"JEDIDIAH" stated in post
slrngbfut3.vf4.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/29/08 6:37 AM:

....
>>> 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.

Exactly... and yet Peter Köhlmann *denied* EXIF data exists on the very file
Tattoo Vampire corrected me on (I said the creation date was the 28th and he
correctly said it was the 26th).


--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!

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

> "chrisv" stated in post
> fprfb4la1eij0o1fdnij7bf9mft4771nul@4ax.com on 8/29/08 5:46 AM:
>
> ...
>>> 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...
>>
> OK, for the *one* image in question (not the *two* as Peter Köhlmann keeps
> lying about)

Do you actually claim that Tattoo Vampire did not supply *two* URLs with
*two* different JPGs (and both without any EXIF data)?

> tell me what date the EXIF data lists as the creation date.

It tells you nothing. Non-existant EXIF data will tell you zilch

> I first said it was the 28th... Tattoo Vampire corrected me and said it
> was the 26th (he was correct - I made a typo)

He told you that you had a date in the future. He said *nothing* about any
EXIF date.

> and now Peter Köhlmann says he could not even find the EXIF data.

Not "and now", you lying fool. I have said so from the very start when you
made a clown of yourself with that ridiculous "EXIF" claim

> Others have agreed they could not find it.

Right, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser
Nobody except you can find it. Because there is *no* EXIF data in that file.
Face it: You got caught lying again. No way to wiggle out of it

> And, frankly, this *very simple "caper"* is beyond boring.
>
Naturally you find it "boring". Because you have been shown again what
incredibly dishonest twit you are. You lied, plain and simple.

And because you find it so "boring", expect to get hammered with it for the
next 25 years.

--
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:47:14 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
> slrngbfut3.vf4.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/29/08 6:37 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> 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.
>
> Exactly... and yet Peter Köhlmann *denied* EXIF data exists on the very
> file Tattoo Vampire corrected me on (I said the creation date was the 28th
> and he correctly said it was the 26th).

And yet there is no EXIF data for that file. Perhaps Photoshop saw there
was not EXIF data and decided to be "user friendly" and create some using
the file date stamp.

Now you can show us where Tattoo Vampire "correctly said it was the 26th"

Bug

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:44:56 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "chrisv" stated in post
> fprfb4la1eij0o1fdnij7bf9mft4771nul@4ax.com on 8/29/08 5:46 AM:
>
> ...
>>> 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...
>>
> OK, for the *one* image in question (not the *two* as Peter Köhlmann
> keeps lying about) tell me what date the EXIF data lists as the creation
> date. I first said it was the 28th... Tattoo Vampire corrected me and
> said it was the 26th (he was correct - I made a typo), and now Peter
> Köhlmann says he could not even find the EXIF data.
>
> Others have agreed they could not find it.
>
> And, frankly, this *very simple "caper"* is beyond boring.

There is no EXIF data for that file. You got fooled by Photoshop.

Bug

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

> "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
> slrngbfut3.vf4.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/29/08 6:37 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> 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.
>
> Exactly... and yet Peter Köhlmann *denied* EXIF data exists on the very
> file Tattoo Vampire corrected me on (I said the creation date was the 28th
> and he correctly said it was the 26th).

Message-ID: <4mifhhv9i9yp$.dlg@this.domain.or.that>

He said nothing of that sort. He said "How could it be taken on August 28th
when today is only the 26th?"
Notice that he does not mention any creation date or EXIF data, lying fool
Glasser?

You then answered:
Message-ID:
--------------
Hmmm, darn good question... and my typo.. it was taken today, on the 26th.
--------------


And he again corrected you:
Message-ID: <17jo33ikoeygb.dlg@this.domain.or.that>
--------------
Wrong yet again, idiot. It was taken last month, after I moved into that
office. Last month was July, hence a July magazine schedule on the wall.
Follow that, Prescott Computer Guy?
--------------

Care to misrepresent the thread some more, Liar Glasser?


You cretinous fool. There is no EXIF data in that file.
No matter how much you wish it would materialize out of thin air, it is not
present. You have committed a hilarious blunder and instead of admitting
it, you started lying even worse. And now you find no way out of it,
Michael Liar Glasser
--
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?

"Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
48b827c7$0$20699$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 9:45 AM:

....
>>>> 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...
>>>
>> OK, for the *one* image in question (not the *two* as Peter Köhlmann keeps
>> lying about)
>
> Do you actually claim that Tattoo Vampire did not supply *two* URLs with
> *two* different JPGs (and both without any EXIF data)?

He could have posted 1000 images... what would it matter in a discussion
about the *one* image he posted with a July calendar and EXIF data that
showed it was taken near the end of Aug (I first said the EXIF data said the
28th but Tattoo corrected me and told me it was the 26th).

You have since claimed that you could not find the EXIF data at all. OK, so
you do not know how to find EXIF data.... whatever. It is not like there
was any reason to think you had *any* technical skills.

Of course, in reaction to your ignorance you lashed out, as you do so often.
You:

* Accused me of posting with the name Rekruled... an outright lie from you.
* You have called me names
* You have cross-posted your BS to forums that are not involved in your
circus
* You have belittled my family

Seriously, Peter, don't you see how out of control you have become? How
obsessive and irrational and self-loathing? I shall warn you: Steve Carroll
went down the same path and he had a very public mental break down. You and
Tattoo Vampire likely will do the same - heck, you and Tattoo are already
mentally "damaged"... much more than Steve was years ago when he freaked out
over a disagreement about George W. Bush.



--
I think the Apple guys have a very good point when they say we should let
designers lead the definition of the user experience.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)

Why don't you take this to private email. No one in these groups cares.

Steve

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:00:05 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
> 48b827c7$0$20699$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 9:45 AM:
>
> ...
>>>>> 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...
>>>>
>>> OK, for the *one* image in question (not the *two* as Peter Köhlmann
>>> keeps lying about)
>>
>> Do you actually claim that Tattoo Vampire did not supply *two* URLs with
>> *two* different JPGs (and both without any EXIF data)?
>
> He could have posted 1000 images... what would it matter in a discussion
> about the *one* image he posted with a July calendar and EXIF data that
> showed it was taken near the end of Aug (I first said the EXIF data said
> the 28th but Tattoo corrected me and told me it was the 26th).
>

What a way to twist someones words. Tattoo said that Todays date is the
26th not that the EXIF data had a date of the 26th. In fact he made it
quite clear that the file had no EXIF data.

> You have since claimed that you could not find the EXIF data at all. OK,
> so you do not know how to find EXIF data.... whatever. It is not like
> there was any reason to think you had *any* technical skills.
>

We all know how to find EXIF data. We also all know how to determine if
any EXIF data exists. Apparently you do not know how to determine if any
EXIF exists. If somehow Photoshop showed EXIF data then it must have been
Photoshop that created it since it was not in the downloaded file.

Bug

Steve de Mena wrote:

> Why don't you take this to private email. No one in these groups cares.
>
> Steve

I will not sully my inbox with Michael Glasser garbage
After all, he will not clean it afterwards

Face it: Michael Glasser is the most dishonest twit ever to post to usenet.
He is a Mac user. So why do you think he should post in COLA or to my
email? He belongs in CSMA, and there he can troll to his hearts content
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad. --- Dave Barry

>****:
>>
>> You have since claimed that you could not find the EXIF data at all.
>> OK, so you do not know how to find EXIF data....

Bald-faced lie from ****. Documented.

"bugbuster" stated in post
pan.2008.08.29.17.15.49.696246@nowhere.org on 8/29/08 10:15 AM:

....
>>> Do you actually claim that Tattoo Vampire did not supply *two* URLs with
>>> *two* different JPGs (and both without any EXIF data)?
>>
>> He could have posted 1000 images... what would it matter in a discussion
>> about the *one* image he posted with a July calendar and EXIF data that
>> showed it was taken near the end of Aug (I first said the EXIF data said
>> the 28th but Tattoo corrected me and told me it was the 26th).
>
> What a way to twist someones words. Tattoo said that Todays date is the
> 26th

I would agree that you have just shown a "way to twist someones (sic)
words".... Tattoo did not say *Today's* date is the 26th... he said that the
date *on* the 26th was the 26th. Today is the 29th, Peter... and for you to
claim Tattoo said the 29th was the 26th is dishonest of you.

In any case you dodged the point, *again*. You keep talking about multiple
images when the topic is *one* image with a calendar in the background and
EXIF data that shows it was taken on 26 August 2008.

One image. Not two. Not 1000. And Tattoo *never* said that *today's* date
- the 29th, was the 26th. You just made that up.

....
> We all know how to find EXIF data.

So stop bitching about the fact you could not find it.

....

--
I think the Apple guys have a very good point when they say we should let
designers lead the definition of the user experience.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)

"bugbuster" stated in post
pan.2008.08.29.16.49.43.59802@nowhere.org on 8/29/08 9:49 AM:

> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:47:14 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
>> slrngbfut3.vf4.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 8/29/08 6:37 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Exactly... and yet Peter Köhlmann *denied* EXIF data exists on the very
>> file Tattoo Vampire corrected me on (I said the creation date was the 28th
>> and he correctly said it was the 26th).
>
> And yet there is no EXIF data for that file. Perhaps Photoshop saw there
> was not EXIF data and decided to be "user friendly" and create some using
> the file date stamp.

I would have to check to see if it does that. I do wonder if Tattoo changed
the file he posted. To be honest it has not interested me enough to check -
but now a number of people have said his posted file lacks EXIF data. I
suspect he saw his mistake, altered the file, and re-posted it.

> Now you can show us where Tattoo Vampire "correctly said it was the 26th"

I am not digging through the posts to show where he corrected me... let him
do that work for you. I have already agreed I made a mistake when I wrote
"28"... he corrected me and said, correctly, that it should have been 26.
That, really, is what this was all about - not a debate as to who could or
could not find the EXIF data and *certainly* not about if the EXIF data
existed or not. If people want to show otherwise feel free. Frankly this
whole thing is silly... so he had a picture with an outdated calendar on it
and I razzed him a bit. Oh well... it is not like it was a big deal.

Frankly this circus is boring.



--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?

"Tattoo Vampire" schreef in bericht
news:sacp4llx424a$.dlg@this.domain.or.that...
> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^

An "Intelligent linux****", lol !

"Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
48b82a17$0$20700$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 9:55 AM:

>> (I said the creation date was the 28th and he correctly said it was the
>> 26th).
>
> Message-ID: <4mifhhv9i9yp$.dlg@this.domain.or.that>
>
> He said nothing of that sort. He said "How could it be taken on August 28th
> when today is only the 26th?"

Um, Peter... you are a loon. You claim I am wrong and then *prove* I am
right.

I made a type and typed 28 and not 26. I was corrected and owned up to it.

Get over it.


--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers

"Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
48b827c7$0$20699$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 8/29/08 9:45 AM:

....
>>>> 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...
>>>
>> OK, for the *one* image in question (not the *two* as Peter Köhlmann keeps
>> lying about)
>
> Do you actually claim that Tattoo Vampire did not supply *two* URLs with
> *two* different JPGs (and both without any EXIF data)?

He could have posted 1000 images... what would it matter in a discussion
about the *one* image he posted with a July calendar and EXIF data that
showed it was taken near the end of Aug (I first said the EXIF data said the
28th but Tattoo corrected me and told me it was the 26th).

You have since claimed that you could not find the EXIF data at all. OK, so
you do not know how to find EXIF data.... whatever. It is not like there
was any reason to think you had *any* technical skills.

Of course, in reaction to your ignorance you lashed out, as you do so often.
You:

* Accused me of posting with the name Rekruled... an outright lie from you.
* You have called me names
* You have cross-posted your BS to forums that are not involved in your
circus
* You have belittled my family

Seriously, Peter, don't you see how out of control you have become? How
obsessive and irrational and self-loathing? I shall warn you: Steve Carroll
went down the same path and he had a very public mental break down. You and
Tattoo Vampire likely will do the same - heck, you and Tattoo are already
mentally "damaged"... much more than Steve was years ago when he freaked out
over a disagreement about George W. Bush.



--
I think the Apple guys have a very good point when they say we should let
designers lead the definition of the user experience.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)

"bugbuster" stated in post
pan.2008.08.29.16.52.05.969696@nowhere.org on 8/29/08 9:52 AM:

> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:44:56 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "chrisv" stated in post
>> fprfb4la1eij0o1fdnij7bf9mft4771nul@4ax.com on 8/29/08 5:46 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>> 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...
>>>
>> OK, for the *one* image in question (not the *two* as Peter Köhlmann
>> keeps lying about) tell me what date the EXIF data lists as the creation
>> date. I first said it was the 28th... Tattoo Vampire corrected me and
>> said it was the 26th (he was correct - I made a typo), and now Peter
>> Köhlmann says he could not even find the EXIF data.
>>
>> Others have agreed they could not find it.
>>
>> And, frankly, this *very simple "caper"* is beyond boring.
>
> There is no EXIF data for that file. You got fooled by Photoshop.

I have just checked: Photoshop does not "create" EXIF data "for" you when
you open a file. Here:



Are you saying the file Tattoo Vampire currently has posted has no EXIF
data? If so then the file has been changed.

Frankly, though, who cares? I noted he had *gasp!* and outdated calendar
and razzed him briefly for it. When I did so I made a typo and he razzed me
back.

Who cares?

Seriously, why would this be an issue for *anyone*? Why the heck would it
rise to the level of lying about my family and calling people names? Grade
school students would not react so immaturely to something so trivial.

Time for Peter Köhlmann to just keep his mental illness to himself and stop
sharing it with the world.

--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain

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

> "bugbuster" stated in post
> pan.2008.08.29.16.52.05.969696@nowhere.org on 8/29/08 9:52 AM:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:44:56 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "chrisv" stated in post
>>> fprfb4la1eij0o1fdnij7bf9mft4771nul@4ax.com on 8/29/08 5:46 AM:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>> 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...
>>>>
>>> OK, for the *one* image in question (not the *two* as Peter Köhlmann
>>> keeps lying about) tell me what date the EXIF data lists as the creation
>>> date. I first said it was the 28th... Tattoo Vampire corrected me and
>>> said it was the 26th (he was correct - I made a typo), and now Peter
>>> Köhlmann says he could not even find the EXIF data.
>>>
>>> Others have agreed they could not find it.
>>>
>>> And, frankly, this *very simple "caper"* is beyond boring.
>>
>> There is no EXIF data for that file. You got fooled by Photoshop.
>
> I have just checked: Photoshop does not "create" EXIF data "for" you when
> you open a file. Here:
>
>
>
> Are you saying the file Tattoo Vampire currently has posted has no EXIF
> data? If so then the file has been changed.

No, it never had EXIF data.
But frankly, I expected that copout from you

> Frankly, though, who cares? I noted he had *gasp!* and outdated calendar
> and razzed him briefly for it. When I did so I made a typo and he razzed
> me back.

He told you it was not outdated. The picture was taken in july

> Who cares?

You certainly did, as you tried your trolling routine on it. You know, that
one which so horribly backfired on you

> Seriously, why would this be an issue for *anyone*? Why the heck would it
> rise to the level of lying about my family and calling people names?
> Grade school students would not react so immaturely to something so
> trivial.

Why did you then, Snot Glasser?

> Time for Peter Köhlmann to just keep his mental illness to himself and
> stop sharing it with the world.
>

Idiot
--
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.

Snit wrote:

> "bugbuster" stated in post
> pan.2008.08.29.17.15.49.696246@nowhere.org on 8/29/08 10:15 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> Do you actually claim that Tattoo Vampire did not supply *two* URLs
>>>> with *two* different JPGs (and both without any EXIF data)?
>>>
>>> He could have posted 1000 images... what would it matter in a discussion
>>> about the *one* image he posted with a July calendar and EXIF data that
>>> showed it was taken near the end of Aug (I first said the EXIF data said
>>> the 28th but Tattoo corrected me and told me it was the 26th).
>>
>> What a way to twist someones words. Tattoo said that Todays date is the
>> 26th
>
> I would agree that you have just shown a "way to twist someones (sic)
> words".... Tattoo did not say *Today's* date is the 26th... he said that
> the
> date *on* the 26th was the 26th. Today is the 29th, Peter... and for you
> to claim Tattoo said the 29th was the 26th is dishonest of you.

Too much booze again, Snot Glasser?

> In any case you dodged the point, *again*. You keep talking about
> multiple images when the topic is *one* image with a calendar in the
> background and EXIF data that shows it was taken on 26 August 2008.
>
> One image. Not two. Not 1000. And Tattoo *never* said that *today's*
> date
> - the 29th, was the 26th. You just made that up.
>
>
Message-ID: <4mifhhv9i9yp$.dlg@this.domain.or.that>

How could it be taken on August 28th when today is only the 26th?

>> We all know how to find EXIF data.
>
> So stop bitching about the fact you could not find it.
>

Well, non-existant EXIF data is mightily hard to find, wouldn't you agree,
Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser?
--
Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end

Snit wrote:

> Exactly... and yet Peter Köhlmann *denied* EXIF data exists on the very file
> Tattoo Vampire corrected me on (I said the creation date was the 28th and he
> correctly said it was the 26th).

Michael, there is no EXIF data on those files. Period. I'm sitting here
looking at one. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
--
Regards,
[tv]

....Behind every great computer lies... a mess of wires!

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