim: provided Proof of your lie:

Snit 12/15/2015 09:05:33 PM <D295C09D.67140%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

"The comment is not from anyone in my family..."

Substantiated.

Your fully "quotable" lie still substantiated.

Snit
Which are you going to do with this claim? The answer: neither. You will simply break your word. You will lie. It is what you do.

Sandman
Another lie from Snit.

Here's the lie of yours I have quoted and proven:

Snit 12/15/2015 09:05:33 PM <D295C09D.67140%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

"The comment is not from anyone in my family..."

Snit
So there is evidence you forged the image. OK. Fine...

Sandman
Where is your evidence of forgery? Oh, right. Nowhere.

This is your problem - I make claims and I can support them. In response, all you have are empty meaningless words.

The thing is, you are free to disagree or dislike the proof to your hearts content, but it is proof, and unless you can actually disprove it, your disagreement with it means absolutely nothing.

Snit
Comes down to you have an image to "back" your words, and your words to "back" your image...

Sandman
Not at all. I knew you wife's name before this comment of hers was made public, but that's about it. I have no need to find anything out about your private life.

And ironically, had you not lied about it this time, I wouldn't have made the effort to expose your lie and thus learn more about your private life.

Your lies have made your wife's personal life more exposed on USENET than it had had you not lied.

Again, had you been honest and honorable, your first response to this thread would have been "So what?" and that's it, nothing more would have happened. You wouldn't have had a need to remove your wife's comment, no need to deny the onslaught of evidence you lied, no need for this "argument" at all.

You chose this, which is a pity.

Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09):

linuxiac
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Slimer
- ---

troll 48 | lying/lie 131 | incest

2

Sandman
sex 0 | honorable 6 | honest 18 run

5 | css 6 | tilde 0

Slimer
It's funny how Snit Jar Jar Glasser lying imbecile and Prescott Rodent believes that the sudden disappearance of a comment Anne Glasser made on a Facebook page is NOT proof that it is his wife's page. Most people don't remove their Facebook comments, especially if they're not in any way controversial, unless someone points out that it is used against them somehow. In this case, because that comment made Snit Jar Jar Glasser lying imbecile and Prescott Rodent look bad (as if that wasn't already possible), it was removed in an effort to delete the evidence. The very fact that it is suddenly no longer there makes it damned clear that "Anne Glasser" is not a fake page created by Steve Carroll.

Barry H (Snit)
Poor logic on your end. What if Carroll removed it just for the very reason that people would wrongly assume it was snit removing it?

Steve Carroll
That's rich, considering the "logic" used to connect involvement to me is based on another paranoid delusion you're having. You're projecting the kinds of action your diseased mind would take onto me. It's *clearly* your wife's account, jackass... but feel free to show how I got the people (i.e. your brother, sister in law, Paula Lee Bright, etc.) which are FB friended to that account to do so... people who only have *one* version of Anne Glasser in their friend lists. How does that work, genius?

Sorry, people aren't as stupid as you need them to be, they just aren't. Put another way, you're dumb as a doorknob and the sooner you learn that the sooner you'll stop looking like you do now. You should've listened the other day:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/

linuxiac
comp.os.linux.advocacy/6Sfn53Y-bT4/DudYno4mCAAJ>

Steve Carroll
That I recall, when someone first pointed to your wife's FB account awhile back there were a bunch of photos of the kids, etc. That poor woman can't get *any* sense of normalcy because you're a juvenile jackass! You obviously tried to hide and/or remove all the content but you didn't get it all. Because I knew you'd remove it, here's a screenshot taken on Dec. 17, 2015... shown solely as evidence that counters your delusion, in other words, *you* put it here with your BS:

<http://imgur.com/CzegBFp>

What's next? You'll project another diseased mind trait of yours onto me and claim that I faked this photo? Did Sandman fake his photo, too? How does it work in your diseased mind?

linuxiac
Here is Anne Glasser on Google Images. Search images for Anne Glasser +wickaboo.

https://www.google.com/search?q=anne+glasser% 2Bwickaboo&biw=1440&bih=611&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjv-4_7 wejJAhUJHx4KHadZAgQQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=bPQ56zWgHi9_kM %3A

Now visit the page and like magic it's the same person you have in your picture.

https://plus.google.com/117713249022923895514

So now Sandman or you have managed to fake snit's Wickaboo Daycare site as well?

Give up snit Michael Glasser, this seals your coffin and truly exposes you as the slimeball, dishonest liar you are.