Google| Subject | Re: Apple Ad debate |
| From | Snit |
| Date | 07/04/2006 14:26 (07/04/2006 05:26) |
| Message-ID | <C0CFACA2.53F41%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (3h & 55m) > Snit Steve Carroll (10h & 36m) |
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net>stated in post mr-E7FFCF.10491804072006@individual.net on 7/4/06 1:49 AM:
SandmanAnd you are a liar. You fit 13 / 14, as I am happy to show and you run from. Typical of you.
In article <C0CF75F2.53F1B%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>wrote:SnitSandman
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net>stated in post mr-BA5E3C.10304704072006@individual.net on 7/4/06 1:30 AM:SandmanSnit
In article <C0CF6F89.53F04%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>wrote:SandmanYeah, I noticed. He's doing a lot of "ignore facts and make up a flase summary instead" lately.Snit
Sandman fits his own trolling criteria: Unsubstantiated accusations
You will find substantiation here:
http://csma.sandman.net/pages/AntagonizingThreads
Look at Examples. They grow you know. It's only one so far, but the save-back function of the Trolling Criteria was just recently developed.
Other than proving you have an agenda, showing off your antagonizing media or whatever you call it, and otherwise proving you fit your own criteria, did you have a point you wanted to make?
You're a troll, according to the Objective Troll Criteria, and I am not.
Boy are you regretting that you REQUESTED the Troll Criteria from me.I am? What makes you say that? I *still* would like to see some sort of objective criteria. The fact that you only count one of your 13 shows you are no objective.
Again, pick two for me to support - the two you think would be hardest. What the hell are you afraid of?
As the criteria notes:Your excuses simply do not make your antagonizing not count. I *never* asked you to spew lies about me in *any* media, Sandman. Never. The fact you are doing so is a form of trolling. Period. It is also a form of trolling to spew my name all over your site. Note how I have *never* used your real name even though it is easy to find and well known. If you wanted to be called by your real name you would go by it. I respect your wishes, you spit on mine. You are a troll. Period. Hmmm, you have pointed out things that need to be added to you trolling summary. For now, this is "all" that is listed about you. And please note how not even you have found one reasoned error with it:
"t is important to note that this very list could be called "antagonizing through other media" since it points to specific people, mostly Michael, throughout the definitions. But fact is that Michael himself requested this very list of objective troll criteria, and as such - it doesn't really constitute trolling."
Sandman 1) Sandman often goes off into lying, trolling whacked out modes where he insists that his lies are not lies, even though they clearly are. He attributes his own words to others, creates contrived videos and clearly erroneous "FAQs" and tries to pass them off as truth. He will insist they are accurate no matter how many times others (and even he) prove otherwise. 2) Favorite quotes from Sandman: "I continued to be the biggest troll in the group during tyhe time period in question. Lying, failing to support my accusations, obfuscating. You name it, I did it." "I think it's the right move to snip out all the facts you can't face." 3) Sandman flamed me about my web skills and claimed he knew I was not teaching a web class, but when asked he was not able to even point to a single web site I had designed, no less a relevant one I had done for a customer! He also back pedaled and ran when offered to be shown conclusive proof of the classes I teach. I looked at his site: <http://www.sandman.net>, posted info on clear flaws and suggestions for improvement, and Sandman then changed his site to accommodate my suggestions, including altering the contrast, the white space, making both the HTML and CSS validate (both had some pretty severe errors), etc. Instead of thanking me for my assistance, Sandman lied about having changed his site *even after* I pointed out that the Google cache proved he had done so. He went so far as to lie and say I only had suggested getting his HTML to validate. Sandman offered no explanation for the "magic" change; in other word he did not admit he lied. In the end, Sandman trolled me and I, being the honest and honorable person I am, *still* helped Sandman to better his web skills. For more info on this, see: <http://snipurl.com/Sandman_Lie2>and <http://snurl.com/Web_Design_Facts>. 4) Sandman claimed that Dreamweaver, the number one professional web design tool, with a command of 80% or so of the market, is used only by beginners. He did this to try to belittle my use of the tool I use and teach but ended up just showing off his ignorance. 5) When someone else pointed out a problem they were having with technology, Sandman claimed to "debunk" *their* experience based on a contrived video he posted. He stated: Your "experience" is totally debunked with my video clips. I have proven you utterly wrong, face it and move on. When Sandman had a problem, though, and someone else did not, Sandman did not stay consistent. He did not accept his claims had been "debunked". For more info on this, see: <http://snipurl.com/s6f7>.
-- ? As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse ? If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality") ? One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
07/02/2006-
