Discussion:
Snit busted - Lied about the bot
(too old to reply)
Diesel
2020-07-23 10:15:36 UTC
Permalink
This is the full version; very long. If you just want the highlights, follow these links:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.computer.workshop/CMDEeUQncxQ%5B101-125%5D

Snit attack begin:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549546800

Apd Reply:
Message-ID: <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549554500

Snit replytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549562900

My replytosnit1:
Message-ID: <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549589200

Snitreplytome1:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549601800

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549611800

SnitreplytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549619400

FtrReplyaboutit:
Message-ID: <rc7uo0$hl$***@gioia.aioe.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549632500

MyreplytoSnit:
Message-ID: <***@HHBBpXUm053.y616suD5Ccbu.g32pu7d>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549651200

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rcbqfm$pj4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549668500

SnitreplytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549677200

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rccv08$qch$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549688000

Snit replytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549701200

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rce2o7$1000$***@gioia.aioe.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549710300

SnitreplytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549720200
https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.computer.workshop/CMDEeUQncxQ/XaZcVP9yBQAJ

ApdReplytoSnit:
Message-ID: <rcfmha$rjs$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549737900

Begin full version dump:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.computer.workshop/CMDEeUQncxQ%5B101-125%5D


Snit attack begin:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549546800

X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2c45:: with SMTP id s66mr10997923wms.40.1591921810744;
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: ***@googlegroups.com
Received: by 2002:adf:db45:: with SMTP id f5ls2158269wrj.0.gmail; Thu, 11 Jun
2020 17:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4a04:: with SMTP id m4mr13135659wrq.153.1591921810330;
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Path: nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:30:07 -0700
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com>
<qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
<rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net nfF7QIw6ZAHvEs1A2R1JmQr4nlMhgI+C7cnErDKdmHsNY14mUg
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PzHjQVCGXiyqS3/JCw5H4tPWWtg=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
In-Reply-To: <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
When did I 'snip and run' with you?
Last week.
"Whatever the difference you still do the same things".
What I meant by "do" is "accuse each other of"
And I explained that I don't merely accuse. In large part,
I do what you just said to Snit in a previous post, I'll
confront his BS (unsupported) allegations. If you've been
reading, you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some code
other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK. Maybe I missed
the context -- but if so then what code did he mean. He never says. That
shoots down his own argument.

So we are left with he and I thinking the other made a mistake. I have
accepted that he may have just gotten confused or whatever and does not
really have access to Carroll's code (though it is interesting how
Carroll updated the code after buddy-ing up to a programmer, that does
not mean it is proved). So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping
Carroll I rescind that.

Additionally I have quoted where Diesel first said I had said I could
decode things other than hex, and then when he denies he said this.
Diesel clearly made an error. Whatever.

I do not demand that Diesel agree with me. I can disagree with someone
and still be civil, and not demand an apology. We all make mistakes. I
simply cannot see why it matters so much to Diesel.
as I said earlier in
the thread. I thought that would be clear but obviously not. That may
have irked you enough to ignore the majority of my comments or was
there another reason?
It wasn't totally clear to me but I may ignore stuff if
I feel it's going to have to prompt me to explain things
to you that I know we'll disagree on, just no point.
Ok. I don't want to continue arguing so I'll try to explain again.
If you feel I've hidden something or I'm being less than
truthful, I've not seen you indicate that to this point.
I don't think that. In another thread you said this about what you've
posted: "much that you've dismissed or ignored as evidence".
I explained some of that in my post you snipped.
Also, in your snipped reply, when you said by making the "do the same
things" statement I had to ignore him being a forger, troll, sock to
say that, I agree it would be the case in a comparison to you without
stating which things. The things in question and in common were
certain accusations you both make of each other, that's all.
I make them by showing current events -- not pulling things out of
context from 2004. :)
However, earlier in that thread you said my unwillingness to
recognize Snit's fight with reality was "part and parcel of giving him
cover". I don't understand that and dispute it. I'm not trying to
judge, excuse or take sides with either of you.
And I appreciate that. Again, I need not agree with you to be civil with
you, or even to appreciate you do seem to at least try to be fair
minded. I respect you.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.


Apd reply 1:
Message-ID: <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549554500


X-Received: by 2002:adf:f707:: with SMTP id r7mr15071118wrp.390.1591956791140;
Fri, 12 Jun 2020 03:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: ***@googlegroups.com
Received: by 2002:a1c:2885:: with SMTP id o127ls1602905wmo.0.canary-gmail;
Fri, 12 Jun 2020 03:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2e47:: with SMTP id u68mr12953288wmu.45.1591956790980;
Fri, 12 Jun 2020 03:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!37.252.120.71.MISMATCH!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Apd" <***@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:11:58 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com> <qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com> <rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com> <rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com> <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:13:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3639ceb8f4806389b56a251fadb61e16";
logging-data="32634"; mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8xKK9PAGrR3a764oIRyEF"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sVSJ3Z5dKhXzq+t1IINM12nBhc0=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some code
other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK. Maybe I missed
the context -- but if so then what code did he mean. He never says. That
shoots down his own argument.
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece of
software. He said as much.
[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.
You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that.
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so
much to Diesel.
None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.
I'm not trying to judge, excuse or take sides with either of you.
And I appreciate that. Again, I need not agree with you to be civil with
you, or even to appreciate you do seem to at least try to be fair
minded. I respect you.
It's the bitchiness or nastiness we can do without. I can understand
it now and again but we get nowhere when discussions degenerate into a
slanging match..


Snit reply1:

Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549562900

Path: ...!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 03:25:58 -0700
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com> <qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com> <rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com> <rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com> <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net Nfa4zQdZmg1kTlA4giFveA5SKnaDxN41dbVXvIYHv3q4YOFrKR
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cgQIGykPJ0i/VbY/5qrP3Pz1GHM=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
In-Reply-To: <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3686
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some code
other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK. Maybe I missed
the context -- but if so then what code did he mean. He never says. That
shoots down his own argument.
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece of
software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's Usenet
flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.
You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that.
I believe I have noted that.
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so
much to Diesel.
None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.
Sure. But some of us handle it quite well. For example I am not gonna
cry and whine and throw a fit over Diesel doing so to me.
I'm not trying to judge, excuse or take sides with either of you.
And I appreciate that. Again, I need not agree with you to be civil with
you, or even to appreciate you do seem to at least try to be fair
minded. I respect you.
It's the bitchiness or nastiness we can do without. I can understand
it now and again but we get nowhere when discussions degenerate into a
slanging match..
Hence why I have suggested we both just move forward in peace and not
demand either says they agree with the other. I do not approve of
demanding he lie any more than I approve of him making such demands of
me. It is simply a fact I do not agree with him -- him saying I must
pretend to for him to move forward is, to me, just him being silly.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

My replytosnit1:
Message-ID: <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549589200

Path: ...!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Diesel <***@haph.org>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 22:47:43 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com> <qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com> <rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com> <rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com> <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 22:47:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5cdb1fd4303afd3dc3e5274e9a057c43";
logging-data="23389"; mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8naWvpeOOqQN57/TKasRv5+2PjMJAKpw="
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BfjUjtTQNFIw9ofa54nQmrtEeLw=
Bytes: 4485
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some
code other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK.
Maybe I missed the context -- but if so then what code did he
mean. He never says. That shoots down his own argument.
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.
You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that.
I believe I have noted that.
Where? And what do you mean by If? Are you having memory recall
issues or something?
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters
so much to Diesel.
None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.
Sure. But some of us handle it quite well. For example I am not
gonna cry and whine and throw a fit over Diesel doing so to me.
You really *didn't* get what Apd meant, Snit. He was agreeing with me
when he stated that nobody likes to be accused of doing what we
aren't. You wrongly accused me, Snit.
I'm not trying to judge, excuse or take sides with either of
you.
And I appreciate that. Again, I need not agree with you to be
civil with you, or even to appreciate you do seem to at least
try to be fair minded. I respect you.
It's the bitchiness or nastiness we can do without. I can
understand it now and again but we get nowhere when discussions
degenerate into a slanging match..
Hence why I have suggested we both just move forward in peace and
not demand either says they agree with the other.
I don't need you to agree with me, I'm simply asking for you to do
the right thing and apologize for wrongly accusing me of having
anything to do with the usenet flood bot, or protecting it's owner(s)
as you claimed I'd done.
demands of me. It is simply a fact I do not agree with him -- him
saying I must pretend to for him to move forward is, to me, just
him being silly.
The only fact that's been established is that you lied about my
involvement with the bot, and haven't been able to apologize for
having done so. Instead, you're attempting to focus attention on
other things.
--
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.

Snitreplytome1:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549601800

Path: ...!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: 15 Jun 2020 00:24:49 GMT
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com> <qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com> <rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com> <rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com> <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net nDZIDM6wm+mzg9ytSVhyUAMyGj9Zl48yQndONUDvNX5wzqedmO
Cancel-Lock: sha1:a0t/5gefL4UQF1hkskYGO6G6w84= sha1:0XmVp8F6SExsPgEUoQIUtHEzFkg=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Bytes: 5524
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some
code other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK.
Maybe I missed the context -- but if so then what code did he
mean. He never says. That shoots down his own argument.
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll’s flood
bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.
You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that.
I believe I have noted that.
Where? And what do you mean by If? Are you having memory recall
issues or something?
I keep telling you it is merely a gift to you that I pay ANY attention to
this nonsense. I do not share your obsession. I am not demanding apologies
or even acknowledgment of your errors.
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters
so much to Diesel.
None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.
Sure. But some of us handle it quite well. For example I am not
gonna cry and whine and throw a fit over Diesel doing so to me.
You really *didn't* get what Apd meant, Snit. He was agreeing with me
when he stated that nobody likes to be accused of doing what we
aren't. You wrongly accused me, Snit.
You missed how I am not throwing a fit over your incorrect accusations.

Frankly I am more mature than that.
I'm not trying to judge, excuse or take sides with either of
you.
And I appreciate that. Again, I need not agree with you to be
civil with you, or even to appreciate you do seem to at least
try to be fair minded. I respect you.
It's the bitchiness or nastiness we can do without. I can
understand it now and again but we get nowhere when discussions
degenerate into a slanging match..
Hence why I have suggested we both just move forward in peace and
not demand either says they agree with the other.
I don't need you to agree with me, I'm simply asking for you to do
the right thing and apologize for wrongly accusing me of having
anything to do with the usenet flood bot, or protecting it's owner(s)
as you claimed I'd done.
I need not agree but if I don’t then I should lie and pretend otherwise.
Oy. Nope. I want peace but will not give in and lie to you to get it.
demands of me. It is simply a fact I do not agree with him -- him
saying I must pretend to for him to move forward is, to me, just
him being silly.
The only fact that's been established is that you lied about my
involvement with the bot, and haven't been able to apologize for
having done so. Instead, you're attempting to focus attention on
other things.
I will not demand you apologize for those lies but I will not pretend you
are being even close to accurate. To do so I would have to lie. Remember I
will not lie for you, nor to get the peace I want.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549611800

Path: ...!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Apd" <***@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:20:02 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com> <qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com> <rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com> <rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com> <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4> <***@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:21:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="87a26e7c0d56f1303e9c395def1c7157";
logging-data="10980"; mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2bMNVnCFGoR++EkUuHWIA"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZWhPvbFOXsbi5oJr4Mj6QJlrhKQ=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Bytes: 2833
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.

For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our
run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has no access
to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the accusation and thus
he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd still believe he has no
access because of what he's been writing about the thing. If I were a
gambling man I'd place a very large bet on him having no involvement.


SnitreplytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549619400

X-Received: by 2002:a1c:cc0d:: with SMTP id h13mr13940123wmb.168.1592224657711;
Mon, 15 Jun 2020 05:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: ...!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: 15 Jun 2020 12:37:36 GMT
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com>
<qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1>
<rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<***@mid.individual.net>
<rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<***@mid.individual.net>
<rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<***@mid.individual.net>
<***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4>
<***@mid.individual.net>
<rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net Z2SQefzWoBZ6kLpVaBx6LQ3qPh9vMi/Qm3bfcWDIKyGJuuc14i
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ppD/ZNtoRVX8Dobj34l03/dK8cY= sha1:ZxXWvy3sLXJ9ddTbSw2jREcXyJA=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Bytes: 3805
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our
run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has no access
to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the accusation and thus
he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd still believe he has no
access because of what he's been writing about the thing. If I were a
gambling man I'd place a very large bet on him having no involvement.
I think he just misunderstood and changed the topic. As he did with my
decoding hex.

But I can disagree with him and be civil. I can disagree with you and be
civil. I can disagree with David and be civil.

I wish Diesel could disagree and be civil.

None of these past disagreements mean anything to me. I sincerely could not
care less. I grant Diesel a gift when I respond to what he cares about and
I do not.

Yet it only seems to anger him more. I find that odd. I am thinking it is
best to ignore his focus on this. Let him have his tantrum without me, but
still respond to him on other tipis where we might have shared interests.

I hope that works for him.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

FtrReplyaboutit:
Message-ID: <rc7uo0$hl$***@gioia.aioe.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549632500

Path: ...!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.uzoreto.com!aioe.org!.POSTED.GSY+PKRX5UxGJ0aTc+npdw.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: FromTheRafters <***@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:57:20 -0400
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <rc7uo0$hl$***@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com> <qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com> <rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com> <rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com> <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4> <***@mid.individual.net> <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <25305fe3-a827-4f27-ab77-***@googlegroups.com> <rc7sr4$10nn$***@gioia.aioe.org> <ecd6b41a-47c0-4af0-a840-***@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: ***@gmail.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: GSY+PKRX5UxGJ0aTc+npdw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: ***@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
X-ICQ: 1701145376
Bytes: 5355
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
You *really* believe the BS he's slinging at you now?
That it was in general doesn't mean it didn't apply
to the code in the context of the discussion, Snit is
*fully* aware of that fact. He's playing you and I
think you know it.
For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our
run-ins and disagreements,
Is that your issue here (same one you have with me)?
I believe him when he says he has no access
to the flood-bot code.
That misses the point, the question here is *why*
Snit points fingers like he does. Anyone reading
can see it's beyond the 'hard sell' stage. What
do you get by ignoring the obvious to this extent?
That's what I don't understand. You get to converse
with people who are 'nice' to you? That they are
pathologically lying pieces of sh*t is irrelevant?
Even if you'd not made the accusation
It's not *just* an accusation (in an endless stream
of them), it's unsupported and clearly made for a
purpose in a campaign to convince readers that 'Snit
is good, Diesel is bad'. There is *no* way you don't
know this, so WTF is the story here?
The story, as I see it, is that somebody is running a lame spoofer
flooder bot or whatever and others are arguing about whose it is. I
don't care, it is filtered out.
That story doesn't address the fact that Snit is doing
what we can all clearly see (even DB sees it, he's only
quiet about it because Snit 'supports' his BS). You haven't
noticed the lengths that Snit has gone to in order to keep
attention focused on the bot? Or his over the top, hard sell
that I run it? Or that he's the only person who has tried
to seek benefit from it?
I see it, but I skip most of the bot related posts because I am not
interested in such a lame program.
It is a shame that GG doesn't have the filters needed to make groups
readable and the userbase clued in enough to use them.
The level of stock filtering it has is lame, to be sure.
But most people don't use it so it's sort of a moot point,
isn't it?
Yes GG ruined USENET.
At least then,
the tactics used by the bot creator to avoid filters might be
interesting.
If you haven't noticed the above, then you've probably
missed all of Snit's efforts to extract how I filter it.
If you guys are gonna give him cover, he's gonna take it.
I refuse to believe that people can't see what he is.
That's very perceptive.

MyreplytoSnit:
Message-ID: <***@HHBBpXUm053.y616suD5Ccbu.g32pu7d>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549651200

Path: ...!news.misty.com!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Diesel <***@haph.org>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:24:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <***@HHBBpXUm053.y616suD5Ccbu.g32pu7d>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com> <qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com> <rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com> <rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com> <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4> <***@mid.individual.net> <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:24:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0bc2c2dfa6dafce1712046608a752ea2";
logging-data="7163"; mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/PrYK/UMf5WKBAA7/imuVaVqs6fCdDVds="
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bPObkXMv46pVYag9mZ8G8KGJrMY=
Bytes: 4633
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular
piece of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are
trying to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from
Carroll's flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he
can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general
was directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
Re-read the post you cherry picked a paragraph from, it's right
there!
For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had
our run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has
no access to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the
accusation and thus he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd
still believe he has no access because of what he's been writing
about the thing. If I were a gambling man I'd place a very large
bet on him having no involvement.
I think he just misunderstood and changed the topic. As he did
with my decoding hex.
Apd and myself, disagree with you. You accused me, falsely. And you
owe me an apology.
But I can disagree with him and be civil. I can disagree with you
and be civil. I can disagree with David and be civil.
I wish Diesel could disagree and be civil.
It's not a matter of disagreement, Snit. Fact of the matter is that
you falsely accused me of having things to do with the bot. You owe
me an apology for having done that.
None of these past disagreements mean anything to me. I sincerely
could not care less. I grant Diesel a gift when I respond to what
he cares about and I do not.
Wow. Whoever claims you aren't arrogant is a fucking liar. You grant
me a gift by responding do you? So what the fuck do you call posting
lies about me? Another gift?
Yet it only seems to anger him more.
ROFL, you've *never* seen me angry, Snit.
I find that odd.
You find it odd when you lie on a person that they take issue with it
and proceed to take you to task for having done it? What planet do
you live on or come from where this isn't the norm?
I hope that works for him.
Umm, what would work for me is an apology and no further lies being
written about me by you.
--
In the entire state of Ohio in 1895, there were only two cars on the
road, and they managed to crash into each other.

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rcbqfm$pj4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549668500

Path: ...!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Apd" <***@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 02:08:02 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <rcbqfm$pj4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com> <qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com> <rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com> <rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com> <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4> <***@mid.individual.net> <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 01:09:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="825cf2b1603e0e003ea15e0d4e946f69";
logging-data="26212"; mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zTDmQPDugfRrrFIVqcOCN"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oEUZ5IbrzbVfgDtHCX9L9XHNx9Y=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Bytes: 3274
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source
code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs
output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code'
example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like its
source, will reveal what the program is doing.

I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no
topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.

See Diesel's post:
<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300

SnitreplytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549677200

Path: ...!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:45:56 -0700
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com>
<qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
<rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
<rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
<***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4>
<***@mid.individual.net> <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<***@mid.individual.net> <rcbqfm$pj4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net uqSR6bWCZCQW7KQahonh0ASAGyz8sLLhfWlFG09KjfFKB2VHB0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5y0eUdInzSkbKj86wKBIkHY7vcY=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
In-Reply-To: <rcbqfm$pj4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5632
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source
code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs
output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code'
example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like its
source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not have
the executable program). That is what I think happened, too... he just
moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood bot code to
speaking about general methods even ones that were not relevant.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no
topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I was,
then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its code.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
He split things up a bit there. Here it is with more complete context:

<***@mid.individual.net>
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----

I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.

Diesel responded with (in part) -- the post you pointed to:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

Assuming Diesel did not have the executable to disassemble, he is NOT
speaking of of the topic I was: Carroll's Usenet flood bot. He has
changed the topic.

If you disagree that is fine. To me it is 100% clear. I have little if
anything to add, and I do not think anything can be added to convince me
that Diesel speaking of a different topic than the one he responded to
is not an example of a topic change.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rccv08$qch$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549688000

Path: ...!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Apd" <***@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:31:14 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <rccv08$qch$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com> <qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com> <rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com> <rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com> <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4> <***@mid.individual.net> <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rcbqfm$pj4$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:32:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="825cf2b1603e0e003ea15e0d4e946f69";
logging-data="27025"; mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2R9FJW6FkvVkgrQ8zQNnQ"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r+pPg0qiJGw7P9LNugGDpxr4AIc=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Bytes: 5673
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source
code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs
output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code'
example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like
its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not have
the executable program). That is what I think happened, too... he just
moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood bot code to
speaking about general methods even ones that were not relevant.
It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover
things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the
original source.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no
topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I was,
then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its code.
It was relevant to the topic which was not changed.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in
the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text
(yours) and more.
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----
I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be seen
in order to say if the code is up to scratch.
Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen, he
wrote:

"One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled".

Then he provided the example of not seeing the source...
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----
....which is an example of determining what the program does without
having the source code.
Assuming Diesel did not have the executable to disassemble, he is NOT
speaking of of the topic I was: Carroll's Usenet flood bot. He has
changed the topic.
The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying the
code has to be seen.

Snit replytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549701200

Path: ...!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: 17 Jun 2020 17:17:46 GMT
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com> <qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com> <rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com> <rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com> <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4> <***@mid.individual.net> <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rcbqfm$pj4$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rccv08$qch$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net hpaCUlQTuNhZmzKtx41jUwWlZlt+E49Lk4s5V6T4c4Uzr5jf5N
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BdPWZ1FedpSUUdwnxYMtI/VvbVM= sha1:ApN3Pf9MBNI4IrpGdUGq/Kb0MmE=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Bytes: 7946
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source
code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs
output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code'
example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like
its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not have
the executable program). That is what I think happened, too... he just
moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood bot code to
speaking about general methods even ones that were not relevant.
It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover
things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the
original source.
Specificity, at least in part, with having the executable to disassemble.
Sure. Diesel was quite clear on that. In reference to the bot code I did
not think he had the executable, but his comments suggested otherwise. Why
else bring up the executable in reference to Carroll’s bot?

I think he just went off topic and wanted to brag a bit about what he
thought I would not know. Now while I might not be able to disassemble code
I do understand the basic concept.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no
topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I was,
then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its code.
It was relevant to the topic which was not changed.
The topic of Carroll’s flood bot code. That was what I was speaking of.
Maybe the whole misunderstanding is he missed that? Not really that
important to me but clearly it is to him.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in
the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text
(yours) and more.
My point if he snipped my comments and that may have led to him not seeing
the context.
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----
I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be seen
in order to say if the code is up to scratch.
Close. One needs more then JUST the output for that specific code. One must
know the goals. If one does not know the goals one cannot know if the
output reaches those goals or how well or how poorly it does so.

But, sure, if you know the goals you can speak to how well it works to
match them. And if you have the code or even the executable you can learn
more. I think we all agree on that. Maybe not.

But the focus by me was solely on Carroll’s flood bot. With that we can
infer the goals:

* Google seeding
* Carroll playing victim
* Carroll trolling me
* Carroll manipulating others to argue with me
* Carroll controlling conversations and pushing discord.

I listed others elsewhere. And on those I think his bot is rather
successful. If those are the goals then it works.

If the goals are otherwise then perhaps it does not.
Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen, he
Wait: what quote where I said the code had to be seen?
"One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled".
Then he provided the example of not seeing the source...
Where he spoke of disassembling the code... with the context being in
response to me speaking of Carroll’s flood bot code.

One cannot disassemble code one does not have the executable for, as far as
I know. Maybe I am mistaken here? I doubt it.
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----
...which is an example of determining what the program does without
having the source code.
Specifically in response to Carroll’s code. And disassembly.
Assuming Diesel did not have the executable to disassemble, he is NOT
speaking of of the topic I was: Carroll's Usenet flood bot. He has
changed the topic.
The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying the
code has to be seen.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll’s bot code. Nothing else. Of course if
you have an app on your system you can do things with it.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rce2o7$1000$***@gioia.aioe.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549710300

Path: ...!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED.bb6wASuMjd0LOtbtueCHsA.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: "Apd" <***@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 22:40:26 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 171
Message-ID: <rce2o7$1000$***@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com> <qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com> <rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com> <rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com> <rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4> <***@mid.individual.net> <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rcbqfm$pj4$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net> <rccv08$qch$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bb6wASuMjd0LOtbtueCHsA.user.gioia.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: ***@aioe.org
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Priority: 3
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Bytes: 8136
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the
source code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the
program's output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-
source-code' example of how a program disassembly, despite looking
nothing like its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not
have the executable program). That is what I think happened, too...
he just moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood
bot code to speaking about general methods even ones that were not
relevant.
It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover
things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the
original source.
Specificity, at least in part, with having the executable to
disassemble. Sure. Diesel was quite clear on that. In reference to
the bot code I did not think he had the executable, but his comments
suggested otherwise.
They didn't suggest that to me. And there's no reason to think there's
an executable. It's more likely to be a script.
Why else bring up the executable in reference to Carroll's bot?
As an analysis example.
I think he just went off topic and wanted to brag a bit about what he
thought I would not know. Now while I might not be able to disassemble
code I do understand the basic concept.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was
no topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I
was, then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its
code.
It was relevant to the topic which was not changed.
The topic of Carroll's flood bot code. That was what I was speaking
of.
I know.
Maybe the whole misunderstanding is he missed that? Not really that
important to me but clearly it is to him.
I don't believe he misunderstood.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
He split things up a bit there. Here it is with more complete
You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in
the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text
(yours) and more.
My point if he snipped my comments and that may have led to him not
seeing
the context.
I saw no snippage. He commented on all you quoted and more.
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----
I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be
seen in order to say if the code is up to scratch.
Close. One needs more then JUST the output for that specific code. One
must know the goals. If one does not know the goals one cannot know if
the output reaches those goals or how well or how poorly it does so.
But, sure, if you know the goals you can speak to how well it works to
match them. And if you have the code or even the executable you can
learn more. I think we all agree on that. Maybe not.
I'll accept knowing the goal(s) is one consideration.
But the focus by me was solely on Carroll's flood bot. With that we
* Google seeding
* Carroll playing victim
* Carroll trolling me
* Carroll manipulating others to argue with me
* Carroll controlling conversations and pushing discord.
Substitute "someone" for "Carroll".
I listed others elsewhere. And on those I think his bot is rather
successful. If those are the goals then it works.
If the goals are otherwise then perhaps it does not.
Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen,
Wait: what quote where I said the code had to be seen?
The quoted text in this very post where you said:
"One has to see the code to know that".
"One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled".
Then he provided the example of not seeing the source...
Where he spoke of disassembling the code... with the context being in
response to me speaking of Carroll's flood bot code.
One cannot disassemble code one does not have the executable for, as
far as I know.
Correct. It was an example of seeing how something works without having
the original source code.
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----
...which is an example of determining what the program does without
having the source code.
Specifically in response to Carroll's code. And disassembly.
Just as an example of analysis.
The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying
the code has to be seen.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else.
Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How
well he addressed it is another matter.


SnitreplytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549720200
https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.computer.workshop/CMDEeUQncxQ/XaZcVP9yBQAJ

X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6884:: with SMTP id h4mr1510363wru.198.1592433019357;
Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: ***@googlegroups.com
Received: by 2002:adf:aace:: with SMTP id i14ls4808658wrc.3.gmail; Wed, 17 Jun
2020 15:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:adf:a350:: with SMTP id d16mr1412057wrb.237.1592433018796;
Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Path: nntp.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:30:15 -0700
Lines: 338
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
References: <b7d0b56f-9b65-4d87-9aaf-***@googlegroups.com>
<qB%DG.1030$***@fx29.ams1> <rbq7bn$61v$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<bd53a797-66d6-4a1a-9f01-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbrkmh$nlt$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
<rbt2dd$emu$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbu2t0$97l$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-***@googlegroups.com>
<rbuhnl$9r$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
<rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
<***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4>
<***@mid.individual.net> <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<***@mid.individual.net> <rcbqfm$pj4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<***@mid.individual.net> <rccv08$qch$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
<***@mid.individual.net> <rce2o7$1000$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net rV6osoMPL2vQuOLNdzYcagY+lBEXEdrnS7unEF0zzO102Hw0T2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F30n8zs3mh/zr2BLz3/SmkaV1gA=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
In-Reply-To: <rce2o7$1000$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the
source code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the
program's output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-
source-code' example of how a program disassembly, despite looking
nothing like its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not
have the executable program). That is what I think happened, too...
he just moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood
bot code to speaking about general methods even ones that were not
relevant.
It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover
things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the
original source.
Specificity, at least in part, with having the executable to
disassemble. Sure. Diesel was quite clear on that. In reference to
the bot code I did not think he had the executable, but his comments
suggested otherwise.
They didn't suggest that to me. And there's no reason to think there's
an executable. It's more likely to be a script.
I am pretty sure JavaScript can be compiled... but it is almost
certainly JavaScript based on what Carroll has shared.
Why else bring up the executable in reference to Carroll's bot?
As an analysis example.
But if the analysis does not fit the context then what is the value?
I think he just went off topic and wanted to brag a bit about what he
thought I would not know. Now while I might not be able to disassemble
code I do understand the basic concept.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was
no topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I
was, then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its
code.
It was relevant to the topic which was not changed.
The topic of Carroll's flood bot code. That was what I was speaking
of.
I know.
And Diesel went off topic to talk about code in general (which is fine)
but then code which did not include the code being discussed. That is
where I say he went off topic.

Without a huge rehash (again), I will just copy and paste a comment I
made earlier today:

-----
I spoke of specific code — Carroll’s flood bot code. I
noted without knowing the goals we cannot say how well it
is coded. We can infer goals and make guesses — and then
speculate about if there are better ways Carroll could
meet his goals.

Diesel talked about how we can also assess the code in
other ways as can be done with any code — specifically by
disassembling it. As far as I know that requires having
the executable. Maybe I am wrong about that (but I
sincerely doubt it).

He later said he did not mean to imply he had the
executable — but as far as I know he has not gone into any
other way to assess Carroll’s code other then what I have
talked about. Maybe he can do that and explain more of
what he meant in terms or the code that was being
discussed. [1]

I have acknowledged and agreed other than his comments
about disassembly, which he says he did not mean to imply
was the case with the code being referenced, I see nothing
which indicates he has the code. I had talked about how
Carroll made changes to his code during that time which
suggests he MIGHT have had outside help. I even speculated
IF he did it could be Diesel or Sandman (I would say
Sandman is more likely but still we do not have direct
evidence of that).

Anyway: A simple misunderstanding he is bent very much out
of shape about. He seeks to be offended.



[1] Or maybe he cannot. Perhaps his whole offense is
feigned to avoid speaking of how without the code or
executable he has little to add about the topic of
assessing Carroll’s code other than what I have said. I
sincerely would like to get back to that topic — but he
moved away from it as he claimed deep offense at lies he
cannot quote. Curious.
-----

Pretty much sums up my take on the whole thing. If you or others
disagree that is fine... I simply do not see the value in getting worked
up over it.

I *would* like to hear from Diesel and you and others on any RELEVANT
analysis of Carroll's bot code. What can we tell from it (I have written
some about that).
Maybe the whole misunderstanding is he missed that? Not really that
important to me but clearly it is to him.
I don't believe he misunderstood.
Fair enough. I have said my piece. We can disagree.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
He split things up a bit there. Here it is with more complete
You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in
the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text
(yours) and more.
My point if he snipped my comments and that may have led to him not
seeing
the context.
I saw no snippage. He commented on all you quoted and more.
He snipped this bit in parts (which is fine)... but in doing so when he
responded to the second part it made it seem like I might have been
talking about more than just Carroll's flood-bot code:

<***@mid.individual.net>
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.

Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----

Notice if you take the second paragraph out of context it is far less
clear I am speaking specifically of the flood bot... but in context it
is clear.

I think what happened is Diesel responded to the first paragraph and
then responded to the second... no longer really thinking in terms of
the first and the context that is set there. A minor thing. I really do
not get why he is making such a big deal out of it.

I mean I could note that this is my view of what happened (it is and I
have) and show it fits the evidence (it does, as I show above) and
insist that if you and he disagree you are lying and demand an apology
and refuse to ever speak peacefully with you or he again, especially
about this!

But, no, that would be unbelievably absurd of me to do. But it seems
that is what Diesel is doing. I just do not get the mindset.
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----
I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be
seen in order to say if the code is up to scratch.
Close. One needs more then JUST the output for that specific code. One
must know the goals. If one does not know the goals one cannot know if
the output reaches those goals or how well or how poorly it does so.
But, sure, if you know the goals you can speak to how well it works to
match them. And if you have the code or even the executable you can
learn more. I think we all agree on that. Maybe not.
I'll accept knowing the goal(s) is one consideration.
Fair enough. And I accept there can be others.

I am curious as to those other things you are thinking of... and what
speculations you can reach about the code. I have shared mine
(JavaScript as the language, goals as stated below -- with perhaps
others, etc.).
But the focus by me was solely on Carroll's flood bot. With that we
* Google seeding
* Carroll playing victim
* Carroll trolling me
* Carroll manipulating others to argue with me
* Carroll controlling conversations and pushing discord.
Substitute "someone" for "Carroll".
The person running it seems to have those goals. To me it is very clear
who is running it... but again, you can disagree and I shan't attack you
for it.

But if you agree "someone" has those goals -- fine. If you think the
goals are otherwise, that is also fine. I am curious as to what you
think the goals are and how well you think the bot meets those goals.

I think looking into that will help to point to who runs the bot. The
more people who know that, in the groups it "invades", the better off we
are in responding to that "someone" and understanding them better.
I listed others elsewhere. And on those I think his bot is rather
successful. If those are the goals then it works.
If the goals are otherwise then perhaps it does not.
Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen,
Wait: what quote where I said the code had to be seen?
"One has to see the code to know that".
Where, out of the context of the paragraph before it, it might be
applied to code other than "someone's" flood bot. But with that context
it is clear I mean just that code.

That is sorta the heart of my point. Well, a sub-point. My bigger point
is such focus on minutia and picking apart of words to see how they can
be interpreted and then trying to find blame and push accusations is, to
me, a silly endeavor.

I can say what *I*, the author of that text, meant: I was very much
thinking and writing in terms of "someone's" specific code (the flood
bot). I was not speaking in terms of code in general, and certainly not
in terms of code EXCLUDING "someone's" flood bot code. (Side note: I can
NOT say this about some much older comments of mine, or perhaps even
ones made at roughly the same time -- but I can about THIS text).

You and Diesel say you understand my meaning differently. Um, OK. I have
clarified. You can accept or reject it and I am OK with that. I hold no
ill will toward either of you for doing so. I am neither blaming you of
purposeful misinterpretation nor suggesting I worded it poorly (I do not
think I did).

It really is just a non-issue to me, the only thing turning it into an
issue is Diesel's focus on it and surrounding comments in that thread.
"One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled".
Then he provided the example of not seeing the source...
Where he spoke of disassembling the code... with the context being in
response to me speaking of Carroll's flood bot code.
One cannot disassemble code one does not have the executable for, as
far as I know.
Correct. It was an example of seeing how something works without having
the original source code.
Right. Something that does not apply UNLESS you have access to the
executable (one cannot disassemble without the assembled code, at least
as far as I know).
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----
...which is an example of determining what the program does without
having the source code.
Specifically in response to Carroll's code. And disassembly.
Just as an example of analysis.
So not tied to the topic of "someone's" flood bot. Sure. I think we are
in agreement on this.
The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying
the code has to be seen.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else.
Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How
well he addressed it is another matter.
Right: I think he has been clear he does not have the code. I accept
there is no evidence he does (if the misunderstanding I speak of above
is true, or something akin to it, his comments in relation to it are not
evidence of him having the code).

Sigh.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

ApdReplytoSnit:
Message-ID: <rcfmha$rjs$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549737900

X-Received: by 2002:adf:eacc:: with SMTP id o12mr4536472wrn.139.1592483181024;
Thu, 18 Jun 2020 05:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: ***@googlegroups.com
Received: by 2002:a5d:6507:: with SMTP id x7ls7029950wru.0.gmail; Thu, 18 Jun
2020 05:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4bcb:: with SMTP id l11mr4681723wrt.363.1592483180746;
Thu, 18 Jun 2020 05:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!weretis.net!feeder7.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Apd" <***@all.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:26:18 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <rcfmha$rjs$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
References: <***@mid.individual.net> <rce2o7$1000$***@gioia.aioe.org> <***@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:26:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4c2d7561cf7f2ea826bac3b303bc7e28";
logging-data="28284"; mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/R18WIdlPfULRjjaAOoY7R"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:efBu6H5oMrMnP0yF6tE8Uci3N9g=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
[...]
I *would* like to hear from Diesel and you and others on any RELEVANT
analysis of Carroll's bot code. What can we tell from it (I have
written some about that).
I haven't done any, other than to note the text is copied from other
posts usually with name changes, and probably wont.
I don't believe he misunderstood.
Fair enough. I have said my piece. We can disagree.
I'll leave it at that.
But if you agree "someone" has those goals -- fine. If you think the
goals are otherwise, that is also fine. I am curious as to what you
think the goals are and how well you think the bot meets those goals.
I see no point to it apart from annoying people who use Google Groups,
like Carroll does. That's something that makes you a suspect. It doesn't
really meet that goal since he is able to work around it. Most people
can't filter in GG.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else.
Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How
well he addressed it is another matter.
Right: I think he has been clear he does not have the code. I accept
there is no evidence he does (if the misunderstanding I speak of above
is true, or something akin to it, his comments in relation to it are
not evidence of him having the code).
I've snipped most of your comprehensive reply where you've explained
why the context appeared different to you and other matters. I won't
argue about it but there's enough there for Diesel to get his teeth
into if he wishes.
--
If you START to take Vienna, TAKE Vienna! --Napoleon B.
chrisv
2020-07-23 17:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel
This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)
This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to ignore
worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.

*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the
"Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince
anyone.

Pretty-much all that thing does is lie, and then claim that no one can
quote it lying. It will read an example of its lying, and immediately
ask why you can't show an example of its lying. I'm sure that it will
do so, in response to this post.

Obviously, that thing's posts are filtered, here. Occasionally, I
post examples of its lies, obtained when others have responded to it,
in my .sig.
--
"This is common in COLA... people see me as more knowledgeable than
they do most others... your actions show YOU do." - some thing,
lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
Diesel
2020-07-24 07:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Diesel
This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)
This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.
In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with
him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore
them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on
my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an
example of.
Post by chrisv
*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the
"Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince
anyone.
My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's
true:

"Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the
bot but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified
it was merely the compiled code he had"

I've asked him to provide MID(s) to the post(s) that called me out as
well as the post(s) where I clarified I merely! had the compiled code
to the usenet flood bot that's been making friends in COLA for a long
time (so i'm told) and recently introduced itself in
alt.computer.workshop, after Snit and some individuals who for
various reasons (everyone has Snit lying in common) arrived.

When Snit attempted to confuse the issue by spinning it around as a
misunderstanding of some kind on my end, that's essentially when the
thread I shared relevant contents of here began.

As you can see, I provided the MIDs, howardknight bookmark
quicklinks, as well as full message bodies. There's no denying that
other well known regulars from alt.computer.workshop called him out
Post by chrisv
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so
much to Diesel.
Apd responded with this:

None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.

*** end snippit 1
Post by chrisv
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from
Carroll's flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he
can tell me.
Apd responded to Snit (again) with this:

No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.

For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our
run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has no
access to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the accusation
and thus he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd still believe he
has no access because of what he's been writing about the thing. If
I were a gambling man I'd place a very large bet on him having no
involvement.

*** end snippit 2

As you can see, twice Apd confirms what I accused Snit of doing; that
is, to accuse me of something I did not do. Snit has been trying to
spin the entire thing into a misunderstanding on my part since I
began requesting an Apology for the lies he wrote concerning my
knowledge of, access to, and involvement with the bot.
Post by chrisv
Post by Diesel
Post by Diesel
Even if you'd not made the accusation
It's not *just* an accusation (in an endless stream
of them), it's unsupported and clearly made for a
purpose in a campaign to convince readers that 'Snit
is good, Diesel is bad'. There is *no* way you don't
know this, so WTF is the story here?
That story doesn't address the fact that Snit is doing
what we can all clearly see (even DB sees it, he's only
quiet about it because Snit 'supports' his BS). You haven't
noticed the lengths that Snit has gone to in order to keep
attention focused on the bot? Or his over the top, hard sell
that I run it? Or that he's the only person who has tried
to seek benefit from it?
FromTheRafters responded to him with this:

I see it, but I skip most of the bot related posts because I am not
interested in such a lame program.

*** end snippit 3

Once again, you can clearly see two other people have also noticed
Snit lied on me, and is attempting to whitewash it away as a
misunderstanding on my part. It's nothing of the sort. Now, you have
three people, other than myself, who agree that what Snit wrote isn't
true, it wasn't ever true. Snit did infact make a series of unfounded
accusations towards me when he wrote this:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

** end

And the thread contents I shared with this new topic all address
every single thing he wrote, in considerable detail. Snit *LIED* on
me, and I think at this point, he knew he was lying when he wrote the
shit he did! I don't even think it was a misunderstanding on his part
at this point. I believe he did it intentionally and just didn't
expect or anticipate that I'd actually come after him for it.
Post by chrisv
Obviously, that thing's posts are filtered, here. Occasionally, I
post examples of its lies, obtained when others have responded to
it, in my .sig.
I'll resume kfing him soon enough. For the time being though, I'm
going to expose a few more of his lies he likes to tell - Since he
went well out of his way to not only lie on me multiple times, but
use the lie to try and troll me on usenet; when I haven't interacted
with the illiterate piece of shite for days. He just doesn't learn to
leave people be. Atleast, not quickly.
--
'Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something' .--Pancho
Villa's last words (really!)
David_B
2020-07-24 10:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel
Post by chrisv
Post by Diesel
This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)
This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.
In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with
him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore
them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on
my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an
example of.
Post by chrisv
*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the
"Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince
anyone.
My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's
You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-(
Steve Carroll
2020-07-24 12:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_B
Post by Diesel
Post by chrisv
Post by Diesel
This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)
This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.
In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with
him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore
them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on
my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an
example of.
Post by chrisv
*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the
"Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince
anyone.
My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's
You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-(
Compared to Snit his name is gold.
Diesel
2020-07-26 20:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by David_B
Post by Diesel
Post by chrisv
Post by Diesel
This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)
This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.
In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead
of those who could warn us about him. I'd already began
interacting with him by the time the warnings were issued. I
foolishly opted to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In
hindsight, that was a mistake on my part. As the result has
turned out being what this thread is an example of.
Post by chrisv
*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that
the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to
convince anyone.
My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of
You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-(
Compared to Snit his name is gold.
Ayep. :)
--
'Your kid may be an honor student but you're still an IDIOT!'
Diesel
2020-07-24 12:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_B
Post by Diesel
Post by chrisv
Post by Diesel
This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)
This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.
In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting
with him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted
to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was
a mistake on my part. As the result has turned out being what
this thread is an example of.
Post by chrisv
*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that
the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to
convince anyone.
My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of
You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-(
Heh. When you seperate the truth from the bullshit written about me,
David, I actually have a pretty decent rep on both sides of the
fence. If you had bothered to do a little more researching of me (er,
stalking, but I digress) you wouldn't have sent the first email
trying to con me into cracking into machines you didn't own or have
permission to give me to do on your behalf.

When you told me that you thought it was perfectly okay for me to
break various federal and state laws for you, I nearly fell out of my
chair. I actually went back and read that post several times before I
actually responded to you about the contents. I was dumbfounded - to
read that you finally admitted you did try to get me to break various
laws by cracking into gear you didn't own or have any rights
whatsoever to. I didn't expect to see you do that in my entire
lifetime.

If anyone were to compare me to yourself, or even Snit for that
matter, and include all of the blackhat things I've done since I was
a single digit age kid, It would be clear of the three of us, you two
are much bigger piles of shit by comparison. You both lie and steal,
and despite the things I've done as a blackhat in the past, most
people hate liars and thieves much much moreso than they ever did a
hacker, regardless of hat color.

David, I've done some really low down, bastard things in the past.
So, that's quite a comparison for me to be making. Yet, despite all
of that, a liar and a thief are still two of the top ten hated most
kinds of people, world wide. Even a former blackhat such as myself
pales by comparison to the two of you.

Do you remember those replies of yours, David? Or were you drunk at
the time of writing them? Go ahead, claim you have no idea what I'm
writing about, you know what the response to that is going to be. <G>

You would have known that I wouldn't have done the job for you. You
would have saved yourself considerable time and embarrassment down
the road. You wouldn't have tried to dox me into doing it for you,
either. And, as a result, Your information wouldn't be anywhere near
as easy to get as it is these days. It would still be mostly, aside
from your website registrar fuckup, safe.
--
If in doubt, make it sound convincing.
David_B
2020-07-24 20:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel
David, I've done some really low down, bastard things in the past.
Yes, Dustin, you have.

The saddest thing of all, though, is that you show no remorse for doing
them. :-(
Diesel
2020-07-26 20:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_B
Post by Diesel
David, I've done some really low down, bastard things in the
past.
Yes, Dustin, you have.
The saddest thing of all, though, is that you show no remorse for
doing them. :-(
David, you're lying as poorly as snit does these days. Put some effort
into your work to snowjob people concerning me. Atleast pretend like
you care one way or the other. You know, for show if nothing else.
--
Sometimes the best medicine is to stop taking something.
Diesel
2020-07-26 20:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel
Post by David_B
Post by Diesel
Post by chrisv
Post by Diesel
This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)
This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.
In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead
of those who could warn us about him. I'd already began
interacting with him by the time the warnings were issued. I
foolishly opted to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In
hindsight, that was a mistake on my part. As the result has
turned out being what this thread is an example of.
Post by chrisv
*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that
the "Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to
convince anyone.
My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of
You don't HAVE a good name, Dustin. :-(
Heh. When you seperate the truth from the bullshit written about
me, David, I actually have a pretty decent rep on both sides of
the fence.
And yet when you showed yourself to be less than honorable you
added to the evidence by lying and insisting I was blindly
trusting David and not doing what I was -- just reading your
comments and understanding what they say about your actions.
You never did explain why you told that lie about me -- but I am
mature enough to not need you to in order to move forward in
peace.
Snit, for what it's worth, I find your desperate efforts to twist the
subject concerning your efforts to lie on me around, somewhat
amusing.

You actually think more than one? of the regulars here still trusts
anything you write at face value. I would like to take this
opportunity to tell you, with a big smile on my face, that you've
probably been in the dog house here for awhile now, and you pretty
much sealed your fate with it when you continued to play games about
the lies you wrote here:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close
to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.

I told you, didn't I.. continuing to dance around what I was asking
wasn't going to benefit you, no matter how much wiggling and flossing
of your ass cheeks you did.

It would have better far better for you to come out and meet that
head on, but you being you, opted to duck and dodge and spin instead.
It didn't work. You aren't in a newsgroup full of primarily stupid,
easily conned and otherwise gullible individuals. David Brooks is the
noted exception.
Can you imagine growing to that level of maturity? Is it something
you are interested in doing?
Snit, let's stop projecting maturity issues around. You seem to be
lacking, significantly in that dept too:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close
to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.
--
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is
that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just
borrow words. On occasion English has pursued other languages down
alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new
vocabulary." -- James Nicoll, rasfw
Gremlin
2020-08-05 01:12:43 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Diesel
Snit, for what it's worth,
Until you learn to understand what you read, there is no reason to
think your comments are worth ANYTHING other, perhaps, than a
source of amusement.
Snit, I'm not the one who's already demonstrated they have severe
reading comprehension issues. No matter how much you try and project
your shortcomings onto me, it's not going to change the facts of
life for you. You're the one who has problems understanding what you
read.

I wasn't going to continue with this nonsense, but since you want to
troll and be super dishonest as you do, I'm going to share with the
audience just how bad your reading comprehension levels actually
are:

This is what you were provided from the AZ documentation, fully
explaining the algorithm:

ENCODING IN THE AZ FORMAT EXPLAINED:


Step 1. Determine the ASCII value of the character we intend to encode

Step 2. Set A1 and A2 variables at the ascii value for A (On the IBM
platform that value is 65) Set counter to 0.

Step 3. Check to see if counter is equal to the ascii value obtained in
Step 1. if so, convert A1 and A2, each to a character. Combine
them in reverse order, as in A2 A1. This is our 2 byte encoded
"AZ" format. Write this to the output file and return to Step 1.
If the counter and the ascii value do not match, add 1 to A1. If
A1 goes past the ascii value for Z (which is 90 on IBM), reset it
to A (65 on IBM) and add 1 to A2. Add 1 to the counter and repeat
Step 3.

DECODING IN THE AZ FORMAT EXPLAINED:

Step 1. Determine the "AZ" code to process. (As in read it from a file
or a device, be sure to read in two characters :-))

Step 2. Set A1 and A2 variables at the ascii value for A (On the IBM
platform that value is 65) Set counter to 0.

Step 3. Convert A1 and A2, each to a character. Combine them in reverse
order, as in A2 A1. This is a test "AZ" code to match with the
one we read in, If they match, convert the counter into its
character value and write it to the device or file (we have found
the match, and the original code, we can now return to step 1 for
more "AZ" codes). If they do not match, add one to the counter,
and A1, if A1 is greater then 90, reset it to 65 and add one to
A2. Return to step 3. If the counter hits 255, then no possible
match has been found, Return to step 1.

And this is your reply. I've also included the entire thread so
anyone else can see for themselves how bad your comprehension
actually is.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.computer.workshop/az$20snit%7Csort:date/alt.computer.workshop/T5-Mammb0IA/SIvvu0IxBQAJ

Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159658625100


OK, looking at the encoding provided by Diesel... seems odd. Could be my
lack of understanding in places, but clearly he also has some areas of
confusion.

-----
ENCODING IN THE AZ FORMAT EXPLAINED:

Step 1. Determine the ASCII value of the character we
intend to encode
-----

Presumably this is just the first character. Then the second. Then the
third. Until we get to the end. In simple language:

Repeat with theCharacter from 1 to count of characters in theText

Maybe it is count -1 since he seems to look at two characters at a time
(though he never really says that). But so far so good.

-----
Step 2. Set A1 and A2 variables at the ascii value for A
(On the IBM platform that value is 65) Set counter
to 0.
-----

This is odd. Why not just set A1 and A2 to 65 given how that is ALWAYS
the ASCII value of "A". This is true not only of 7 bit ASCII, but also 8
bit (extended) ASCII. So to use our simple language it is just:

Set A1 to 65
Set A2 to 65
Set Counter to 0

So far so good. Ish. Why not just say that?

-----
Step 3. Check to see if counter is equal to the ascii
value obtained in Step 1. if so, convert A1 and
A2, each to a character. Combine them in reverse
order, as in A2 A1. This is our 2 byte encoded
"AZ" format. Write this to the output file and
return to Step 1. If the counter and the ascii
value do not match, add 1 to A1. If A1 goes past
the ascii value for Z (which is 90 on IBM), reset
it to A (65 on IBM) and add 1 to A2. Add 1 to the
counter and repeat Step 3.
------

This is where things get weird, at least to me. The Counter is set to
the ASCII value of A, and then in the next round to the value of B. But
with the A1 and A2 he is just rotating them 1 (similar to what I said
with ROT-13 but only one character). And he has the wrap-around... so
"A" becomes "B", "B" becomes "C".... "Z" becomes "A". But he has no such
wrap around described for the counter... so after the first 26 additions
to the Counter the value of Counter goes past the values of A-Z and
would never match the ASCII value of a character. Seems the counter
would have to be reset. And having the counter and comparing it to the
value really adds very little except the occasional "bumping" of a
character to rotate more than once. Oh, and does he ever say to look at
the next character?

He again talks about the ASCII value on "IBM", as if a "American
Standard Code for Information Interchange" would be different on
different systems when it is, by definition, a "standard". Seems
amazingly odd a programmer would not know this... not putting Diesel
down here but I am curious as to what he was thinking when he wrote that!

Anyway, seems the counter needs to go back to the value of "A" (65) but
he never says that.

Again, maybe I am missing something. Diesel, can you explain?

-----
As you can see, the AZ format is really not that hard to code for
other programs such as OffLine Mail Readers and the like.
-----

At least from what I can tell, and I might be wrong, you did not
describe it correctly.

*** end paste

As various others in the thread all point out to you, the only one
who has the problem with understanding things concerning AZ was and
still is, you. And, only you. Everyone else understood the material
I shared, except for you. And as anyone can see in the post here,
everytime you fuckup and don't understand something (which was a lot
in this case), you try and make the other person share some/all of
the blame. It's never your fault. Except, here, it clearly was; and
various others even corrected your efforts to try and pin anything
on me.
And why do you pretend -- dishonestly -- to have quoted me lying?
I didn't pretend any such thing. You did lie on me, multiple times
now. And you've been trying your best to cover up for it by
projection and deflection. It hasn't worked, though.

What you wrote is below, most of it. I could be further anal about
this and include the text you wrote previous to what I isolated: On
Now you go and find some old source code you don't understand and ask
for Snits advice concerning it? The idiot didn't even realize what
you were asking about and provided you no answer.
Ah, more trolling of me by you. So more reminding you of your past
nonsense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Diesel <***@3dOIZISX3.IwU6R1OH8iz29MMTN26bF08TPFtT157gyFB5>:
-----
Snit, if you're running the bot you have an easy way out
that won't cost you any respect, face, or anything else.
Just stop. That's it. Simple right?
-----

The last time the bot had posted was more than three hours before.

Diesel made it clear he could find the IP of the person running the bot.
And he made it clear it would be easy for him to make a Sandman-like
time table of posting, but showing Carroll and the bot and myself.

Was he lying when he said that? Maybe. But I do not think so. And if he
was merely lying he would not have access to the program itself, which
he makes VERY clear he did.

Diesel and Carroll were trolling together. The bot goes silent. Diesel
then says if the bot is just turned off he will let it slide. Does that
sound like Diesel to you? And he also say this:
-----
It needs to be recoded anyway, it's a seriously piss poor
example of writing software.
-----

** end share

See, snit, even with the text I wasn't including, you make it quite
clear that you think I had the bot, and you voiced such an opinion;
proclaiming it to be a fact when it wasn't. Your reply was written
as a response to something I wrote to David, questioning your sorry
excuse for what passes as technical knowledge. I was truthful in
what I wrote to him, too. You were not able to answer any of his
questions concerning the backdoor source code he shared and asked
you about. You took my honest reply as an attempt to troll you, so
you wrote up a completely bullshit story about my involvement with
the bot, and tried to sell it.

You just didn't expect me to call you out for it, but, I have. And,
I'm still waiting for that apology for the series of lies you wrote
here.

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

*** end snittage lie

Looks like quite a lie to me - complete with a question to give the
lie you wrote credibility. The question directly implies that what
you wrote above it has already been an established fact - which isn't
the case.

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

So, that being stated, about that question then Snit? Any reasonable
answer? Any reasonable answer for why you haven't provided those MIDs
yet Snit?

So, if you don't lie, Snit, how do you explain what you wrote and how
do you explain your continued refusal to provide the MIDs to those
posts you claimed exist which would support your claims there, Snit?

Why, if you aren't a liar, can't you backup what you wrote with those
MIDs? You were very specific in what you claimed took place as you
wrote the bullshit story, Snit. I'd think you'd want to put me in my
place by backing your story up with those MIDs. That would shut me up
for sure. Yet, you don't provide any. I wonder why that might be.
<BFG> - No such posts exist Snit. You LIED ABOUT IT ALL. You are A
confirmed, liar. No question about it. No denying it. Snit *IS A
LIAR*

If you didn't lie, you should have absolutely no trouble whatsoever
answering every single one of those questions, reasonably, and
intelligently snit. Let us clear up this 'misunderstanding' so that
we can move onto having 'conversations' in the future. What do you
say?
Note you have NO evidence of ANY such lie... all you show is you
failed to understand your accusations have been fully responded to
at least 14 times.
I provided the evidence, your post actually, which is direct proof of your lies you wrote about me, yes, No question about that.


And your responses have been nothing more than more unfounded accusations that I changed topics and was discussing the bot that's flooding newsgroups specifically.
Post by Diesel
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some code
other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK. Maybe I missed
the context -- but if so then what code did he mean. He never says. That
shoots down his own argument.
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece of
software. He said as much.

*** end

I told you the same, when you first made the accusation against me.
Apd also confirmed what I told you, you opted to 'disagree' with
both of us when we both were very clearly in what I meant by what I
wrote. It's all covered in extensive detail here, Snit:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.computer.workshop/CMDEeUQncxQ%5B101-125%5D

Snit attack begin:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549546800

Apd Reply:
Message-ID: <rbvkfm$vrq$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549554500

Snit replytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549562900

My replytosnit1:
Message-ID: <***@u2JS322U0c78023XwgUbQ6tY5xp.uji4zu4>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549589200

Snitreplytome1:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549601800

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rc7i2q$an4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549611800

SnitreplytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549619400

FtrReplyaboutit:
Message-ID: <rc7uo0$hl$***@gioia.aioe.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549632500

MyreplytoSnit:
Message-ID: <***@HHBBpXUm053.y616suD5Ccbu.g32pu7d>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549651200

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rcbqfm$pj4$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549668500

SnitreplytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549677200

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rccv08$qch$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549688000

Snit replytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549701200

Apdreplytosnit:
Message-ID: <rce2o7$1000$***@gioia.aioe.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549710300

SnitreplytoApd:
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549720200
https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.computer.workshop/CMDEeUQncxQ/XaZcVP9yBQAJ

ApdReplytoSnit:
Message-ID: <rcfmha$rjs$***@apd.eternal-september.org>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549737900
Did you ever figure out how to find the posts based on their
message IDs?
You are making this far too easy for me, Snit. As you can see, I've
been sharing howardknight urls along with the original MSG ID.
But,that's not the only way in which I have of acquiring the post
from the MID. here's a few off the top of my head. Good luck
weaseling your way out of this accusation, dumbshit.

1) Check my own client; I keep copies of all sent messages and it
can search active thread windows, too

2) Check my own offline
database files created from this clients original ones; threads
preserved in their own text files, complete, in the order they were
posted.

3).Check references line from posts already available, if
required.

4) Check to see if post can be found via howardknight
search. If so, and it's trunacated, check to see if my client has
the full post, if not access another usenet server with a long
retention span and try to pull the entire thread the post is from.

So.. you were saying, mr wannabe wiseass?
--
'We have no taste, but we like you.' - Dot
Snit
2020-08-05 02:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel
[snip]
Post by Diesel
Snit, for what it's worth,
Until you learn to understand what you read, there is no reason to
think your comments are worth ANYTHING other, perhaps, than a
source of amusement.
Snit, I'm not the one who's already demonstrated they have severe
reading comprehension issues.
Not that you have bene able to understand, despite so many examples being
shown.

The irony is amazing.

...
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
James
2020-07-24 12:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel
Post by chrisv
Post by Diesel
This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)
This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.
In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with
him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore
them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on
my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an
example of.
And that is how snit sets up his snit circus in whatever group he
happens to be attacking ATM.
At first snit seems harmless enough but it doesn't take long for him
to start his trickery combined with dishonest snipping, mis-quoting,
and pathological lying.

This is what turns decent groups into chaos where snit is the topic of
choice and is at the center of attention, like a ringmaster in a
circus. And this is snit's goal and has been from the day he appears
in a given group.

This is why ignoring snit from day one drives him to crawling up the
walls.

He will run this circus, adding rings as needed, until it begins to
run out of "gas" at which point snit will shift into "mode 2" in order
to keep the chaos alive.

What is mode 2?
Glad you asked <eyeroll>.

Mode 2 is where snit will suddenly "discover" that he made a minor
error and misread something his current victim (that's you) wrote.
At this point snit will offer a half assed apology for his
"unintentional mistake".

If the victim is foolish enough to fall for this ruse, and some have,
snit will make sure to plaster all over the group comments such as
"victim and I reached a solution to our petty disagreement, and I
commend him for admitting we were both wrong on this".

Notice how snit drags his victim into the admission of a mistake being
made so IOW snit AND his victim both screwed up.

This is very important.

Snit being the extreme narcissist that he is has never been capable of
admitting that he is solely to blame for some error being made so he
attempts to convert it into a group error so that the blame is shared.

Watch for it, because after snit tires of his current rainman routine,
he will shift to the profuse apology routine, Mode 2.

You can bet your left testicle on it.
Arlen Holder
2020-07-24 12:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
If the victim is foolish enough to fall for this ruse, and some have,
snit will make sure to plaster all over the group comments such as
"victim and I reached a solution to our petty disagreement, and I
commend him for admitting we were both wrong on this".
Both Alan Baker & Snit are characterized as Dunning-Kruger Quadrant 1:
<Loading Image...>

They "self assess" far (far) far greater than their actual knowledge level:
<Loading Image...>

I've been on Usenet as long as anyone here (decades), where, given I use
vi/telnet/dictionary scripts as my "reader", it's difficult to plonk, and
yet, the only people I've ever had to killfile, are Snit, & Alan Baker.
<Loading Image...>

There is no distinction between the two based on what they post.
o Neither has ever added one iota of value to Usenet in their entire lives.

Both Alan Baker and Snit are all confidence, and literally zero knowledge:
<Loading Image...>

Here's an example of Snit's idiocy, for example, where he didn't even LOOK
at the Y axis before proclaiming (literally in over 200 posts!) that he had
a solution (clearly he doesn't know a decibel from a megabit!)...
o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/qSXecrnZAQAJ>

Snit even stooped to publishing this hilarious video about his "genius":


Yet, Alan Baker is as Dunning Kruger Quadrant 1 as is Snit, IMHO...
o I just belatedly realized why adults can't communicate with
Alan Baker & Snit - because they're too far to the left on the Dunning-Kruger scale
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MwtyT7BdxF4>

Here's proof, for example of how fantastically stupid Alan Baker is, where
I estimate Alan's IQ to be no greater than 50 based on what he writes:
o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

Both are clearly Dunning Kruger far to the left of Quadrant 1:
<Loading Image...>
--
Only 2 kinds of people post to Usenet - those who add value; & those who can't.
Ron Riggins
2020-07-24 20:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arlen Holder
Post by James
If the victim is foolish enough to fall for this ruse, and some have,
snit will make sure to plaster all over the group comments such as
"victim and I reached a solution to our petty disagreement, and I
commend him for admitting we were both wrong on this".
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrQGXxKXcAAFaVt.jpg>
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxL91TTWwAAC6Am.jpg>
I've been on Usenet as long as anyone here (decades), where, given I use
vi/telnet/dictionary scripts as my "reader", it's difficult to plonk,
and yet, the only people I've ever had to killfile, are Snit, & Alan
Baker.
<https://www.skepticblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Dunning-Kruger.png>
There is no distinction between the two based on what they post.
o Neither has ever added one iota of value to Usenet in their entire lives.
<https://scanfoam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/adpativeDKblog3.jpg>
Here's an example of Snit's idiocy, for example, where he didn't even
LOOK at the Y axis before proclaiming (literally in over 200 posts!)
that he had a solution (clearly he doesn't know a decibel from a
megabit!)...
o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/
qSXecrnZAQAJ>
Post by Arlen Holder
http://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo
Yet, Alan Baker is as Dunning Kruger Quadrant 1 as is Snit, IMHO...
o I just belatedly realized why adults can't communicate with
Alan Baker & Snit - because they're too far to the left on the Dunning-Kruger scale
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/
MwtyT7BdxF4>
Post by Arlen Holder
Here's proof, for example of how fantastically stupid Alan Baker is,
where I estimate Alan's IQ to be no greater than 50 based on what he
o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics
skills an adult should have on the Internet?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/
EiNl6hyMBDo>
Post by Arlen Holder
<https://eclecticlip.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/
dunning_kruger_effect.png>

I credit snit with encouraging me to learn how to use slrn. His trolling
an massive sock puppetry got so bad that it was getting tiresome setting
up kill filters using 40tude Dialog.

With slrn under Linux it's trivial to kill file snit and easily add his
various socks as they appear.

Snit belongs in a mental institution and why he hasn't checked himself in
or why his family hasn't committed him to serious treatment remains a
mystery.
I've been on usenet for about 15 years and the only person I have
encountered who rivals snit for the title of uber troll is Tholen and
maybe that sicko with the goatse site.

Other than those 2 and that's really a toss, snit is in a league of his
own when it comes to idiocy, dishonesty and truly a waste of human life.

The only person who has so much trouble follow him/her everywhere he/she
lands is Hillary Clinton who seems to have a talent for associating with
people who eventually kill themselves.
Hey, maybe we can introduce snit to Hillary?
<vbg!>
Diesel
2020-07-26 20:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Riggins
Post by Arlen Holder
Yet, Alan Baker is as Dunning Kruger Quadrant 1 as is Snit,
Arlen,

I'm susprised various people in acf and other newsgroups are still
electing to feed you. especially when you go and insult people as
you're doing here.

Did I somehow get removed from your list of people you think don't
know anything? If so, please add me back. I don't want to correspond
with you, I was content with you having pissed off. I'd like things
to go back to that.
Post by Ron Riggins
I credit snit with encouraging me to learn how to use slrn. His
trolling an massive sock puppetry got so bad that it was getting
tiresome setting up kill filters using 40tude Dialog.
Ron,

Just be glad you aren't a working resident of AZ. If you were, you'd
be partially footing the bill for Snit to stay home all day and troll
around usenet. We're all technically, helping to foot the bill for
him and those just like him, but, if you live in the same state,
you're paying more out for it than I am.

That actually bugs me a bit from time to time, too. I work for a
living, uncle sam doesn't pay me to sit on my ass and fuck off all
day. Uncle sam rewards me by working for a living by taking monies
from me to give to people like snit.

Damn morals and work ethics I was raised with. As much as I'd like a
free to fuckoff day, I wouldn't be productive because I know it's not
right and I wouldn't be able to chill out and relax. I was raised to
earn my money, by working for it.
Post by Ron Riggins
With slrn under Linux it's trivial to kill file snit and easily
add his various socks as they appear.
It's piss easy with Xnews under Windows or Wine if used on linux,
too. The usenet bot is pathetic, I really don't know why Snit is so
interested in it. His IRC bot isn't much better - they're both a
terrible example of programming; neither should be used as a
programming skill level demonstration; unless you want people to
think you just started the semester in college first year,
programing.

And he took exceptional offense over something I wrote concerning the
ease in which his efforts could be duplicated by those of us who have
real experience writing software. He likes to remind people that he's
not a programmer, but is quick as hell, to try and correct people,
like myself, apd, etc, who are programmers over something one of us
wrote about, of all things, programming.

It doesn't make sense to me that a normally thinking person who's
already stated they aren't experts in such and such a field, would
proceed to try and talk down to people who actually are experts n
such a such fields. But, that's exactly what Snit does. And it's not
a one time event.
Post by Ron Riggins
I've been on usenet for about 15 years and the only person I have
encountered who rivals snit for the title of uber troll is Tholen
and maybe that sicko with the goatse site.
Give David Brooks a little time, he'll convince you he should be on
your list too. And you'll ask yourself why he isn't already once he
does.
Post by Ron Riggins
The only person who has so much trouble follow him/her everywhere
he/she lands is Hillary Clinton who seems to have a talent for
associating with people who eventually kill themselves.
Hey, maybe we can introduce snit to Hillary?
<vbg!>
The question then becomes, who will go first? And the next question
is obviously going to be, does it really matter? <vbg>
--
Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like magic.
Diesel
2020-07-26 20:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Riggins
Other than those 2 and that's really a toss, snit is in a league
of his own when it comes to idiocy, dishonesty and truly a waste
of human life.
I bet Diesel is not coherent enough to understand why the sock I
am replying to is almost certainly Carroll.
Come on, Diesel... show you have even basic understanding.
I bet you won't.
Your efforts to troll are a very nice example of that superior maturity
you've claimed you have, there, Snit. Should I be impressed with that
lame as fuck all attempt to be insulting?

And what, specifically, is not accurate concerning you in that post? Be
specific.
--
The cats let us live here.
Snit
2020-07-26 20:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel
Post by Ron Riggins
Other than those 2 and that's really a toss, snit is in a league
of his own when it comes to idiocy, dishonesty and truly a waste
of human life.
I bet Diesel is not coherent enough to understand why the sock I
am replying to is almost certainly Carroll.
Come on, Diesel... show you have even basic understanding.
I bet you won't.
And he did not. Then he pretended I am obligated to defend myself
against insane and unsupported attacks, as though I must respond to
nonsense lies as fast as they are posted -- or as if I or anyone even could.

Utterly insane of Diesel. Again he shows his lack of understanding.
Post by Diesel
Your efforts to troll are a very nice example of that superior maturity
you've claimed you have, there, Snit. Should I be impressed with that
lame as fuck all attempt to be insulting?
And what, specifically, is not accurate concerning you in that post? Be
specific.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
David_B
2020-07-24 13:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
And this is snit's goal and has been from the day he appears
in a given group.
You may be interested to learn that I INVITED Snit to join me here. Our
views on many things differ, be he's a straight-forward and honest
family man who has helped me in so many different ways. :-)

What about you, James? Where have YOU sprung from?

Interestingly, you only the second other person I've ever met online who
uses blocknews.net as their newsserver. It's very good, isn't it?

Tell me how you know Snit so well?
Diesel
2020-07-26 20:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_B
Post by James
And this is snit's goal and has been from the day he appears
in a given group.
You may be interested to learn that I INVITED Snit to join me
here. Our views on many things differ, be he's a straight-forward
and honest family man who has helped me in so many different ways.
:-)
Straight forward and honest? LOL!!!

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close
to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.


So why can't he answer my questions, then, David, if he's so straight
forward and honest?
Post by David_B
Tell me how you know Snit so well?
Snit has quite the reputation in cola, David. Maybe you should bring
yourself upto speed?
--
Keep Canada beautiful. Swallow your beer cans.
David_B
2020-07-26 22:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel
Snit has quite the reputation in cola, David. Maybe you should bring
yourself upto speed?
If I want to know something about Snit I ask him.

He's never yet failed to provide a truthful and straight-forward answer.
Snit
2020-07-27 00:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_B
Post by Diesel
Snit has quite the reputation in cola, David. Maybe you should bring
yourself upto speed?
If I want to know something about Snit I ask him.
He's never yet failed to provide a truthful and straight-forward answer.
And I will for most people -- though the honest answer might be "none of
your business" for some personal questions, such as when Carroll pushes
lies about my health in an effort to get the focus on me and off his
obvious trolling.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Gremlin
2020-08-05 01:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_B
Post by Diesel
Snit has quite the reputation in cola, David. Maybe you should
bring yourself upto speed?
If I want to know something about Snit I ask him.
Okay.
Post by David_B
He's never yet failed to provide a truthful and straight-forward answer.
Can you provide evidence of that? He has a very well known track record
of doing the opposite. He's even tried it with me, David. I know you
won't say anything to him about it, because we're not friends, but even
your rather dumbass knows what he's doing, and can see it just as well
as FTR and Apd. And yes, David, as you know, they are both aware of his
lack of honesty and integrity. They're also well aware of his profound
reading comprehension problem. He shouldn't be on usenet with the
nearly illiterate reading level he's shown us.
--
He who places head in sand, will get kicked in the end!
David_B
2020-08-05 08:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gremlin
Can you provide evidence of that?
Of course. Just read ANY of his responses to me in ACW.
Snit
2020-08-05 08:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_B
Post by Gremlin
Can you provide evidence of that?
Of course. Just read ANY of his responses to me in ACW.
Read and understand.

That second part seems his bigger challenge.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
Diesel
2020-07-26 20:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_B
  And this is snit's goal and has been from the day he appears
in a given group.
You may be interested to learn that I INVITED Snit to join me
here. Our views on many things differ, be he's a straight-forward
and honest family man who has helped me in so many different
ways. :-)
What about you, James? Where have YOU sprung from?
Interestingly, you only the second other person I've ever met
online who uses blocknews.net as their newsserver. It's very
good, isn't it?
Tell me how you know Snit so well?
Another "new" person who sounds exactly like Carroll and tells the
same lies Carroll does. And Diesel will pretend to not see that it
is almost surely Carroll.
Why do you continue involving me in your nonsense accusations?
I wonder if they both know how predictable their trolling is?
It's not hard to predict that I'd take an issue with your lying on
me. You already know I have a problem with you for doing that,
previously. A problem that's still unresolved:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close
to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.

Where are those posts, Snit?
--
Hapiness is a warm stone circle.
Diesel
2020-07-26 20:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by Diesel
Post by chrisv
Post by Diesel
This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)
This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.
In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting
with him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted
to ignore them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was
a mistake on my part. As the result has turned out being what this
thread is an example of.
And that is how snit sets up his snit circus in whatever group he
happens to be attacking ATM.
At first snit seems harmless enough but it doesn't take long for
him to start his trickery combined with dishonest snipping,
mis-quoting, and pathological lying.
I noticed all of those actions when I first engaged him - we were
discussing 3d printer technologies. He asked if I could determine
what technology was in use for a particular set of miniature
figurines. After a bit of back and forth, I realized he was clueless
and had severe reading comprehension issues. He continued trying to
claim we "Agreed" on things that we weren't even half way towards the
middle on. Usually, the "agreed" was things I wrote about that he
didn't understand, and that his response really had nothing to do
with.

He also "agreed" that I didn't know what technology was being used,
but I didn't make any such statement; infact, I provided him the
correct answer from the vendors site. He didn't know what technology
was in use, and when I showed him he could have answered his own
question, that's when he started trying to twist things around the
first time.

He pulled more shit with the AZ thread, and that's where he really
let his reading comprehension issue see the light of day. He took the
simple instructions I wrote, misunderstood them all, and took a
parting shot at me for his failure to comprehend because I specified
the ascii code table you should be using for the purposes of the
explanation as I provided it.

When I noticed he was doing that and called him out for it, he
proceeded to try and turn things around into me not knowing what
ASCII even was. Er, I've been writing software that made computers do
"things" since I was single digit age. Why wouldn't I have a firm
grasp of what ASCII is by the time I interacted with Snit, 30+
something years after the fact?
Post by James
This is why ignoring snit from day one drives him to crawling up
the walls.
Heh, There's some truth to that statement. He started writing this
bullshit:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

*** end

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close
to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.

While I had him kf'd. When I ask about this post, Snit continues to
claim I 'misunderstood' him. I don't see how I could have possibly
done that. His post used very specific words, and like most words,
they actually do have a very specific meaning. According to what Snit
wrote, and going only by what he wrote, there should be atleast! one
post calling me out about the bot, and atleast one more post where I
clarified I had the compiled code. The section of a post I wrote,
that he shared for 'proof' has nothing to do with the bot itself, and
isn't proof of any kind. It's the 3rd paragraph of a reply I wrote,
calling out his lack of actual programming knowledge in front of
everyone else.

I guess he doesn't handle being wrong and shown to be wrong in public
well? Some people with large egos do suffer with that issue. He went
out of his way to write that story about me, all because he didn't
like my kf'ing him and continuing to mention him with other
conversations. My bad. But, he's a damn troll, and a liar, and he's
gone well out of his way to show that to not only myself, but damn
near anyone with an IQ above that of say, a monkey.
Post by James
Mode 2 is where snit will suddenly "discover" that he made a minor
error and misread something his current victim (that's you) wrote.
At this point snit will offer a half assed apology for his
"unintentional mistake".
That won't be accepted. I've been on him for months now, slowly
adding more pressure inside the vice I've got his head snuggled in.
<G> I continue getting more and more specific with my questions. I
like watching him squirm and try to weasel his way out of my trap.

He really picked the wrong one this time, and he's going to learn
that, one way or another, he's going to learn. <G>
Post by James
If the victim is foolish enough to fall for this ruse, and some
have, snit will make sure to plaster all over the group comments
such as "victim and I reached a solution to our petty
disagreement, and I commend him for admitting we were both wrong
on this".
Yes, well, I'm not going to accept anything but a full blown apology
at this point where Snit, rightfully, takes all of the blame. He's
the one who went out of his way to write the bullshit story, he's the
only one responsible for it's existance, he'll be the only one who
can apologize and take full responsibility for it, or it doesn't go
away; it'll just keep coming up, like a bad mcdonalds burger.
(assuming they ever served a decent one)

This isn't my first rodeo with a troll. I've been 0wning David Brooks
for years, I don't have a problem making a two for one combo deal.
Post by James
Notice how snit drags his victim into the admission of a mistake
being made so IOW snit AND his victim both screwed up.
Yes, I have noticed this routine tried with others, and he gets mixed
results with it. He won't "wear me down" about this. I'm not going to
let it go, until I get that fucking apology. No compromise, no
"agreement", an apology is the only thing that will get me off his
ass about that series of lies he told.

And the longer he delays, the more of his lies I'll find and question
him over, right here, in public. I'll continue getting specific with
my questions as I isolate more lies he's written (he's been here for
months now, he's provided all kinds of material I can use) about me,
too.

With me, the longer he takes to comply, the hotter the kitchen is
going to get. :)
Post by James
Snit being the extreme narcissist that he is has never been
capable of admitting that he is solely to blame for some error
being made so he attempts to convert it into a group error so that
the blame is shared.
Yep. In this case, there's no blame to be shared. No blame to be
passed around. No misunderstanding on anyones part, at this point,
either. I won't even let him use that excuse as a way out at this
point, I already offered it; he declined. Now, my questions are more
specific. A misunderstanding didn't take place. Snit told a series of
lies, and I'm asking for an apology about them:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.
***

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come close
to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.

As you can see, Snit used very specific words in his claim; I've
since began narrowing the focus of my beam and asking about them,
specifically. He made very specific claims, there should be no
problem with him finding the MIDs to the posts to back them up,
right?
Post by James
Watch for it, because after snit tires of his current rainman
routine, he will shift to the profuse apology routine, Mode 2.
He's already been given the chance, multiple times now, to do the
right thing. He declined to do so, he tried to twist it into my
having a severe reading comprehension issue (I don't), and he's tried
to claim that he didn't lie about anything, I "misunderstood".

I misnderstood, nothing. And he did lie, and i'm going to continue
requesting that apology, a full apology for the lie, not a
misunderstanding, but a series of lies, he wrote about me concerning
the google flood bot.
Post by James
You can bet your left testicle on it.
I'd rather not bust up a matching set. <G>
--
A cat is only domestic in so far as suits its own needs.
Diesel
2020-07-24 12:59:37 UTC
Permalink
[big snip]
Post by Diesel
I'll resume kfing him soon enough. For the time being though, I'm
going to expose a few more of his lies he likes to tell - Since
he went well out of his way to not only lie on me multiple times,
but use the lie to try and troll me on usenet; when I haven't
interacted with the illiterate piece of shite for days. He just
doesn't learn to leave people be. Atleast, not quickly.
I suspect you will run off crying when you realize your tantrum is
not getting you the type attention you crave and you finally
realize I will not lie for you, even to get the peace I want.
Snit, you could have done some significant snippage there. Ah well.

You seem to be suffering from a rather huge misunderstanding here. I
don't want you to lie for me (again); Rather, I'd prefer you didn't
continue doing so. I'd also appreciate an apology for the completely
bullshit (as in pulled straight from your arse) story you wrote
concerning my involvement with the super lame bot that's flooding
various newsgroups and annoying only those who are unable to filter
it for a variety of reasons.

The lie is annoying, granted, but the actual irritation aspect is
that you went and tried to associate me with such a piss poor example
of programming. *That* is what I really take issue with. The lies are
just icing on the cake in terms of determining your character,
without outside attempts to influence my decisions/opinions of you.

I too know what it's like to have enemies Snit, so, I've continued to
try and avoid tainting my view, or allowing it to be tainted by
persons other than yourself. That's why I still continue to interact
with you...If I had no actual interest in you, I would have just
opted to ignore you awhile ago.

I've already proven that you wrongfully accused me, it doesn't matter
that you continue trying to deny it, or pass it off as some kind of
misunderstanding. You weren't succesful in conning anyone of
importance to me with it - and I was/still am able to show that by
providing posts from them backing up what I wrote; that you made an
accusation against me that you didn't support in any way shape or
form.

You are not the honorable person David seems to think you are,
atleast, not in all ways. Especially, not with me. You have a
remarkably different attitude towards me; and you've essentially had
it since you first arrived in this newsgroup. When another
individual, or in this case, a series of individuals tells you the
same thing as myself, you respond to them in a completely different
manner.

I couldn't help but notice that Joel has a tendency for doing that
here as well. And, like you, specifically towards me an attitude; but
if the same thing is provided by another person, a thank you is
provided to them; not a 'how do you know? I don't believe you, etc"
response as I get.

I'm confident that Joel and yourself are actually not one in the same
people, but, I don't get why the both of you have the same general
attitude towards me (which isn't all that pleasant) and have
essentially done so since you both first arrived. Yet, as I wrote,
you both display an entirely different attitude to almost everyone
else, even if they tell you the same damn thing I did previously.

What is the deal with that?
But until then keep begging me to lie. It has a certain level of
comedy to it. I just worry for you. I sincerely hope you are okay.
Heh. I haven't begged anyone to do anything for me since I was in
elementary school, Snit. The most I can do is demand an apology for
the unfounded accusation you wrote about me concerning the lame as
fuck all bot that is easily filtered by anyone who can make use of a
real client/nntp provider, or, can do a little scripting.

Granted, I do find your weak as fuck replies to have some comedic
value, but, let's be frank; you're no George Carlin, or Rodney
Dangerfield. You wouldn't even make for a suitable Andrew Dice Clay
and that's a fairly low standard if you think about it.

I think it's safe to say at this point that you'll just continue
trying to jerk myself and others around concerning what you do/don't
do. So, with that in mind, you may have the last word here as well.

Just don't confuse that as to mean I've surrendered - I've accepted
that I've more than made my point concerning your authenticity, your
integrity, and your actual honesty - all as a matter of searchable
public record for years to come. In your case though, I didn't find
anything new; I've only added to what's already known about you, and
by that, I mean contributed nothing more than a few more examples of
you lying, getting caught lying, and trying to weasel your way out of
it.

I've gained very little considering the time spent. Perhaps those in
charge of the snitlist will include some of your rather funny replies
to my questions, then. That would be rather amusing. A positive
contribution after all; so as not to make my time spent responding to
your nearly illiterate ass completely wasted.
--
Don't get stuck in a closet -- wear yourself out.
Diesel
2020-07-26 20:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Snit <***@gallopinginsanity.com> news:***@mid.individual.net Fri, 24 Jul 2020 17:07:14 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]
You have been spending significant time writing 10,000 words or
more a day as a part of your tantrum. I am not going to read all
of that, no less respond to it.
I'm impressed that you'd actually take the time in your busy day to
count the amount of words I used in a post. I don't.

As far as any tantrum is concerned, uhh, no, I've just wasted months
now effectively, asking for an apology that you owe me for some lies
you wrote about me. Three specific lies, if we were counting. I'm
not including the other far more petty ones you've written since
your arrival. I just want an apology for these:


http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come
close to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.

You were very specific in the way in which you worded your post
there Snit. Words do have meaning, clarified, and called out
especially so. Where are the posts which support what you wrote,
Snit?
Keep in mind, I am not nearly as interested in you as you are in
me.
You're interested enough in me to lie about me, and latch onto posts
David Brooks writes which also contain lies so that you can attack
me again. You also tried to bring up the old ascii discussion - all
because the instructions for AZ encoding/decoding process was too
complicated for you to understand by reading it, so you decided to
attack me for being specific about the codepage.

You went out of your way to makeup a completely bullshit story about
me (it's provided above), so don't lie further and claim you have no
interest in me. You clearly do. And I already know that by
comparison, you feel so inferior to me, you debate on sucking a 12ga
off, if you could get someone to loan you one.
This is another concept I suspect will simply go over your head.
Nothing you've written, at any point in time so far, has gone over
my head. It hasn't even gone above my knees. You again, give
yourself far too much undeserved credit.
Yet you keep begging me to claim -- which would be dishonest -- to
agree with you. For me to do so would be to lie.
Uhh, no. I'm not begging you, and I don't need you to agree with me.
What I need for you to do, is stop writing lies like below (and
above) about me, and apologize for this particular set that you
already published.


http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come
close to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.

You already *lied about me*. What I want, is an apology.
You *need* me to lie for you to be comfortable. Can you figure out
what that says about you... no inflection needed?
Umm, no. What I 'need' is for you to stop lying, and apologize for
the ones you already wrote and have failed to be able to pass off as
the truth. It doesn't say much good about you when you're unable to
accept responsibility for what you went out of your way to do. The
amount of energy you've spent trying to turn this into a
misunderstanding where I'm entirely responsible for it is amazing,
considering how insignificant your lies are at the end of the day.

Fact remains, you went well out of your way to write that as part of
your combined trolling efforts with David Brooks. You just didn't
expect me to call you out for it, or make a "big deal" out of it. If
it was the first time you pulled such shit here, I probably would
have ignored it as I do many of your other nonsense posts, but,
since you already lied about me in another discussion, I decided not
to ignore this particular set of them.
Post by Diesel
trying to jerk myself and others around concerning what you
do/don't do. So, with that in mind, you may have the last word
here as well.
I suspect that is yet another lie of yours... you will continue to
spam many groups with your trolling of me. I do not think you can
help yourself.
Snit, Do you know what the definition to spamming is? I ask because,
this is the second time that I'm aware of where you've made the
accusation and I've found nothing in my posts to support it. So, do
you know what spam actually means in this context (I'm thinking you
don't) or do you and are just electing not to use the right word for
google fucking purposes?
Don't you find it odd that with all your claims of my being
dishonest you have failed to find an actual quote where I have
done as you accuse?
I didn't fail to find anything. I found three specific ones right here:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

I want to see the post(s) where I "made it quite clear" that I had
access to more than just the posts the bots been making (the output -
atleast what's available to an end user; admin may provide more
information). I want to see the post(s) where I was "called out", and
finally, I want to see the post(s) where I clarified I had the
"compiled code".

Those are three, seperate and distinct lies in a very short
paragraph. What you quoted me out of context! doesn't even come
close to supporting your accusation. And, it IS an accusation.

I do have more, but they're more insignificant than these. And,
well, what's the point. A liar is a liar, after all. And if you're
going to lie about stupid shit like this, as you've done, and then
spend months avoiding issuing an apology, it's no far stretch then
to dismiss you as a liar.
Post by Diesel
I've gained very little considering the time spent.
I did tell you some time ago your tantrum would not really get you
what you want. Glad you have come to realize I was right.
ROFL, You misunderstood, Snit. My goal has never really been an
apology; I knew that you'd never be able to admit you did something
wrong and accept responsibility for it. I wasn't sure if everyone
else in acw knew that about you or not already, and I wanted you to
show them for me. So, I caught you in a rather nice collection of
lies, a little totally bullshit story you wrote as a matter of fact,
and, I asked you for an apology. As if by magic, you did not let me
down; you did exactly what I "predicted" you'd do; show your true
colors to everyone here, so bright, there's absolutely no fucking
way they wouldn't see what you were doing.

And no, Snit, before you even try it, we'll go ahead and snip that
one in the bud right now. I didn't manipulate you or anyone else by
doing what I described above. I had my suspicions concerning you
already, and I did nothing more than yet you do your thing. If
anyone was turned off by you as a result, that was all entirely of
your own doing. It's not nice to lie about others, and especially
rude to continue trying with the lie when you've been caught and an
apology is asked for. You tried the misunderstanding routine
already, it didn't work. Apd, Ftr, Myself, Carroll and another all
called you out, all of us took the time to explain (by dumbing it
down further) what I was writing about. You dismissed us all with "I
disagree"; as if you know what I meant by what I wrote better than I
would.

It's very odd, Snit, that everyone would agree with me concerning
what I wrote, but we're the ones who had the misunderstanding.
Post by Diesel
Perhaps those in
charge of the snitlist will include some of your rather funny
replies to my questions, then. That would be rather amusing. A
positive contribution after all; so as not to make my time spent
responding to your nearly illiterate ass completely wasted.
Are you STILL denying Carroll is manipulating you? LOL!
There you go again, Snit, making more claims you can't support. In
other words, lying that much more. Are you proud of the contents of
that list? It's full of comments written about you, and/or to you by
other people you've interacted with on usenet.

I know several of the individuals on that list, too. Some I've known
for over two decades. You can't tell me they all misunderstood you
when they wrote those things about you, Snit. Fact is, and you're
showing us it's true on a daily basis now, you *are a lying troll*.
No question about it at this point. You've provided far more
evidence to prove what I just wrote about you that it's not even
close to funny, and there's not even any room for conjecture. Even
if we dismissed, say, 80% of the contents of the snitlist, the
remaining 20% combined with your actions since you arrived in acw
would just restore the value of the aforementioned, missing 80%.
There's no way you aren't what you've been described as being by so
many people, now, at this point in time.

Quite simply, if you aren't a troll, many people have gone out of
their way, well out of their way in some cases to paint you as one.
And I just don't see so many people doing that. Especially some I
know. What could they possibly gain by getting together as a large
group effort to write lies about you? Why single you out, Snit?

You don't have any technical knowledge or skills that another person
would be jealous of. If anything, I cringe at the thought of you
passing yourself off as a technician offering repair services.
People like you,Jeol,Arlen and that wannabe T from ahr are the
reason why the average joe thinks all computer repair places will
fuck them over just like a shady tree car mechanic.

Not all of us out there are like you, or the others I mentioned. We
actually do know WTF we're doing, we're not 'learning' about it by
playing 'mrfix it' with your stuff.

And you haven't done yourself any favors, none at all, by playing
the part with the way in which you've portrayed yourself here. The
unfounded bot accusation you made against me, and your complete and
utter failure to issue an apology for having made it, are all marks
of a troll. You wrote something which wouldn't be true on a cold
snowy day in hell, and when caught, you've done everything you can
think of to avoid taking responsibility for the lies you wrote.
Again, all the marks/signs of a troll. And, you aren't a very good
one, either.
--
The world meets nobody halfway. --Charles Lamb
Diesel
2020-07-26 20:17:13 UTC
Permalink
I just worry for you. I sincerely hope you are okay.
It's so good to see someone write pleasant and meaningful things
here in ACW. Thanks for caring. :-)
I suspect Diesel will take it as my being sarcastic -- but I am
not. He is clearly becoming unhinged, and as much as I do poke
fun at his tantrum a fair amount, I also am sincere in hoping he
is OK.
I am truly impressed that you are not in the least bit fearful of
Dustin - someone who has the unique ability to completely destroy
the life of you and your family.
Why are you attacking me like this, David?
He's like a *God* in the APVC (HAVP -sp) scene (whatever THAT is!)
hpavc. I'm not a god, i'm known and respected. There's a difference.
--
Faith is good, but scepticism is better. - Giuseppe Verdi
David_B
2020-07-26 22:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Diesel
I just worry for you. I sincerely hope you are okay.
It's so good to see someone write pleasant and meaningful things
here in ACW. Thanks for caring. :-)
I suspect Diesel will take it as my being sarcastic -- but I am
not. He is clearly becoming unhinged, and as much as I do poke
fun at his tantrum a fair amount, I also am sincere in hoping he
is OK.
I am truly impressed that you are not in the least bit fearful of
Dustin - someone who has the unique ability to completely destroy
the life of you and your family.
Why are you attacking me like this, David?
It's important for Snit to understand how ruthless you can be.

What makes you think this post was an attack? Have you lost your prowess?
Post by Diesel
He's like a *God* in the APVC (HAVP -sp) scene (whatever THAT is!)
hpavc. I'm not a god, i'm known and respected. There's a difference.
Thanks for the reminder. https://caughq.wordpress.com/category/hpavc/

Who else might I know there, Diesel?
GReMLiN
2020-07-26 23:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_B
Post by Diesel
I just worry for you. I sincerely hope you are okay.
It's so good to see someone write pleasant and meaningful
things here in ACW. Thanks for caring. :-)
I suspect Diesel will take it as my being sarcastic -- but I am
not. He is clearly becoming unhinged, and as much as I do poke
fun at his tantrum a fair amount, I also am sincere in hoping
he is OK.
I am truly impressed that you are not in the least bit fearful
of Dustin - someone who has the unique ability to completely
destroy the life of you and your family.
Why are you attacking me like this, David?
It's important for Snit to understand how ruthless you can be.
:)
Post by David_B
As far as any tantrum is concerned, uhh, no, I've just wasted
months now effectively, asking for an apology that you owe me for
some lies you wrote about me.
You are desperate to have me lie and say I agree with your
perspective -- which of course, if you could understand what you
read, you would

*** end

David, how many months did I let Jenn (Muggles) go off with nonsense
like that about me before I took a big chunk out of her arse and
slapped her around like a total bitch all over usenet, and someplaces
well outside of usenet? I ask because I forgot. It was awhile though,
right? I mean, I did take the time, just as I have with Snit, trying
to educate her didn't I?

Do you remember how much time eagle got to do his shit before I umm,
did some things which resulted in a not so fun time for him? Do you
by chance remember how many times both of them tried to get the law
dogs on me?

Ah well, I don't suppose it matters. Snit thinks i've been blowing
smoke up his ass the entire time anyway. I suspect if you told him
the truth (heh, if you do, it's because there's something in it for
you) which is that I've been 100% honest with him this entire time..
I didn't even come close to trying to BS him.

He'd disagree with you, or claim you misunderstood something or
other. He wouldn't accept the facts for what they are, David. No,
Snit actually thinks he is a peer of mine, that we're actually on the
same level, etc.

I doubt you can convince him otherwise at this point in time, David.
You propped him up with a comment you wrote awhile back, and he's not
about to let either of us show he's wrong now. He's far too invested.
The only way he will learn and understand differently is when he goes
far enough with me that he becomes another name on my wall of stupid
fuckers who should have known better, but had to be taught later.
And, as with eagle, and jenn, it will be your fault at the end of the
day.

You mislead them just as you did Snit concerning me. You are fully
responsible for what I suspect will eventually have to be done to
settle things properly. I'm simply defending myself and my
reputation.
Post by David_B
What makes you think this post was an attack? Have you lost your prowess?
David, I considered it to be an attack because I read it with a bit
of sarcasm to it. If that wasn't intentional on your part, then I
apologize. You haven't taken the time before to do any warning for
him, why begin now?
Post by David_B
Post by Diesel
He's like a *God* in the APVC (HAVP -sp) scene (whatever THAT is!)
hpavc. I'm not a god, i'm known and respected. There's a
difference.
Thanks for the reminder.
https://caughq.wordpress.com/category/hpavc/
Who else might I know there, Diesel?
Oh, when you want something from me, you're using the proper posting
nym. When you want to be an arsemunching cretin (which is what you
are most of the time during your waking hours), you pretend to show
a little respect..When it becomes real, I might actually humour some
of your questions.
--
I'd rather have a life than a living.
Diesel
2020-07-24 07:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Diesel
This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)
This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.
All those unquotable lies. Notice how Diesel offers just endless
babbling and no evidence as he spams many groups.
evidence? babbling? Oh, lemme help you out here.
Post by chrisv
This is the full version; very long.
(thousands of lines, snipped)
This is what happens, folks, when one don't have the wisdom to
ignore worthless trolls, like the "Snit" thing.
In my own defense, Snit arrived to alt.computer.workshop ahead of
those who could warn us about him. I'd already began interacting with
him by the time the warnings were issued. I foolishly opted to ignore
them and pursue the interaction. In hindsight, that was a mistake on
my part. As the result has turned out being what this thread is an
example of.
*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the
"Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to convince
anyone.
My intentions weren't so much as trying to convince anyone vs
defending my good name. Snit wrote the following, but, none of it's
true:

"Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the
bot but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified
it was merely the compiled code he had"

I've asked him to provide MID(s) to the post(s) that called me out as
well as the post(s) where I clarified I merely! had the compiled code
to the usenet flood bot that's been making friends in COLA for a long
time (so i'm told) and recently introduced itself in
alt.computer.workshop, after Snit and some individuals who for
various reasons (everyone has Snit lying in common) arrived.

When Snit attempted to confuse the issue by spinning it around as a
misunderstanding of some kind on my end, that's essentially when the
thread I shared relevant contents of here began.

As you can see, I provided the MIDs, howardknight bookmark
quicklinks, as well as full message bodies. There's no denying that
other well known regulars from alt.computer.workshop called him out
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so
much to Diesel.
Apd responded with this:

None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.

*** end snippit 1
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from
Carroll's flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he
can tell me.
Apd responded to Snit (again) with this:

No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.

For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our
run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has no
access to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the accusation
and thus he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd still believe he
has no access because of what he's been writing about the thing. If
I were a gambling man I'd place a very large bet on him having no
involvement.

*** end snippit 2

As you can see, twice Apd confirms what I accused Snit of doing; that
is, to accuse me of something I did not do. Snit has been trying to
spin the entire thing into a misunderstanding on my part since I
began requesting an Apology for the lies he wrote concerning my
knowledge of, access to, and involvement with the bot.
Post by chrisv
Post by Diesel
Post by Diesel
Even if you'd not made the accusation
It's not *just* an accusation (in an endless stream
of them), it's unsupported and clearly made for a
purpose in a campaign to convince readers that 'Snit
is good, Diesel is bad'. There is *no* way you don't
know this, so WTF is the story here?
That story doesn't address the fact that Snit is doing
what we can all clearly see (even DB sees it, he's only
quiet about it because Snit 'supports' his BS). You haven't
noticed the lengths that Snit has gone to in order to keep
attention focused on the bot? Or his over the top, hard sell
that I run it? Or that he's the only person who has tried
to seek benefit from it?
FromTheRafters responded to him with this:

I see it, but I skip most of the bot related posts because I am not
interested in such a lame program.

*** end snippit 3

Once again, you can clearly see two other people have also noticed
Snit lied on me, and is attempting to whitewash it away as a
misunderstanding on my part. It's nothing of the sort. Now, you have
three people, other than myself, who agree that what Snit wrote isn't
true, it wasn't ever true. Snit did infact make a series of unfounded
accusations towards me when he wrote this:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159159190100
Diesel made it clear he had access not just to the output of the bot
but to the code itself. When called out on this he clarified it was
merely the compiled code he had:

<***@ZdS859K14.7p1JRyU90Zyd>
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----

So how did Diesel get a copy of the program, compiled or not? My
guess: he will NEVER say.

** end

And the thread contents I shared with this new topic all address
every single thing he wrote, in considerable detail. Snit *LIED* on
me, and I think at this point, he knew he was lying when he wrote the
shit he did! I don't even think it was a misunderstanding on his part
at this point. I believe he did it intentionally and just didn't
expect or anticipate that I'd actually come after him for it.
Post by chrisv
*Everyone*, who has been paying attention, already knows that the
"Snit" thing is a pathological liar. There is no need to
convince anyone.
Again with the unquotable lies.
Some are in this reply, above. Along with quotes from several other
regulars from alt.computer.workshop calling your accusation for what
it is, an accusation; not a misunderstanding, but an accusation, made
by you against me about the usenet flood bot that bothers people
unable to use a filter in various newsgroups.
Post by chrisv
Pretty-much all that thing does is lie, and then claim that no
one can quote it lying. It will read an example of its lying,
and immediately ask why you can't show an example of its lying.
I'm sure that it will do so, in response to this post.
Notice: no example.
Provided above. Extensively, provided above.
Post by chrisv
Obviously, that thing's posts are filtered, here. Occasionally,
I post examples of its lies, obtained when others have responded
to it, in my .sig.
Nope.
As everyone can see, as much as you wish they didn't, what Chrisv
wrote about you is true, and this reply also confirms it with
examples. <g>

Groups restored, Snit. you aren't going to hide. you lied on me, and,
I want an apology for what you did. It's as simple as that.
--
Justice is incidental to law and order.
John Doe
2020-07-24 21:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Please keep this personal garbage off of USENET...
--
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.politics.guns,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Subject: Snit busted - Lied about the bot
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:15:36 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 2064
Injection-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:15:36 -0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iNqc2wUpMdRSKPBO7qpHMyTmoZE=
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org alt.computer.workshop:53091 comp.os.linux.advocacy:798208 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:236967 talk.politics.guns:1349279 alt.comp.os.windows-10:122972
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.computer.workshop/CMDEeUQncxQ%5B101-125%5D
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549546800
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549554500
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549562900
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549589200
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549601800
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549611800
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549619400
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549632500
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549651200
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549668500
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549677200
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549688000
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549701200
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549710300
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549720200
https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.computer.workshop/CMDEeUQncxQ/XaZcVP9yBQAJ
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549737900
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.computer.workshop/CMDEeUQncxQ%5B101-125%5D
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549546800
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2c45:: with SMTP id s66mr10997923wms.40.1591921810744;
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 2002:adf:db45:: with SMTP id f5ls2158269wrj.0.gmail; Thu, 11 Jun
2020 17:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4a04:: with SMTP id m4mr13135659wrq.153.1591921810330;
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Path: nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:30:07 -0700
Lines: 84
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net nfF7QIw6ZAHvEs1A2R1JmQr4nlMhgI+C7cnErDKdmHsNY14mUg
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PzHjQVCGXiyqS3/JCw5H4tPWWtg=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
When did I 'snip and run' with you?
Last week.
"Whatever the difference you still do the same things".
What I meant by "do" is "accuse each other of"
And I explained that I don't merely accuse. In large part,
I do what you just said to Snit in a previous post, I'll
confront his BS (unsupported) allegations. If you've been
reading, you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some code
other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK. Maybe I missed
the context -- but if so then what code did he mean. He never says. That
shoots down his own argument.
So we are left with he and I thinking the other made a mistake. I have
accepted that he may have just gotten confused or whatever and does not
really have access to Carroll's code (though it is interesting how
Carroll updated the code after buddy-ing up to a programmer, that does
not mean it is proved). So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping
Carroll I rescind that.
Additionally I have quoted where Diesel first said I had said I could
decode things other than hex, and then when he denies he said this.
Diesel clearly made an error. Whatever.
I do not demand that Diesel agree with me. I can disagree with someone
and still be civil, and not demand an apology. We all make mistakes. I
simply cannot see why it matters so much to Diesel.
as I said earlier in
the thread. I thought that would be clear but obviously not. That may
have irked you enough to ignore the majority of my comments or was
there another reason?
It wasn't totally clear to me but I may ignore stuff if
I feel it's going to have to prompt me to explain things
to you that I know we'll disagree on, just no point.
Ok. I don't want to continue arguing so I'll try to explain again.
If you feel I've hidden something or I'm being less than
truthful, I've not seen you indicate that to this point.
I don't think that. In another thread you said this about what you've
posted: "much that you've dismissed or ignored as evidence".
I explained some of that in my post you snipped.
Also, in your snipped reply, when you said by making the "do the same
things" statement I had to ignore him being a forger, troll, sock to
say that, I agree it would be the case in a comparison to you without
stating which things. The things in question and in common were
certain accusations you both make of each other, that's all.
I make them by showing current events -- not pulling things out of
context from 2004. :)
However, earlier in that thread you said my unwillingness to
recognize Snit's fight with reality was "part and parcel of giving him
cover". I don't understand that and dispute it. I'm not trying to
judge, excuse or take sides with either of you.
And I appreciate that. Again, I need not agree with you to be civil with
you, or even to appreciate you do seem to at least try to be fair
minded. I respect you.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549554500
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f707:: with SMTP id r7mr15071118wrp.390.1591956791140;
Fri, 12 Jun 2020 03:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 2002:a1c:2885:: with SMTP id o127ls1602905wmo.0.canary-gmail;
Fri, 12 Jun 2020 03:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:2e47:: with SMTP id u68mr12953288wmu.45.1591956790980;
Fri, 12 Jun 2020 03:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!37.252.120.71.MISMATCH!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:11:58 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 37
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:13:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3639ceb8f4806389b56a251fadb61e16";
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sVSJ3Z5dKhXzq+t1IINM12nBhc0=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some code
other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK. Maybe I missed
the context -- but if so then what code did he mean. He never says. That
shoots down his own argument.
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece of
software. He said as much.
[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.
You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that.
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so
much to Diesel.
None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.
I'm not trying to judge, excuse or take sides with either of you.
And I appreciate that. Again, I need not agree with you to be civil with
you, or even to appreciate you do seem to at least try to be fair
minded. I respect you.
It's the bitchiness or nastiness we can do without. I can understand
it now and again but we get nowhere when discussions degenerate into a
slanging match..
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549562900
Path: ...!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 03:25:58 -0700
Lines: 58
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net Nfa4zQdZmg1kTlA4giFveA5SKnaDxN41dbVXvIYHv3q4YOFrKR
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cgQIGykPJ0i/VbY/5qrP3Pz1GHM=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3686
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some code
other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK. Maybe I missed
the context -- but if so then what code did he mean. He never says. That
shoots down his own argument.
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece of
software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's Usenet
flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.
You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that.
I believe I have noted that.
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters so
much to Diesel.
None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.
Sure. But some of us handle it quite well. For example I am not gonna
cry and whine and throw a fit over Diesel doing so to me.
I'm not trying to judge, excuse or take sides with either of you.
And I appreciate that. Again, I need not agree with you to be civil with
you, or even to appreciate you do seem to at least try to be fair
minded. I respect you.
It's the bitchiness or nastiness we can do without. I can understand
it now and again but we get nowhere when discussions degenerate into a
slanging match..
Hence why I have suggested we both just move forward in peace and not
demand either says they agree with the other. I do not approve of
demanding he lie any more than I approve of him making such demands of
me. It is simply a fact I do not agree with him -- him saying I must
pretend to for him to move forward is, to me, just him being silly.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549589200
Path: ...!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 22:47:43 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 80
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 22:47:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5cdb1fd4303afd3dc3e5274e9a057c43";
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BfjUjtTQNFIw9ofa54nQmrtEeLw=
Bytes: 4485
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some
code other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK.
Maybe I missed the context -- but if so then what code did he
mean. He never says. That shoots down his own argument.
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.
You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that.
I believe I have noted that.
Where? And what do you mean by If? Are you having memory recall
issues or something?
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters
so much to Diesel.
None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.
Sure. But some of us handle it quite well. For example I am not
gonna cry and whine and throw a fit over Diesel doing so to me.
You really *didn't* get what Apd meant, Snit. He was agreeing with me
when he stated that nobody likes to be accused of doing what we
aren't. You wrongly accused me, Snit.
I'm not trying to judge, excuse or take sides with either of you.
And I appreciate that. Again, I need not agree with you to be
civil with you, or even to appreciate you do seem to at least
try to be fair minded. I respect you.
It's the bitchiness or nastiness we can do without. I can
understand it now and again but we get nowhere when discussions
degenerate into a slanging match..
Hence why I have suggested we both just move forward in peace and
not demand either says they agree with the other.
I don't need you to agree with me, I'm simply asking for you to do
the right thing and apologize for wrongly accusing me of having
anything to do with the usenet flood bot, or protecting it's owner(s)
as you claimed I'd done.
demands of me. It is simply a fact I do not agree with him -- him
saying I must pretend to for him to move forward is, to me, just
him being silly.
The only fact that's been established is that you lied about my
involvement with the bot, and haven't been able to apologize for
having done so. Instead, you're attempting to focus attention on
other things.
--
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549601800
Path: ...!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: 15 Jun 2020 00:24:49 GMT
Lines: 102
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net nDZIDM6wm+mzg9ytSVhyUAMyGj9Zl48yQndONUDvNX5wzqedmO
Cancel-Lock: sha1:a0t/5gefL4UQF1hkskYGO6G6w84= sha1:0XmVp8F6SExsPgEUoQIUtHEzFkg=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Bytes: 5524
[...] you can see he's doing the same thing with Diesel
right now.
Yup.
Diesel is playing a very immature game. He insists he meant some
code other than the code to Carroll's Usenet flood bot. OK.
Maybe I missed the context -- but if so then what code did he
mean. He never says. That shoots down his own argument.
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's flood
bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
[...] So if I ever directly said Diesel *WAS* helping Carroll I
rescind that.
You should perhaps reply to a post of his with that.
I believe I have noted that.
Where? And what do you mean by If? Are you having memory recall
issues or something?
I keep telling you it is merely a gift to you that I pay ANY attention to
this nonsense. I do not share your obsession. I am not demanding apologies
or even acknowledgment of your errors.
[...] We all make mistakes. I simply cannot see why it matters
so much to Diesel.
None of us like to be accused of doing what we are not.
Sure. But some of us handle it quite well. For example I am not
gonna cry and whine and throw a fit over Diesel doing so to me.
You really *didn't* get what Apd meant, Snit. He was agreeing with me
when he stated that nobody likes to be accused of doing what we
aren't. You wrongly accused me, Snit.
You missed how I am not throwing a fit over your incorrect accusations.
Frankly I am more mature than that.
I'm not trying to judge, excuse or take sides with either of you.
And I appreciate that. Again, I need not agree with you to be
civil with you, or even to appreciate you do seem to at least
try to be fair minded. I respect you.
It's the bitchiness or nastiness we can do without. I can
understand it now and again but we get nowhere when discussions
degenerate into a slanging match..
Hence why I have suggested we both just move forward in peace and
not demand either says they agree with the other.
I don't need you to agree with me, I'm simply asking for you to do
the right thing and apologize for wrongly accusing me of having
anything to do with the usenet flood bot, or protecting it's owner(s)
as you claimed I'd done.
I need not agree but if I don't then I should lie and pretend otherwise.
Oy. Nope. I want peace but will not give in and lie to you to get it.
demands of me. It is simply a fact I do not agree with him -- him
saying I must pretend to for him to move forward is, to me, just
him being silly.
The only fact that's been established is that you lied about my
involvement with the bot, and haven't been able to apologize for
having done so. Instead, you're attempting to focus attention on
other things.
I will not demand you apologize for those lies but I will not pretend you
are being even close to accurate. To do so I would have to lie. Remember I
will not lie for you, nor to get the peace I want.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549611800
Path: ...!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:20:02 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 27
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:21:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="87a26e7c0d56f1303e9c395def1c7157";
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZWhPvbFOXsbi5oJr4Mj6QJlrhKQ=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Bytes: 2833
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our
run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has no access
to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the accusation and thus
he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd still believe he has no
access because of what he's been writing about the thing. If I were a
gambling man I'd place a very large bet on him having no involvement.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549619400
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:cc0d:: with SMTP id h13mr13940123wmb.168.1592224657711;
Mon, 15 Jun 2020 05:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: ...!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: 15 Jun 2020 12:37:36 GMT
Lines: 54
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net Z2SQefzWoBZ6kLpVaBx6LQ3qPh9vMi/Qm3bfcWDIKyGJuuc14i
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ppD/ZNtoRVX8Dobj34l03/dK8cY= sha1:ZxXWvy3sLXJ9ddTbSw2jREcXyJA=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Bytes: 3805
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our
run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has no access
to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the accusation and thus
he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd still believe he has no
access because of what he's been writing about the thing. If I were a
gambling man I'd place a very large bet on him having no involvement.
I think he just misunderstood and changed the topic. As he did with my
decoding hex.
But I can disagree with him and be civil. I can disagree with you and be
civil. I can disagree with David and be civil.
I wish Diesel could disagree and be civil.
None of these past disagreements mean anything to me. I sincerely could not
care less. I grant Diesel a gift when I respond to what he cares about and
I do not.
Yet it only seems to anger him more. I find that odd. I am thinking it is
best to ignore his focus on this. Let him have his tantrum without me, but
still respond to him on other tipis where we might have shared interests.
I hope that works for him.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549632500
Path: ...!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.uzoreto.com!aioe.org!.POSTED.GSY+PKRX5UxGJ0aTc+npdw.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:57:20 -0400
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 87
NNTP-Posting-Host: GSY+PKRX5UxGJ0aTc+npdw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
X-ICQ: 1701145376
Bytes: 5355
Post by Diesel
Post by Diesel
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
You *really* believe the BS he's slinging at you now?
That it was in general doesn't mean it didn't apply
to the code in the context of the discussion, Snit is
*fully* aware of that fact. He's playing you and I
think you know it.
For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had our
run-ins and disagreements,
Is that your issue here (same one you have with me)?
I believe him when he says he has no access
to the flood-bot code.
That misses the point, the question here is *why*
Snit points fingers like he does. Anyone reading
can see it's beyond the 'hard sell' stage. What
do you get by ignoring the obvious to this extent?
That's what I don't understand. You get to converse
with people who are 'nice' to you? That they are
pathologically lying pieces of sh*t is irrelevant?
Even if you'd not made the accusation
It's not *just* an accusation (in an endless stream
of them), it's unsupported and clearly made for a
purpose in a campaign to convince readers that 'Snit
is good, Diesel is bad'. There is *no* way you don't
know this, so WTF is the story here?
The story, as I see it, is that somebody is running a lame spoofer
flooder bot or whatever and others are arguing about whose it is. I
don't care, it is filtered out.
That story doesn't address the fact that Snit is doing
what we can all clearly see (even DB sees it, he's only
quiet about it because Snit 'supports' his BS). You haven't
noticed the lengths that Snit has gone to in order to keep
attention focused on the bot? Or his over the top, hard sell
that I run it? Or that he's the only person who has tried
to seek benefit from it?
I see it, but I skip most of the bot related posts because I am not
interested in such a lame program.
It is a shame that GG doesn't have the filters needed to make groups
readable and the userbase clued in enough to use them.
The level of stock filtering it has is lame, to be sure.
But most people don't use it so it's sort of a moot point,
isn't it?
Yes GG ruined USENET.
At least then,
the tactics used by the bot creator to avoid filters might be
interesting.
If you haven't noticed the above, then you've probably
missed all of Snit's efforts to extract how I filter it.
If you guys are gonna give him cover, he's gonna take it.
I refuse to believe that people can't see what he is.
That's very perceptive.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549651200
Path: ...!news.misty.com!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:24:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Injection-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:24:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0bc2c2dfa6dafce1712046608a752ea2";
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bPObkXMv46pVYag9mZ8G8KGJrMY=
Bytes: 4633
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular
piece of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are
trying to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from
Carroll's flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he
can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general
was directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
Re-read the post you cherry picked a paragraph from, it's right
there!
For the record, I've know Diesel a long time and while we've had
our run-ins and disagreements, I believe him when he says he has
no access to the flood-bot code. Even if you'd not made the
accusation and thus he'd not have reason to make a denial I'd
still believe he has no access because of what he's been writing
about the thing. If I were a gambling man I'd place a very large
bet on him having no involvement.
I think he just misunderstood and changed the topic. As he did
with my decoding hex.
Apd and myself, disagree with you. You accused me, falsely. And you
owe me an apology.
But I can disagree with him and be civil. I can disagree with you
and be civil. I can disagree with David and be civil.
I wish Diesel could disagree and be civil.
It's not a matter of disagreement, Snit. Fact of the matter is that
you falsely accused me of having things to do with the bot. You owe
me an apology for having done that.
None of these past disagreements mean anything to me. I sincerely
could not care less. I grant Diesel a gift when I respond to what
he cares about and I do not.
Wow. Whoever claims you aren't arrogant is a fucking liar. You grant
me a gift by responding do you? So what the fuck do you call posting
lies about me? Another gift?
Yet it only seems to anger him more.
ROFL, you've *never* seen me angry, Snit.
I find that odd.
You find it odd when you lie on a person that they take issue with it
and proceed to take you to task for having done it? What planet do
you live on or come from where this isn't the norm?
I hope that works for him.
Umm, what would work for me is an apology and no further lies being
written about me by you.
--
In the entire state of Ohio in 1895, there were only two cars on the
road, and they managed to crash into each other.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549668500
Path: ...!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 02:08:02 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 40
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 01:09:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="825cf2b1603e0e003ea15e0d4e946f69";
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oEUZ5IbrzbVfgDtHCX9L9XHNx9Y=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Bytes: 3274
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source
code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs
output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code'
example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like its
source, will reveal what the program is doing.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no
topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549677200
Path: ...!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:45:56 -0700
Lines: 94
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net uqSR6bWCZCQW7KQahonh0ASAGyz8sLLhfWlFG09KjfFKB2VHB0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5y0eUdInzSkbKj86wKBIkHY7vcY=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5632
Post by Diesel
He was speaking about code in general, not any particular piece
of software. He said as much.
I have agreed he may have changed topics away from Carroll's
Usenet flood bot. He does tend to wander a lot as he posts.
You *didn't* understand what Apd wrote, or, you did, and are trying
to twist it into something else entirely. Which is it?
It is my understanding he said you changed topics away from Carroll's
flood bot code to code in general. If he disagrees he can tell me.
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source
code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs
output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code'
example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like its
source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not have
the executable program). That is what I think happened, too... he just
moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood bot code to
speaking about general methods even ones that were not relevant.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no
topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I was,
then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its code.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----
I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----
Assuming Diesel did not have the executable to disassemble, he is NOT
speaking of of the topic I was: Carroll's Usenet flood bot. He has
changed the topic.
If you disagree that is fine. To me it is 100% clear. I have little if
anything to add, and I do not think anything can be added to convince me
that Diesel speaking of a different topic than the one he responded to
is not an example of a topic change.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549688000
Path: ...!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:31:14 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 96
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:32:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="825cf2b1603e0e003ea15e0d4e946f69";
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r+pPg0qiJGw7P9LNugGDpxr4AIc=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Bytes: 5673
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source
code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs
output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code'
example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like
its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not have
the executable program). That is what I think happened, too... he just
moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood bot code to
speaking about general methods even ones that were not relevant.
It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover
things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the
original source.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no
topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I was,
then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its code.
It was relevant to the topic which was not changed.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in
the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text
(yours) and more.
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----
I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be seen
in order to say if the code is up to scratch.
Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen, he
"One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled".
Then he provided the example of not seeing the source...
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----
....which is an example of determining what the program does without
having the source code.
Assuming Diesel did not have the executable to disassemble, he is NOT
speaking of of the topic I was: Carroll's Usenet flood bot. He has
changed the topic.
The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying the
code has to be seen.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549701200
Path: ...!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: 17 Jun 2020 17:17:46 GMT
Lines: 154
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net hpaCUlQTuNhZmzKtx41jUwWlZlt+E49Lk4s5V6T4c4Uzr5jf5N
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BdPWZ1FedpSUUdwnxYMtI/VvbVM= sha1:ApN3Pf9MBNI4IrpGdUGq/Kb0MmE=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Bytes: 7946
No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was
directly related to the topic of the bot code itself.
How?
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source
code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs
output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code'
example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like
its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not have
the executable program). That is what I think happened, too... he just
moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood bot code to
speaking about general methods even ones that were not relevant.
It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover
things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the
original source.
Specificity, at least in part, with having the executable to disassemble.
Sure. Diesel was quite clear on that. In reference to the bot code I did
not think he had the executable, but his comments suggested otherwise. Why
else bring up the executable in reference to Carroll's bot?
I think he just went off topic and wanted to brag a bit about what he
thought I would not know. Now while I might not be able to disassemble code
I do understand the basic concept.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no
topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I was,
then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its code.
It was relevant to the topic which was not changed.
The topic of Carroll's flood bot code. That was what I was speaking of.
Maybe the whole misunderstanding is he missed that? Not really that
important to me but clearly it is to him.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in
the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text
(yours) and more.
My point if he snipped my comments and that may have led to him not seeing
the context.
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----
I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be seen
in order to say if the code is up to scratch.
Close. One needs more then JUST the output for that specific code. One must
know the goals. If one does not know the goals one cannot know if the
output reaches those goals or how well or how poorly it does so.
But, sure, if you know the goals you can speak to how well it works to
match them. And if you have the code or even the executable you can learn
more. I think we all agree on that. Maybe not.
But the focus by me was solely on Carroll's flood bot. With that we can
* Google seeding
* Carroll playing victim
* Carroll trolling me
* Carroll manipulating others to argue with me
* Carroll controlling conversations and pushing discord.
I listed others elsewhere. And on those I think his bot is rather
successful. If those are the goals then it works.
If the goals are otherwise then perhaps it does not.
Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen, he
Wait: what quote where I said the code had to be seen?
"One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled".
Then he provided the example of not seeing the source...
Where he spoke of disassembling the code... with the context being in
response to me speaking of Carroll's flood bot code.
One cannot disassemble code one does not have the executable for, as far as
I know. Maybe I am mistaken here? I doubt it.
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----
...which is an example of determining what the program does without
having the source code.
Specifically in response to Carroll's code. And disassembly.
Assuming Diesel did not have the executable to disassemble, he is NOT
speaking of of the topic I was: Carroll's Usenet flood bot. He has
changed the topic.
The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying the
code has to be seen.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else. Of course if
you have an app on your system you can do things with it.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549710300
Path: ...!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED.bb6wASuMjd0LOtbtueCHsA.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 22:40:26 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 171
NNTP-Posting-Host: bb6wASuMjd0LOtbtueCHsA.user.gioia.aioe.org
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Priority: 3
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Bytes: 8136
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the
source code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the
program's output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-
source-code' example of how a program disassembly, despite looking
nothing like its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not
have the executable program). That is what I think happened, too...
he just moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood
bot code to speaking about general methods even ones that were not
relevant.
It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover
things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the
original source.
Specificity, at least in part, with having the executable to
disassemble. Sure. Diesel was quite clear on that. In reference to
the bot code I did not think he had the executable, but his comments
suggested otherwise.
They didn't suggest that to me. And there's no reason to think there's
an executable. It's more likely to be a script.
Why else bring up the executable in reference to Carroll's bot?
As an analysis example.
I think he just went off topic and wanted to brag a bit about what he
thought I would not know. Now while I might not be able to disassemble
code I do understand the basic concept.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was
no topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I
was, then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its
code.
It was relevant to the topic which was not changed.
The topic of Carroll's flood bot code. That was what I was speaking
of.
I know.
Maybe the whole misunderstanding is he missed that? Not really that
important to me but clearly it is to him.
I don't believe he misunderstood.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in
the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text
(yours) and more.
My point if he snipped my comments and that may have led to him not seeing
the context.
I saw no snippage. He commented on all you quoted and more.
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----
I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be
seen in order to say if the code is up to scratch.
Close. One needs more then JUST the output for that specific code. One
must know the goals. If one does not know the goals one cannot know if
the output reaches those goals or how well or how poorly it does so.
But, sure, if you know the goals you can speak to how well it works to
match them. And if you have the code or even the executable you can
learn more. I think we all agree on that. Maybe not.
I'll accept knowing the goal(s) is one consideration.
But the focus by me was solely on Carroll's flood bot. With that we
* Google seeding
* Carroll playing victim
* Carroll trolling me
* Carroll manipulating others to argue with me
* Carroll controlling conversations and pushing discord.
Substitute "someone" for "Carroll".
I listed others elsewhere. And on those I think his bot is rather
successful. If those are the goals then it works.
If the goals are otherwise then perhaps it does not.
Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen,
Wait: what quote where I said the code had to be seen?
"One has to see the code to know that".
"One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled".
Then he provided the example of not seeing the source...
Where he spoke of disassembling the code... with the context being in
response to me speaking of Carroll's flood bot code.
One cannot disassemble code one does not have the executable for, as
far as I know.
Correct. It was an example of seeing how something works without having
the original source code.
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----
...which is an example of determining what the program does without
having the source code.
Specifically in response to Carroll's code. And disassembly.
Just as an example of analysis.
The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying
the code has to be seen.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else.
Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How
well he addressed it is another matter.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549720200
https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.computer.workshop/CMDEeUQncxQ/XaZcVP9yBQAJ
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6884:: with SMTP id h4mr1510363wru.198.1592433019357;
Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 2002:adf:aace:: with SMTP id i14ls4808658wrc.3.gmail; Wed, 17 Jun
2020 15:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:adf:a350:: with SMTP id d16mr1412057wrb.237.1592433018796;
Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Path: nntp.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:30:15 -0700
Lines: 338
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net rV6osoMPL2vQuOLNdzYcagY+lBEXEdrnS7unEF0zzO102Hw0T2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F30n8zs3mh/zr2BLz3/SmkaV1gA=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said
one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the
source code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the
program's output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-
source-code' example of how a program disassembly, despite looking
nothing like its source, will reveal what the program is doing.
And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not
have the executable program). That is what I think happened, too...
he just moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood
bot code to speaking about general methods even ones that were not
relevant.
It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover
things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the
original source.
Specificity, at least in part, with having the executable to
disassemble. Sure. Diesel was quite clear on that. In reference to
the bot code I did not think he had the executable, but his comments
suggested otherwise.
They didn't suggest that to me. And there's no reason to think there's
an executable. It's more likely to be a script.
I am pretty sure JavaScript can be compiled... but it is almost
certainly JavaScript based on what Carroll has shared.
Why else bring up the executable in reference to Carroll's bot?
As an analysis example.
But if the analysis does not fit the context then what is the value?
I think he just went off topic and wanted to brag a bit about what he
thought I would not know. Now while I might not be able to disassemble
code I do understand the basic concept.
I would probably have used a different example to do with examining
the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was
no topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source.
But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I
was, then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its
code.
It was relevant to the topic which was not changed.
The topic of Carroll's flood bot code. That was what I was speaking
of.
I know.
And Diesel went off topic to talk about code in general (which is fine)
but then code which did not include the code being discussed. That is
where I say he went off topic.
Without a huge rehash (again), I will just copy and paste a comment I
-----
I spoke of specific code - Carroll's flood bot code. I
noted without knowing the goals we cannot say how well it
is coded. We can infer goals and make guesses - and then
speculate about if there are better ways Carroll could
meet his goals.
Diesel talked about how we can also assess the code in
other ways as can be done with any code - specifically by
disassembling it. As far as I know that requires having
the executable. Maybe I am wrong about that (but I
sincerely doubt it).
He later said he did not mean to imply he had the
executable - but as far as I know he has not gone into any
other way to assess Carroll's code other then what I have
talked about. Maybe he can do that and explain more of
what he meant in terms or the code that was being
discussed. [1]
I have acknowledged and agreed other than his comments
about disassembly, which he says he did not mean to imply
was the case with the code being referenced, I see nothing
which indicates he has the code. I had talked about how
Carroll made changes to his code during that time which
suggests he MIGHT have had outside help. I even speculated
IF he did it could be Diesel or Sandman (I would say
Sandman is more likely but still we do not have direct
evidence of that).
Anyway: A simple misunderstanding he is bent very much out
of shape about. He seeks to be offended.
[1] Or maybe he cannot. Perhaps his whole offense is
feigned to avoid speaking of how without the code or
executable he has little to add about the topic of
assessing Carroll's code other than what I have said. I
sincerely would like to get back to that topic - but he
moved away from it as he claimed deep offense at lies he
cannot quote. Curious.
-----
Pretty much sums up my take on the whole thing. If you or others
disagree that is fine... I simply do not see the value in getting worked
up over it.
I *would* like to hear from Diesel and you and others on any RELEVANT
analysis of Carroll's bot code. What can we tell from it (I have written
some about that).
Maybe the whole misunderstanding is he missed that? Not really that
important to me but clearly it is to him.
I don't believe he misunderstood.
Fair enough. I have said my piece. We can disagree.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300
You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in
the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text
(yours) and more.
My point if he snipped my comments and that may have led to him not seeing
the context.
I saw no snippage. He commented on all you quoted and more.
He snipped this bit in parts (which is fine)... but in doing so when he
responded to the second part it made it seem like I might have been
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----
Notice if you take the second paragraph out of context it is far less
clear I am speaking specifically of the flood bot... but in context it
is clear.
I think what happened is Diesel responded to the first paragraph and
then responded to the second... no longer really thinking in terms of
the first and the context that is set there. A minor thing. I really do
not get why he is making such a big deal out of it.
I mean I could note that this is my view of what happened (it is and I
have) and show it fits the evidence (it does, as I show above) and
insist that if you and he disagree you are lying and demand an apology
and refuse to ever speak peacefully with you or he again, especially
about this!
But, no, that would be unbelievably absurd of me to do. But it seems
that is what Diesel is doing. I just do not get the mindset.
-----
I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to
have the bot break apart sentences and respond to
keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do
it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot,
yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even
want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding...
and it does that well.
Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the
output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see
the code to know that.
-----
I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code
alone. No other. I am being specific.
Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be
seen in order to say if the code is up to scratch.
Close. One needs more then JUST the output for that specific code. One
must know the goals. If one does not know the goals one cannot know if
the output reaches those goals or how well or how poorly it does so.
But, sure, if you know the goals you can speak to how well it works to
match them. And if you have the code or even the executable you can
learn more. I think we all agree on that. Maybe not.
I'll accept knowing the goal(s) is one consideration.
Fair enough. And I accept there can be others.
I am curious as to those other things you are thinking of... and what
speculations you can reach about the code. I have shared mine
(JavaScript as the language, goals as stated below -- with perhaps
others, etc.).
But the focus by me was solely on Carroll's flood bot. With that we
* Google seeding
* Carroll playing victim
* Carroll trolling me
* Carroll manipulating others to argue with me
* Carroll controlling conversations and pushing discord.
Substitute "someone" for "Carroll".
The person running it seems to have those goals. To me it is very clear
who is running it... but again, you can disagree and I shan't attack you
for it.
But if you agree "someone" has those goals -- fine. If you think the
goals are otherwise, that is also fine. I am curious as to what you
think the goals are and how well you think the bot meets those goals.
I think looking into that will help to point to who runs the bot. The
more people who know that, in the groups it "invades", the better off we
are in responding to that "someone" and understanding them better.
I listed others elsewhere. And on those I think his bot is rather
successful. If those are the goals then it works.
If the goals are otherwise then perhaps it does not.
Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen,
Wait: what quote where I said the code had to be seen?
"One has to see the code to know that".
Where, out of the context of the paragraph before it, it might be
applied to code other than "someone's" flood bot. But with that context
it is clear I mean just that code.
That is sorta the heart of my point. Well, a sub-point. My bigger point
is such focus on minutia and picking apart of words to see how they can
be interpreted and then trying to find blame and push accusations is, to
me, a silly endeavor.
I can say what *I*, the author of that text, meant: I was very much
thinking and writing in terms of "someone's" specific code (the flood
bot). I was not speaking in terms of code in general, and certainly not
in terms of code EXCLUDING "someone's" flood bot code. (Side note: I can
NOT say this about some much older comments of mine, or perhaps even
ones made at roughly the same time -- but I can about THIS text).
You and Diesel say you understand my meaning differently. Um, OK. I have
clarified. You can accept or reject it and I am OK with that. I hold no
ill will toward either of you for doing so. I am neither blaming you of
purposeful misinterpretation nor suggesting I worded it poorly (I do not
think I did).
It really is just a non-issue to me, the only thing turning it into an
issue is Diesel's focus on it and surrounding comments in that thread.
"One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine
what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be
sampled".
Then he provided the example of not seeing the source...
Where he spoke of disassembling the code... with the context being in
response to me speaking of Carroll's flood bot code.
One cannot disassemble code one does not have the executable for, as
far as I know.
Correct. It was an example of seeing how something works without having
the original source code.
Right. Something that does not apply UNLESS you have access to the
executable (one cannot disassemble without the assembled code, at least
as far as I know).
-----
Do you think when you disassemble something that you're
provided the original source code that was
compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're
given looks nothing like the original source code, but it
still tells you *everything* about the program.
-----
...which is an example of determining what the program does without
having the source code.
Specifically in response to Carroll's code. And disassembly.
Just as an example of analysis.
So not tied to the topic of "someone's" flood bot. Sure. I think we are
in agreement on this.
The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying
the code has to be seen.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else.
Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How
well he addressed it is another matter.
Right: I think he has been clear he does not have the code. I accept
there is no evidence he does (if the misunderstanding I speak of above
is true, or something akin to it, his comments in relation to it are not
evidence of him having the code).
Sigh.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=159549737900
X-Received: by 2002:adf:eacc:: with SMTP id o12mr4536472wrn.139.1592483181024;
Thu, 18 Jun 2020 05:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 2002:a5d:6507:: with SMTP id x7ls7029950wru.0.gmail; Thu, 18 Jun
2020 05:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4bcb:: with SMTP id l11mr4681723wrt.363.1592483180746;
Thu, 18 Jun 2020 05:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!weretis.net!feeder7.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop
Subject: Re: FORGERY
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:26:18 +0100
Organization: ad hoc
Lines: 43
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:26:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="4c2d7561cf7f2ea826bac3b303bc7e28";
Cancel-Lock: sha1:efBu6H5oMrMnP0yF6tE8Uci3N9g=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
[...]
I *would* like to hear from Diesel and you and others on any RELEVANT
analysis of Carroll's bot code. What can we tell from it (I have
written some about that).
I haven't done any, other than to note the text is copied from other
posts usually with name changes, and probably wont.
I don't believe he misunderstood.
Fair enough. I have said my piece. We can disagree.
I'll leave it at that.
But if you agree "someone" has those goals -- fine. If you think the
goals are otherwise, that is also fine. I am curious as to what you
think the goals are and how well you think the bot meets those goals.
I see no point to it apart from annoying people who use Google Groups,
like Carroll does. That's something that makes you a suspect. It doesn't
really meet that goal since he is able to work around it. Most people
can't filter in GG.
Remember I was speaking of Carroll's bot code. Nothing else.
Yep, but he addressed your point about needing to see the code. How
well he addressed it is another matter.
Right: I think he has been clear he does not have the code. I accept
there is no evidence he does (if the misunderstanding I speak of above
is true, or something akin to it, his comments in relation to it are
not evidence of him having the code).
I've snipped most of your comprehensive reply where you've explained
why the context appeared different to you and other matters. I won't
argue about it but there's enough there for Diesel to get his teeth
into if he wishes.
--
If you START to take Vienna, TAKE Vienna! --Napoleon B.
Loading...