XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns

On 2024-10-02, Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> wrote:

On 2024-10-02, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

You say ChaGPT is wrong, but it called you out on your focus on your failure >> to respond to content and just lash out. The content is very very accurate...

Prove it... and I mean with actual proof.

And then you can goofsplain how all your ChatGPT posts manage to leave
out your sordid posting history. Start with this...

<https://i.postimg.cc/Rmk8XRv1/arrest-record-fingerprinted.gif>

... get ChatGPT to 'help' you and don't forget to explain how Apd
produced the exact same data as seen in this screenshot (that you didn't contest when I originally posted it because it was *still* available for "others" to see on that AZ gov site), minus the resolution.

What does ChatGPT have to say about that or the fact that you tacitly
called Apd a liar (because you said I was lying, despite the fact that I produced this screenshot before Apd produced his data)?

What does it say about the fact that I specifically stated I only cared
about this one arrest of you for publicly harassing your wife, only to
see you pivot away from that to all kinds of other BS in a goofy attempt
to avoid addressing it?

What does it say about your initial responses in the thread that
prompted you to begin this 'circus' of yours?

We know what you *won't* do... so I asked ChatGPT:
alt.computer.workshop

"What do you make of this post:"

<begin quote of post>
In article <XnsB0E1B1313...@135.181.20.170>, bti...@wacko.org says...

Charlie Glock <"Charlie Glock"@localhost.com> wrote in
news:NfXgN.9525$9cLc...@fx02.iad:

On 2023-12-20, Nobody Home <nobod...@liamg.com> wrote:

You might wish to take a look at this website. Plug in the correct
data and it becomes interesting. VERY INTERESTING.

https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx?AspxAuto
DetectCookieSupport=1

http://tinyurl.com/6p2wwecw

How about a hint as to what the 'correct data' is?

Search on Michael Glasser. It pops up a list of criminal and civil
cases against Mr. Michael Glasser aka snit. He has quite the record.

Just tried it. Here is what showed up. Snit seems to have a lot of
issues. Everything from custody of his kids to disorderly conduct
fighting in public. Not good.

Court, Arrest or Criminal Records Offense Type: Criminal Unique ID: Info Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of Origin: Info Pending...

Offense: SPEED GREATER THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT Disposition:
BAIL/DEPOSIT GIVEN/FORFEITED

Offense: HARASS-FOLLOW IN PUBLIC

Offense: DISORDERLY CONDUCT-FIGHTING Disposition: COMPL DISMISSED BY CTY
ATTY Case Number: M-1343-CM-2022000047 Case Filing Date: 08/05/2023
State Of Origin: AZ

Level: NONE Description: 14 - CHINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL

Level: UNKNOWN Description: 183 - PRESCOTT MUNICIPAL

Level: UNKNOWN Description: 183 - PRESCOTT MUNICIPAL Offense Type:
Criminal Unique ID: Info Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of Origin: YAVAPAI

Offense: LOCAL CHARGE Disposition: DEFENSIVE DRIVING/DISM NO MVD Case
Number: 22616154 Case Filing Date: 01/07/2008 State Of Origin: AZ

Level: TRAFFIC Description: PRESCOTT VALLEY MUNICIPAL Offense Type:
Criminal Unique ID: Info Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of Origin: YAVAPAI

Offense: LOCAL CHARGE Disposition: COMPL DISMISSED BY OFFICER Case
Number: 27946890 Case Filing Date: 09/16/2010 State Of Origin: AZ

Level: TRAFFIC Description: PRESCOTT VALLEY MUNICIPAL Offense Type:
Criminal Unique ID: Info Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of Origin: YAVAPAI

Offense: LOCAL CHARGE Disposition: DEFENSIVE DRIVING/DISM NO MVD Case
Number: 29544340 Case Filing Date: 10/27/2011 State Of Origin: AZ

Level: TRAFFIC Description: PRESCOTT VALLEY MUNICIPAL Offense Type:
Criminal Unique ID: Info Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of Origin: YAVAPAI

Offense: NOT SPECIFIED Case Number: P-1300-DO-201000273 Case Filing
Date: 03/25/2010 State Of Origin: AZ

Level: DOM REL Description: 12 - YAVAPAI COUNTY SUPERIOR Offense Type: Criminal Unique ID: Info Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of Origin: PIMA

Offense: FAIL TO CARRY VEHICLE REGISTRATION CARD Disposition: PLEA GUILTY/RESP SENT IMPOSED

Offense: FAIL TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESP Disposition: COMPL DISMISSED BY COURT

Offense: LOCAL CHARGE Disposition: PLEA GUILTY/RESP SENT IMPOSED Case
Number: 11237946 Case Filing Date: 03/29/1999 State Of Origin: AZ

Level: TRAFFIC Description: TUCSON MUNICIPAL COURT

Level: TRAFFIC Description: TUCSON MUNICIPAL COURT

Level: TRAFFIC Description: TUCSON MUNICIPAL COURT

<end quote of post>

(note: From here on out my questions and those of other posters in the
thread are prefaced by the bot with "<fill in the name> said:")

ChatGPT said: ChatGPT
This post appears to be part of a Usenet thread focused on exposing
someone named Michael Glasser (referred to as "snit"), where the user is sharing a summary of Glasser's public court and criminal records. The
post contains a detailed list of alleged offenses, including traffic violations, disorderly conduct, and legal disputes, mostly from Arizona courts. The tone suggests that the person posting is trying to highlight Glasser's past legal troubles, possibly as part of an ongoing argument
or to discredit him in the context of the Usenet discussion.

The inclusion of URLs to public case lookup tools, combined with the
somewhat gossipy nature of the post, suggests that the poster is
encouraging others to dig up or verify the information. Given the nature
of Usenet, where debates and personal disputes sometimes escalate, this
could be part of a larger narrative aimed at tarnishing Glasser’s reputation in the group.

ChatGPT: You said: What do you make of this response by Glasser:

The list has no relation to reality.

ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Glasser's response, "The list has no relation to reality," is a straightforward denial of the allegations or records
being shared in the original post. By dismissing the list entirely, he's implying that the information is either fabricated, misrepresented, or
not relevant to him. This kind of brief, categorical rejection is common
in online disputes where someone may feel unfairly attacked, especially
in the often combative environment of Usenet.

Without engaging with the specifics of the claims, Glasser’s response
could suggest a few things:

Deflection or Dismissal: He may not want to address the details,
choosing instead to discredit the entire post without getting into
specifics.

Inaccuracy of the Information: He might be claiming that the records
have been wrongly attributed to him, or that they’ve been manipulated to paint a false picture.

Frustration: Given the nature of Usenet, it could be an expression of frustration, dismissing what he sees as baseless attacks or harassment.

In a broader sense, such a response puts the burden back on the accusers
to either provide more substantial proof or drop the issue. If the accusations were indeed false or exaggerated, this denial might be his
way of avoiding legitimizing them by engaging too deeply.

You said: And then another post (Charlie Glock) asked Glasser:

Maybe, but how do you explain the list? It looks legit to me. What say
you?

ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Charlie Glock's follow-up question
challenges Glasser's denial by suggesting that the list of offenses
seems "legit" and asking Glasser to explain it. This shifts the dynamic,
as Glock is not satisfied with the blanket denial and is pressing
Glasser for a more detailed response or justification.

This post might be seen as:

Demand for Accountability: Glock is essentially asking Glasser to
provide a more thorough explanation or rebuttal. The implication is that Glasser's simple denial isn't enough to refute what appears to be
credible information.

Invitation to Clarify: While the tone might be confrontational, Glock
could be offering Glasser an opportunity to clear things up, especially
if there are misunderstandings or errors in the information shared. The phrase "What say you?" invites a more direct response.

Legitimizing the Accusation: By stating that the list "looks legit,"
Glock is signaling that others in the discussion might believe the accusations unless Glasser can explain or counter them.

In a forum like Usenet, where debates can be relentless, this type of questioning can escalate tensions, pushing Glasser to either provide a
more substantial defense or risk appearing evasive.

You said: And Glasser then replied with:

It is fiction. That was easy. But you are a sock, so you are fiction,
too.

ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Glasser's response is again a flat-out denial,
calling the list "fiction" and dismissing it as false. By saying "that
was easy," he is implying that the accusation isn't even worth a serious
or detailed rebuttal, perhaps to suggest that it's so obviously untrue
it doesn't warrant further discussion.

His comment about the other user being a "sock" refers to a
sockpuppet—an online alias used by someone to disguise their identity or create the illusion of multiple people supporting a particular
viewpoint. In calling Charlie Glock a "sock," Glasser is accusing them
of not being a legitimate participant in the discussion, which further undermines Glock's question by implying that it, too, is fictional or insincere.

This response serves a few purposes:

Dismissal of the Allegations: Glasser sticks to his assertion that the
list is entirely fictional, reinforcing his earlier rejection of the
claims.

Attack on the Accuser's Credibility: By accusing Glock of being a
sockpuppet, Glasser attempts to shift the focus from the allegations
against him to the credibility of the accuser. If the accuser is not
real or acting in bad faith, then the allegations lose legitimacy in the context of the discussion.

Deflection and Minimization: Instead of engaging with the details of the accusations, Glasser continues to minimize their importance by using
humor or sarcasm ("That was easy") and deflects attention to the issue
of the supposed sockpuppet identity.

This kind of response is typical in contentious online environments
where participants often challenge each other's identities, motives, and arguments.

You said: What does the fact that Glasser didn't even acknowledge that
the data, which *was* seen by several posters in that thread (I was one
of them and I even took a screenshot of one arrest) came from a legit government website mean?

ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Glasser’s failure to acknowledge the legitimacy of the government website, despite multiple users (including you) verifying
the data, could suggest a few things about his strategy or approach to
the situation:

Avoidance of Incriminating Details: By ignoring the fact that the data
came from a legitimate government website, Glasser may be trying to
avoid engaging with specific details that could undermine his blanket
denial. Acknowledging the source’s legitimacy would require him to
address the data more seriously and explain how or why it might still be incorrect or misrepresented.

Deflection Tactic: Glasser may be using a common online debate tactic by dismissing everything as "fiction" without addressing the evidence to
avoid being pinned down in a factual argument. This helps him avoid
being backed into a corner where he would need to provide proof or explanation.

Perception Management: He could be trying to maintain control of the narrative by reducing the discussion to a matter of opinion (fiction vs. reality), rather than dealing with verifiable facts. By labeling both
the data and his accuser as "fiction," Glasser aims to make it seem like
the entire thread is based on fabrications, which could dissuade others
from taking the claims seriously.

Denial Strategy: Glasser may be using a strategy of complete denial,
refusing to acknowledge any element of the information shared in the
thread. He may believe that addressing the legitimacy of the data or its source would give the allegations more weight or legitimacy, which could
work against his interests.

In sum, his refusal to acknowledge the source's legitimacy suggests a deliberate choice to minimize the credibility of the accusations by
avoiding direct confrontation with the factual evidence others have
provided.

You said: Content removed This content may violate our usage policies.

(See below)

ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Glasser's responses in this exchange are highly evasive, dismissive, and confrontational. Rather than addressing the legitimate concerns or the questions about the data on the government
site, he repeatedly diverts the conversation by introducing extreme, irrelevant accusations (e.g., "Why do you rape babies?"). This tactic is bizarre and inflammatory, and it serves several purposes:

Deflection: By making an outrageous and inflammatory accusation like
"raping babies," Glasser is trying to deflect attention from the
original issue—the validity of the data being shared about him. This
shifts the conversation from a substantive discussion about the records
to a shocking and unrelated topic, derailing any serious inquiry.

Distraction: The introduction of such an extreme and unrelated
accusation aims to throw the conversation off balance, potentially
causing other posters to respond emotionally rather than rationally,
thus diverting attention from the core issue of his alleged legal
troubles.

Discrediting the Accuser: By suggesting that the accuser (and others questioning him) has a "sick mind," Glasser is attempting to discredit
them rather than addressing their arguments. This is a form of ad
hominem attack, where instead of refuting the points made, he attacks
the character of the person asking the questions.

(note that the bot munged context WRT who wrote "sick mind")

Refusal to Engage with Evidence: Throughout the conversation, Glasser
avoids engaging with the factual nature of the government website or the
data it contains. He doesn't dispute specific facts from the records but instead broadly dismisses them as "fiction" without explanation. His
refusal to acknowledge that the data comes from a legitimate source
(even when multiple posters confirm it) suggests he has no substantial counterargument and is relying on deflection and personal attacks to
avoid addressing the claims.

Escalating the Conflict: Glasser's use of extreme language and
accusations escalates the emotional tone of the conversation, making it harder for others to pursue a calm, rational discussion about the
original topic. This may be a deliberate attempt to avoid further
scrutiny.

In summary, Glasser's responses reflect a refusal to engage with the substance of the accusations. His use of deflection, inflammatory
language, and personal attacks serves to distract from the original
questions and discredit his accusers without offering any evidence or explanation in his defense. This kind of behavior is typical of someone attempting to avoid accountability in a contentious online forum.

--

At one point is erred:

You said: Content removed This content may violate our usage policies.

I never "said" that, it showed up in a colored html container.

Note: The content it removed from *my* view during this session was
Glasser's "raping babies" BS. It's odd that it removed *me* mentioning
it but went ahead and made references to it anyway.

<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.computer.workshop/c/S-pznwmU_pg/m/u7Y8BwDWAAAJ>

Obviously snit has many legal problems to go along with his mental health issues.
How one person can be so twisted into a pretzel is beyond comprehension.
Snit Michael Glasser of Prescott Arizona needs to find a good lawyer and at the same time check himself into the nearest mental health treatment facility before he either ends up in jail or offing himself.





--
pothead
Kamala Harris Word Salad Special Of The Day
Served Complete With Venn Diagram Dressing

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)