Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club - Linux

This is a discussion on Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club - Linux ; Snit wrote: > But before you said the voice you heard was "altered" to be high pitch... my > voice is anything but high pitch. I never said it was altered, you idiot. And you hardly have a bass or ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 166

Thread: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

  1. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    Snit wrote:

    > But before you said the voice you heard was "altered" to be high pitch... my
    > voice is anything but high pitch.


    I never said it was altered, you idiot. And you hardly have a bass or
    baritone voice, either.

    Obviously I can't prove my claim, but that doesn't matter because you and I
    know the truth.

    > Utter BS. You are - flat out - lying.


    This from the COLA king of liars. Where's that EXIF data, chump?
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....If you believe in telekinesis, please raise my hand.

    Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
    Good to the last supper

  2. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    "Tattoo Vampire" stated in post
    134gi60chu8x0$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/29/08 2:04 AM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >
    >> But before you said the voice you heard was "altered" to be high pitch... my
    >> voice is anything but high pitch.

    >
    > I never said it was altered, you idiot. And you hardly have a bass or
    > baritone voice, either.
    >
    > Obviously I can't prove my claim, but that doesn't matter because you and I
    > know the truth.


    Yup - we know you are spewing lies into a public forum. You are making
    accusations you cannot support, will not support, and know to be utter BS.

    You are a liar...

    >> Utter BS. You are - flat out - lying.

    >
    > This from the COLA king of liars. Where's that EXIF data, chump?


    I am *not* going to teach you how to find EXIF data. Go look it up.

    --
    "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
    - Anatole France




  3. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:

    > "Tattoo Vampire" stated in post
    > 134gi60chu8x0$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/29/08 2:04 AM:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> But before you said the voice you heard was "altered" to be high
    >>> pitch... my voice is anything but high pitch.

    >>
    >> I never said it was altered, you idiot. And you hardly have a bass or
    >> baritone voice, either.
    >>
    >> Obviously I can't prove my claim, but that doesn't matter because you and
    >> I know the truth.

    >
    > Yup - we know you are spewing lies into a public forum. You are making
    > accusations you cannot support, will not support, and know to be utter BS.
    >
    > You are a liar...
    >
    >>> Utter BS. You are - flat out - lying.

    >>
    >> This from the COLA king of liars. Where's that EXIF data, chump?

    >
    > I am *not* going to teach you how to find EXIF data. Go look it up.
    >


    You know what EXIF data, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser

    The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was
    --
    Proposed Additions to the PDP-11 Instruction Set:

    BPO Branch on Power Off
    BST Backspace and Stretch Tape


  4. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    "Peter Khlmann" stated in post
    48b7c08d$0$11739$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 2:25 AM:

    ....
    >>> Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> But before you said the voice you heard was "altered" to be high
    >>>> pitch... my voice is anything but high pitch.
    >>>
    >>> I never said it was altered, you idiot. And you hardly have a bass or
    >>> baritone voice, either.
    >>>
    >>> Obviously I can't prove my claim, but that doesn't matter because you and
    >>> I know the truth.

    >>
    >> Yup - we know you are spewing lies into a public forum. You are making
    >> accusations you cannot support, will not support, and know to be utter BS.
    >>
    >> You are a liar...
    >>
    >>>> Utter BS. You are - flat out - lying.
    >>>
    >>> This from the COLA king of liars. Where's that EXIF data, chump?

    >>
    >> I am *not* going to teach you how to find EXIF data. Go look it up.
    >>

    >
    > You know what EXIF data, ...
    >
    > The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was


    One: the topic of this sub-thread was Tattoo's lies about me calling him...
    an accusation he refuses to back away from though he now admits he has no
    support for. Yippee... you have let him distract you from that real topic.

    Two: I *never* said I even looked for EXIF data in *two* images. You have
    been told this and yet you keep claiming it... thus removing any doubt that
    you are merely mistaken: you are lying. Yup, once again Peter Khlmann has
    proved himself to be a liar.

    --
    The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
    offering things that Linux is not.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


  5. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    Snit wrote:

    > "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    > 48b7c08d$0$11739$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 2:25 AM:
    >
    > ...
    >>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> But before you said the voice you heard was "altered" to be high
    >>>>> pitch... my voice is anything but high pitch.
    >>>>
    >>>> I never said it was altered, you idiot. And you hardly have a bass or
    >>>> baritone voice, either.
    >>>>
    >>>> Obviously I can't prove my claim, but that doesn't matter because you
    >>>> and I know the truth.
    >>>
    >>> Yup - we know you are spewing lies into a public forum. You are making
    >>> accusations you cannot support, will not support, and know to be utter
    >>> BS.
    >>>
    >>> You are a liar...
    >>>
    >>>>> Utter BS. You are - flat out - lying.
    >>>>
    >>>> This from the COLA king of liars. Where's that EXIF data, chump?
    >>>
    >>> I am *not* going to teach you how to find EXIF data. Go look it up.
    >>>

    >>
    >> You know what EXIF data, ...
    >>
    >> The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was

    >
    > One: the topic of this sub-thread was Tattoo's lies about me calling
    > him... an accusation he refuses to back away from though he now admits he
    > has no
    > support for. Yippee... you have let him distract you from that real
    > topic.


    I don't care a tiny little bit about what you want to make the topic.
    And I care even less for your lies.

    > Two: I *never* said I even looked for EXIF data in *two* images. You have
    > been told this and yet you keep claiming it... thus removing any doubt
    > that
    > you are merely mistaken: you are lying. Yup, once again Peter Köhlmann
    > has proved himself to be a liar.
    >


    Why did you then bring up "EXIF" in the first place when the date of the
    pictures was in "discussion", liar Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser?

    The only explanation which makes sense is that you downloaded the pictures
    and then mistook the file date (which was the date of the download) for the
    date the pictures where taken, and then to make your incompetence even more
    visible to claim it was EXIF data.

    Every other "explanation" from you is even more lunatic, and your continuous
    attempts to put words in peoples mouth make that all the more clear

    So, keep on lying, dishonest twit Michael Glasser
    --
    Only two things are infinite,
    the Universe and Stupidity.
    And I'm not quite sure about the former.
    - Albert Einstein


  6. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    "Peter Khlmann" stated in post
    48b7c692$0$11748$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 2:51 AM:

    ....
    >>> You know what EXIF data, ...
    >>>
    >>> The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was

    >>
    >> One: the topic of this sub-thread was Tattoo's lies about me calling him...
    >> an accusation he refuses to back away from though he now admits he has no
    >> support for. Yippee... you have let him distract you from that real topic.
    >>

    > I don't care a tiny little bit about what you want to make the topic. And I
    > care even less for your lies.


    More accusations by Peter Khlmann. Yawn.

    >> Two: I *never* said I even looked for EXIF data in *two* images. You have
    >> been told this and yet you keep claiming it... thus removing any doubt that
    >> you are merely mistaken: you are lying. Yup, once again Peter Khlmann has
    >> proved himself to be a liar.

    >
    > Why did you then bring up "EXIF" in the first place when the date of the
    > pictures was in "discussion",


    I made comments about *one* picture. One. You lied and claimed I talked
    about *two* images.

    I called you on it and you dodged. Oh well - I, again, have proved you to
    be a liar.

    As far as why I brought up the EXIF data for the *one* image: I did so
    because it was relevant to the point I was making. How could you miss that?

    I snipped your off-topic fairy tales. I am not interested in them.

    So, Peter, when will you stop lying about the one picture I commented on
    being two. Can you not count that high?

    --
    I know how a jam jar feels...
    .... full of jam!


  7. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:

    > "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    > 48b7c692$0$11748$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 2:51 AM:
    >
    > ...
    >>>> You know what EXIF data, ...
    >>>>
    >>>> The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was
    >>>
    >>> One: the topic of this sub-thread was Tattoo's lies about me calling
    >>> him... an accusation he refuses to back away from though he now admits
    >>> he has no
    >>> support for. Yippee... you have let him distract you from that real
    >>> topic.
    >>>

    >> I don't care a tiny little bit about what you want to make the topic. And
    >> I care even less for your lies.

    >
    > More accusations by Peter Köhlmann. Yawn.
    >
    >>> Two: I *never* said I even looked for EXIF data in *two* images. You
    >>> have been told this and yet you keep claiming it... thus removing any
    >>> doubt that
    >>> you are merely mistaken: you are lying. Yup, once again Peter Köhlmann
    >>> has proved himself to be a liar.

    >>
    >> Why did you then bring up "EXIF" in the first place when the date of the
    >> pictures was in "discussion",

    >
    > I made comments about *one* picture. One. You lied and claimed I talked
    > about *two* images.
    >
    > I called you on it and you dodged. Oh well - I, again, have proved you to
    > be a liar.
    >
    > As far as why I brought up the EXIF data for the *one* image: I did so
    > because it was relevant to the point I was making. How could you miss
    > that?


    If that EXIF data was relevant, how come that the picture does not contain
    any? And, BTW, the other picture does not contain any EXIF data as well

    Do you even recognize how ridiculous you sound, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael
    Glasser?
    You actually claim that *non-existant* data is relevant to your lies

    > I snipped your off-topic fairy tales. I am not interested in them.
    >
    > So, Peter, when will you stop lying about the one picture I commented on
    > being two. Can you not count that high?
    >


    I don't care if you *again* want to move the topic. The post you responded
    to with "EXIF" had links to *two* pictures.
    That you now lie about having just viewed / talked about one of them is even
    more ridiculous, Michael Glasser.
    --
    99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.


  8. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    In article <48b7c692$0$11748$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>,
    Peter Khlmann wrote:

    > Snit wrote:
    >
    > > "Peter Khlmann" stated in post
    > > 48b7c08d$0$11739$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 2:25 AM:
    > >
    > > ...
    > >>>> Snit wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> But before you said the voice you heard was "altered" to be high
    > >>>>> pitch... my voice is anything but high pitch.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I never said it was altered, you idiot. And you hardly have a bass or
    > >>>> baritone voice, either.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Obviously I can't prove my claim, but that doesn't matter because you
    > >>>> and I know the truth.
    > >>>
    > >>> Yup - we know you are spewing lies into a public forum. You are making
    > >>> accusations you cannot support, will not support, and know to be utter
    > >>> BS.
    > >>>
    > >>> You are a liar...
    > >>>
    > >>>>> Utter BS. You are - flat out - lying.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> This from the COLA king of liars. Where's that EXIF data, chump?
    > >>>
    > >>> I am *not* going to teach you how to find EXIF data. Go look it up.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> You know what EXIF data, ...
    > >>
    > >> The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was

    > >
    > > One: the topic of this sub-thread was Tattoo's lies about me calling
    > > him... an accusation he refuses to back away from though he now admits he
    > > has no
    > > support for. Yippee... you have let him distract you from that real
    > > topic.

    >
    > I don't care a tiny little bit about what you want to make the topic.
    > And I care even less for your lies.
    >
    > > Two: I *never* said I even looked for EXIF data in *two* images. You have
    > > been told this and yet you keep claiming it... thus removing any doubt
    > > that
    > > you are merely mistaken: you are lying. Yup, once again Peter Khlmann
    > > has proved himself to be a liar.
    > >

    >
    > Why did you then bring up "EXIF" in the first place when the date of the
    > pictures was in "discussion", liar Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser?
    >
    > The only explanation which makes sense is that you downloaded the pictures
    > and then mistook the file date (which was the date of the download) for the
    > date the pictures where taken, and then to make your incompetence even more
    > visible to claim it was EXIF data.


    which is exactly what michael glasseer did. by using one of the methods he
    claimed to use, ie photoshop file info, you can see the date (and time) change
    using the same picture, depending on when you downloaded the file. ppoor ****,
    the prescott computer guy thinks that this is 'EXIF Data' when it clearly is no
    such thing.

    >
    > Every other "explanation" from you is even more lunatic, and your continuous
    > attempts to put words in peoples mouth make that all the more clear
    >
    > So, keep on lying, dishonest twit Michael Glasser


    --
    regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
    you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
    the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm

  9. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    "Peter Khlmann" stated in post
    48b7cb9b$0$11745$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 3:12 AM:

    ....
    >>> Why did you then bring up "EXIF" in the first place when the date of the
    >>> pictures was in "discussion",

    >>
    >> I made comments about *one* picture. One. You lied and claimed I talked
    >> about *two* images.
    >>
    >> I called you on it and you dodged. Oh well - I, again, have proved you to
    >> be a liar.
    >>
    >> As far as why I brought up the EXIF data for the *one* image: I did so
    >> because it was relevant to the point I was making. How could you miss
    >> that?

    >
    > If that EXIF data was relevant, how come that the picture does not contain
    > any? And, BTW, the other picture does not contain any EXIF data as well
    >
    > Do you even recognize how ridiculous you sound, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael
    > Glxsser?
    > You actually claim that *non-existant* data is relevant to your lies
    >
    >> I snipped your off-topic fairy tales. I am not interested in them.
    >>
    >> So, Peter, when will you stop lying about the one picture I commented on
    >> being two. Can you not count that high?
    >>

    >
    > I don't care if you *again* want to move the topic. The post you responded
    > to with "EXIF" had links to *two* pictures.
    > That you now lie about having just viewed / talked about one of them is even
    > more ridiculous, Michael Glxsser.


    Above, Peter Khlmann:

    1) Accuses me of being Rekruled - an accusation he has shown *no*
    support for.

    2) Ignores the fact that he claimed the *one* image I talked about
    was *two* images. He was busted lying and simply refuses to
    acknowledge his lie.

    3) Claims "relevant" EXIF data did not even exist. Er? If Peter
    now does not believe in the EXIF data he is harping on then
    why does he even bring it up? Whacked in the head... that
    is what Peter is.

    4) *Again* cross-posts his BS to other groups for *no* good
    reason other than to try to extent the reach of his circus.

    Peter, your trolling is - again - getting repetitive. Be a good dancing
    monkey and entertain me with better material or I shall give you the worst
    punishment you can imagine: I will stop giving you the gift of attention.
    Face it, that is what this is about: you just want attention as a way of not
    facing your own self-loathing.



    --
    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
    --Albert Einstein


  10. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    "Tim Adams" stated in post
    teadams$2$0$0$3-6D1481.22103728082008@free.teranews.com on 8/28/08 7:10 PM:

    > In article ,
    > "Don Zeigler" wrote:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> Wrong about what. Put the context back. Frankly your snipping to run
    >>> from
    >>> your lies grows old.

    >>
    >> Context my ass. You claimed the EXIF tags showed that photo was taken on
    >> 8/28, a claim you later changed, excusing your original claim as a "typo".

    >
    > change the date on your computer, download the same file and get yet another
    > date.


    EXIF data is the date of the image, Tim, not the date of the download.
    Really.

    Amazing. Just amazing.

    > funny how that 'EXIF tag' keep changing.


    You are the *only* one claiming EXIF data changes based on the date you
    download a file. Well, you and your sock puppet "Why Me". Gee, I thought
    you were denying that was your sock puppet but now you have shown - again -
    that it *clearly* is.

    > perhaps snit could explain why since he's the one claiming EXIF data is
    > present in the picture with the calendar.


    You, not I, are the one who claimed that the EXIF tag kept changing. And
    you are wrong. I am always amazed at how pathetic your errors are.



    --
    "In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
    what's left." - Skip Hansen


  11. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:49:28 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:

    > Snit wrote:
    >
    >> So there we have it, two ways in which Tattoo Vampire and I are
    >> different. I value honesty and honor in myself and others - he does not.

    >
    > The guy who called me at work and then denied it talks about honesty.


    Michael Snit Glasser, the guy who tried to blackkmail someone, & talks
    about honesty.

    Michael Snit Glasser, the guy who changes what people *actually* posted, &
    talks about honesty.

    What a strange idea of honesty The Prescott Computer Guy has.

    > That's right, Glasser. I watched a few seconds of one of your videos. Your
    > voice is the same one I heard during that phone call.
    >
    > I'm not saying that as a troll or a flame. I'm saying it because it's the
    > truth, and you know it is.
    >
    > Take my advice and don't dare to ever call me at the office again. I can
    > make some calls myself, you know.


    --
    ɐ ɯoɹɟ ʇuǝs sɐʍ ǝƃɐssǝɯ sıɥʇ
    pǝǝʇuɐɹɐnƃ sı ɥɔıɥʍ ɹǝʇndɯoɔ
    ˙snɹıʌ ǝzopuıʍ $ɯ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝǝɹɟ %00⇂
    -- sɯǝʇsʎs xnuıl/nuƃ --


  12. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:

    > "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    > 48b7cb9b$0$11745$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 3:12 AM:
    >
    > ...
    >>>> Why did you then bring up "EXIF" in the first place when the date of
    >>>> the pictures was in "discussion",
    >>>
    >>> I made comments about *one* picture. One. You lied and claimed I
    >>> talked about *two* images.
    >>>
    >>> I called you on it and you dodged. Oh well - I, again, have proved you
    >>> to be a liar.
    >>>
    >>> As far as why I brought up the EXIF data for the *one* image: I did so
    >>> because it was relevant to the point I was making. How could you miss
    >>> that?

    >>
    >> If that EXIF data was relevant, how come that the picture does not
    >> contain any? And, BTW, the other picture does not contain any EXIF data
    >> as well
    >>
    >> Do you even recognize how ridiculous you sound,
    >> Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glxsser?
    >> You actually claim that *non-existant* data is relevant to your lies
    >>
    >>> I snipped your off-topic fairy tales. I am not interested in them.
    >>>
    >>> So, Peter, when will you stop lying about the one picture I commented on
    >>> being two. Can you not count that high?
    >>>

    >>
    >> I don't care if you *again* want to move the topic. The post you
    >> responded to with "EXIF" had links to *two* pictures.
    >> That you now lie about having just viewed / talked about one of them is
    >> even more ridiculous, Michael Glxsser.

    >
    > Above, Peter Köhlmann:
    >
    > 1) Accuses me of being Rekruled - an accusation he has shown *no*
    > support for.


    Irrelevant who you claim not to be. Your sock-puppets are well known and
    easy to detect, Michael Glasser

    > 2) Ignores the fact that he claimed the *one* image I talked about
    > was *two* images. He was busted lying and simply refuses to
    > acknowledge his lie.


    Again completely irrelevant. *Both* pictures contain *no* EXIF data. Data
    which you, Michael Glasser, claim to be relevant

    > 3) Claims "relevant" EXIF data did not even exist. Er? If Peter
    > now does not believe in the EXIF data he is harping on then
    > why does he even bring it up? Whacked in the head... that
    > is what Peter is.


    *You+ have brought up the EXIF data. Without realizing that the pictures did
    not contain any. When you where asked to provide that data and/or people
    started to ridicule you for your blunder because there is none, you tried
    to shift the argument. Your typical MO, Michael Glasser

    > 4) *Again* cross-posts his BS to other groups for *no* good
    > reason other than to try to extent the reach of his circus.


    Oh, you are not the dumbest poster ever (except maybe OxRetard) from CSMA?
    You are not a Mac user? Interesting, Michael Glasser

    > Peter, your trolling is - again - getting repetitive. Be a good dancing
    > monkey and entertain me with better material or I shall give you the worst
    > punishment you can imagine: I will stop giving you the gift of attention.
    > Face it, that is what this is about: you just want attention as a way of
    > not facing your own self-loathing.
    >


    And again Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser has not answered *any* argument
    at all. Because he can't without admitting that he is a lying, dishonest
    twit
    --
    The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
    the day they start making vacuum cleaners.


  13. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    "Peter Khlmann" stated in post
    48b7d4a0$0$11740$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 3:51 AM:

    >> Above, Peter Khlmann:
    >>
    >> 1) Accuses me of being Rekruled - an accusation he has shown *no*
    >> support for.

    >
    > Irrelevant who you claim not to be. Your sock-puppets are well known and
    > easy to detect, Michael Glasser


    Ah, Peter Khlmann the self-loathing has the "right" to spew whatever
    insults he wants if he thinks - somehow - doing so will make others look as
    bad as he thinks of himself.

    OK. So you can spew accusations to try to make yourself feel better about
    yourself. So?

    >> 2) Ignores the fact that he claimed the *one* image I talked about
    >> was *two* images. He was busted lying and simply refuses to
    >> acknowledge his lie.

    >
    > Again completely irrelevant.


    Ah, Peter claims his lies are just, well, "irrelevant". LOL! Poor Peter -
    does not even deny his bizarre claims are not lies... just says his lies are
    "irrelevant".

    Seriously, Peter, I could not have dreamt up someone as pathetic as you.

    >> 3) Claims "relevant" EXIF data did not even exist. Er? If Peter
    >> now does not believe in the EXIF data he is harping on then
    >> why does he even bring it up? Whacked in the head... that
    >> is what Peter is.

    >
    > *You+ have brought up the EXIF data.


    Yes. And then you denied it existed. That was funny. Sort of.
    ....
    > Without realizing that the pictures


    Pictures? Again you are back to referring to the *one* image with the
    calendar as "images".

    Learn to count to... one.

    Seriously, how incompetent can you be, Peter?
    ....
    >> 4) *Again* cross-posts his BS to other groups for *no* good
    >> reason other than to try to extent the reach of his circus.

    >
    > Oh, you are not the dumbest poster ever (except maybe OxRetard) from CSMA?
    > You are not a Mac user?


    And Peter then dodges the fact that he, clearly, cross posted to a group
    that has *nothing* to do with the topic. Oh, and to sooth his wounded ego
    he spews some more irrelevant insults. Ah, the lengths Peter Khlmann will
    go to try to deal with his intense self-loathing and all-too-apparent anger.
    >
    >> Peter, your trolling is - again - getting repetitive. Be a good dancing
    >> monkey and entertain me with better material or I shall give you the worst
    >> punishment you can imagine: I will stop giving you the gift of attention.
    >> Face it, that is what this is about: you just want attention as a way of
    >> not facing your own self-loathing.
    >>

    >
    > And again ... Snit... has not answered *any* argument at all. Because he
    > can't without admitting that he is a lying, dishonest twit


    Ah, more baseless accusations from Peter... he wants me to answer an
    "argument" he never even made. As is his norm, Peter is too incompetent and
    not bright enough to even *make* an argument - he just spews insults and
    accusations he cannot even try to support... proves repeatedly he is a liar,
    and then shows he has miserable technical skills.

    Rinse. Repeat.

    Come on, Peter - you were amusing enough to get one more response from me...
    keep begging for my attention and being an amusing moron and I shall give
    you the gift of my attention - the thing you are clearly begging for. But I
    shall warn you: sink to just your boring repetition or otherwise fail to
    amuse me (and humiliate yourself) and I shall stop giving you the attention
    you crave.

    Clap! My monkey, Clap!

    --
    Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
    Feel free to ask for the recipe.




  14. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    Snit wrote:

    > Yup - we know you are spewing lies into a public forum. You are making
    > accusations you cannot support, will not support, and know to be utter BS.


    No, I can't support it. But I know what I heard, so don't insult my
    intelligence, Glasser.

    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....Is there ever a day when mattresses are NOT on sale?

    Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
    Good to the last supper

  15. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:51:10 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:
    >
    >> "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    >> 48b7cb9b$0$11745$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 3:12
    >> AM:
    >>
    >> ...
    >>>>> Why did you then bring up "EXIF" in the first place when the date of
    >>>>> the pictures was in "discussion",
    >>>>
    >>>> I made comments about *one* picture. One. You lied and claimed I
    >>>> talked about *two* images.
    >>>>
    >>>> I called you on it and you dodged. Oh well - I, again, have proved
    >>>> you to be a liar.
    >>>>
    >>>> As far as why I brought up the EXIF data for the *one* image: I did so
    >>>> because it was relevant to the point I was making. How could you miss
    >>>> that?
    >>>
    >>> If that EXIF data was relevant, how come that the picture does not
    >>> contain any? And, BTW, the other picture does not contain any EXIF data
    >>> as well
    >>>
    >>> Do you even recognize how ridiculous you sound,
    >>> Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glxsser?
    >>> You actually claim that *non-existant* data is relevant to your lies
    >>>
    >>>> I snipped your off-topic fairy tales. I am not interested in them.
    >>>>
    >>>> So, Peter, when will you stop lying about the one picture I commented
    >>>> on being two. Can you not count that high?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> I don't care if you *again* want to move the topic. The post you
    >>> responded to with "EXIF" had links to *two* pictures. That you now lie
    >>> about having just viewed / talked about one of them is even more
    >>> ridiculous, Michael Glxsser.

    >>
    >> Above, Peter Köhlmann:
    >>
    >> 1) Accuses me of being Rekruled - an accusation he has shown *no*
    >> support for.

    >
    > Irrelevant who you claim not to be. Your sock-puppets are well known and
    > easy to detect, Michael Glasser
    >
    >> 2) Ignores the fact that he claimed the *one* image I talked about
    >> was *two* images. He was busted lying and simply refuses to
    >> acknowledge his lie.

    >
    > Again completely irrelevant. *Both* pictures contain *no* EXIF data. Data
    > which you, Michael Glasser, claim to be relevant
    >
    >> 3) Claims "relevant" EXIF data did not even exist. Er? If Peter
    >> now does not believe in the EXIF data he is harping on then why does
    >> he even bring it up? Whacked in the head... that is what Peter is.

    >
    > *You+ have brought up the EXIF data. Without realizing that the pictures
    > did not contain any. When you where asked to provide that data and/or
    > people started to ridicule you for your blunder because there is none, you
    > tried to shift the argument. Your typical MO, Michael Glasser
    >
    >> 4) *Again* cross-posts his BS to other groups for *no* good
    >> reason other than to try to extent the reach of his circus.

    >
    > Oh, you are not the dumbest poster ever (except maybe OxRetard) from CSMA?
    > You are not a Mac user? Interesting, Michael Glasser
    >
    >> Peter, your trolling is - again - getting repetitive. Be a good dancing
    >> monkey and entertain me with better material or I shall give you the
    >> worst punishment you can imagine: I will stop giving you the gift of
    >> attention. Face it, that is what this is about: you just want attention
    >> as a way of not facing your own self-loathing.
    >>
    >>

    > And again Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser has not answered *any*
    > argument at all. Because he can't without admitting that he is a lying,
    > dishonest twit


    The Prescott Computer Guy sure is twisted. What a POS.

    --
    ɐ ɯoɹɟ ʇuǝs sɐʍ ǝƃɐssǝɯ sıɥʇ
    pǝǝʇuɐɹɐnƃ sı ɥɔıɥʍ ɹǝʇndɯoɔ
    ˙snɹıʌ ǝzopuıʍ $ɯ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝǝɹɟ %00⇂
    -- sɯǝʇsʎs xnuıl/nuƃ --


  16. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    William Poaster wrote:

    > What a strange idea of honesty The Prescott Computer Guy has.


    It makes you wonder how honest he is in his "business" dealings.
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....Sorcerer parking only. Violators will be toad.

    Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
    Good to the last supper

  17. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:26:07 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:

    > William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >> What a strange idea of honesty The Prescott Computer Guy has.

    >
    > It makes you wonder how honest he is in his "business" dealings.


    He's one screwed up person, & I wouldn't trust him in *anything*.

    --
    ɐ ɯoɹɟ ʇuǝs sɐʍ ǝƃɐssǝɯ sıɥʇ
    pǝǝʇuɐɹɐnƃ sı ɥɔıɥʍ ɹǝʇndɯoɔ
    ˙snɹıʌ ǝzopuıʍ $ɯ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝǝɹɟ %00⇂
    -- sɯǝʇsʎs xnuıl/nuƃ --


  18. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    Peter Khlmann wrote:

    >The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:
    >>
    >> I am *not* going to teach you how to find EXIF data. Go look it up.

    >
    >You know what EXIF data, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser
    >
    >The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was


    The fsckwit is still pretending that people don't know how to "find
    EXIF data". Amazing. Even jackasses like Quack usually have some
    idea when they should stop digging...


  19. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    On 2008-08-29, chrisv wrote:
    > Peter Khlmann wrote:
    >
    >>The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:
    >>>
    >>> I am *not* going to teach you how to find EXIF data. Go look it up.

    >>
    >>You know what EXIF data, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser
    >>
    >>The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was

    >
    > The fsckwit is still pretending that people don't know how to "find
    > EXIF data". Amazing. Even jackasses like Quack usually have some
    > idea when they should stop digging...


    You don't even really "know how". If you just use the default
    image viewer in GNOME you will trip over the EXIF data without
    even realizing it.

    No arcane commandline utilities required.

    --

    It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.

    They brought us the email virus.

    In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
    been considered a complete absurdity. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  20. Re: Newest member of the COLA Trolls Liar's Club

    JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > On 2008-08-29, chrisv wrote:
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>>The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:
    >>>>
    >>>> I am *not* going to teach you how to find EXIF data. Go look it up.
    >>>
    >>>You know what EXIF data, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser
    >>>
    >>>The one which was not present in 2 pictures, and you claimed it was

    >>
    >> The fsckwit is still pretending that people don't know how to "find
    >> EXIF data". Amazing. Even jackasses like Quack usually have some
    >> idea when they should stop digging...

    >
    > You don't even really "know how". If you just use the default
    > image viewer in GNOME you will trip over the EXIF data without
    > even realizing it.
    >
    > No arcane commandline utilities required.
    >


    If you just point with the mouse cursor on a picture with exif data, the
    most important ones of that data are displayed without any further action
    in Konqueror

    That idiotic dishonest twit Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser has not the
    tiniest clue about linux and is showing what kind of asshole he really is
    by his claims about "people don't know how to find EXIF data"

    If he uses substandard Mac software which needs extra clicks it is his
    problem, but he should stop pretending that he knows anything at all about
    linux. In reality he knows jack ****.
    But then, he is a "IT teacher". The most incompetent one in all recorded
    history. He has a "business". Yeah, right. Pull another one, Snot Glasser
    --
    Proposed Additions to the PDP-11 Instruction Set:

    CMFRM Come From -- essential for truly structured programming
    CPPR Crumple Printer Paper and Rip


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast