Snit wrote:

> How, other than EXIF data, do you determine the date of a
> picture when the image itself does not tell you?

Keep on trying to save yourself, Snit. You've managed to pretty much cloud
the original issue, which was:

1. I posted a pic
2. You laughed about said pic due to an old calendar on the wall
3. I told you the pic was taken weeks ago
4. You claimed the pic was taken on Aug 28. Oops! Aug. 26
5. I told you it wasn't
6. You claimed the EXIF data proved it was recent
7. You were asked to provide said data
8. You failed to provide said data

It's really that simple.
--
Regards,
[tv]

....Monday is a hard way to spend 1/7 of your life.

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

Snit wrote:

> But really, this whole debate is about if your posted image had an
> outdated
> calendar on it or not. Why is it such a big deal to you? Frankly I could
> not care less - I razzed you over it and you freaked out.

Liar. You tried to troll, I slapped you down, and hence began the whole EXIF
saga as you madly attempted to save face. Everything since then has been you
lamely attempting to make yourself appear right, even though multiple
persons have told you the calendar pic had no EXIF data.
--
Regards,
[tv]

....Working hard to become roadkill on the Infobahn.

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

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

> "Tattoo Vampire" stated in post
> 1azqkz7458piv.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/31/08 2:03 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> How, other than EXIF data, do you determine the date of a
>>> picture when the image itself does not tell you?
>>
>> Keep on trying to save yourself, Snit.
>
> Gee, you did not answer the question. For obvious reasons... for four
> posts - at least - you did not question my talking about the EXIF data.
> Why not?

Because he did not. You are making it up *again*

Here the posts:

Lying Snot Michael Glasser:
Message-ID:
--------------------------
"Tattoo Vampire" stated in post
17jo33ikoeygb.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/26/08 5:03 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, darn good question... and my typo.. it was taken today, on the
26th.
>
> 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?

EXIF.

Look it up.
--------------------------


The *next* post from Tattoo Vampire:
Message-ID: <1aqa7s1xiyoyk.dlg@this.domain.or.that>
--------------------------
Snit wrote:

> EXIF.
>
> Look it up.

Nice try, but you're still full of it, Splut.
--------------------------

So, he not only answered the question, you are *again* trying to rewrite
usenet history to save face. Instead you are looking very much the fraud
you really are.
Do your "customers" know what kind of dishonest, lying fraud they deal with,
Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser? I very much get the feeling they
*should* know

>> You've managed to pretty much cloud
>> the original issue, which was:
>>
>> 1. I posted a pic
>> 2. You laughed about said pic due to an old calendar on the wall
>> 3. I told you the pic was taken weeks ago
>> 4. You claimed the pic was taken on Aug 28. Oops! Aug. 26
>> 5. I told you it wasn't
>> 6. You claimed the EXIF data proved it was recent
>> 7. You were asked to provide said data
>> 8. You failed to provide said data
>>
>> It's really that simple.

It is. This is basically what happened

> Well golly gee willikers, I cannot get data from an image I no longer
> have!

You could naturally reload it, it is still there

> Tattoo figures out something simple! Notice, above, not even you deny the
> image with the calendar that you posted had EXIF data. What a little
> weasle you are!
>

He has denied it from the very start, and you are a liar, Michael Glasser
--
I say you need to visit Clues 'R' Us. They are having a special on
slightly used clues.

Peter Köhlmann, ye stagnant waggish boy, those healths will make thee
and thy state look ill, ye harried:

> Do your "customers" know what kind of dishonest, lying fraud they deal
> with,
> Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser? I very much get the feeling they
> *should* know


Are you implying a threat of some kind, Klmann?

--
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

Kadaitcha Man wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann, ye stagnant waggish boy, those healths will make thee
> and thy state look ill, ye harried:
>
>> Do your "customers" know what kind of dishonest, lying fraud they deal
>> with,
>> Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser? I very much get the feeling they
>> *should* know
>
>
> Are you implying a threat of some kind, Klmann?
>

Far from it.
I am saying that I strongly feel that Michael Glassers "victims/customers"
have a right to know with whom they deal.

That is not a threat. Why would someone view it as such?
--
Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a way of life.

Peter Köhlmann writes:

> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann, ye stagnant waggish boy, those healths will make thee
>> and thy state look ill, ye harried:
>>
>>> Do your "customers" know what kind of dishonest, lying fraud they deal
>>> with,
>>> Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser? I very much get the feeling they
>>> *should* know
>>
>>
>> Are you implying a threat of some kind, Klmann?
>>
>
> Far from it.
> I am saying that I strongly feel that Michael Glassers "victims/customers"
> have a right to know with whom they deal.
>
> That is not a threat. Why would someone view it as such?

It most certainly IS a threat and if that went to a court of law then
the jury/judge would see it as that.

You can't say "someone should murder you", for example, without it being
seen as a veiled threat.

Hadron wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann writes:
>
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann, ye stagnant waggish boy, those healths will make thee
>>> and thy state look ill, ye harried:
>>>
>>>> Do your "customers" know what kind of dishonest, lying fraud they deal
>>>> with,
>>>> Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser? I very much get the feeling they
>>>> *should* know
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you implying a threat of some kind, Klmann?
>>>
>>
>> Far from it.
>> I am saying that I strongly feel that Michael Glassers
>> "victims/customers" have a right to know with whom they deal.
>>
>> That is not a threat. Why would someone view it as such?
>
> It most certainly IS a threat and if that went to a court of law then
> the jury/judge would see it as that.

Really? So sue me

> You can't say "someone should murder you", for example, without it being
> seen as a veiled threat.

So when people see what Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser does on usenet
would a threat to his "business"? Really?
Could it perhaps be that in tha case he behaves not at all "honest"
and "honorable" on usenet?
Because if he was the "honorable business man" he says he is, it would
certainly be visible in his usenet posts also, right? Why then this fear of
his clients seeing his behaviour here if he is honest?

And, after he (claims) to have contacted several ISPs, *he* has taken things
out of COLA. If he does so just *once* again, no matter the result or to
whom or if true at all, his victims will learn what he does here. They then
can decide for themselves if they are looking forward to a "high quality
screwing" they are rightfully to receive when dealing with Michael Glasser

And that is not a threat, it is a promise
--
You're genuinely bogus.

Hadron wrote:

> It most certainly IS a threat and if that went to a court of law then
> the jury/judge would see it as that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You useless imbecile.
--
Regards,
[tv]

..../////////// POLICE TAGLINE - DO NOT CROSS \\\\\\\\\\\\\

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

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:19:41 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann writes:
>>
>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Köhlmann, ye stagnant waggish boy, those healths will make thee
>>>> and thy state look ill, ye harried:
>>>>
>>>>> Do your "customers" know what kind of dishonest, lying fraud they
>>>>> deal with,
>>>>> Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser? I very much get the feeling they
>>>>> *should* know
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you implying a threat of some kind, Klmann?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Far from it.
>>> I am saying that I strongly feel that Michael Glassers
>>> "victims/customers" have a right to know with whom they deal.
>>>
>>> That is not a threat. Why would someone view it as such?
>>
>> It most certainly IS a threat and if that went to a court of law then
>> the jury/judge would see it as that.
>
> Really? So sue me
>
>> You can't say "someone should murder you", for example, without it being
>> seen as a veiled threat.
>
> So when people see what Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser does on usenet
> would a threat to his "business"? Really? Could it perhaps be that in tha
> case he behaves not at all "honest" and "honorable" on usenet?

I don't believe trying to blackmail someone is "honest" and "honorable",
maybe Quack does because apparently the troll said *nothing* about Michael
Snit Glasser threatening that.

> Because if he was the "honorable business man" he says he is, it would
> certainly be visible in his usenet posts also, right? Why then this fear
> of his clients seeing his behaviour here if he is honest?

Yes, *why*?

> And, after he (claims) to have contacted several ISPs, *he* has taken
> things out of COLA. If he does so just *once* again, no matter the result
> or to whom or if true at all, his victims will learn what he does here.
> They then can decide for themselves if they are looking forward to a "high
> quality screwing" they are rightfully to receive when dealing with Michael
> Glasser
>
> And that is not a threat, it is a promise

--
� ɯoɹɟ ʇu�s s�� �ƃ�ss�ɯ sıɥʇ
p��ʇu�ɹ�nƃ sı ɥɔıɥ� ɹ�ʇndɯoɔ
˙snɹıʌ �zopuı� $ɯ �ɥʇ ɟo ��ɹɟ %00⇂
-- sɯ�ʇsʎs xnuıl/nuƃ --

>> Hadron quacked:
>>>
>>> You can't say "someone should murder you", for example, without it
>>> being seen as a veiled threat.

Dumb****. Murder is a crime. Disseminating information is, in general,
not.

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

*PLONK*

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:01:52 -0500, chrisv wrote:

>>> Hadron quacked:
>>>>
>>>> You can't say "someone should murder you", for example, without it
>>>> being seen as a veiled threat.
>
> Dumb****. Murder is a crime. Disseminating information is, in general,
> not.

And especially when the person had supplied the information *themselves*
in a website, bragged about what they do in newsgroups & linked to it with
their nym!

--
� ɯoɹɟ ʇu�s s�� �ƃ�ss�ɯ sıɥʇ
p��ʇu�ɹ�nƃ sı ɥɔıɥ� ɹ�ʇndɯoɔ
˙snɹıʌ �zopuı� $ɯ �ɥʇ ɟo ��ɹɟ %00⇂
-- sɯ�ʇsʎs xnuıl/nuƃ --

William Poaster writes:

> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:01:52 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>>>> Hadron quacked:
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't say "someone should murder you", for example, without it
>>>>> being seen as a veiled threat.
>>
>> Dumb****. Murder is a crime. Disseminating information is, in general,
>> not.
>
> And especially when the person had supplied the information *themselves*
> in a website, bragged about what they do in newsgroups & linked to it with
> their nym!

You really are a wanker of the worst order. You know full well what you
are doing. The why is any ones guess. Your protests of "it was public
domain" are as shallow as your decency.

--
"I've heard "Linux is the future!" for, let me see now, must about 17
years. For how long do I need to listen to that clap trap?"
-- Ruby Murray in comp.os.linux.advocacy

Hadron wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann writes:
>
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>
>>> Peter K�hlmann, ye stagnant waggish boy, those healths will make thee
>>> and thy state look ill, ye harried:
>>>
>>>> Do your "customers" know what kind of dishonest, lying fraud they deal
>>>> with,
>>>> Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser? I very much get the feeling they
>>>> *should* know
>>>
>>> Are you implying a threat of some kind, Klmann?
>>>
>> Far from it.
>> I am saying that I strongly feel that Michael Glassers "victims/customers"
>> have a right to know with whom they deal.
>>
>> That is not a threat. Why would someone view it as such?
>
> It most certainly IS a threat and if that went to a court of law then
> the jury/judge would see it as that.
>
> You can't say "someone should murder you", for example, without it being
> seen as a veiled threat.

Grow up.

Steve

Steve de Mena writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>> Peter Köhlmann writes:
>>
>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter K�hlmann, ye stagnant waggish boy, those healths will make thee
>>>> and thy state look ill, ye harried:
>>>>
>>>>> Do your "customers" know what kind of dishonest, lying fraud they deal
>>>>> with,
>>>>> Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser? I very much get the feeling they
>>>>> *should* know
>>>>
>>>> Are you implying a threat of some kind, Klmann?
>>>>
>>> Far from it.
>>> I am saying that I strongly feel that Michael Glassers "victims/customers"
>>> have a right to know with whom they deal.
>>>
>>> That is not a threat. Why would someone view it as such?
>>
>> It most certainly IS a threat and if that went to a court of law then
>> the jury/judge would see it as that.
>>
>> You can't say "someone should murder you", for example, without it being
>> seen as a veiled threat.
>
> Grow up.
>
> Steve

So you think linking people with their real lives, talking about their
wives leaving them and having affairs and threatening talk about
contacting someones client base is "adult"? Cretin. How about you ****
off back under the rock from which you crawled? You're as bad as Willy
Poaster if you think that is decent, honourable behaviour.

Hadron wrote:

> So you think linking people with their real lives, talking about their
> wives leaving them and having affairs and threatening talk about
> contacting someones client base is "adult"? Cretin. How about you ****
> off back under the rock from which you crawled? You're as bad as Willy
> Poaster if you think that is decent, honourable behaviour.

Hey, moron. Where were you when people were using anonymous remailers to
post my real name and business info? Why, you were on the sidelines
clapping and giggling, of course.

You're a hypocritical nutsack of the highest order, Quack.
--
Regards,
[tv]

....A paid up computer is, by definition, obsolete.

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

Tattoo Vampire writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> So you think linking people with their real lives, talking about their
>> wives leaving them and having affairs and threatening talk about
>> contacting someones client base is "adult"? Cretin. How about you ****
>> off back under the rock from which you crawled? You're as bad as Willy
>> Poaster if you think that is decent, honourable behaviour.
>
> Hey, moron. Where were you when people were using anonymous remailers to
> post my real name and business info? Why, you were on the sidelines
> clapping and giggling, of course.
>

Err, no I wasn't. I frequently stated that linking you with ridiculous
claims of child pron were well out of order. Or was that Willy? I lose
track these days.

Hadron wrote:

> Err, no I wasn't.

Funny, I don't recall you jumping in there to condemn those doing the
posting.

--
Regards,
[tv]

....Your E-mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage

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

Tattoo Vampire writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Err, no I wasn't.
>
> Funny, I don't recall you jumping in there to condemn those doing the
> posting.

What you remember and what you do not remember is immaterial. But you're
such a chicken **** that I suspect your have more killfile entries than
Willy Fiddler Filters anyway.