Steve Carrol Drooling Fuck Tube Thinks Headers Are Not Usenet Posts

[Steve Carroll]

If I wrote a letter and posted it in the mail using an envelope, your
address and a stamp then I would have posted a letter. However, I
could
have
also just sent a blank piece of paper, some used arsewipe or a book
token.
The act of sending whatever is still referred to as posting a letter,
regardless. If the envelope was empty and it got posted, it's no
different.
If you receive an email with no content then you've still received the
email, no?

While you can have a post that is just a header most posts are not just
headers.
Wasn't the initial question, though, if the header was a part of the
post?
I
did not really follow the debate...

All I noticed was something about a header by some fuckwit whining about
poor
grammar, the issue is not grammar at all, it's notional. If I make a
post
it's
a post. All posts have headers, most have some content, some may have
empty
subject lines or bodies but a post is a post nonetheless. Tim Murray may
be
some sort of donkeys' scrotum licker for all I know or care.

I agree with your above comments about posts... and, of course, disagree
with Steve Carroll's bogus accusations that his posts are my
responsibility
- especially when, apparently, it has now been proved that at least some
of
the posts he denies having made were made with header info that proves he
did make them.

As I have only admitted to having written the posts that used the same
header
info as this post here... this just isn't possible. But that's your MO all
the
way... believing things that are just not possible (see quoted material
below).

Frankly Steve Carroll is in serious, serious need of psychological help -
over a disagreement about Bush from several *years* ago he has been
freaking
out, following me, and trolling me ever since. So he failed to be able to
refute an argument about his then-hero George W. Bush. Oh well. Is it
not
time he move on?

You really need to get your money back on your "psych degree", Snit;)

Here is the gist of your Bush "argument"...

--
Me:
"Your argument asserted that a sitting President is a war criminal. You
agreed (a few paragraphs above) that the evidence you used to support
this was 'based on legalities' (based on the breaking, or not, of a law)".

Snit:
"Yes. Very good".

Me:
"You have just admitted that your evidence does not prove this assertion".

Snit:
"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points to
the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof".

Me:
"You have just completed your challenge to refute your own argument".

Snit (now babbling incoherently, as he usually does when whupped):
"Since early on I have been asking for refutations. I do not believe I have
ever stated that none can possibly exist, only that none have been provided.
If I felt none could exist, why would I be seeking one?

My argument strongly supports the conclusion I reach, but I am open to
counter evidence. Acknowledging that there is the possibility that a
refutation may exist does not prove its existence. I am not sure what you
were thinking when you asserted such".
BBFBA53B.34A2D%snit-***@cableone.net>

--

What more needs to be said? LOL!

[Steve Carroll]

"The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt"

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:16:22 -0600, Steve Carroll did most oddly

I keep telling Snit people are not as stupid as he needs them to
be and they are not. You clearly are another of his
sockpuppets/shills and will not listen to reason. I am done
arguing with you. Talk to the hand.

Check the headers and you will see the above post is from Snit and
not me. My headers have Comcast and my IP listed. Snit's
forgeries do not.
Stop forging me asshole. I will report you to the police.

Prove they're *Snit's*, and not, say, K-Man's, or mine (neither he
nor I are "Snit", who is being voted on for a kook award right
now, until tomorrow night). Wild, bug-eyed, foaming accusations,
aimed at some guy who handed you your head in a political flamewar
about five years ago, are nothing.

Steve blames me when the weather is bad.

Whose fault is this?

Apparently, Snit's, according to you. A less-biased point of view
might well see it as a matter of your own obsession blinding you --
or perhaps it's because you're a wingnut. I dunno.

You want to beleive that all these people who I quoted (and you snipped)
blame Snit for no reason at all. Does that strike you as reasonable at all
or are you just going to prove you are another Snit sockpuppet/shill.

Come on, Snit, you are forging my posts and posting with more sockpuppets
than you usually do. Does your wife need to lock the medicine cabinent
againt?