Skip to main content
news

Re: Apple Ad debate

Snit
SubjectRe: Apple Ad debate
FromSnit
Date2006-07-05 03:30 (2006-07-04 18:30)
Message-ID<C0D06436.540A3%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Client
Newsgroupscomp.sys.mac.advocacy
FollowsSteve Carroll
FollowupsSteve Carroll (16m)

"Steve Carroll" <noone@nowhere.net>stated in post noone-3FE933.19031504072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/4/06 6:03 PM:

Steve Carroll
In article <C0D0409C.54056%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>wrote:

Snit
"Steve Carroll" <noone@nowhere.net>stated in post noone-D602DF.16474904072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 7/4/06 3:47 PM:

It's not your place to decide whether I deserve an apology from him.

Funny how Steve has done a 180 and is now saying "realistically" I *don't* own you one. At least he seems to understand that it was just a delusion of his that I did in the first place.

Steve Carroll
Not quite...

Snit
Sure, Steve... that is what happened.

Steve Carroll
In your mind... but you're picking and choosing things to create an alternate reality. "Actual" reality shows I already talked about this:

"I was just holding Snit to the same standard he tries to hold everyone else."

Snit
You asked me why I did not give him an apology,

Steve Carroll
Yes, that was *one* of the things I did... and I *also* wrote:

"I was just holding Snit to the same standard he tries to hold everyone else."

Are you beginning to see how the google record really *won't* disappear even though you desperately need it to? LOL! See... it won't let you pick and choose;)

Snit
and when asked why you thought I should you did a complete 180 and claimed I did not.

Steve Carroll
No 180s here... but I did explain the reason I wrote it... which you are fighting very hard to pretend didn't happen;)

Snit
You even specified that I should not "realistically",

Steve Carroll
Of course, the standards you use aren't realistic... they are double standards. When I said you shouldn't "realistically" owe him an apology I meant there was no *real* reason for you to apologize. Did that confuse you? I did explain why I wrote what I wrote... a thing you are dead set against reading despite quoting every other word I wrote (what? you thought I didn't notice?).

Snit
which offset it from your previous delusions.

Steve Carroll
What you are calling my "previous delusions" amount to you using double standards... a thing you are very well known for. It's one of the many reasons you are the most kill-filed person in the history of this newsgroup. Of course, there must be times where even you are coherent enough to grasp this fact. Now...retaining it for any length of time... that gets trickier for you, I'm sure.

Snit
Below you even explain what delusion you were having:

Steve Carroll
As I stated above and you prove here, you picking and choosing what I've written to fulfill your agenda. Apparently you're too stupid to realize how stupid you were for so openly admitting to it. But hey... that's what makes you ... you;)

Excellent humor, Steve! You could have improved it, though by actually trying to show what double standard you think I have. That would have been a great touch, especially if you had tried to support it - being that your attempts at support darn near always blow up in your face. Still, with all those accusation you spew, I am sure you have an example just waiting for me to ask you to post it. Right? Right? Come on, Steve, I am asking... post away!

In the end, Steve, the facts are clear:

* You asked me why I did not give NRen2k5 an apology * When asked why you thought I should give him one you did a complete 180 and claimed I should not. You even specified that I should not "realistically", which offset it from your previous delusions. * You claimed your delusion was merely you mocking some double standard I have, but for some reason you cannot find a single relevant example.

Poor Steve, the more you spew the less of a point you are able to make. Is Wally giving you lessons?

-- ? Things which are not the same are not "identical" ??Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree) ? OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)