XPost: alt.computer.workshop, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   From: pothead@snakebite.com   
      
   On 2025-08-16, Mike Oxbrown  wrote:   
   > Brock McNuggets wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Aug 12, 2025 at 6:54:27 PM MST, ""Mike Oxbrown"" wrote   
   >> <107gr8j$3l4d9$1@dont-email.me>:   
   >>   
   >> > So who is he?   
   >> > This weirdo is polluting about 20 different groups with off topic   
   >> > messages. Am I the only person seeing this? If so, my sincere   
   >> > apologies but if not what can we do, if anything to get this   
   >> > spammer tossed by his ISP?   
   >> > There is strength in numbers. Thank you for your consideration. Now   
   >> > back to our regularly scheduledd program.   
   >>   
   >> Another sock!   
   >   
   > You sure have quite a collection of socks Mr. Snit.   
   > Why is that?   
      
   Because snit is a troll.   
   Ask him about sigmond, Tmelmosfire and dozens of other nyms and socks he   
   has used over the past few decades that he has been trolling.   
      
      
   > I also took the time wqhile recovering from minor surgery to check some   
   > of your messages and claims you have made. Yes, I am bored to tears. It   
   > is very telling Mr. Snit.   
      
   Hope you are mending fine.   
      
      
   > A. I see no evidence that your claim that diesel has a copy of source   
   > code for some bot you evidently wrote. While I am not familiar with the   
   > bot I did check the message ID's you post and none of them substantiate   
   > that claim. the net of it is just because someone, anyone, claims the   
   > coding of any program is poor does not in anyway equate to having   
   > source code.   
   >   
   > Unless you can provide a post where diesel  specifically makes that   
   > claim, you are 100% off base with your attack. Obviously you do not   
   > understand programming, even at a script level. I could provide   
   > examples to back up my argument but I doubt you have enough technical   
   > ability to understand them.   
      
   Snit cannot.   
   In case you are unaware diesel = Gremlin.   
   Same person.   
      
   Snit just keeps repeating the same lies hoping they will somehow become truth.   
   He is truly insane.   
      
      
   > B. Your accusations that people, pretty much everyone, who disagrees   
   > with you is a Steve sock puppet.   
   > I see no proof from you regarding that claim. Following your lack of   
   > logic that would mean every poster on those websites exposing your   
   > trolling is a Steve or someone elses sock. That is ludicrous. It makes   
   > no sense.   
      
   This is one of snit's go to trolls when he can't defend his points.   
   It was worn out 15 years ago and nobody believes anything snit says   
   so he is wasting his time.   
   Since he is living on the government dole, time is one thing snit has a lot of.   
      
      
   > The real question is why do so many people seem to dislike you?   
   > Do you have an answer for that one?   
   > And you usual answer of being honest, and replying to trolls and so   
   > forth is not acceptable.   
      
   The answer is snit is a mentally ill troll who uses USENET as his own personal   
   therapy session.   
   For some reason snit enjoys making a fool of himself in public.   
   Strange behavior IMHO.   
   Very strange.   
      
      
   > What have you done over the past 10 years to piss off so many people?   
   > Personally I have never encountered on USENET or blogs in general   
   > anyone quite like you and why you seem to be the rotten apple in the   
   > bunch.   
   > It's strange to say the least.   
   > You must be one hell of a toxic person to attract so much hate.   
      
   Indeed.   
   It takes a special kind of toxic to rack up so many different people who   
   despise snit.   
   And the pattern follows him wherever he goes on USENET.   
      
      
      
   > C. Last one for today because this one did take some effort. You claim   
   > a poster is a white supremacists which is really a rather bold   
   > accusations.   
   > You have posted the following message id's many times.   
   >   
   ><688ff1ad$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>   
   ><683367db$9$10360$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>   
   ><6831d3ac$0$16$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>   
   >   
   > I've looked at all 3 of them and I see nothing that indicates the   
   > poster you are attacking is a white supremacist.   
   > Nothing.   
      
   I'm that poster.   
   You and everyone else snit has attempted to drag into his white supremacy   
   world.   
   Even his bestie in ACW won't back him on this claim because he knows it is   
   100% false.   
      
   > So where are you pulling this accusation from?   
   Same place he gets all of his information from, his a$$.   
      
   > You may disagree with the poster but nothing you claim matches what   
   > that poster has posted. And exactly what does "says things a white   
   > supremacist would say" mean?   
      
   It doesn't.   
   As you have discovered those m-id have nothing to do with snit's claims.   
   Others have   
   discovered this as well which is why snit is unable to get any traction on   
   this even   
   from people who disagree, politically, with me.   
      
   Snit gets exposed as a lunatic, left wing liar every time.   
   And with all the information on the net regarding snit, it doesn't take long.   
      
   Bottom line is, snit Michael Glasser of Prescott Arizona is mentally ill.   
      
      
   > You are free to explain your pov and how you have arrived at such an   
   > incorrect accusation.   
      
   He can't.   
      
   > You appear to be some kind of compulsive liar snitty.   
      
   Actually snit is a pathological liar, not that it matters.   
   He is crazy as a bedbug.   
      
      
   --   
   pothead   
      
   "Our lives are fashioned by our choices. First we make our choices.   
    Then our choices make us."   
   -- Anne Frank   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)