On 05/03/2026 20:54, David B. wrote:
On 04/03/2026 15:42, David B. wrote:
On 04/03/2026 David B. suggests you watch ...
*How To Protect Your Mac From Malware*
A video by Gary Rosenzweig
Learn from Gary!- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A
00:00 Intro
00:14 1. Don't Download Apps From Sources You Shouldn't Trust
02:12 2. Keep Your Mac Updated
03:20 3. Backup Your Data
04:50 Do You Need An Anti-Malware App?
06:31 Problems Are Usually Not Malware
08:09 Stay Informed
08:40 Scams Are a Bigger Threat
What are /your/ thoughts on this subject matter?
--
FYI .....
https://mastodon.social/@rosenz
Gary has now responded to a recent comment.
Have you seen that?
Gary was asked about this some years ago.
https://macmost.com/?s=EtreCheck
Please review BOTH items!
FWIW, EtreCheck is *NOT* available from the Apple App Store nowadays.
rCLMost software downloaded onto a Mac is "installed", usually in Applications, and shows up in System Information > Installations. Once there, software can be scanned with an AV software package to check for malware. However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the
Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this manner.
EtreCheck claims NOT to be "installed" - indeed, it does NOT show up in Applications or Installations - so just HOW can it be scanned by anti-malware software BEFORE being given free reign on an Apple
computer?rCY
Surely /somebody/ can answer the question!
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n109oqFqmcqU1@mid.individual.net
Fri, 06 Mar 2026 15:22:02 GMT in uk.comp.sys.mac, wrote:
On 05/03/2026 20:54, David B. wrote:
On 04/03/2026 15:42, David B. wrote:
On 04/03/2026 David B. suggests you watch ...
*How To Protect Your Mac From Malware*
A video by Gary Rosenzweig
Learn from Gary!ro4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ebOFPd755A
00:00 Intro
00:14 1. Don't Download Apps From Sources You Shouldn't Trust
02:12 2. Keep Your Mac Updated
03:20 3. Backup Your Data
04:50 Do You Need An Anti-Malware App?
06:31 Problems Are Usually Not Malware
08:09 Stay Informed
08:40 Scams Are a Bigger Threat
What are /your/ thoughts on this subject matter?
--
FYI .....
https://mastodon.social/@rosenz
Gary has now responded to a recent comment.
Have you seen that?
Gary was asked about this some years ago.
https://macmost.com/?s=EtreCheck
Please review BOTH items!
FWIW, EtreCheck is *NOT* available from the Apple App Store nowadays.
-e-E-4Most software downloaded onto a Mac is "installed", usually in
Applications, and shows up in System Information > Installations. Once
there, software can be scanned with an AV software package to check for
malware. However, a popular tool often recommended by advisors on the
Apple Support Communities forums (EtreCheck) cannot be checked in this
manner.
EtreCheck claims NOT to be "installed" - indeed, it does NOT show up in
Applications or Installations - so just HOW can it be scanned by
anti-malware software BEFORE being given free reign on an Apple
computer?-e-E-!
Surely /somebody/ can answer the question!
Thanks to your known and established reputation as a dishonest as fucking possible troll. A troll who has a personal issue of his own making with
the author of etrecheck - which is why you continue to slime it with posts like the one I'm responding to - so works very hard to infer that the software is malicious or could be hiding malicious code with the intention
of taking over your computer.
David, I took the liberty of forwarding a complete copy of our email correspondence. I also included some usenet links he could reach via google and MIDs of specific posts if he knew how to use them. When I shared my simple right click lookup script, I emailed them a copy and explained how to use it.
When you go and create new posts like this one, obviously with the intention of slime, I pass along copies to him. He's never asked me to do any of this. He didn't need to do so. I don't mind keeping tabs on you and keeping him aware of your activities.
I rarely agree with anything Snit has to write - because it's usually self grandifying and dishonest on his part. However, he has been very forward and honest with you concerning John specifically as well as Etrecheck. He's politely told you several times that what you're doing is wrong, that you haven't proven a single negative thing you've written, AND, you're causing potential harm to the individual and his small company. Snit (of all people) has repeatedly told you that this crusade of yours is wrong and you should not be engaging in it.
Nobody who posts to alt.computer.workshop has agreed with your actions towards the author or etrecheck. Why won't you stop? The program is legitimate, it doesn't give the author full access to your computer - Why do you continue claiming otherwise with no evidence of any kind to support the accusation?
His payment front end should be applying a filter so that you cannot
purchase a license for it, again. Instead, that filter should be installed and a full refund issued to you. No request on your part for this should be necessary. The filter should be able to prevent you from purchasing another license.
As a proprieter here, I would have been able to recoup my transation losses starting the second time. It would have been deducted directly from the account associated with the card you used to make the purchases. You would have been flagged as a repeat offender on a list very close to the list maintained on others who buy things and then issue a return 24 hours or less later.
In simpler terms, the payment processor I use would deduct the fees they normally give me from your debit/credit card and it would be legal. I don't know if that's an option in your country but I do think John should look
into legal and financial options at this point. The next email I sent I will make those suggestions. It's very clear that asking you to stop, multiple people (one of which is supposed to be your friend here) asking you to stop isn't going to work. Instead. if you're held to financial accountability you might reconsider such activities in the future - after you've paid that is.
How many times do you need to be told that the software is clean before
you grasp the concept? There's nothing malicious about the program.
Nothing malicious about it's author, either. Stop stalking the individual
and sliming his product as you're doing here in yet another newsgroup.
Imo, instead of ignoring you as he has - he should be consulting with a lawyer about what to do with you. AFter he looks into his card processor options. They don't like doing purchase/refund routines to punish a company either. And, they have been known to extract penalty funds from the consumer intent on doing it.
It hasn't been simply venting or a
matter of banter back in forth for quite sometime now. The author needs to clearly understand that your intentions are negative in nature. That you
mean his company financial harm. All because you couldn't get him to entertain your off the wall Questions and Answers emails.
David, I know i'm repeating what you've already been told (again many
times now) - If you don't like the software - don't use it. If you don't trust the software...Don't use it. Please stop making unfounded
accusations concerning the software and it's author. It's beyond tiresome. Very dishonest on your part too.
I am pleased to see that nobody has taken the time to respond to a single post of yours in this thread. At the time I wrote this.
I'm the first one to do so and I'm calling you out for the vile shit things you're doing. Yay!
Thank you for all you have done to help protect the author of EtreCheck.
I've discovered that it is a really useful tool after all, especially
when moving all my data from one iMac to another this last week.
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n2bco9Fjoa8U1@mid.individual.net
Sun, 22 Mar 2026 23:36:41 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
Thank you for all you have done to help protect the author of EtreCheck.
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from. You are well known in AV/AM circles David. A bothersome troll with a drinking problem for the most part. Your tendency of trying to stalk people and companies is also well known in those circles. It's also known outside of them.
I've heard a story from a couple of people now about a legal representative that will be making contact with you in the not so distant future. I took the liberty of providing them your telephone numbers and residential address - just in case they didn't already have such information on file.
I didn't want you to miss their effort to contact you, and, I didn't think you'd mind that I shared the information. After all, I made it public information some years back. :) Despite your efforts to keep me from doing so.
Speaking of which, how far along is that raiding party? You know, the one you promised I'd meet if I went ahead and showed you what an .NFO file was?
I still don't know why you got so upset over that - it was as you often say, all in fun. Nothing nefarious was intended. Didn't you find the virtual postcards amusing? :)
I've discovered that it is a really useful tool after all, especially
when moving all my data from one iMac to another this last week.
It's almost scary how arrogant yet so dumb concerning IT you are. You and snit are poster children for birth control, David. Fucking poster children. His mom should have made an effort to drink a bit more everyday when she learned she was prego with fucktardo. The outcome could have saved us and many before us a lot of time and aggrivation. Imagine - he doesn't exist so can't become a welfare leeching usenet troll with problems that can't be resolved with a few couch sessions. He needs long term care in an assisted living facility.
Maybe he'll fuckup and run his mouth on usenet or in person to someone who isn't physically far from him. Perhaps they will hit him in the jaw just right to where it causes a problem with the main computer. In snits case though, little effort is required to expose multiple problems with what passes for a main computer in his brain. I'm sure he was living well when his kids were under age. bonus food stamps (welfare) now he has to accept whatever the state will give him.
He is able bodied David. He could work even a shitjob on the books. He'd rather not do that. He'd much rather do side jobs for cash under the table and let myself and others who work and live in this country continue to pay his way.
Here's hoping that someone sues you and takes you to the cleaners. I'll gloat about that outcome for years to come. It will bring me great enjoyment for years to come to learn/know that you lost everything all nice n legal.
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any
help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.
Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
=
Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any >>> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.
Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
=
Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
He does. Please leave him alone.
On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any >>>> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from. >>>Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently. >>>
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
He should honour his part of the deal.
=
Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
He does. Please leave him alone.
Read his Terms of Business!
https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any >>>>> help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from. >>>>Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently. >>>>
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
Automated system. Please leave him alone.
He should honour his part of the deal.
You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation to repair.
Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
He does. Please leave him alone.
Read his Terms of Business!
https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you broke. He
has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts to repair it.
On 11/04/2026 15:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require anyWell, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from. >>>>>
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently. >>>>>
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
Automated system. Please leave him alone.
He should honour his part of the deal.
You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation to
repair.
I have made *ZERO* insinuations since I last bought the product!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10240210725473349&set=p.10240210725473349&type=3
Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
He does. Please leave him alone.
Read his Terms of Business!
https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you broke. He
has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts to repair it.
I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
On Apr 11, 2026 at 11:50:17rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 11/04/2026 15:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require anyWell, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from. >>>>>>
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
Automated system. Please leave him alone.
He should honour his part of the deal.
You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation to >>> repair.
I have made *ZERO* insinuations since I last bought the product!
But you made them in the past. You broke the deal. He is under no obligation to give you another chance.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10240210725473349&set=p.10240210725473349&type=3
I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
He does. Please leave him alone.
Read his Terms of Business!
https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you broke. He
has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts to repair it. >>
Automated system.
On 11/04/2026 21:25, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 11:50:17rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 11/04/2026 15:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require any
help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected from.
Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck recently.
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
Automated system. Please leave him alone.
He should honour his part of the deal.
You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation to >>>> repair.
I have made *ZERO* insinuations since I last bought the product!
But you made them in the past. You broke the deal. He is under no obligation >> to give you another chance.
You may think that. I think you are wrong.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10240210725473349&set=p.10240210725473349&type=3
I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
He does. Please leave him alone.
Read his Terms of Business!
https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you broke. He
has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts to repair it. >>>
Automated system.
Indeed it is. He could send my money back and cancel my license - but he
has not done so. IMO he should respond to my query.
Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here?
~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
Do tell. Thanks.
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require
any help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected
from.
Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck
recently.
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
Thanks for your time, and for a very useful tool.
I'd welcome advice on this matter from ANYONE reading here with regard
to whether or not copies of reports should be stored surreptitiously in
the 'hidden' Library.
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require
any help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected
from.
Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck
recently.
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
He does. Please leave him alone.
On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not
require any help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be
protected from.
Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck
recently.
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
Automated system. Please leave him alone.
He should honour his part of the deal.
You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation
to repair.
=
Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
He does. Please leave him alone.
Read his Terms of Business!
https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you
broke. He has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts to repair it.
On 11/04/2026 15:58, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not
require any help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be >>>>>> protected from.
Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck
recently.
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
Automated system. Please leave him alone.
He should honour his part of the deal.
You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation
to repair.
I have made *ZERO* insinuations since I last bought the product!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10240210725473349&set=p.102402107 25473349&type=3
Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
He does. Please leave him alone.
Read his Terms of Business!
https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you
broke. He has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts
to repair it.
I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require
any help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected
from.
Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck
recently.
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
He should honour his part of the deal.
Read his Terms of Business!
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> news:69da61af$2$55442$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sat, 11 Apr 2026
14:58:55 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 7:21:57rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v3o5F1olcU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 11/04/2026 14:50, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not
require any help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be >>>>>> protected from.
Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck
recently.
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
He has sold me the product. He has taken payment.
Automated system. Please leave him alone.
Again, I find myself agreeing with you. Twice! in the same thread. This is not like you. But, I am impressed to see this side of you where you're actually stepping in and setting someone straight in a completely legit manner. For a chance, you aren't quoting him out of context or resorting
to making things up. I'm impressed, Snit. it's so unlike you.
He should honour his part of the deal.
You broke the deal with your online insinuations. He has no obligation
to repair.
Agreed!
=
Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
He does. Please leave him alone.
Read his Terms of Business!
https://etrecheck.com/en/terms.html
There is an unstated assumption of operating in good faith which you
broke. He has no obligation to repair it, or even accept your efforts to
repair it.
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn this
the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You *could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you
actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> news:69da5194$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sat, 11 Apr 2026 13:50:12
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 6:27:28rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n3v0i0F194tU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 10/04/2026 08:50, Gremlin wrote:
I haven't helped protect the author of Etrecheck. They do not require
any help to protect them. They have nothing they need to be protected
from.
Well, that *IS* good to hear! EfOe
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the Developer of EtreCheck
recently.
He has NOT responded (contrary to his Terms of Business)
You know why he does not respond to you!
Correct. He knows *exactly what he did* which caused the lack of two way comms for him and the author. It's his own fault and he knows it! You
can't go from badmouthing a program repeatedly on usenet and elsewhere to essentially pretending to be a legit client asking for help. David burned that bridge and continues to do so; ensuring he took out the pillars as
well.
Hello John,
I hope you donrCOt mind me getting in touch directly.
He does. Please leave him alone.
Correct again. Solid advice you have provided David Brooks too. He will
not take it for what it's worth and he will continue with his campaign against Etrecheck. The only realistic way he will stop is if the author involves him in a lawsuit. I continue to encourage the author to respond
in this manner each time I send him copies of Davids posts; like the one
he wrote as a reply.
I do my best to keep the author in the loop. I know
what David does. I didn't have the benefit at the time of a heads up or advanced warning concerning him. So, I do my best to ensure others do
before they respond the first time. I know what he's upto and I know how
the emails will go.
He slimes, he berates and he wastes other peoples time. He chooses to
remain ignorant concerning various aspects of tech and that's intentional
on his part too. As I told him before, av/am and the other side are well aware of him and have the same view of him as I do. As others who have written and supported software and been contacted by David Brooks do.
While I appreciate you being sober and critical thinking skills enabled enough to respond to David in the manner in which you did; I know that
David will circular file your very sound advice on this occasion and
continue doing what he does towards that author. It's just how David
Brooks is.
I told you before, neither of you can help the other be seen as something that you are not. The history you both have prevents it. Your current interactions and various bullshit you've both been writing about myself
and others ensures that you won't be treated as you feel you should.
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53rC>PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote <XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn
this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you
actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
Good to see you back it though.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway.
Let it end here. Deal?
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?Do you recall saying .......
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53rC>PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn
this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you
actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't.
If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so.
I actually do call things like they are.
You often take
great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title. I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included, Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one.
Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are.
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the
only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print? You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match.
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others. You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here?
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I?
One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the
regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome
here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else
wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You. Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you
resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot, then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole
with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with
David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either. People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for
themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone.
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical 3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did.
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit.
We've already been
over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw* it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill, field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general. You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart
diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already. If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth, because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway.
There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest
with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC
shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to.
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
On 12/04/2026 08:04, Gremlin wrote:
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?Do you recall saying .......
"Recovery mode, is as with Windows systems, another
partition on the internal hard disk."
Well, do you?!!!--
Here's how to do it, Dustin, if you'd like the facts!
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/102518
HTH
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn
this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you
actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title. I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included, Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one.
Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are.
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the
only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print? You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match.
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others. You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here?
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it. I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the
regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome
here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else
wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You. Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you
resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot, then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole
with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with
David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either. People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for
themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone.
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical 3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did.
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been
over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw* it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill, field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general. You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart
diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already. If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth, because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway.
There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest
with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC
shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to.
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
On Apr 12, 2026 at 12:53:22rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n411biFat6hU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 08:04, Gremlin wrote:
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?Do you recall saying .......
"Recovery mode, is as with Windows systems, another
partition on the internal hard disk."
The local recovery is...
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting >>>> the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn
this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's >>>> extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see >>>> you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You >>>> *could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you
actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take
great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has >> been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in
several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and >> you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It
isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title. >> I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll >> and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one.
Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are.
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the
only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having
formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on >> that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told >> you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those >> prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to
anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why
wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print? >> You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more
purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main >> page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which
specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they
were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers >> though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match.
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things
because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was >> your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just
occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others. >> You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and >> driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has >> that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here?
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the
entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be >> an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set
another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You
won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the
regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on >> occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome
here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else
wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself
included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You. >> Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion >> that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult
conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you
resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot, >> then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such >> claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing >> of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to >> keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued >> to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me >> with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet >> again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about
having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I >> never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole
with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it >> that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with
David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck >> are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever >> one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either. >> People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for
themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are >> writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over >> the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several >> of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone.
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous
discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why >> they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have >> been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th >> grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand. >>
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks >> and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition
atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did.
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been
over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely
bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have >> a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because
said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose >> a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together
over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the
machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a >> computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill,
field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate
fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an >> engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten
this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking
gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know >> what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running >> a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the
machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a
limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general. >> You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true
relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart
diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive
failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already. >> If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem >> entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care >> about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about >> your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the >> machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an >> issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth,
because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere >> near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for >> the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be
working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You
won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and
attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway.
There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't >> going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't >> the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my
recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with >> AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you >> think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple
times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they >> would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the
purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone >> might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a
positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest
with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest
intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do >> what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same >> routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC
shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into >> considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that
purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of >> the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your
very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see >> your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to.
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" asked a question. <n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:[....]
Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here?
~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
Do tell. Thanks.
I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret hidden ones too! :)
On 12/04/2026 01:09, Brock McNuggets - a Mac user - responded!
On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" asked a question.[....]
<n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:
Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here?
~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
Do tell. Thanks.
I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret
hidden ones too! :)
Thank you for confirming that, Brock! EfOe
As you are well aware, most folk never look in their Library ...
..... the one under "Go" in their Finder title bar.
Indeed, one has to press the "Option" key to display it. So, what *IS*
shown there is effectively hidden. Agreed?
OK
Please delete "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Restart your computer and then check that the above item has GONE!
If it has gone, visit www.etrecheck.com, download and run Etrecheck
Review the report (share with us if you wish) - keep a copy in 'Notes'
should you want to.
Then delete the EtreCheck report.
When appropriate, select the box saying that you do NOT want to save a
copy. Send the report to your Bin and then empty your Bin.
All straight-forward!
Now go to "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Does the report you said that you did not wish to keep appear there?
If so ....... *WHY* is it there?!!!
Please advise.
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:49:38rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n41po2Fejs2U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 01:09, Brock McNuggets - a Mac user - responded!
On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" asked a question.[....]
<n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:
Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here? >>>>
~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
Do tell. Thanks.
I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret
hidden ones too! :)
Thank you for confirming that, Brock! EfOe
Sure.
As you are well aware, most folk never look in their Library ...
..... the one under "Go" in their Finder title bar.
Nor is thee any need.
Indeed, one has to press the "Option" key to display it. So, what *IS*
shown there is effectively hidden. Agreed?
And not even always on option. Go to your Home folder and then View >Show View
Options
There is an option to show the Library folder. It will show in the Home folder, but then it will NOT show in the "Go" menu even if you hold option.
But it is made less obvious by design... it is not something most users need to go into.
OK
Please delete "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Restart your computer and then check that the above item has GONE!
If I reboot I will lose this message -- weakness of my client. So maybe later.
But I would expect them to be gone.
If it has gone, visit www.etrecheck.com, download and run Etrecheck
I have no desire to download and run it again... and you do not trust it so why would you advise people to do this?
Review the report (share with us if you wish) - keep a copy in 'Notes'
should you want to.
Then delete the EtreCheck report.
When appropriate, select the box saying that you do NOT want to save a
copy. Send the report to your Bin and then empty your Bin.
All straight-forward!
Now go to "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Does the report you said that you did not wish to keep appear there?
If so ....... *WHY* is it there?!!!
Please advise.
Please stop focusing on EtreCheck.
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrote <zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29 >>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting >>>>> the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn
this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's >>>>> extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see >>>>> you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You >>>>> *could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you >>>>> actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank >>> you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take >>> great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has >>> been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in
several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and >>> you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It >>> isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll >>> and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one.
Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are.
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the >>> only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having >>> formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others >>> who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on >>> that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told >>> you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those >>> prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to
anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why
wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print? >>> You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more
purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main >>> page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which
specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they >>> were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers >>> though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match.
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things
because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just >>> occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others. >>> You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and >>> driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results >>> you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here? >>>
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the >>> entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be >>> an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set
another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You >>> won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the
regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on >>> occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome >>> here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else
wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself >>> included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You. >>> Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion >>> that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true >>> and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult
conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you
resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm >>> not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to >>> keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued >>> to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me >>> with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet >>> again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about
having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole >>> with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it >>> that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest >>> and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with
David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck >>> are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for
themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are >>> writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several >>> of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone.
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous
discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why >>> they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have >>> been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand. >>>
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks >>> and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition
atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did.
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been >>> over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times. >>> You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely >>> bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have >>> a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because >>> said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose >>> a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together >>> over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the
machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a >>> computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill, >>> field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate >>> fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an >>> engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten >>> this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking >>> gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know >>> what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running >>> a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the
machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a
limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general. >>> You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true >>> relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart
diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive >>> failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about >>> your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth,
because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere >>> near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for >>> the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be >>> working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You >>> won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and
attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway.
There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't >>> going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't >>> the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my >>> recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with >>> AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you >>> think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple >>> times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the >>> purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone >>> might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a
positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest >>> with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest
intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same >>> routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC
shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into >>> considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that
purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of >>> the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one >>> can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your >>> very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see >>> your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to.
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrotethey can killfile me but i'm still in your replies
<zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29 >>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting >>>>>> the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn >>>>>> this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's >>>>>> extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see >>>>>> you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You >>>>>> *could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you >>>>>> actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank >>>> you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take >>>> great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has >>>> been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in >>>> several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and
you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It >>>> isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll
and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one. >>>> Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are.
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the >>>> only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having >>>> formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others >>>> who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on >>>> that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told
you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those
prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to >>>> anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why
wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print? >>>> You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more >>>> purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main >>>> page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which
specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they >>>> were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers >>>> though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match. >>>>
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things >>>> because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just >>>> occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others.
You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and
driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results >>>> you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here? >>>>
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the >>>> entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be >>>> an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set >>>> another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You >>>> won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the
regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on >>>> occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome >>>> here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else >>>> wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself >>>> included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You.
Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion
that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true >>>> and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult >>>> conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you >>>> resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm >>>> not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to
keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued
to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me >>>> with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet
again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about >>>> having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole >>>> with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it >>>> that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest >>>> and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with >>>> David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck >>>> are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for
themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are
writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several
of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone.
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous
discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why
they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have >>>> been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks >>>> and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition >>>> atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did.
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been >>>> over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times. >>>> You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely >>>> bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because >>>> said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together >>>> over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the >>>> machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a >>>> computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill, >>>> field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate >>>> fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an
engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten >>>> this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking >>>> gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know >>>> what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the >>>> machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a >>>> limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general.
You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true >>>> relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart >>>> diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive >>>> failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about >>>> your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth,
because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere
near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for
the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be >>>> working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You >>>> won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and >>>> attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway.
There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't >>>> going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't >>>> the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my >>>> recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with >>>> AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you >>>> think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple >>>> times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the >>>> purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone >>>> might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a >>>> positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest >>>> with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest
intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same
routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC >>>> shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into
considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that >>>> purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of >>>> the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one >>>> can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your >>>> very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see
your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to.
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not
understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny.
they're always going to read your answers so i still get seen
On 12/04/2026 16:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:49:38rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n41po2Fejs2U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 01:09, Brock McNuggets - a Mac user - responded!
On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" asked a question.[....]
<n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:
Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here? >>>>>
~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
Do tell. Thanks.
I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret
hidden ones too! :)
Thank you for confirming that, Brock! EfOe
Sure.
As you are well aware, most folk never look in their Library ...
..... the one under "Go" in their Finder title bar.
Nor is thee any need.
Indeed, one has to press the "Option" key to display it. So, what *IS*
shown there is effectively hidden. Agreed?
And not even always on option. Go to your Home folder and then View >Show View
Options
There is an option to show the Library folder. It will show in the Home
folder, but then it will NOT show in the "Go" menu even if you hold option. >>
But it is made less obvious by design... it is not something most users need >> to go into.
That is a fair point regarding the View Options; itrCOs certainly a more permanent way to keep the folder visible for those who need frequent
access to ~/Library.
OK
Please delete "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Restart your computer and then check that the above item has GONE!
If I reboot I will lose this message -- weakness of my client. So maybe later.
Have you raised this wit the developer of Usenapp?
But I would expect them to be gone.
Pssst - they will be! ;-)
If it has gone, visit www.etrecheck.com, download and run Etrecheck
I have no desire to download and run it again... and you do not trust it so >> why would you advise people to do this?
Simply to establish the truth.
Review the report (share with us if you wish) - keep a copy in 'Notes'
should you want to.
Then delete the EtreCheck report.
When appropriate, select the box saying that you do NOT want to save a
copy. Send the report to your Bin and then empty your Bin.
All straight-forward!
Now go to "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Does the report you said that you did not wish to keep appear there?
If so ....... *WHY* is it there?!!!
Please advise.
Please stop focusing on EtreCheck.
The reason I suggest this specific sequence is to highlight a matter of
user agency and data persistence.
If a user explicitly selects an option not to save a report, and then manually empties the Bin, one would logically expect that data to be
gone. The discovery that EtreCheck may be silently archiving these
reports in ~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck regardless of the
user's "do not save" preference is a technical observation worth noting.
It isn't about whether one "trusts" the diagnostic capabilities of the
tool, but rather how the software handles (or retains) user data behind
the scenes.
The focus is currently there because it serves as a primary example of
how "helper" utilities interact with the macOS filesystem in ways that
aren't always transparent to the average user.
If you do eventually decide to check that directory after a run, IrCOd be interested to hear if your findings match what IrCOve observed regarding those "unsaved" reports reappearing.
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:27:40rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n41rvcFev6eU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 16:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:49:38rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n41po2Fejs2U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 01:09, Brock McNuggets - a Mac user - responded!
On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" asked a question.[....]
<n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:
Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here? >>>>>>
~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
Do tell. Thanks.
I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret
hidden ones too! :)
Thank you for confirming that, Brock! EfOe
Sure.
As you are well aware, most folk never look in their Library ...
..... the one under "Go" in their Finder title bar.
Nor is thee any need.
Indeed, one has to press the "Option" key to display it. So, what *IS* >>>> shown there is effectively hidden. Agreed?
And not even always on option. Go to your Home folder and then View >Show View
Options
There is an option to show the Library folder. It will show in the Home
folder, but then it will NOT show in the "Go" menu even if you hold option. >>>
But it is made less obvious by design... it is not something most users need
to go into.
That is a fair point regarding the View Options; itrCOs certainly a more
permanent way to keep the folder visible for those who need frequent
access to ~/Library.
Well, keeps it visible in the Library (which I knew) but I thought it kept it visible in the Go menu... but it hides it from there even on Option. Either my
memory is wrong or Apple changed something in the last version or so. No biggie.
OK
Please delete "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Restart your computer and then check that the above item has GONE!
If I reboot I will lose this message -- weakness of my client. So maybe later.
Have you raised this wit the developer of Usenapp?
I have not... though not a bad idea to do so.
But I would expect them to be gone.
Pssst - they will be! ;-)
Good. Though with my issues with iCloud / macOS recently it might come back (not likely -- that folder is not backed up on iCloud, but iCloud and my Mac are NOT doing as they should!)
If it has gone, visit www.etrecheck.com, download and run Etrecheck
I have no desire to download and run it again... and you do not trust it so >>> why would you advise people to do this?
Simply to establish the truth.
You have already found it keeps logs in it Application Support folder. What more are you looking for?
Review the report (share with us if you wish) - keep a copy in 'Notes' >>>> should you want to.
Then delete the EtreCheck report.
When appropriate, select the box saying that you do NOT want to save a >>>> copy. Send the report to your Bin and then empty your Bin.
All straight-forward!
Now go to "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Does the report you said that you did not wish to keep appear there?
If so ....... *WHY* is it there?!!!
Please advise.
Please stop focusing on EtreCheck.
The reason I suggest this specific sequence is to highlight a matter of
user agency and data persistence.
It is hardly unique. I have not tested them all, but I bet other apps do much the same. The issue here is not the app, but you digging into it in a vacuum of understanding. You assume what you find is rare or bad but you have no clue
if it is normal or what the folder is even for. And then you make insinuations
of wrong doing.
If a user explicitly selects an option not to save a report, and then
manually empties the Bin, one would logically expect that data to be
gone. The discovery that EtreCheck may be silently archiving these
reports in ~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck regardless of the
user's "do not save" preference is a technical observation worth noting.
It isn't about whether one "trusts" the diagnostic capabilities of the
tool, but rather how the software handles (or retains) user data behind
the scenes.
The focus is currently there because it serves as a primary example of
how "helper" utilities interact with the macOS filesystem in ways that
aren't always transparent to the average user.
If you do eventually decide to check that directory after a run, IrCOd be
interested to hear if your findings match what IrCOve observed regarding
those "unsaved" reports reappearing.
I have told you repeatedly I will not help you do anything that aids your harassment of him. PLEASE LEAVE HIM ALONE!
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:40:23rC>AM MST, "%" wrote <pJKcnRu8btmVIEb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrotethey can killfile me but i'm still in your replies
<zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29 >>>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting >>>>>>> the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn >>>>>>> this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's >>>>>>> extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see >>>>>>> you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You >>>>>>> *could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you >>>>>>> actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank >>>>> you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take >>>>> great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has
been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in >>>>> several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and
you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It >>>>> isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll
and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one. >>>>> Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are. >>>>>
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the >>>>> only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having >>>>> formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others >>>>> who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on
that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told
you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those
prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to >>>>> anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why >>>>> wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print?
You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more >>>>> purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main
page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which >>>>> specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they >>>>> were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers
though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match. >>>>>
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things >>>>> because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just >>>>> occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others.
You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and
driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results >>>>> you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here? >>>>>
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the >>>>> entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set >>>>> another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You >>>>> won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the >>>>> regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on
occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome >>>>> here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else >>>>> wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself >>>>> included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You.
Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion
that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true >>>>> and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult >>>>> conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you >>>>> resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm >>>>> not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to
keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued
to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me
with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet
again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about >>>>> having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole >>>>> with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it
that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest >>>>> and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with >>>>> David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck
are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for
themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are
writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several
of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone. >>>>>
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous >>>>> discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why
they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have
been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks
and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition >>>>> atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did.
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been >>>>> over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times. >>>>> You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely >>>>> bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because >>>>> said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together >>>>> over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the >>>>> machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a
computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill, >>>>> field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate >>>>> fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an
engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten >>>>> this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking >>>>> gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know
what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the >>>>> machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a >>>>> limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general.
You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true >>>>> relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart >>>>> diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive >>>>> failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about
your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth, >>>>> because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere
near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for
the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be >>>>> working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You >>>>> won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and >>>>> attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway.
There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't
going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't
the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my >>>>> recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you
think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple >>>>> times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the >>>>> purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone
might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a >>>>> positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest >>>>> with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest >>>>> intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same
routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC >>>>> shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into
considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that >>>>> purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of
the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one >>>>> can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your >>>>> very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see
your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to. >>>>>
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not
understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny.
they're always going to read your answers so i still get seen
Another good reason to reply to you.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:40:23rC>AM MST, "%" wroteits ok with me i'd post here if no one came
<pJKcnRu8btmVIEb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrotethey can killfile me but i'm still in your replies
<zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29 >>>>>> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn >>>>>>>> this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you >>>>>>>> actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take
great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has
been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in >>>>>> several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and
you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It
isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll
and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one. >>>>>> Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are. >>>>>>
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the >>>>>> only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having >>>>>> formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on
that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told
you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those
prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to >>>>>> anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why >>>>>> wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print?
You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more >>>>>> purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main
page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which >>>>>> specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they
were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers
though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match. >>>>>>
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things >>>>>> because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just
occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others.
You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and
driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here? >>>>>>
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the >>>>>> entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set >>>>>> another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You
won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the >>>>>> regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on
occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome >>>>>> here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else >>>>>> wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself >>>>>> included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You.
Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion
that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult >>>>>> conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you >>>>>> resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to
keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued
to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me
with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet
again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about >>>>>> having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole >>>>>> with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it
that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with >>>>>> David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck
are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for >>>>>> themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are
writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several
of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone. >>>>>>
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous >>>>>> discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why
they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have
been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks
and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition >>>>>> atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did.
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been >>>>>> over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely >>>>>> bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because
said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together
over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the >>>>>> machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a
computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill, >>>>>> field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate
fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an
engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten
this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking
gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know
what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the >>>>>> machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a >>>>>> limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general.
You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true >>>>>> relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart >>>>>> diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive >>>>>> failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about
your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth, >>>>>> because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere
near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for
the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be
working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You
won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and >>>>>> attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway.
There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't
going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't
the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my
recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you
think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple
times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the >>>>>> purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone
might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a >>>>>> positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest >>>>>> with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest >>>>>> intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same
routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC >>>>>> shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into
considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that >>>>>> purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of
the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your
very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see
your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to. >>>>>>
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not
understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny.
they're always going to read your answers so i still get seen
Another good reason to reply to you.
On Apr 12, 2026 at 12:36:03rC>PM MST, "%" wrote <vQednUsaQLDYaUb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:40:23rC>AM MST, "%" wroteits ok with me i'd post here if no one came
<pJKcnRu8btmVIEb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrotethey can killfile me but i'm still in your replies
<zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn >>>>>>>>> this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you >>>>>>>>> actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take
great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has
been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in >>>>>>> several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and
you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It
isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll
and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one. >>>>>>> Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are. >>>>>>>
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the
only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having
formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on
that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told
you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those
prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to >>>>>>> anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why >>>>>>> wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print?
You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more >>>>>>> purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main
page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which >>>>>>> specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they
were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers
though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match. >>>>>>>
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things >>>>>>> because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just
occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others.
You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and
driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here?
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the
entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set >>>>>>> another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You
won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the >>>>>>> regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on
occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome
here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else >>>>>>> wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself
included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You.
Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion
that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult >>>>>>> conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you >>>>>>> resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to
keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued
to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me
with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet
again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about >>>>>>> having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole
with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it
that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with >>>>>>> David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck
are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for >>>>>>> themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are
writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several
of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone. >>>>>>>
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous >>>>>>> discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why
they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have
been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks
and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition >>>>>>> atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did.
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been
over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely
bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because
said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together
over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the >>>>>>> machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a
computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill,
field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate
fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an
engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten
this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking
gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know
what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the >>>>>>> machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a >>>>>>> limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general.
You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true
relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart >>>>>>> diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive
failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about
your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth, >>>>>>> because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere
near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for
the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be
working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You
won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and >>>>>>> attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway. >>>>>>>There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't
going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't
the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my
recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you
think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple
times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the
purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone
might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a >>>>>>> positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest
with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest >>>>>>> intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same
routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC >>>>>>> shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into
considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that >>>>>>> purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of
the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your
very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see
your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to. >>>>>>>
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not >>>>> understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny.
they're always going to read your answers so i still get seen
Another good reason to reply to you.
I do not post here now.
On 12/04/2026 19:04, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:27:40rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n41rvcFev6eU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 16:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:49:38rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n41po2Fejs2U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 01:09, Brock McNuggets - a Mac user - responded!
On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" asked a question. >>>>>> <n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:[....]
Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here? >>>>>>>
~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
Do tell. Thanks.
I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret
hidden ones too! :)
Thank you for confirming that, Brock! EfOe
Sure.
As you are well aware, most folk never look in their Library ...
..... the one under "Go" in their Finder title bar.
Nor is thee any need.
Indeed, one has to press the "Option" key to display it. So, what *IS* >>>>> shown there is effectively hidden. Agreed?
And not even always on option. Go to your Home folder and then View >Show View
Options
There is an option to show the Library folder. It will show in the Home >>>> folder, but then it will NOT show in the "Go" menu even if you hold option.
But it is made less obvious by design... it is not something most users need
to go into.
That is a fair point regarding the View Options; itrCOs certainly a more >>> permanent way to keep the folder visible for those who need frequent
access to ~/Library.
Well, keeps it visible in the Library (which I knew) but I thought it kept it
visible in the Go menu... but it hides it from there even on Option. Either my
memory is wrong or Apple changed something in the last version or so. No
biggie.
Keep up, dear boy! ;-)
OK
Please delete "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Restart your computer and then check that the above item has GONE!
If I reboot I will lose this message -- weakness of my client. So maybe later.
Have you raised this wit the developer of Usenapp?
I have not... though not a bad idea to do so.
Perhaps I should start to use it again - I have paid for it!
But I would expect them to be gone.
Pssst - they will be! ;-)
Good. Though with my issues with iCloud / macOS recently it might come back >> (not likely -- that folder is not backed up on iCloud, but iCloud and my Mac >> are NOT doing as they should!)
In your situation I'd restart in Internet Recovery and install a fresh
copy of macOS again. You won't lose any files, photos or documents.
It doesn't take much more than half an hour or so!
If it has gone, visit www.etrecheck.com, download and run Etrecheck
I have no desire to download and run it again... and you do not trust it so
why would you advise people to do this?
Simply to establish the truth.
You have already found it keeps logs in it Application Support folder. What >> more are you looking for?
*WHY DOES IT KEEP A COPY*?
Review the report (share with us if you wish) - keep a copy in 'Notes' >>>>> should you want to.
Then delete the EtreCheck report.
When appropriate, select the box saying that you do NOT want to save a >>>>> copy. Send the report to your Bin and then empty your Bin.
All straight-forward!
Now go to "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Does the report you said that you did not wish to keep appear there? >>>>>
If so ....... *WHY* is it there?!!!
Please advise.
Please stop focusing on EtreCheck.
The reason I suggest this specific sequence is to highlight a matter of
user agency and data persistence.
It is hardly unique. I have not tested them all, but I bet other apps do much
the same. The issue here is not the app, but you digging into it in a vacuum >> of understanding. You assume what you find is rare or bad but you have no clue
if it is normal or what the folder is even for. And then you make insinuations
of wrong doing.
It's a learning experience. I'm making NO insinuations.
<SNIP>
If a user explicitly selects an option not to save a report, and then
manually empties the Bin, one would logically expect that data to be
gone. The discovery that EtreCheck may be silently archiving these
reports in ~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck regardless of the
user's "do not save" preference is a technical observation worth noting. >>> It isn't about whether one "trusts" the diagnostic capabilities of the
tool, but rather how the software handles (or retains) user data behind
the scenes.
The focus is currently there because it serves as a primary example of
how "helper" utilities interact with the macOS filesystem in ways that
aren't always transparent to the average user.
If you do eventually decide to check that directory after a run, IrCOd be >>> interested to hear if your findings match what IrCOve observed regarding >>> those "unsaved" reports reappearing.
I have told you repeatedly I will not help you do anything that aids your
harassment of him. PLEASE LEAVE HIM ALONE!
Brock, I hear you loud and clear! It was never my intention to make you
feel like a participant in a personal dispute.
My interest has always been strictly technical rCo specifically, how a
macOS application manages its support files and whether "delete" truly
means "delete" in that context. However, I respect your boundary and I
won't ask you to perform any further tests or checks regarding that
specific directory.
I'll leave the matter of data persistence for others to investigate (or
not) as they see fit.
On a different note, if you do ever hear back from the Usenapp developer about that message-loss-on-reboot issue, I'd actually be genuinely
interested in the fix. That sounds like a frustrating bug for any Usenet regular.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 12:36:03rC>PM MST, "%" wrotei run this group
<vQednUsaQLDYaUb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:40:23rC>AM MST, "%" wroteits ok with me i'd post here if no one came
<pJKcnRu8btmVIEb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrotethey can killfile me but i'm still in your replies
<zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn >>>>>>>>>> this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you >>>>>>>>>> actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take
great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has
been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in
several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and
you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It
isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll
and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one. >>>>>>>> Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are. >>>>>>>>
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the
only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having
formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on
that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told
you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those
prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to
anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why >>>>>>>> wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print?
You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more >>>>>>>> purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main
page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which >>>>>>>> specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they
were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers
though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match. >>>>>>>>
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things
because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just
occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others.
You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and
driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here?
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the
entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set >>>>>>>> another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You
won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the >>>>>>>> regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on
occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome
here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else >>>>>>>> wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself
included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You.
Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion
that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult
conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you >>>>>>>> resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to
keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued
to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me
with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet
again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about
having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole
with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it
that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with
David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck
are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for >>>>>>>> themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are
writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several
of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone. >>>>>>>>
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous >>>>>>>> discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why
they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have
been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks
and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition >>>>>>>> atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did.
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been
over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely
bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because
said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together
over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the >>>>>>>> machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a
computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill,
field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate
fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an
engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten
this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking
gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know
what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the
machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a
limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general.
You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true
relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart
diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive
failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about
your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth, >>>>>>>> because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere
near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for
the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be
working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You
won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and
attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway. >>>>>>>>There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't
going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't
the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my
recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you
think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple
times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the
purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone
might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a
positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest
with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest >>>>>>>> intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same
routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC >>>>>>>> shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into
considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that
purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of
the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your
very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see
your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to. >>>>>>>>
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not >>>>>> understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny.
they're always going to read your answers so i still get seen
Another good reason to reply to you.
I do not post here now.
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:01:09rC>PM MST, "%" wrote <oACdnXKDFsOGlUH0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 12:36:03rC>PM MST, "%" wrotei run this group
<vQednUsaQLDYaUb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:40:23rC>AM MST, "%" wroteits ok with me i'd post here if no one came
<pJKcnRu8btmVIEb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrotethey can killfile me but i'm still in your replies
<zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn >>>>>>>>>>> this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you
actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take
great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has
been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in
several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and
you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It
isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll
and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one.
Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are. >>>>>>>>>
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the
only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having
formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on
that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told
you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those
prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to
anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why >>>>>>>>> wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print?
You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more
purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main
page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which >>>>>>>>> specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they
were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers
though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match.
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things
because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just
occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others.
You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and
driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here?
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the
entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set
another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You
won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the >>>>>>>>> regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on
occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome
here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else
wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself
included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You.
Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion
that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult
conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you
resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to
keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued
to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me
with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet
again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about
having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole
with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it
that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with
David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck
are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for >>>>>>>>> themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are
writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several
of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone. >>>>>>>>>
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous >>>>>>>>> discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why
they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have
been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks
and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition
atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did. >>>>>>>>>
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been
over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely
bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because
said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together
over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the
machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a
computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill,
field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate
fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an
engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten
this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking
gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know
what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the
machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a
limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general.
You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true
relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart
diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive
failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about
your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth, >>>>>>>>> because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere
near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for
the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be
working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You
won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and
attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway. >>>>>>>>>There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't
going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't
the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my
recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you
think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple
times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the
purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone
might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a
positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest
with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest >>>>>>>>> intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same
routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC
shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into
considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that
purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of
the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your
very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see
your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to. >>>>>>>>>
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not >>>>>>> understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny. >>>>>>>
they're always going to read your answers so i still get seen
Another good reason to reply to you.
I do not post here now.
I walk it.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:01:09rC>PM MST, "%" wroteyou can't you've got painted hills
<oACdnXKDFsOGlUH0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 12:36:03rC>PM MST, "%" wrotei run this group
<vQednUsaQLDYaUb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:40:23rC>AM MST, "%" wroteits ok with me i'd post here if no one came
<pJKcnRu8btmVIEb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrotethey can killfile me but i'm still in your replies
<zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote >>>>>>>>>>> <XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn
this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you
actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take
great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has
been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in
several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and
you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It
isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality.
There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll
and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one.
Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are.
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the
only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having
formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on
that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told
you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those
prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to
anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why
wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print?
You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more
purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main
page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which
specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they
were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers
though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match.
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things
because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just
occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others.
You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and
driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here?
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the
entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set
another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You
won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the >>>>>>>>>> regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on
occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome
here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else
wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself
included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You.
Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion
that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult
conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you
resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to
keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued
to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me
with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet
again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about
having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole
with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it
that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with
David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck
are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for >>>>>>>>>> themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are
writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several
of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone.
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous
discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why
they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have
been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in
peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks
and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition
atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did. >>>>>>>>>>
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been
over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely
bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because
said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together
over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the
machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a
computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill,
field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate
fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an
engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten
this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking
gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know
what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the
machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a
limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general.
You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true
relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart
diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive
failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about
your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth,
because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere
near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for
the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be
working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You
won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and
attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway. >>>>>>>>>>There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't
going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't
the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my
recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you
think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple
times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the
purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone
might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a
positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest
with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest
intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same
routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC
shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into
considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that
purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of
the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your
very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see
your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to. >>>>>>>>>>
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not >>>>>>>> understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny. >>>>>>>>
they're always going to read your answers so i still get seen
Another good reason to reply to you.
I do not post here now.
I walk it.
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:14:07rC>PM MST, "%" wrote <WaCdnZk-pJy4lkH0nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:01:09rC>PM MST, "%" wroteyou can't you've got painted hills
<oACdnXKDFsOGlUH0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 12:36:03rC>PM MST, "%" wrotei run this group
<vQednUsaQLDYaUb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:40:23rC>AM MST, "%" wroteits ok with me i'd post here if no one came
<pJKcnRu8btmVIEb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrotethey can killfile me but i'm still in your replies
<zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote >>>>>>>>>>>> <XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correcting
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn
this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you
actually continued to follow this behavior pattern.
I call it like it is.
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take
great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has
been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in
several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and
you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It
isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality. >>>>>>>>>>>
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll
and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one.
Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are.
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the
only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having
formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on
that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told
you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those
prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to
anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why
wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print?
You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more
purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main
page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which
specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they
were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers
though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match.
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things
because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just
occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others.
You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and
driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here?
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the
entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set
another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You
won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the
regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on
occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome
here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else
wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself
included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You.
Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion
that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult
conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you
resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to
keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued
to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me
with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet
again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about
having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole
with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it
that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with
David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck
are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for >>>>>>>>>>> themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are
writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several
of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone.
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous
discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why
they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have
been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in >>>>>>>>>>>> peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks
and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition
atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did. >>>>>>>>>>>
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been
over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely
bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because
said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together
over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the
machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a
computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill,
field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate
fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an
engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten
this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking
gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know
what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the
machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a
limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general.
You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true
relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart
diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive
failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about
your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth,
because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere
near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for
the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be
working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client.
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You
won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and
attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't
going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't
the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my
recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you
think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple
times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the
purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone
might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a
positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest
with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest
intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same
routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC
shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into
considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that
purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of
the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your
very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see
your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to.
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not >>>>>>>>> understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny. >>>>>>>>>
they're always going to read your answers so i still get seen
Another good reason to reply to you.
I do not post here now.
I walk it.
I have been there.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:14:07rC>PM MST, "%" wrotei saw where you wrote your name
<WaCdnZk-pJy4lkH0nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:01:09rC>PM MST, "%" wroteyou can't you've got painted hills
<oACdnXKDFsOGlUH0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 12:36:03rC>PM MST, "%" wrotei run this group
<vQednUsaQLDYaUb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:40:23rC>AM MST, "%" wroteits ok with me i'd post here if no one came
<pJKcnRu8btmVIEb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:Another good reason to reply to you.
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrotethey can killfile me but i'm still in your replies
<zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>> <XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correctingI call it like it is.
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn
this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you
actually continued to follow this behavior pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take
great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has
been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in
several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and
you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It
isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll
and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one.
Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are.
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the
only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having
formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you.
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on
that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told
you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those
prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to
anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why
wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print?
You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more
purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main
page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which
specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they
were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers
though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match.
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things
because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just
occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others.
You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and
driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here?
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the
entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set
another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You
won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the
regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on
occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome
here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else
wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself
included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You.
Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion
that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult
conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you
resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to
keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued
to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me
with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet
again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about
having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole
with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it
that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with
David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck
are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for >>>>>>>>>>>> themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are
writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several
of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone.
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous
discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why
they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have
been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in >>>>>>>>>>>>> peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks
and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition
atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been
over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely
bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because
said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together
over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the
machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a
computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill,
field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate
fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an
engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten
this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking
gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know
what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the
machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a
limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general.
You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true
relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart
diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive
failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about
your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth,
because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere
near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for
the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be
working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client. >>>>>>>>>>>>
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You
won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and
attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't
going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't
the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my
recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you
think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple
times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the
purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone
might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a
positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest
with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest
intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same
routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC
shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into
considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that
purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of
the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your
very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see
your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to.
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not
understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny. >>>>>>>>>>
they're always going to read your answers so i still get seen >>>>>>>>
I do not post here now.
I walk it.
I have been there.
On Apr 12, 2026 at 12:17:42rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n429emFgvflU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 19:04, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:27:40rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n41rvcFev6eU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 16:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:49:38rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n41po2Fejs2U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 01:09, Brock McNuggets - a Mac user - responded!
On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" asked a question. >>>>>>> <n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:[....]
Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here?
~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
Do tell. Thanks.
I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret
hidden ones too! :)
Thank you for confirming that, Brock! EfOe
Sure.
As you are well aware, most folk never look in their Library ...
..... the one under "Go" in their Finder title bar.
Nor is thee any need.
Indeed, one has to press the "Option" key to display it. So, what *IS* >>>>>> shown there is effectively hidden. Agreed?
And not even always on option. Go to your Home folder and then View >Show View
Options
There is an option to show the Library folder. It will show in the Home >>>>> folder, but then it will NOT show in the "Go" menu even if you hold option.
But it is made less obvious by design... it is not something most users need
to go into.
That is a fair point regarding the View Options; itrCOs certainly a more >>>> permanent way to keep the folder visible for those who need frequent
access to ~/Library.
Well, keeps it visible in the Library (which I knew) but I thought it kept it
visible in the Go menu... but it hides it from there even on Option. Either my
memory is wrong or Apple changed something in the last version or so. No >>> biggie.
Keep up, dear boy! ;-)
I will never know every little change Apple makes to its systems with each update.
OK
Please delete "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Restart your computer and then check that the above item has GONE!
If I reboot I will lose this message -- weakness of my client. So maybe later.
Have you raised this wit the developer of Usenapp?
I have not... though not a bad idea to do so.
Perhaps I should start to use it again - I have paid for it!
It is ... decent. It has a lot of quirks and issues but I prefer it to Thunderbird. Or to what Thunderbird was a few years ago. Have not tried it again but I doubt it has improved that much.
But I would expect them to be gone.
Pssst - they will be! ;-)
Good. Though with my issues with iCloud / macOS recently it might come back >>> (not likely -- that folder is not backed up on iCloud, but iCloud and my Mac
are NOT doing as they should!)
In your situation I'd restart in Internet Recovery and install a fresh
copy of macOS again. You won't lose any files, photos or documents.
It doesn't take much more than half an hour or so!
The issue is meta-data issues on both the local system and iCloud itself. Talked with an engineer today... who is escalating it even higher.
If it has gone, visit www.etrecheck.com, download and run Etrecheck >>>>>I have no desire to download and run it again... and you do not trust it so
why would you advise people to do this?
Simply to establish the truth.
You have already found it keeps logs in it Application Support folder. What >>> more are you looking for?
*WHY DOES IT KEEP A COPY*?
When you run a scan it saves it there. Simple as that. If it bothers you then you now know where to delete it.
What other apps have you checked to see what they save there?
Review the report (share with us if you wish) - keep a copy in 'Notes' >>>>>> should you want to.
Then delete the EtreCheck report.
When appropriate, select the box saying that you do NOT want to save a >>>>>> copy. Send the report to your Bin and then empty your Bin.
All straight-forward!
Now go to "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Does the report you said that you did not wish to keep appear there? >>>>>>
If so ....... *WHY* is it there?!!!
Please advise.
Please stop focusing on EtreCheck.
The reason I suggest this specific sequence is to highlight a matter of >>>> user agency and data persistence.
It is hardly unique. I have not tested them all, but I bet other apps do much
the same. The issue here is not the app, but you digging into it in a vacuum
of understanding. You assume what you find is rare or bad but you have no clue
if it is normal or what the folder is even for. And then you make insinuations
of wrong doing.
It's a learning experience. I'm making NO insinuations.
Then the answer is simple: Application Support is used for files the application needs. Might be sound and video files for a video editing app, and
those are needed for new files. Might be old scans for comparison. Might be good if EtreCheck deleted old ones from there but it harms NOTHING for it to keep them and sometimes can help (you can compare old and new results).
From ChatGPT:
-----
Malwarebytes for Mac
Keeps scan logs, quarantine data, and history. You wonrCOt see it unless you go
digging, but itrCOs there.
CleanMyMac X
Stores scan results, cleanup history, and smart scan data so it can show you rCLwhat changedrCY over time.
DriveDx
Tracks drive health stats over time. That history has to live somewhere, so itrCOs persisted.
iStat Menus
Keeps historical system metrics (CPU, temps, etc.) so you can view trends.
Carbon Copy Cloner
Stores task history, logs, and backup metadata.
Time Machine
Not a perfect comparison, but it also keeps local state and history files under Library for tracking backups.
Console / system logging
macOS itself constantly writes logs and diagnostic data behind the scenes. -----
It is normal macOS behavior. Nothing else to say.
If a user explicitly selects an option not to save a report, and then
manually empties the Bin, one would logically expect that data to be
gone. The discovery that EtreCheck may be silently archiving these
reports in ~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck regardless of the
user's "do not save" preference is a technical observation worth noting. >>>> It isn't about whether one "trusts" the diagnostic capabilities of the >>>> tool, but rather how the software handles (or retains) user data behind >>>> the scenes.
The focus is currently there because it serves as a primary example of >>>> how "helper" utilities interact with the macOS filesystem in ways that >>>> aren't always transparent to the average user.
If you do eventually decide to check that directory after a run, IrCOd be >>>> interested to hear if your findings match what IrCOve observed regarding >>>> those "unsaved" reports reappearing.
I have told you repeatedly I will not help you do anything that aids your >>> harassment of him. PLEASE LEAVE HIM ALONE!
Brock, I hear you loud and clear! It was never my intention to make you
feel like a participant in a personal dispute.
But that is what you do when you ask others to join your at the very least border-line harassment of a developer. I have asked you repeatedly to NOT try to include me in that behavior. I find it immoral and I will not participate.
My interest has always been strictly technical rCo specifically, how a
macOS application manages its support files and whether "delete" truly
means "delete" in that context. However, I respect your boundary and I
won't ask you to perform any further tests or checks regarding that
specific directory.
Thank you.
I'll leave the matter of data persistence for others to investigate (or
not) as they see fit.
There is nothing left to investigate. It is common macOS app behavior.
On a different note, if you do ever hear back from the Usenapp developer
about that message-loss-on-reboot issue, I'd actually be genuinely
interested in the fix. That sounds like a frustrating bug for any Usenet
regular.
I might reach out to him... but fighting bigger bugs now. Sigh.
On 12/04/2026 22:03, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 12:17:42rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n429emFgvflU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 19:04, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:27:40rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n41rvcFev6eU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 16:11, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:49:38rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n41po2Fejs2U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 12/04/2026 01:09, Brock McNuggets - a Mac user - responded!
On Apr 11, 2026 at 2:33:38rC>PM MST, ""David B."" asked a question. >>>>>>>> <n3vt1iF5j1aU1@mid.individual.net>:[....]
Have YOU checked to see if YOU have past EtreCheck reports hidden here?
~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck
Do tell. Thanks.
I have some there, but not hidden. Or maybe there are obvious ones and secret
hidden ones too! :)
Thank you for confirming that, Brock! EfOe
Sure.
As you are well aware, most folk never look in their Library ... >>>>>>> ..... the one under "Go" in their Finder title bar.
Nor is thee any need.
Indeed, one has to press the "Option" key to display it. So, what *IS* >>>>>>> shown there is effectively hidden. Agreed?
And not even always on option. Go to your Home folder and then View >Show View
Options
There is an option to show the Library folder. It will show in the Home >>>>>> folder, but then it will NOT show in the "Go" menu even if you hold option.
But it is made less obvious by design... it is not something most users need
to go into.
That is a fair point regarding the View Options; itrCOs certainly a more >>>>> permanent way to keep the folder visible for those who need frequent >>>>> access to ~/Library.
Well, keeps it visible in the Library (which I knew) but I thought it kept it
visible in the Go menu... but it hides it from there even on Option. Either my
memory is wrong or Apple changed something in the last version or so. No >>>> biggie.
Keep up, dear boy! ;-)
I will never know every little change Apple makes to its systems with each >> update.
Ask me. I'll help if I can!
OKIf I reboot I will lose this message -- weakness of my client. So maybe later.
Please delete "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Restart your computer and then check that the above item has GONE! >>>>>>
Have you raised this wit the developer of Usenapp?
I have not... though not a bad idea to do so.
Perhaps I should start to use it again - I have paid for it!
It is ... decent. It has a lot of quirks and issues but I prefer it to
Thunderbird. Or to what Thunderbird was a few years ago. Have not tried it >> again but I doubt it has improved that much.
Thunderbird works really well now - and it is open-source'
Usenapp is a one-man-band application which is NOT available from the
Apple App Store.
Have you ever wondered why Andre has banned me from asking questions on
the Usenapp Forum?
But I would expect them to be gone.
Pssst - they will be! ;-)
Good. Though with my issues with iCloud / macOS recently it might come back
(not likely -- that folder is not backed up on iCloud, but iCloud and my Mac
are NOT doing as they should!)
In your situation I'd restart in Internet Recovery and install a fresh
copy of macOS again. You won't lose any files, photos or documents.
It doesn't take much more than half an hour or so!
The issue is meta-data issues on both the local system and iCloud itself.
Talked with an engineer today... who is escalating it even higher.
Please start a new thread here in ACW to discuss what is actually
occurring.
Has the question been raised in the Apple Support Communities (ASC) forums?
If it has gone, visit www.etrecheck.com, download and run Etrecheck >>>>>>I have no desire to download and run it again... and you do not trust it so
why would you advise people to do this?
Simply to establish the truth.
You have already found it keeps logs in it Application Support folder. What
more are you looking for?
*WHY DOES IT KEEP A COPY*?
When you run a scan it saves it there. Simple as that. If it bothers you then
you now know where to delete it.
What other apps have you checked to see what they save there?
Review the report (share with us if you wish) - keep a copy in 'Notes' >>>>>>> should you want to.
Then delete the EtreCheck report.
When appropriate, select the box saying that you do NOT want to save a >>>>>>> copy. Send the report to your Bin and then empty your Bin.
All straight-forward!
Now go to "~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck"
Does the report you said that you did not wish to keep appear there? >>>>>>>
If so ....... *WHY* is it there?!!!
Please advise.
Please stop focusing on EtreCheck.
The reason I suggest this specific sequence is to highlight a matter of >>>>> user agency and data persistence.
It is hardly unique. I have not tested them all, but I bet other apps do much
the same. The issue here is not the app, but you digging into it in a vacuum
of understanding. You assume what you find is rare or bad but you have no clue
if it is normal or what the folder is even for. And then you make insinuations
of wrong doing.
It's a learning experience. I'm making NO insinuations.
Then the answer is simple: Application Support is used for files the
application needs. Might be sound and video files for a video editing app, and
those are needed for new files. Might be old scans for comparison. Might be >> good if EtreCheck deleted old ones from there but it harms NOTHING for it to >> keep them and sometimes can help (you can compare old and new results).
From ChatGPT:
-----
Malwarebytes for Mac
Keeps scan logs, quarantine data, and history. You wonrCOt see it unless you go
digging, but itrCOs there.
CleanMyMac X
Stores scan results, cleanup history, and smart scan data so it can show you >> rCLwhat changedrCY over time.
DriveDx
Tracks drive health stats over time. That history has to live somewhere, so >> itrCOs persisted.
iStat Menus
Keeps historical system metrics (CPU, temps, etc.) so you can view trends. >>
Carbon Copy Cloner
Stores task history, logs, and backup metadata.
Time Machine
Not a perfect comparison, but it also keeps local state and history files
under Library for tracking backups.
Console / system logging
macOS itself constantly writes logs and diagnostic data behind the scenes. >> -----
It is normal macOS behavior. Nothing else to say.
Thanks for that breakdown, Brock. The list of other apps (Malwarebytes,
CCC, etc.) and their use of Application Support for metadata and logs is
a helpful comparison.
I certainly agree that the folder itself is standard macOS architecture
for persistent data. I suppose the "learning experience" here is the distinction between user-facing actions (clicking "don't save") and background application behavior (automatic archiving).
In many apps, "Don't Save" implies that no record will be kept, but as
your list shows, many "prosumer" (good word that!) and diagnostic tools prioritise data retention for history and comparison over absolute
deletion. ItrCOs a design choicerCoone that prioritises system recovery and comparison over a "zero-footprint" approach.
If a user explicitly selects an option not to save a report, and then >>>>> manually empties the Bin, one would logically expect that data to be >>>>> gone. The discovery that EtreCheck may be silently archiving these
reports in ~/Library/Application Support/EtreCheck regardless of the >>>>> user's "do not save" preference is a technical observation worth noting. >>>>> It isn't about whether one "trusts" the diagnostic capabilities of the >>>>> tool, but rather how the software handles (or retains) user data behind >>>>> the scenes.
The focus is currently there because it serves as a primary example of >>>>> how "helper" utilities interact with the macOS filesystem in ways that >>>>> aren't always transparent to the average user.
If you do eventually decide to check that directory after a run, IrCOd be >>>>> interested to hear if your findings match what IrCOve observed regarding >>>>> those "unsaved" reports reappearing.
I have told you repeatedly I will not help you do anything that aids your >>>> harassment of him. PLEASE LEAVE HIM ALONE!
Brock, I hear you loud and clear! It was never my intention to make you
feel like a participant in a personal dispute.
But that is what you do when you ask others to join your at the very least >> border-line harassment of a developer. I have asked you repeatedly to NOT try
to include me in that behavior. I find it immoral and I will not participate.
My interest has always been strictly technical rCo specifically, how a
macOS application manages its support files and whether "delete" truly
means "delete" in that context. However, I respect your boundary and I
won't ask you to perform any further tests or checks regarding that
specific directory.
Thank you.
YW :-D
I'll leave the matter of data persistence for others to investigate (or
not) as they see fit.
There is nothing left to investigate. It is common macOS app behavior.
Well, there ya go!
On a different note, if you do ever hear back from the Usenapp developer >>> about that message-loss-on-reboot issue, I'd actually be genuinely
interested in the fix. That sounds like a frustrating bug for any Usenet >>> regular.
I might reach out to him... but fighting bigger bugs now. Sigh.
Good luck with the Apple/iCloud engineers. Metadata issues involving iCloud can be notoriously difficult to pin down since so much of it happens on
the server side. I hope the escalation leads to a quick resolution for you!
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:41:30rC>PM MST, "%" wrote <R7acnck9E5sPjEH0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:14:07rC>PM MST, "%" wrotei saw where you wrote your name
<WaCdnZk-pJy4lkH0nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:01:09rC>PM MST, "%" wroteyou can't you've got painted hills
<oACdnXKDFsOGlUH0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 12:36:03rC>PM MST, "%" wrotei run this group
<vQednUsaQLDYaUb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:40:23rC>AM MST, "%" wroteits ok with me i'd post here if no one came
<pJKcnRu8btmVIEb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:Another good reason to reply to you.
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrotethey can killfile me but i'm still in your replies
<zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correctingI call it like it is.
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn
this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you
actually continued to follow this behavior pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take
great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has
been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in
several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and
you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It
isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included,There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll
and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one.
Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are.
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the
only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having
formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on
that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told
you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those
prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to
anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why
wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print?
You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more
purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main
page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which
specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they
were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers
though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match.
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things
because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just
occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others.
You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and
driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here?
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the
entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set
another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You
won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the
regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on
occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so.
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome
here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else
wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself
included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You.
Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion
that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult
conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you
resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to
keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued
to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me
with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet
again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about
having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole
with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it
that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with
David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck
are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for
themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are
writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several
of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone.
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous
discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why
they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have
been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks
and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition
atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been
over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely
bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because
said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together
over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the
machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a
computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill,
field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate
fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an
engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten
this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking
gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know
what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the
machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a
limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general.
You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true
relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart
diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive
failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about
your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth,
because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere
near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for
the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be
working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You
won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and
attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>>There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't
going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't
the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my
recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you
think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple
times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the
purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone
might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a
positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest
with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest
intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same
routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC
shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into
considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that
purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of
the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your
very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see
your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to.
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not
understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny. >>>>>>>>>>>
they're always going to read your answers so i still get seen >>>>>>>>>
I do not post here now.
I walk it.
I have been there.
It was in the snow.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:41:30rC>PM MST, "%" wroteit's a blistering 42 here right now
<R7acnck9E5sPjEH0nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:14:07rC>PM MST, "%" wrotei saw where you wrote your name
<WaCdnZk-pJy4lkH0nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 2:01:09rC>PM MST, "%" wroteyou can't you've got painted hills
<oACdnXKDFsOGlUH0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 12:36:03rC>PM MST, "%" wrotei run this group
<vQednUsaQLDYaUb0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 12, 2026 at 8:40:23rC>AM MST, "%" wroteits ok with me i'd post here if no one came
<pJKcnRu8btmVIEb0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Brock McNuggets wrote:Another good reason to reply to you.
On Apr 12, 2026 at 7:13:24rC>AM MST, "%" wrotethey can killfile me but i'm still in your replies
<zFKdnZXon4foNUb0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Gremlin wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>if he does i'll do all i can to fk it up
news:69db1685$2$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sun, 12 Apr 2026 03:50:29
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 8:25:53|ore4->PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <XnsB42BEE5BDDEA6HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
[SNIP SNIP]
Agreed again! I am shocked to see you showing a backbone and correctingI call it like it is.
the only 'friend' (he really isn't; but you are determined to learn
this the hard way) you have here. Kudos for doing the right thing. It's
extremely rare and it's appreciated. Sincerely. It would be nice to see
you doing this as well as accepting humility with grace more often. You
*could potentially* earn some much needed respect from others if you
actually continued to follow this behavior pattern. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, you don't. If you actually did that, I'd respond more often and thank
you for doing so. I actually do call things like they are. You often take
great offense to that and lie your arse off as you do so, but, the jig has
been up for sometime now. You're already over extending your welcome in
several other newsgroups. It's been years since you last posted to some and
you're already fucking up in them.
At some point, maybe?, you'll come to realize that the problem is you. It
isn't logical to assume it's everyone else, Snit.
Where so many of the trolls, often you included, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on tribalism and scapegoating I focus on morality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's only a couple of people here who nearly qualify for the troll title.
I'm not one of them. Neither are the rest of the regulars. Yourself included,
Snit. I often refer to you as a troll - but you are much worse than a troll
and your behavior doesn't really fit the old school definition of one.
Trolls aren't quite as bad/dishonest as you continue to show you are.
You also seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. I'm not the
only one to have noticed this either. Infact, I'm decades late in having
formed the same opinion - without interacting with the majority of others
who reached that opinion years before I ever met you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Back when you first got here and asked about the 3d printing technology on
that website...I knew something was a little off with you. The website told
you, in fine print granted, but it did tell you exactly what they did those
prints with. They are in the business of selling that gear they make to
anyone who can afford it. Those prints were done with their gear. Why
wouldn't they want you to know which model was responsible for each print?
You could be an interested buyer with the bankroll to make one or more
purchases.
The site also disclosed their printer technology in fine print on the main
page. No digging around was necessary unless you wanted to know which
specific make/model was responsible for the quite nicely done prints they
were sharing. They weren't your everyday average home owner grade printers
though. Those were some very nice machines with the pricetag to match.
You told me that I was mistaken, I must have misread one or more things
because they did not include any specifics about the printers used. That was
your rebuttle. Despite my sharing the links and a screenshot. <G> It just
occured to me that you have actually used that routine before, with others.
You've also done the same song and dance routine concerning your arrest and
driving records. You really do lie your ass off and hope nobody notices. Has
that ever actually worked out for you? Has it ever gotten you the results
you wanted instead of the ones I've seen you get when you tried it here?
Good to see you back it though.
Why wouldn't I? One, it was solid advice. Two, you of all people provided it.
I had to respond. I've never seen you shooting straight from the hip the
entire time I've known you existed. To say it took me by surprise would be
an under statement. I strongly suspect it's some new? variation to set
another circus tent. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't really matter. You
won't gain the necessary traction with it in acw. Almost none of the
regulars in acw interact with you at all. Of the few of us who still do on
occasion, it's rare and becoming that much more so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
acw isn't suitable for your activities anymore. You haven't been welcome
here for a long time. So for you the other day to suggest someone else
wasn't wanted here - that was just out of line. Various regulars, myself
included, have all asked that you fuck off. Not SC, not Pot Head, etc. You.
Specifically, you. The majority of us have corrected reached the conclusion
that the various urls known to contain details concerning you is all true
and that you aren't the sort of person who's capable of having an adult
conversation with nearly anyone for any real period of time before you
resort to childish antics and false accusations.
Oh, and creative story telling. Floodbot, insider knowledge of the floodbot,
then accusing me of lying about having insider knowledge when I made no such
claim in the first place. Do you really think all that morphing and changing
of your original accusation went unnoticed by most? I doubt it, dude. I'm
not the only one to notice how many times you morphed the floodbot story to
keep from admitting you lied about me and apologizing for it. You continued
to try and shift any blame from you onto me. You continued to lie about me
with your efforts to morph the story and you accused me of being a liar yet
again when I wasn't with yet another morphing effort. That I lied about
having insider knowledge of the bot. I can't very well lie about something I
never claimed in the first place. You have dug yourself such a deep hole
with the whole floodbot accusation and your follow up efforts to defend it
that you sunk any possible hope of someone thinking that you're an honest
and honorable person.
You are neither honest nor honorable. Only in a rare situation, as with
David Brooks and his efforts to continue to harass the author of Etrecheck
are you even remotely honest. Otherwise, you lie and double down on whatever
one it is this time when you're called out.
Your claims of bringing receipts aren't working out as you had hoped either.
People are checking the MIDs you provide. They are discovering for
themselves that the MIDs you present are not supporting the stories you are
writing. People are finding out that your're quoting out of context all over
the map AND you seem to have a serious reading comprehension issue. Several
of us have agreed that this is what you're actually showing everyone.
Atleast one poster suspects you might be struggling to read at what a typical
3rd grader should be capable of. Going back over some of our previous
discussions (Not to worry, I only spent twenty minutes or so) I can see why
they have that impression and I'm surprised that I missed it. I might have
been giving you undeserved credit by thinking you were reading at 5th to 8th
grade level on occasion.
If you can continue this I am happy to move forward in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peace.
I'll try to dumb this down further for you in the hope that you understand.
I responded to you because you did the right thing concerning David Brooks
and I was very surprised by this. I felt that you deserved recognition
atleast of some sort for calling David Brooks out as you did. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have no intentions of giving you a free pass, Snit. We've already been
over this. You have knowingly lied your arse off about me multiple times.
You have intentionally gone out of your way to try and seed a completely
bogus label that was supposed to describe me, but, as we've *all seen in acw*
it actually describes you. A functionally illiterate fraud would still have
a dead mac and still think there was a problem with the mainboard because
said person wouldn't know any different. They wouldn't know how to diagnose
a spinner HD in failure condition. They wouldn't put two and two together
over time why the machines performance started to degrade and then the
machine began to become unstable. Yet, this same person would try to run a
computer repair business. Without having the necessary knowledge, skill,
field experience, or tools! to even begin. Only a functionally illiterate
fraud such as yourself, Snit, would confuse a soldering iron for that of an
engraver. Only a functionally illiterate fraud (i'm just going to shorten
this to bullshitter) like you would be unable to diagnose his own fucking
gear.
As everyone can see who read that repair discussion, you really don't know
what the fuck you're doing when it comes to doing something besides running
a program you're already familiar with. You don't actually know how the
machine runs. You aren't that familiar with the hardware AND you have a
limited above beginner end user level knowledge of the computer in general.
You don't actually understand how the software itself works or it's true
relation to the hardware.
It was nice to see, despite your efforts to stall me, to see that smart
diags agreed with my and mine alone diagnosis; that you had a hard drive
failure in progress and it had been in such a state for a long time already.
If you were competent, you had more than enough time to diagnose the problem
entirely on your own and take necessary action to keep all the data you care
about as well as replace the drive, reload the os, apps, etc, and go about
your day. You didn't do that because you didn't know what was wrong with the
machine. You claimed you took it to someone and they determined there was an
issue with the mainboard. I don't believe you were telling the truth,
because, it's not that likely that you'd find an actual tech who's anywhere
near as incompetent as you.
Any technician who cannot diagnose a bad drive and blames the mainboard for
the symptoms the computer is displaying is incompetent. They shouldn't be
working on their own gear, let alone, a paying client. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They need to take some classes and stop being a poseur until they do. You
won't even do that. You'd rather wallow in your excessive ignorance and
attack instead.
I am not the one who wants the war you and Carroll push anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's no war that is being pushed by Carroll or myself, Snit. You aren't
going to be able to make a sale with this bullshit story either. We aren't
the bad guys here. You are.
Let it end here. Deal?
If you wanted things to end, you had the option of ignoring several of my
recent posts OR! responding to them yourself. You chose to play games with
AI instead for each reply. Despite already being shown by the very AIs you
think so highly of that it cannot accurately do as you requested multiple
times and shared the very inaccurate results of. The AI's told you that they
would provide very inaccurate information and should not be used for the
purposes you did in those replies you left.
Chatgpt I think it was? went into greater detail and explained why someone
might want to use the 'psy profile' routine and it wasn't anything of a
positive nature. The individual who'd opt to do this wasn't being honest
with the audience. In other words Snit, you were being very dishonest
intentionally with your AI replies. All because you knew Chatgpt couldn't do
what you were asking of it. So you have no excuse to continue with the same
routine. You know the results are junk. The AI itself has told you. SC
shared the discussion concerning the subject.
Not only is Chatgpt incapable of doing as you requested - It also went into
considerable detail concerning why someone might try to use it for that
purpose and share the results. A dishonest individual is a nice summary of
the type of individual who would.
Going by what's already well known about you and your usenet history; one
can easily reach the conclusion you are playing games with AI due to your
very dishonest nature.
If one knows anything about your history with some of us here, they can see
your very dishonest nature in the very reply that I'm responding to.
Can you go a single post without mentioning SC?
Gremlin attacks my ability to understand even as he shows he does not
understand what ChatGPT is being asked to do. I find that funny. >>>>>>>>>>>>
they're always going to read your answers so i still get seen >>>>>>>>>>
I do not post here now.
I walk it.
I have been there.
It was in the snow.
Do you know if I am correct about Library still showing in the menu
(with Option) even if it was set to show in the Home folder? If so, when did it change?
On 13/04/2026 00:05, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Do you know if I am correct about Library still showing in the menu
(with Option) even if it was set to show in the Home folder? If so, when did >> it change?
Here's what Gemini has to say about it! I hope this helps:-
=
This is a classic bit of macOS "logic" that has tripped up many longtime users. Brock is actually touching on a subtle change in how the Go menu behaves relative to the Home folder's visibility settings.
The Behavior Change
Historically, the Library would show up in the Go menu only when you
held the Option key. However, the logic has become a bit more
"intelligent" (or confusing, depending on your perspective) in recent versions of macOS:
The Standard Way: By default, Library is hidden. You hold Option, it
appears in Go.
+1
The "Persistent" Way: If you go to your Home folder, open View Options (Command + J), and check Show Library Folder, the folder becomes
permanently visible in your Home directory.
The Menu Disappearance: In modern macOS (including Sequoia), once you
have set the Library to be permanently visible in the Home folder, macOS often "promotes" it to a visible state in the file system but
simultaneously hides it from the Go menu's Option-key shortcut.
When did it change?
While Apple doesn't always document these "quality of life" tweaks in
release notes, this behavior began to surface more consistently around
macOS Ventura and has carried through to Sonoma and Sequoia.
The logic seems to be: If the user has explicitly chosen to show the
Library folder in their Home directory, they no longer need a "hidden" shortcut to find it. Essentially, the Option-key trick in the Go menu is
a "reveal" function; if there is nothing left to reveal because it's
already visible, the menu item often doesn't trigger.
Summary for Brock:
Is he correct? Yes. If the Library is set to "Show" in the Home folder,
it frequently stops appearing in the Go menu, even when holding Option.
When did it change? The shift became prominent with the transition to
macOS 13 (Ventura) and remains the case in macOS 15 (Sequoia).
The Irony: To get the Library back in the Go menu via the Option key, he would actually have to go back into View Options and uncheck "Show
Library Folder."
It's one of those "helpful" Apple features where the system assumes that since you've made the folder a first-class citizen in your Home folder, you'll just click it there instead of using the menu bar.
How to show the hidden Library folder
This short video demonstrates the traditional method of using the Option
key to reveal the Library folder, which serves as a helpful baseline for understanding when and why the menu behavior might change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQSnbtSVeU
=
HTH. EfOe
On Apr 13, 2026 at 1:08:57rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n43mkpFnke4U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/04/2026 00:05, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Do you know if I am correct about Library still showing in the menu
(with Option) even if it was set to show in the Home folder? If so, when did
it change?
Here's what Gemini has to say about it! I hope this helps:-
=
This is a classic bit of macOS "logic" that has tripped up many longtime
users. Brock is actually touching on a subtle change in how the Go menu
behaves relative to the Home folder's visibility settings.
The Behavior Change
Historically, the Library would show up in the Go menu only when you
held the Option key. However, the logic has become a bit more
"intelligent" (or confusing, depending on your perspective) in recent
versions of macOS:
The Standard Way: By default, Library is hidden. You hold Option, it
appears in Go.
+1
The "Persistent" Way: If you go to your Home folder, open View Options
(Command + J), and check Show Library Folder, the folder becomes
permanently visible in your Home directory.
The Menu Disappearance: In modern macOS (including Sequoia), once you
have set the Library to be permanently visible in the Home folder, macOS
often "promotes" it to a visible state in the file system but
simultaneously hides it from the Go menu's Option-key shortcut.
When did it change?
While Apple doesn't always document these "quality of life" tweaks in
release notes, this behavior began to surface more consistently around
macOS Ventura and has carried through to Sonoma and Sequoia.
The logic seems to be: If the user has explicitly chosen to show the
Library folder in their Home directory, they no longer need a "hidden"
shortcut to find it. Essentially, the Option-key trick in the Go menu is
a "reveal" function; if there is nothing left to reveal because it's
already visible, the menu item often doesn't trigger.
Summary for Brock:
Is he correct? Yes. If the Library is set to "Show" in the Home folder,
it frequently stops appearing in the Go menu, even when holding Option.
When did it change? The shift became prominent with the transition to
macOS 13 (Ventura) and remains the case in macOS 15 (Sequoia).
The Irony: To get the Library back in the Go menu via the Option key, he
would actually have to go back into View Options and uncheck "Show
Library Folder."
It's one of those "helpful" Apple features where the system assumes that
since you've made the folder a first-class citizen in your Home folder,
you'll just click it there instead of using the menu bar.
How to show the hidden Library folder
This short video demonstrates the traditional method of using the Option
key to reveal the Library folder, which serves as a helpful baseline for
understanding when and why the menu behavior might change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQSnbtSVeU
=
HTH. EfOe
Thanks. Assuming this is right I still had minor nit picky details wrong, but close enough. :)
On 13/04/2026 16:42, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 13, 2026 at 1:08:57rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n43mkpFnke4U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/04/2026 00:05, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Do you know if I am correct about Library still showing in the menu
(with Option) even if it was set to show in the Home folder? If so, when did
it change?
Here's what Gemini has to say about it! I hope this helps:-
=
This is a classic bit of macOS "logic" that has tripped up many longtime >>> users. Brock is actually touching on a subtle change in how the Go menu
behaves relative to the Home folder's visibility settings.
The Behavior Change
Historically, the Library would show up in the Go menu only when you
held the Option key. However, the logic has become a bit more
"intelligent" (or confusing, depending on your perspective) in recent
versions of macOS:
The Standard Way: By default, Library is hidden. You hold Option, it
appears in Go.
+1
The "Persistent" Way: If you go to your Home folder, open View Options
(Command + J), and check Show Library Folder, the folder becomes
permanently visible in your Home directory.
The Menu Disappearance: In modern macOS (including Sequoia), once you
have set the Library to be permanently visible in the Home folder, macOS >>> often "promotes" it to a visible state in the file system but
simultaneously hides it from the Go menu's Option-key shortcut.
When did it change?
While Apple doesn't always document these "quality of life" tweaks in
release notes, this behavior began to surface more consistently around
macOS Ventura and has carried through to Sonoma and Sequoia.
The logic seems to be: If the user has explicitly chosen to show the
Library folder in their Home directory, they no longer need a "hidden"
shortcut to find it. Essentially, the Option-key trick in the Go menu is >>> a "reveal" function; if there is nothing left to reveal because it's
already visible, the menu item often doesn't trigger.
Summary for Brock:
Is he correct? Yes. If the Library is set to "Show" in the Home folder,
it frequently stops appearing in the Go menu, even when holding Option.
When did it change? The shift became prominent with the transition to
macOS 13 (Ventura) and remains the case in macOS 15 (Sequoia).
The Irony: To get the Library back in the Go menu via the Option key, he >>> would actually have to go back into View Options and uncheck "Show
Library Folder."
It's one of those "helpful" Apple features where the system assumes that >>> since you've made the folder a first-class citizen in your Home folder,
you'll just click it there instead of using the menu bar.
How to show the hidden Library folder
This short video demonstrates the traditional method of using the Option >>> key to reveal the Library folder, which serves as a helpful baseline for >>> understanding when and why the menu behavior might change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQSnbtSVeU
=
HTH. EfOe
Thanks. Assuming this is right I still had minor nit picky details wrong, but
close enough. :)
You are welcome. It might even have been you who, years ago, helped me
find my way to the hidden Library files the first time I needed to go
there! ;-)
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net[....]
I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. The facts are still the same. You have attacked his software and him personally as well as his company, multiple times right here.
On 12/04/2026 04:25, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net[....] >>> I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. The facts are still the same. You >> have attacked his software and him personally as well as his company,
multiple times right here.
Dustin,
IrCOm happy to concede that my past criticism of EtreCheck has been sharp, and I accept that repeating suspicions can be wearying for the group.
That said, I won't be intimidated. Your talk of legal teams, bankruptcy,
and physical "curb stomping" is beneath the dignity of this forum. I
have spent my working life in the Royal Navy and as an IFA; I am not
easily rattled by Usenet threats, but I will call them what they are: inappropriate.
You are a skilled developer, and IrCOve learned from you over the years.
But that doesn't make your word the final law on what constitutes
"stalking." I had a consumer disagreement regarding a paid licenserCo
nothing more, nothing less.
Let's lower the temperature. I have no interest in harassing anyone or pursuing legal vendettas. I will continue to post my opinions, but I
will not be engaging with further abuse.
Fair winds,
rCo-
David Brooks
I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely shared her last name but have no relation to me.
He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you but not himself.
On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he >> attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the >> likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal >> issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for >> People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely >> shared her last name but have no relation to me.
He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you >> but not himself.
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
If so, did you save the report?
David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he >>> attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal >>> issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely >>> shared her last name but have no relation to me.
He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
but not himself.
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
If so, did you save the report?
Only the times werCOve talked about. DonrCOt know if I have any reports now.
On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal >>>> issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
shared her last name but have no relation to me.
He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
but not himself.
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
If so, did you save the report?
Only the times werCOve talked about. DonrCOt know if I have any reports now.
Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
On May 13, 2026 at 10:47:09rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n6jrotF2dlkU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal
issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
shared her last name but have no relation to me.
He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
but not himself.
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
If so, did you save the report?
Only the times werCOve talked about. DonrCOt know if I have any reports now.
Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
I have had EasyFind for years.
On 2026-05-13, David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal
issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
shared her last name but have no relation to me.
He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
but not himself.
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
Oh brother... you never stop, do you?
If so, did you save the report?
Only the times werCOve talked about. DonrCOt know if I have any reports now.
Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
Why bring more crap into your computer?
Just use local tools like Spotlight, mdfind (uses Spotlight's index so
it's fast) or grep to search for a 'telltale signature' of sorts:
mdfind "EtreCheck version" (or whatever text is found in all EC
reports). Surely you have 10 or 20 thousand reports laying around that
you can give him text from ;)
On 13/05/2026 18:54, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 13, 2026 at 10:47:09rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n6jrotF2dlkU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal
issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
shared her last name but have no relation to me.
He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
but not himself.
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer? >>>>>
If so, did you save the report?
Only the times werCOve talked about. DonrCOt know if I have any reports now.
Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
I have had EasyFind for years.
Great! Efya. Did it find EtreCheck?
On 13/05/2026 19:00, Steve Carroll wrote:
On 2026-05-13, David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal
issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
shared her last name but have no relation to me.
He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
but not himself.
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
Oh brother... you never stop, do you?
I've tried many, many, times to ignore this matter, but something keeps niggling away in my head!
On 13/05/2026 19:00, Steve Carroll wrote:
On 2026-05-13, David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal
issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
shared her last name but have no relation to me.
He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
but not himself.
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
Oh brother... you never stop, do you?
I've tried many, many, times to ignore this matter, but something keeps >niggling away in my head!
Sounds familiar. I know I have pointed a number of people there. Where I might
have been slightly wrong is thinking there was a macOS version where you could
both see it in the Home folder AND Option+Go showed it. Seems both changes happened at the same time.
On Wed, 13 May 2026 22:04:50 +0100, "David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>No. THIS is the answer! https://www.facebook.com/reel/1183406320343214
wrote:
On 13/05/2026 19:00, Steve Carroll wrote:
On 2026-05-13, David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
[....]
I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal
issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
shared her last name but have no relation to me.
He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
but not himself.
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
Oh brother... you never stop, do you?
I've tried many, many, times to ignore this matter, but something keeps
niggling away in my head!
Do you think it could be a parasite, like a worm, perhaps?
On May 13, 2026 at 1:12:57rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer? >>>>>>
If so, did you save the report?
Only the times werCOve talked about. DonrCOt know if I have any reports now.
Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
I have had EasyFind for years.
Great! Efya. Did it find EtreCheck?
Did not look.
As we have discussed, I have no interest in helping you withWhat makes *YOU* think that EtreCheck is harmful?
your focus on that software. *It is harmful* to you and others []
On 14/05/2026 00:47, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 13, 2026 at 1:12:57rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer? >>>>>>>
If so, did you save the report?
Only the times werCOve talked about. DonrCOt know if I have any reports now.
Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
I have had EasyFind for years.
Great! Efya. Did it find EtreCheck?
Did not look.
A fine friend YOU turned out to be!!!! EfOa
As we have discussed, I have no interest in helping you with
your focus on that software. *It is harmful* to you and others []
What makes *YOU* think that EtreCheck is harmful?
I am seeking to confirm that it is NOT harmful.
On 13/04/2026 17:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Sounds familiar. I know I have pointed a number of people there. Where I might
have been slightly wrong is thinking there was a macOS version where you could
both see it in the Home folder AND Option+Go showed it. Seems both changes >> happened at the same time.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1183406320343214
That describes YOUR brain perfectly! Efye
On May 14, 2026 at 5:26:00rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote <n6ltaoFc880U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 14/05/2026 00:47, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 13, 2026 at 1:12:57rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer? >>>>>>>>
If so, did you save the report?
Only the times werCOve talked about. DonrCOt know if I have any reports now.
Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
I have had EasyFind for years.
Great! Efya. Did it find EtreCheck?
Did not look.
A fine friend YOU turned out to be!!!! EfOa
A good friend is willing to tell you when you are wrong.
As we have discussed, I have no interest in helping you with
your focus on that software. *It is harmful* to you and others []
What makes *YOU* think that EtreCheck is harmful?
It is not. Your behavior is -- to yourself and others.
I am seeking to confirm that it is NOT harmful.
That is not an honest statement. You push the idea it is harmful, and you do so with no evidence. You harm yourself, the developer, and possibly others seeking to use the product.
On 14/05/2026 14:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 14, 2026 at 5:26:00rC>AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n6ltaoFc880U1@mid.individual.net>:
On 14/05/2026 00:47, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On May 13, 2026 at 1:12:57rC>PM MST, ""David B."" wrote[....]
Whilst you are here, Brock ......
Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer? >>>>>>>>>
If so, did you save the report?
Only the times werCOve talked about. DonrCOt know if I have any reports now.
Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
I have had EasyFind for years.
Great! Efya. Did it find EtreCheck?
Did not look.
A fine friend YOU turned out to be!!!! EfOa
A good friend is willing to tell you when you are wrong.
What is wrong with looking for a file using EasyFind?
As we have discussed, I have no interest in helping you with
your focus on that software. *It is harmful* to you and others []
What makes *YOU* think that EtreCheck is harmful?
It is not. Your behavior is -- to yourself and others.
I apologise for teasing you! ;-)
I am seeking to confirm that it is NOT harmful.
That is not an honest statement. You push the idea it is harmful, and you do >> so with no evidence. You harm yourself, the developer, and possibly others >> seeking to use the product.
Have you watched this verification YouTube video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkl9EtbdBkc
The only real change is that EtreCheck is *NOT* available from the Apple
App Store. However, the developer now has another product in the store
which helps to justify his credibility.
On 12/04/2026 04:25, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
news:n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net[....]
I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. The facts are still the
same. You have attacked his software and him personally as well as his
company, multiple times right here.
Dustin,
IrCOm happy to concede that my past criticism of EtreCheck has been
sharp, and I accept that repeating suspicions can be wearying for the
group.
That said, I won't be intimidated.
You are a skilled developer, and IrCOve learned from you over the years.
But that doesn't make your word the final law on what constitutes
"stalking."
I had a consumer disagreement regarding a paid licenserCo
nothing more, nothing less.
Let's lower the temperature.
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n6ioq9F7kucU1@mid.individual.net
Wed, 13 May 2026 07:50:33 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 12/04/2026 04:25, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
news:n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net[....]
I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. The facts are still the
same. You have attacked his software and him personally as well as his
company, multiple times right here.
Dustin,
IrCOm happy to concede that my past criticism of EtreCheck has been
sharp, and I accept that repeating suspicions can be wearying for the
group.
sharp? David, your critism has always been unfounded.
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n6ioq9F7kucU1@mid.individual.net
Wed, 13 May 2026 07:50:33 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 12/04/2026 04:25, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
news:n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net[....]
I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. The facts are still the
same. You have attacked his software and him personally as well as his
company, multiple times right here.
Dustin,
IrCOm happy to concede that my past criticism of EtreCheck has been
sharp, and I accept that repeating suspicions can be wearying for the
group.
sharp? David, your critism has always been unfounded. You've been
repeatedly told that the program is legitimate. It doesn't give anyone
remote access to your machine. It doesn't include malware. It doesn't download malware after you install it. The author has no responsibility to answer any question you ask that isn't directly related supporting the software. I went out of my way induldge you and that wasn't something I should have done. I believe the Etrecheck author learned from mistakes (courtesy of an email archive I sent them) and decided not to follow me
down the same road; because nothing good would have come of it.
That said, I won't be intimidated.
I've made no effort to intimidate you. Further, you are also lying about
this - You were more than slightly intimidated when usenet came into your real life and you had a discussion in person with your police about a 9mm handgun you threatened another poster with. You tried to evade them for sometime by remaining on the water. You even asked people on usenet if the emails the police sent wanting to meet and discuss an issue with you were true. So, enough with your bullshit big man chest thumping. It's nonsense.
You are a skilled developer, and IrCOve learned from you over the years.
I know. Which is another reason I bring up your dishonest nature when you support things snit writes that you know for an absolute fact are not true. Instead of setting him straight, you c/p his bullshit and otherwise keep
your mouth shut.
But that doesn't make your word the final law on what constitutes
"stalking."
I've never claimed my word did, David. However, your countries laws concerning it as well as mine are clear and anyone can look them up.
Despite you repeatedly disagreeing, you *are a stalker*
I had a consumer disagreement regarding a paid licenserCo
nothing more, nothing less.
Liar. You thought by purchasing a license that he was obligated to answer your emails that had nothing to do with supporting the software. You were upset that he wouldn't respond to such things. That's why you requested
and recieved a re-fund the first time. His system should have been setup
that refunds flag your account - a flagged account shouldn't be able to purchase the same license they already requested a refund for. You cost a small amount of funds in both directions when you purchase and when you refund. The author doesn't break even. They go in the hole when you pull
that shit.
Let's lower the temperature.
Stop backing snits bullshit then. It would be different if you didn't know any better, but, you do! and you support it anyway. Not a good look, David. Not a good look at all.
It's very close to pcbutts all over again. You supported that proven to be
a code thief, too!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 08:15:23 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (6,679K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,942 |