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

> "Tattoo Vampire" stated in post
> 19sdug0dk6oi2$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/30/08 5:58 PM:
>
>>>>> Later he decided the EXIF data did not exist at all...
>>>>>
>>>> You're a liar. I didn't decide that "later", it was never present.
>>>>
>>> Sigh... look at the first few posts in the silly battle... you did not
>>> deny it *then*.

You snivelling cretin. Why should he deny that the pictures contain EXIF
data "then". Nobody except you idiot had mentioned EXIF at all, and you
where the only one who was absolutely clueless

>>> Later you started denying it... but before you denied
>>> it you posted these posts:
>>>
>>> hn6xzdtx3gw7$.dlg@this.domain.or.that
>>> 17jo33ikoeygb.dlg@this.domain.or.that
>>> 1aqa7s1xiyoyk.dlg@this.domain.or.that
>>> caxr4nxgylmd$.dlg@this.domain.or.that

And these posts do not contain what you think they do.
They prove that you are wrong and a lying moron, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael
Glasser

>>> Later you decided it had none.
>>>
>>> But whatever. Who cares?
>>
>> Apparently you do, you ignorant twat.
>
> Ah, I prove Tattoo Vampire to be a liar - he denied it was a "later"
> decision that he had no EXIF data and I provided 4 message IDs where he
> "forgot" to mention this little detail...

Why should he forget mentioning EXIF? Are you totally drunk now?

> the little detail he has been
> freaking out over. And his reaction: call me names.

Well, "names" which correctly describe such an asshole like you simply don't
exist.

> Wow, Tattoo... you must be so proud of yourself - you can respond to the
> proof you are a liar with words that many find really offensive.

Idiot

--
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats
you with experience...

"Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
48ba2b4b$0$20718$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 8/30/08 10:25 PM:

>>>> hn6xzdtx3gw7$.dlg@this.domain.or.that
>>>> 17jo33ikoeygb.dlg@this.domain.or.that
>>>> 1aqa7s1xiyoyk.dlg@this.domain.or.that
>>>> caxr4nxgylmd$.dlg@this.domain.or.that
>
> And these posts do not contain what you think they do.

You are insane. Really.


--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Unknown

"Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
48ba2b4b$0$20718$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 8/30/08 10:25 PM:

>>>>>> Later he decided the EXIF data did not exist at all...
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're a liar. I didn't decide that "later", it was never present.
>>>>>
>>>> Sigh... look at the first few posts in the silly battle... you did not
>>>> deny it *then*.
>
> You snivelling cretin. Why should he deny that the pictures contain EXIF
> data "then". Nobody except you idiot had mentioned EXIF at all, and you
> where the only one who was absolutely clueless

Pictures? What the heck is wrong with you where you cannot figure out there
is *one* picture that had an outdated calendar on it... *ONE*. One. Not
two. Not three. Picture. Not pictures.

Got it? You keep missing this *simple* point.

But to get back to EXIF (being that a disagreement about *a* picture having
EXIF data has you so worked up you cannot count to *one*) how, other than
EXIF data, do you determine the date of a picture when the image itself does
not tell you?

Hint: you do not. Anyone with any knowledge on the topic would know such
information is located - if anywhere - in the EXIF data.

And once again Peter Köhlmann shows off his ignorance... you do that every
time you try to make a point dealing with technology. Every single time!


--
"Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates

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

> "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
> 48ba2b4b$0$20718$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 8/30/08 10:25 PM:
>
>>>>>>> Later he decided the EXIF data did not exist at all...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a liar. I didn't decide that "later", it was never present.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sigh... look at the first few posts in the silly battle... you did not
>>>>> deny it *then*.
>>
>> You snivelling cretin. Why should he deny that the pictures contain EXIF
>> data "then". Nobody except you idiot had mentioned EXIF at all, and you
>> where the only one who was absolutely clueless
>
> Pictures? What the heck is wrong with you where you cannot figure out
> there
> is *one* picture that had an outdated calendar on it... *ONE*. One. Not
> two. Not three. Picture. Not pictures.

Message-ID: <1vizlwjo2e95t$.dlg@this.domain.or.that>
---------------
Here's some more hair pics for you to obsess over:

http://a473.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...3fc9873758.jpg
http://a533.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...cb169cb234.jpg
---------------

Got it? *two* pictures
I don't care if one contains a calendar and the other does not.
*Both pictures don't contain *any* EXIF data. And *that* is the point, not
your strawman of one of those two pictures with a calendar.

> Got it? You keep missing this *simple* point.

You keep misrepresenting and misquoting the thread

> But to get back to EXIF (being that a disagreement about *a* picture
> having EXIF data has you so worked up you cannot count to *one*) how,
> other than EXIF data, do you determine the date of a picture when the
> image itself does not tell you?
>
> Hint: you do not. Anyone with any knowledge on the topic would know such
> information is located - if anywhere - in the EXIF data.

Fine. Tell me something which isn't common knowledge, cretin Glasser.
That *you* are too incompetent to recognize that those two pictures do not
contain any EXIF data is your problem. Find some "IT teacher" worth his
salt

> And once again Peter Köhlmann shows off his ignorance... you do that every
> time you try to make a point dealing with technology. Every single time!

And yet I told you that you were wrong, that *both* pictures don't contain
any EXIF data

Message-Id: <48b57e77$0$11746$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
---------------
The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled) snotted:

> "Tattoo Vampire" stated in post
> 1aqa7s1xiyoyk.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/27/08 3:25 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> EXIF.
>>>
>>> Look it up.
>>
>> Nice try, but you're still full of it, Splut.
>
> You did not look up "EXIF" did you? LOL!
>
>

Why should he? His pictures did not contain any EXIF data, so
your "argument" of "EXIF" is just another lunacy of you,
Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser

Face it: You have shown again what kind of incompetent lying twit you are.

Don't you have to forge some PDFs showing those two files with EXIF data,
Michael Snot Glasser?
---------------


Strange, isn't it, Snot Michael Glasser?
--
Avoid reality at all costs.

"Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
48ba45ef$0$12940$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net on 8/31/08 12:19 AM:

....
> *Both pictures don't contain *any* EXIF data.

Prove that the picture (singular) that is in question did not have EXIF
data.

When you do so you will have to explain why Tattoo Vampire oddly forgot to
mention that fact for at least four posts - even though the date the picture
was being taken was under discussion.

Oops. Peter Köhlmann just made a bozo of himself. Again.

....
>> But to get back to EXIF (being that a disagreement about *a* picture
>> having EXIF data has you so worked up you cannot count to *one*) how,
>> other than EXIF data, do you determine the date of a picture when the
>> image itself does not tell you?
>>
>> Hint: you do not. Anyone with any knowledge on the topic would know such
>> information is located - if anywhere - in the EXIF data.
>
> Fine. Tell me something which isn't common knowledge

Ok, so you *now* accept that it is common knowledge what I just taught
you... that when the data an image is taken is being discussed it is clear
that EXIF data is being referenced - even if not explicitly stated.

Good. I am glad you have learned something.

....
> That *you* are too incompetent to recognize that those two pictures do not
> contain any EXIF data is your problem.

I never said any "two" pictures had EXIF data, Peter. Heck, I did not even
check the one without the calendar. Please, Peter, try to show at least a
minimal amount of understanding of the topic you are embarrassing yourself
over. Heck, learn to count to *one*. Seriously, how hard could it be for
you to learn to count to *one*. One, Peter. Damn, you are one ignorant
troll.
....

--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Snit wrote:

> When you do so you will have to explain why Tattoo Vampire oddly forgot to
> mention that fact for at least four posts - even though the date the picture
> was being taken was under discussion.

Why would I bother to discuss something that didn't exist?

Give it up, Snit. The more you wiggle and dance and try to worm your way out
of your blunder, the more you look like a total idiot in front of everyone.

I'll ask you again, if that data is there, what is the make and model of the
camera use? If you can't answer this (and I know you can't) will you promise
to go away forever?
--
Regards,
[tv]

....Computers make very fast, very efficient mistakes.

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

Snit wrote:

> When you do so you will have to explain why Tattoo Vampire oddly forgot to
> mention that fact for at least four posts - even though the date the
> picture
> was being taken was under discussion.

Why would I bother to discuss something that didn't exist?

Give it up, Snit. The more you wiggle and dance and try to worm your way out
of your blunder, the more you look like a total idiot in front of everyone.

I'll ask you again, if that data is there, what is the make and model of the
camera use? If you can't answer this (and I know you can't) will you promise
to go away forever?
--
Regards,
[tv]

....Computers make very fast, very efficient mistakes.

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

"Tattoo Vampire" stated in post
17uoxgemrohex$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/31/08 6:32 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> When you do so you will have to explain why Tattoo Vampire oddly forgot to
>> mention that fact for at least four posts - even though the date the picture
>> was being taken was under discussion.
>
> Why would I bother to discuss something that didn't exist?

Well, then, maybe you can answer something Peter Köhlmann got tripped up on
(but to his credit later admitted I was right).

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

And I gave Peter this "hint":

Hint: you do not. Anyone with any knowledge on the topic
would know such information is located - if anywhere - in the
EXIF data.

Peter, surprisingly, admitted I was right:

Fine. Tell me something which isn't common knowledge

But maybe you have a different answer. You did, clearly go at least four
posts *not* denying the existence of EXIF data even when the date the image
in question was taken. Only later did you deny it.

> Give it up, Snit. The more you wiggle and dance and try to worm your way out
> of your blunder, the more you look like a total idiot in front of everyone.

My "blunder" is to talk to trolls such as yourself. I do give you *way* to
many chances. Really it is silly of me.

> I'll ask you again, if that data is there, what is the make and model of the
> camera use? If you can't answer this (and I know you can't) will you promise
> to go away forever?

As you repeatedly snip - proving you are dishonest and grasping at straws -
I told you *long* ago that I deleted the file. If I point to the post I
wrote this - a post you responded to - will you go way forever? Or will you
continue to see a disagreement over a typo and then, later, the existence of
some EXIF data as one of the biggest issues in *years* for COLA and one
worthy of you humiliating yourself repeatedly as you have been?


--
I think we [the folks who make Linux desktops] don't yet deliver a good
enough user experience.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)

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

> "Tattoo Vampire" stated in post
> 17uoxgemrohex$.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/31/08 6:32 AM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> When you do so you will have to explain why Tattoo Vampire oddly forgot
>>> to mention that fact for at least four posts - even though the date the
>>> picture was being taken was under discussion.
>>
>> Why would I bother to discuss something that didn't exist?
>
> Well, then, maybe you can answer something Peter Köhlmann got tripped up
> on (but to his credit later admitted I was right).

I did nothing of that sort. But feel free to misrepresent again what I wrote

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

Simple: You don't. As was the case here

> And I gave Peter this "hint":
>
> Hint: you do not. Anyone with any knowledge on the topic
> would know such information is located - if anywhere - in the
> EXIF data.
>
> Peter, surprisingly, admitted I was right:
>
> Fine. Tell me something which isn't common knowledge

Well, wasn't much of a hint then if its common knowledge. And especially not
admitting that you are right.

If you say the sky is blue, I would tell you the same thing: Tell me
something which isn't common knowledge.
That does not mean that you have told a great, secret truth. It simply means
that you did not blatantly lie again

Do you actually think people are as incompetent as you are, Snot Glasser?

> But maybe you have a different answer. You did, clearly go at least four
> posts *not* denying the existence of EXIF data even when the date the
> image in question was taken. Only later did you deny it.

Why should he deny it, you snivelling cretin? He knew there was none, and
EXIF was brought up by the group imbecile. That would be you

>> Give it up, Snit. The more you wiggle and dance and try to worm your way
>> out of your blunder, the more you look like a total idiot in front of
>> everyone.
>
> My "blunder" is to talk to trolls such as yourself. I do give you *way*
> to many chances. Really it is silly of me.

You misrepresent what people say. And then construe a "lie" out of your
misrepresentation

>> I'll ask you again, if that data is there, what is the make and model of
>> the camera use? If you can't answer this (and I know you can't) will you
>> promise to go away forever?
>
> As you repeatedly snip - proving you are dishonest and grasping at straws
> -
> I told you *long* ago that I deleted the file.

Nice copout (and a lie, naturally). And Snot Glasser, in his utter, total
incompetence is unable to get the file again, although it is still present

> If I point to the post I
> wrote this - a post you responded to - will you go way forever? Or will
> you continue to see a disagreement over a typo and then, later, the
> existence of some EXIF data as one of the biggest issues in *years* for
> COLA and one worthy of you humiliating yourself repeatedly as you have
> been?
>

Idiot

--
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware

Snit wrote:

> My "blunder" is to talk to trolls such as yourself.

Well, then your solution is to shut the **** up, obviously.
--
Regards,
[tv]

....Veni, Vidi, Velcro. (I came, I saw, I stuck around)

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

Snit wrote:

> *clearly* EXIF data was implied.

LOL!!!!! You stupid, inbred ****stain. I implied nothing about EXIF data.
--
Regards,
[tv]

....Veni, Vidi, Velcro. (I came, I saw, I stuck around)

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

"Tattoo Vampire" stated in post
ree7kwh4vftf.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/31/08 1:13 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> *clearly* EXIF data was implied.
>
> LOL!!!!! You stupid, inbred ****stain. I implied nothing about EXIF data.

So answer the question:

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

For at least four posts you and I discussed the date an image was taken...
clearly implying the EXIF data unless you have some other mechanism you were
thinking of.

Only later did you change your story to say their was no EXIF data.

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.

--
"Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates

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

"Tattoo Vampire" stated in post
d24fg9oxz60i.dlg@this.domain.or.that on 8/31/08 2:06 PM:

> 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.

You think my razzing you about an outdated calendar was an attempt to "save
face".

LOL!

Not only do you have auditory hallucinations you are delusional in other
ways.

> 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.

Well, other than you who accepted it for at least four posts before you
changed your tune and denied it. LOL!

--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.

"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?

> 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.

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



--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson

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

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:

> *clearly* EXIF data was implied.

LOL!!!!! You stupid, inbred ****stain. I implied nothing about EXIF data.
--
Regards,
[tv]

....Veni, Vidi, Velcro. (I came, I saw, I stuck around)

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