From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 24/4/05 15:06, in article BE909373.13FB8%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   "Snit"  wrote:   
      
   > Wally and I just went a few rounds over some events in CSMA, and it is clear   
   > some solid conclusions were reached:   
      
   LOL   
      
   > * Wally has a bias when it comes to me.  Even Wally admits to this.   
      
   In fact it was Wally that first said as much....   
      
   1)   
   "Hopefully she has learnt her lesson and now keeps her images well away   
   from you, it is unfortunate that an innocent party should have been   
   impacted on merely by being associated with you, but I doubt she is the   
   first!"   
      
   2)   
   " It is my opinion that if Elizabot were to make an honest mistake which is   
   what you claim to have done, her approach would differ from yours in at   
   least one fundamental aspect, she would explain how she could have made such   
   an error, you have been asked to explain how you could possibly get the idea   
   that you had identified an ip pointing back to Elizabot by viewing an image,   
   you have never, nor will you ever explain exactly how you arrived at that   
   idea, because, and here is another difference between you, your error was   
   not arrived at honestly, it was simply a lie....pure and simple."   
      
   3)   
   And this little exchange....   
      
   Wally   
   >> As I have said, considering csma, considering you, and considering the   
   >> availability of the image...I see no problem.   
      
   Snit   
   > Why considering me and CSMA?  So her actions were OK, to you, as long as   
   > they were done in CSMA and against me?   
      
   Wally   
   Frankly! That does just about sum it up!   
      
   Snit   
   >  Does your sense of morality really make such distinctions?   
      
   Wally   
   Afraid so! In this case yes.   
      
   Snit   
   >  She can do things like that to me... but not   
   > others?  She can do those things in CSMA, but not elsewhere?  That is loony!   
      
   Wally   
   You are missing the common denominator!............YOU."   
      
   Of course Snit couldn't grasp the idea that anyone could have such a low   
   opinion of him, which accounts for him saying...........   
      
   " perhaps, you do not see anything wrong with such attacks against other   
   people?"   
      
   Hahahahhaha "other people" I had only referenced him in that way! LOL   
   But finally he got the idea, but he still could not quite understand so I   
   explained it to him.....   
      
   " My bias does not extend to ignoring the truth, which in this case is that   
   you made accusations regarding images without a shred of evidence to back   
   them up, an admission was made wrt one image, yet you still cannot admit   
   that you are floundering wrt the bulk of your accusations to the extent that   
   you repeatedly ask me to help you present proof........wake up to yourself!   
   There is no proof, you were wrong...but as usual you cannot face that fact!"   
      
   > * Wally, Elizabot, and I (and others) agree that Elizabot took at least   
   >   one image, edited it, and reposted it to a public forum.  At one point,   
   >   however, Wally refused to admit she had done all of these actions and   
   >   would only claim she had done *one* action, though he would not say which   
   >   one!   
      
   *Sherlock.......   
   action   
   7: the series of events that form a plot   
      
    Action......" series of events" not according to Snit!   
      
   Just like applying the term  'mistake' to a series of actions such as "steal   
   an image, edit it, and repost it to a public forum" a series of mistakes?   
   Apparently not...   
      
   Snit   
   " So you do not think it is a mistake to steal an image, edit it, and repost   
   it to a public forum?"   
      
   It is easy to nit pick such things when you have nothing of substance to   
   offer, a situation Snit often finds himself in!   
      
   > Eventually even he saw the futility of his game and admitted she   
   > had done multiple actions.   
      
   I saved an awful lot of time that way!   
      
   > * While I have commented on still more actions of Elizabot, including   
   >   digging through my site, I have not been able to produce public proof   
   >   of this.   
      
   Actions which I proved were inaccurate such as " digging through my site" an   
   action which I conclusively proved was not necessary to arrive at his images   
   which were easily accessible from his main page links!   
      
   > * My other comments about Elizabot's actions, according to Wally, are   
   >   not accurate; he has even gone so far as to claim I am lying -   
   >   though he has, of course, offered nothing to prove his accusations against   
   >   me on this.  Unlike me, who is honest when I can not provide public   
   >   support for my allegations, Wally refuses to admit to his lack of evidence   
   >   for his accusations.  Wally, it seems, fails to see the irony of his   
   >   actions (irony is an abstract concept...).   
      
   You need look no further than this post for Snits dishonesty!, It is a fact   
   that Elizabot has admitted to downloading ONE image, not 'close to one' not   
   'nearly one' and not 'more or less than one' it is an undeniable fact that   
   the number in question is 'ONE' and yet what does Snit say?...   
      
   "Wally, Elizabot, and I (and others) agree that Elizabot took at least   
   one image"   
      
   That is dishonest! none of the other people mentioned above have agree to   
   the notion of "at least one image", I for example have stated multiple times   
   that I only agree to the 'ONE' image because Elizabot admits to it! Can he   
   show anyone agreeing to anything other than 'ONE' image? He has already   
   admitted that he cannot offer any proof at all for his accusations! And yet   
   he holds this up as an example of him being honest? LOL   
      
    > * Elizabot's actions were obviously not honest - she clearly did   
   >   edits in a way to be offensive (ex: adding feminine hygiene products   
   >   to the image).  She also did not seek ask permission from either the   
   >   person who took the photos nor the person who was the subject of the   
   >   photos.   
      
   Yet more inconsistency, Firstly I have shown that the images were found   
   under the sub heading 'My Pages' so why would anyone not consider then his   
   images? Secondly as for the downloading...he asked me if I would download   
   from his site?, my reply was...   
      
   "I have certainly downloaded images from your site....specifically during   
   your pdf debacle!"   
      
   He replied....   
   "Correct - from pages I linked to.  I have no problem with your doing so."   
      
   Well two things come from that, he states he has no problem with people   
   downloading images from pages that he has linked to, and I have shown that   
   his images are linked to via his main page......no digging involved.   
      
   So what are we left with? The altering and posting of the image...   
      
   As to the altering Snit appeared to see the funny side, as he refers to   
   It as "the joke"....   
      
   Snit...   
   "oh wait... on closer look... yup... you modified the image... I get it...   
      
   Sigh... bad enough you would put feminine hygiene products (with wings...   
   yeah, I get the joke ) on the picture of me, but you did so rather poorly...   
   their are clear rectangles of solid color around each pad.   
      
   I will not comment if I like it or not that you did that, but just curious   
   as to why..."   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)