Post by SnitWhy you are a nym-shifting lying fraud
I'm enjoying watching you spin out of control. Your latest
accusations are crazier than your previous ones. Can you provide any
MIDs to backup either of your claims? If so, please do. I'd like to
see them. Especially your latest accusation that i'm a fraud. I
think David Brooks would be inclined to disagree with you at this
point. He's stated several times now, concerning a specific laptop
he was having an issue with that my 'techie' information is spot on.
he's up and going, thanks to my help, not yours. I also have tons of
things written about me and the things I've done. I've decided to
share one with you; because I'm actually proud of what it did to an
AVer who was bullshitting people about his products actual
abilities.
Read this and weep, poseur. Krile is mine, btw, in case of any
doubt.
New and Improved: Antivirus Software
Invircible Not A Credible Anti-Virus Program
Juha Saarinen
Invircible has caused a storm in the anti-virus teacup for some time
now. Its New Zealand distributor, the Virus Defence Bureau (formerly
known as Second Sight Limited) says Invircible is controversial because
it threatens the livelihood of other anti-virus vendors, claiming
Invircible '. detects all viruses at the point of propagation', and that
it 'Finds and repairs ALL viruses [sic] known and unknown.'
However, after extensive testing, NZ PC World reached the conclusion
that Invircible is a poor anti-virus program that doesn't work as
advertised and offers substandard protection against viruses. We advise
readers to avoid it.
Plethora of programs
Priced at $180 ex GST for a single-user licence, Invircible comes with a
set of 10 16-bit Dos utilities, and six 32-bit Windows 95/NT modules.
Utilities for Windows 3.x are included too, ditto a set of network
tools, but we didn't look at those for this review.
The Windows 95/NT utilities have similar, easy-to-use interfaces, but
the Dos ones vary from app to app. The Dos utilities must be used for
the Invircible virus defence strategy but all make use of poorly
documented command-line switches. (There is a text file in the
compressed archive on IV diskette 1 that explains the switches, but it
is deleted after installation.)
The Dos programs also suffer from a confusing melée of hot keys, pop-up
menus, <Ctrl>-key and <Alt>-key combinations, making it nigh impossible
to figure them out.
Generics not unique to Invircible
Invircible's developer, Net Z Computing, say it is based on generic
anti-virus methods. Usually, this means change-detecting software, and
integrity checkers, which compare system files and alert for
modifications. However, all features of Invircible seem 'generic'. To
quote from the sales brochure: 'At the point of installation Invircible
performs around twenty five generic tests to ensure it is being
installed to a clean environment'. The distributor never told us what
these 25 tests were, however.
Generic anti-virus technologies are nothing new or unique, despite
Invircible's developers' and distributors' claims. The first anti-virus
products were change detectors, and well-known utilities like IBM
Anti-Virus and Dr Solomon's Anti-Virus' signature scanners also use it
today. It is disingenuous of Invircible's makers to suggest otherwise.
Installation
Invircible takes a snapshot of the system during installation as a base
for its detection and restoration mechanism so it is vitally important
that the program is installed to a clean system. The crude installation
routine, consisting of self-extracting Winzip archives with Dos batch
files, runs a number of utilities to ensure the system is virus-free.
Among these is the IVZ scanner that has 900 signatures in its database
and hasn't been updated for over 30 months, according to the
distributor. Leading AV scanners detect 15,000 viruses or more in
comparison, so IVZ does little to ensure a virus-free environment for
Invircible.
If a virus is found, IVZ halts to display a report. However, it won't
clean the infected files, and continues the installation after the
report. Even if you abort the installation, Invircible wouldn't be able
to disinfect the system, as it doesn't come with a clean boot disk. The
manual recommends in several places that a 'third-party scanner' is used
and I think I know why.
Invircible also runs the IVX 'hyper correlator' that scans files for
virus signatures based on samples given to it. IVX uses a temporary Ini
file with the signatures of 22 viruses, but this file is deleted at the
end of installation.
Finally, IVX is run in Word macro virus detection mode, after which the
IVB integrity checker takes a 'snapshot' of system files (including ones
infected by undetected viruses) for restoration purposes. ResQDisk then
runs and backs up the master boot record and the partition sector. The
Windows utilities are installed next.
The installation routine doesn't create a rescue disk automatically
(this is done with the Dos Install program instead) and doesn't reboot
the system, without which the installation won't complete. Even after a
reboot, however, Invircible never ceased complaining about an
'Incomplete Installation'. I asked the distributor why, but never
received a reply.
Annoyingly, the Dos installation path is fixed as C:\IV, unlike the
Windows one that can be changed. A bug in the installation routine
leaves the Winzip self-extractor waiting for the Dos window to close
before the program exits and cleans up its temp files. If you close the
Winzip dialogue, a number of temp files are left on the disk.
On Windows NT 4.0 Workstation, Invircible must be installed under the
Administrator user code, with user permissions set manually. ResQDisk is
not usable under NT and IVINIT isn't run at boot up either. The program
is limited to scanning for file infecting viruses and macros under NT,
and can' t check boot sectors, according to the manual.
After installation is finished, there is a green IV icon in the Windows
95 Systray. This gives access to the Macro Sweeper, the integrity
checker, a scheduler, options for the Interceptor and Watchdog resident
scanners, and also online help. The IVINIT program runs every boot-up
from Autoexec.bat, ditto the IVB (twice!) and IVX utilities. IVINIT
compares the MBR, partition sector and Cmos with three 'snapshot' files
in the root directory. I deleted these, but IVINIT simply recreated them
without warning, so a targetted attack against the fixed names of these
files would be trivial to implement for virus writers.
Documentation a shambles
A manual last revised in June 1996 accompanies Invircible and contains
nuggets like 'It is yet unsure whether the WinWord macro viruses are the
first of a kind or will remain an episode in computer's [sic] virology',
and suffers from poor proof reading. It talks about programs not
included with the Invircible suite, like IVSCAN and ResQPro, but doesn't
mention the Windows programs. The Invircible distributor says an updated
manual is available in Hebrew.
The online help files are up-to-date, both under Dos and Windows.
However, the read-me files with installation information are in Word 2.0
format, unreadable by Wordpad in Windows 95. As there will be situations
when the online help files on the hard disk won't be accessible, there
is no excuse for the substandard manual.
So Does Invircible Work?
To find out how well Invircible fends off viruses, I asked Virus
Bulletin, the respected UK anti-virus publication to test it. For
further information on Virus Bulletin, email (E-Mail Removed) or surf
to www.virusbtn.com.
The Virus Bulletin ran IVZ against its 852-virus test set of file
infectors. IVZ detected a mere 53 of these, a detection rate of
approximately 6.22%. Of the total set, 172 viruses were represented in
the January 1998 Wild List, and IVZ detected 29 of these, or 29%. Both
results are extremely poor. IVZ fared better against the 87 In-the-Wild
boot sector viruses in the Virus Bulletin test set. It spotted 61, for a
detection rate of roughly 70%. However, IVZ missed some of the most
common ones like Stoned, Ripper, NYB and WelcomB.
Virus Bulletin also tested IVINIT with six boot viruses that IVZ missed:
Baboon, Bye, Chinese_Fish, Crazy Boot, Cruel and WelcomB. Two of the
most common boot viruses, Form.A and Junkie were also used.
With Bye, IVINIT warned that the partition sector was stealthed, and
prompted to replace the MBR using Invircible's See Thru (direct IDE port
access) technique, and asked to reboot the computer. Afterwards the disk
was disinfected. The Crazy_Boot and WelcomB infections followed similar
patterns.
Baboon made IVINIT flash a '1KB of Dos memory missing!' warning, but
confusingly, also 'No virus activity detected in memory'. The default
option was to Quit and continue booting. This left the system with an
active, infective virus. The Cruel infection followed the same modus
operandi. In both cases, ignoring the default option and restoring the
MBR disinfected the system.
Chinese_Fish rendered the test system unbootable, so ResQDisk was used
from a floppy. After finding the right key combination to press in
ResQDisk's cluttered interface the system was restored. ResQDisk offers
little advice for situations like these so novice users would have
difficulties knowing what to do.
The common Junkie virus is poorly written and corrupts the Dos 7.x
command.com because it ignores the fact that it is actually an Exe-style
program. (Invircible's distributor said Junkie trashes Win.com instead.)
The system won't boot from the hard disk, and IVINIT can't run. It's not
described anywhere, but you need to whip out ResQDisk, restore the boot
record and then use IVB to restore Command.com.
Virus Bulletin staff observed that during the Form.A infection, IVINIT
reported '2KB of Dos memory missing!' but also said, 'The hard disk is
infected with a boot infector!' a clear virus indication for a change.
However, on acknowledging the message, IVINIT said 'No Virus activity
detected in memory!' and 'The Master Boot Sector is intact!' and exited.
The VB tester was unable to do anything as Windows 95 started up with
Form.A was active and infectious. This is a major bug in IVINIT. Using
ResQDisk restored the boot sector, but an average user wouldn't know to
use it in this situation.
Add-ons asked for
The distributor claims that earlier versions Invircible detected and
removed a particularly nasty virus, One Half, when it first appeared in
New Zealand. I infected a system with One Half, and this time, IVINIT
detected the virus by its name, but said to use 'XONEHALF' to disinfect
the system. ResQDisk said the same.
One Half encrypts a varying number of sectors on your disk, so generic
restoration is impossible, hence Invircible's reticence. XONEHALF, a
utility not written by Invircible's developers, is not included with the
program. It can be download it from Invircible's Web site, a poor
solution if One Half has whacked your hard drive. The Monkey virus is
also handled by a separate utility, available at the Web site.
I also infected a Compaq Deskpro with the common virus Da'Boys. Due to
Compaq's non-standard disk partitioning it wrote itself to the boot
sector of the diagnostics partition, rendering it unbootable. IVINIT
didn't notice this infection, but ResQDisk said, 'Could be a virus!'
when coaxed to look at the diagnostics boot sector, where the text
string 'DA'BOYS' was clearly visible. The manual suggested procedure for
restoring the boot sector didn't work. When I tried it, a message
saying: 'This function only supported in RESQPRO!' popped up. RESQPRO is
separate utility, priced at $US299, according to the Invircible Web
site. I asked Invircible's distributor about this, and was told 'both
ResQDisk and the ResQPro can recover from this'. The distributor
suggested 'changing the partition parameters', which didn't work either.
File infectors given free rein
Two integrity checkers are provided with Invircible to handle file
infectors: the Dos IVB and the Windows IVB32. When run, the integrity
checkers compare files to 66-byte 'snapshot' signature files said to
contain all the information necessary to restore them. These 'snapshots'
can be renamed and stored off-line, but they can be deleted without any
reaction from IVB/IVB32.
To see whether Invircible could detect any virus, prevent its
propagation and restore the infected files as promised, I used the KRiLE
virus. KRiLE attacks executables in the PATH variable, encrypting the
first 5,696 bytes of it. Because Invircible's lack of memory resident
protection, KRiLE was able to infect as many files it liked. These
included the Invircible Dos programs, unfortunately. The Dos and Windows
integrity checkers showed that some executables had grown by 5696 bytes,
and gave me the option of restoring them. Both programs claimed success,
but executing the restored files showed that they didn't work.
An email from the Invircible developer, Zvi Netiv, confirmed that this
is how the program works. Invircible doesn't prevent virus infections,
it only tries to recover from them. Files infected by non-overwriting
infectors stand a better chance being recovered by IVB/IVB32. Without
testing each and every virus on the Wild List it's hard to say exactly
what the chances are. However, it is safe to say that Invircible does
not 'find and repair all viruses known and unknown'. (On a side note,
IVB restored virus infections to several files that had been disinfected
by other AV utilities.)
False alerts galore
Software upgrades had IVB/IVB32 putting up copious amounts of false
alerts as it detected the new files. Messages like 'Winword.exe:
modified, increased by xxxxx bytes. Probably a new version pop up',
leaving it to you to decide if it's a virus or not. Sometimes the
'probably' doesn't appear so users could easily end up with
non-functional systems due to mistaken restoration attempts of
legitimate files.
IVB/IVB32 can revalidate all the new files automatically, but that could
mean missing infected files - permanently. In the end I asked myself:
'why bother with all this?' A good on-access scanner from would have
prevented the infections, and saved huge amounts of time. For day-to-day
protection against file viruses, Invircible simply doesn't cut it.
Sweeping Macro Protection
Invircible's Word macro detection seems to have abandoned the generic
approach in favour of scanning, based on simple heuristics (that is,
rules). Resident on-access protection is also provided. This is because
it would be impossible to restore infected documents generically the way
IVB does with program files.
No Access virus protection
Four utilities handle Word macro viruses: the Macro Sweeper on-demand
scanner, the Watchdog on-access scanner for Word, and the Interceptor
on-access scanner for other applications. Also, IVX can be used to
detect macros with the /mac switch.
The Macro Sweeper scanner can investigate files with non-standard
extensions and handles Word documents embedded in, say, an Excel
workbook . It had no
problems detecting and deactivating a great variety of Word Basic
viruses, but threw up six false positives or 'Suspicious Template'
alerts against legitimate macros on the Office 95 CD.
Strangely enough, Invircible ignored Word 97 macro viruses like Steroid,
and so-called up-converted viruses (Word 97 automatically converts Word
Basic macros to the VBA 5 format). A Word 95 document with only the word
'AutoOpen ' in it and saved as a template file with a *.dot extension
was flagged by the Invircible macro utilities a 'suspicious template'.
Even though there were no macros in the template, the Invircible
utilities offered to deactivate them, and claimed success if you let
them. This was repeatable with files containing the names of common Word
virus macros like 'Wazzu', 'Bandung', 'CAP' and 'Concept'.
Further, changing a document template file's extension to *.doc caused
Invircible to flag it as an 'Active Document' and prompted to deactivate
it. This is a blunderbuss approach to Word macro viruses that catches
innocent documents in the process. That Invircible ignores infected Word
97 documents points to the programs assuming the older Word 6/7 format,
which is different from the Word 8 file format.
Upgrading to a newer version of Office overwrites the Watchdog macros
installed into Word's NORMAL.DOT template, but Invircible doesn't
notice.
The Excel macro virus protection won't work unless the included
IVEXCEL.XLS worksheet is loaded manually or at installation. It looks
for two strings, 'Laroux' and 'PLDT' - the names of two viral VBA
modules. IVEXCEL also takes over the OnWindow, OnSheetActivate, and
OnSheetDeactivate VBA events, which meant that undetected viruses like
Robocop and Don that don't use the above VBA modules couldn't replicate
(but their payloads were intact). Legitimate macros depending on the
aforementioned events won't work either. You've been warned.
InVircible 7.01f
Pros: None significant
Cons: Average user will find interface difficult and confusing, poor
documentation, and low virus detection rate
Value: A disjointed and ineffective collection of utilities that fails
to live up to its sales claims
Price ex GST: $180
Phone: Virus Defence Bureau, 0-9-366 1593
When was the last time someone took something you wrote and tested
it against another application that claims to be able to deal with
such software? Never, right? Yea, I thought as much.
Post by SnitYou have spoken about abusive parents and other issues in your
life. That is for YOU to deal with. I am not your counselor.
At this point it's quite clear that you're attempting to swap my
past for yours. My mom and dad didn't abuse me, as yours clearly did
you, multiple times according to things you wrote about it. You
still have mommy issues as a result of the long term abuse you were
subjected to. It's part of the reason you have the mental defects
you've been diagnosed with to collect that check from uncle sam
every month. On my tax paying dime, no less.
Post by SnitPost by GremlinUnless you can explain to me how a voIP that has no login,
doesn't have a clue who I am, provided you a cell number that
isn't tied to the service in any way shape or form, I'm going to
go with the idea you did some creative editing on your end to
make an outbound call log entry appear as if it were an inbound
one. Sorry, but that's the only logical conclusion one can reach
when all the facts are presented. All bullshit aside.
I own you NOTHING
Actually, your math is off. You owe me, two apologies for two
seperate lies you told. One of which you went well out of your way
to try and sell. The floodbot accusation you made. Not one single
time though have you posted any supporting evidence, and you
continue to duck/dodge and evade questions I present about what you
wrote.
Post by Snitbut my guess has been you had a sign in originally that tied it to your number.
Bad guess. The voIP service I used to reach out to you has never
offered logins. It may not ever do so. It really is like the
original dialpad when it was in public beta. The only difference
aside from better audio quality is that I can make a call for longer
than twenty minutes without it dropping the line. Dialpad was
limited to no more than twenty minutes per call. You could dial
right back out, but again, after twenty minutes it was hanging up.
I know you aren't familiar at all with dialpad's former self, Mike
Easter eventually looked up more information about it, and after
learning it works as I described, backed away from the conversation
the three of us were having. :) He didn't come right out and state
that you are lying about this, but, he's no longer playing devils
advocate trying to explain your way out of it, either. That's
because he found out how the voIP service I'm using works, and
knows, it can't give you a number it doesn't have. He knows, you're
lying about this. As does, well, everyone else. Even the newbies.
Post by SnitI do not care WHY you are so wrong about your tech
I'm not. I know the tech I used quite well. It's why I'm comfortable
making the accusation that you dr'd evidence, without anything other
than my word to support me. What's funny about this is that you
haven't shared the logs, you've just been publishing the number.
Which doesn't prove or disprove that you forged evidence. It's only
purpose was to try and dox me, and after the first time, it's lost
its effect. I simply don't care that much about it. You dox'd a
disposable phone, no biggie.
And you know what's especially funny, for all effort you've spent
doxing me to cause phone harassment, afaik, I've yet to get the
first obnoxious call. That's fucking sad, snit. you'd think with all
the people you think hate me so much, one or more would have given
me a ring by now. yet, nada, zip, nothing.
What you did, and continue to show, by sharing the number after
being told many times not to do so, is that you cannot be trusted
with anything of potential value. You will, at your convenience,
share or otherwise release any information provided to you in
confidence. It's just a matter of time.
At some point, you'll see the person you have information on as a
problem, or, like me, they'll do something you don't like, and
you'll try to dox them in return for it.
In my case, I've been on
your ass mostly about a very specific lies you chose to write about
me. One in especially in particular. You went well out of your way
to write a bullshit story about my involvement with a usenet
floodbot, Going so far as to claim I was called out and as a result,
I clarified I had the compiled code. I've repeatedly asked for MIDs
to backup what you wrote, and you've never provided any. Because,
they don't exist. You made it all up.
And, as a demonstration of your well known inability to parse
english in text format well (read: severe reading comprehension
issue), you took something I wrote, completely out of context that
you did not understand and tried to use it as evidence to support
your claims about my having the bot itself, as well as working! with
it's creator. Neither of your claims has ever been true.
The story was a complete and total fabrication by you, and several
other regulars all called you out for it. Apd went into extensive
detail explaining how you messed up and got confused over what was
written so badly, and also, several times, backed me when he stated
that you did falsely accuse me of being involved with the bot and
having access to it. You lied on me, is what you did.
Post by Snitnor why you are such a fraud
It's becoming very obvious how desperate you are to save face here
now, Snit. Do you really think claiming i'm a fraud is going to work
in a positive way for you? I just assisted David Brooks with a
laptop issue; I was the *only* individual to get him up and going on
Windows XP, with all hardware functioning as expected.
A fraud wouldn't be able to do that. You (and anyone else) can
anytime you like, google about the software I am responsible for
authoring and read about it for yourselves. Anything from actual
viruses (not trojans; as you previously claimed) to saved game
editors of various kinds, to entire campaign editor (rainbow six
rogue spear).
Or, BugHunter, a known and respected enough
antimalware app to be on geeksquads 'repair discs' as well as hirens
bootcd, and various other big name in the tech repair field isos.
One can also verify I did work for Malwarebytes Corp, as a malware
researcher. I was one of the few people on payroll who knew how to
use IDA pro. It's a known fact they recruited me, I worked with them
for a little over two years before parting ways with the company for
undisclosed reasons which included a rather tasty have a good one
severance package - I more than earned it! No, despite your claim to
the contrary, I was not fired.
Not bad for someone you've recently began trying to claim is a
fraud. I think you're doing this for damage control purposes. It's a
bit late for that now, Snit. I'll humour you though, why not. In
what context are you claiming I'm a fraud, specifically?
Post by Snitand are freaking out
ROFL, ah yes, one of your goto lines. It's covered here:
It's number twenty (20) on your lie methods list:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
20. Lies by falsely attributing negative emotions to the person
he's attacking, when they haven't displayed any at all.
Examples: "shows rage", "got really, really angry. Furious",
"absolute *rage*", "freaks out", "lashes out", "lash out
with anger", "major hate-spewing", "really hates learning",
"pisses the herd off", "lash out with *extreme* hatred and anger",
"*major* attack mode", "humiliating", "getting pissed off",
"Such hatred and anger from you", "you are just freaking out.
Enraged. Completely unable to control yourself.", "freak out mode",
"You are on a hate-filled rampage", "Filled with rage and obvious
hatred", "hate-filled, enraged lies, attacks, insults, name calling",
"lash out with such fury", "you freaked out", "has you pissed off",
"spewing such hate-filled lies and attacks", "you are so upset
recently", "Amazing how little self control you have",
"hate-filled attack mode", "freak out and go into major attack
mode", "hate-filled, fear-filled attacks", "hate-and-fear-filled
attacks", "you run away spewing hate-filled attacks", "fearful",
"hate-filled dishonest attack rants", "Completely irrational,
hate-filled nonsense", "run and whine and attack...fear",
"get angry and lash out", "runs away crying", "hate-filled spree
of attacks", "freaked out even more! Holy cow!", "massive
hate-filled irrational rage", "irrational hate filled attacks",
"hatred and feelings of persecution", "enraged... unable to focus
or think. He is in a massive hate-filled irrational rage where all
he can do is lash out", "lashes out with hate-filled rants",
"You are enraged... beside yourself with anger. Unable to control
yourself", "obvious hatred", "You have a strong persecution complex",
"Holy cow! You lost it! You became enraged and increased your name
calling and accusations and insults. You just could not stop yourself
- you were out of control!", "This was too much for you. Wow. You
just completely lost it", "you just attack, attack, attack. ...
Wow... you really have lost it. I wish you the best!",
"threw a toddler tantrum", "cannot stop himself from posting
outrageous hate-filled attacks and insults and lies",
"clearly very frustrated", "you lash out with insults, attacks,
and your ever-present view of your persecution", "pretty much
belittles anyone", "special form of arrogance and conceit",
"put others down", "calm down", "amazingly bent out of shape",
"you are so filled with hatred and anger and the inescapable need
to call people names", "You are a very, very angry person!",
"so angry and out of control"
That's sad man, you actually have a documented list of the ways in
which you'll lie in a discussion! I've never seen anything like this
before, dude. Even David brooks doesn't have a site like this. And
that's just one subject detail concerning you. There's more.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
So, you have three seperate urls, discussing, with examples,
different aspects of you, and how dishonest of an individual you
actually are. Every single thing you've tried with me can be found
on those lists. Every single fucking thing! You are a notoriously
well known lying, scumbag, troll. There's no way to excuse what you
do, you've been doing the same shit to all kinds of people for years
now.
Post by Snitis you ARE. Here, for you to run from again because you are a
Ah yes, that's covered too: (along with two others I noticed are appropriate in this case)
14. Lies by claiming the person he's attacking "ran away" if they
don't obey his commands and meet his demands exactly.
16. Lies by refusing to make common-sense connections among facts
that he's given. In that way he stalls or kills the discussion.
He ignores facts without explicitly refuting them, which allows
him to kill the discussion without looking bad.
17. Lies by introducing personal attacks and nonsense arguments
and claims into the discussion, in order to motivate the person
he's attacking to withdraw from the discussion. Glasser then
claims victory.
You aren't going to motivate me to move along by continuing to try
and dox me, or make other threats of such along the same lines.
I'm going to remain on your ass, Snit. I want what you rightfully owe me.
And you're only adding interest to your debt the longer you continue to stall me.
Post by Snit1) You denied your number was in my provider's "Caller ID" logs
I wasn't shown evidence to the contrary. Atleast, not evidence I
could confirm hasn't been edited in any possible way. I stand by
what I accused you of. You did a virtual copypaste with your
inbound/outbound call log information. I didn't use the device I
provided you the number for to contact you, and what I did use
doesn't know that device, doesn't have that number stored, etc. I
don't dispute you have the number, because I gave it to you. I don't
dispute its in your outbound call log, because you called it twice
that I know of. What I know, for certain, that you are lying about,
is the number being in your inbound call logs, or on your caller id,
or both. It's just, not possible for that to occur naturally. The
only way it could occur on a video/picture you release is by
creative 'editing' on your part.
I only called you one time, Snit. And when I did so, I wasn't aware
of the false bot accusation you made towards me. Nor did I know at
the time, I'd place you in such a corner with your lies that you'd
try to dox me to get out of it by distracting me.
Post by Snit2) You denied the number in the "Caller ID" logs was tied to
We've been over this.
Post by Snit<https://www.whitepages.com/phone/1-423-491-1448>
<https://findwhocallsyou.com/4234911448?CallerInfo>
Repeatedly sharing the number isn't proving that it's in your
"caller id" logs legitimately, and I don't think you're so dumb as
to not realize that as well. All you're doing is trying to dox me
for the purpose of getting me off of your ass about the lies you
wrote about me, as well as hope someone out there in internet land
tries to annoy me for your amusement. Matter of fact, sharing the
number as you've done isn't proof one way or the other about the
logs, it's got nothing to do with them when released in this manner.
It's a pure doxing attempt on your part. It has no other purpose.
Post by Snit3) You denied you gave me public permission to share the number in
We've been over this countless times too. You even posted that you
wouldn't 'honor' any rescinds. rofl. So, quit trying to deny you
were repeatedly told you didn't have my permission to share
anything. You know you didn't, everyone who's read about any of this
knows you're being dishonest with this too.
Post by Snit-----
You have my permission to post your caller ID logs, snit.
-----
And again, that wasn't the final word on the subject, and you know
that. Incidently, what you're repeatedly doing is covered here:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
2. Lies by omission.
2 is covered because you're omitting the fact that I clarified that
what I wrote wasn't granting you permission to share the number. I
repeatedly told you that you didn't have my permission.
Like I said, when someone actually has a documented list of the ways
in which they are known to lie about others, something is wrong.
Something is really wrong.
Post by Snit4) You denied the number in that log was tied to you in pubic
When you first searched for it, you complained that it was coming
back in someone elses name. Not my name, not my business. Are you
denying this?
Again, this is covered here:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
2. Lies by omission.
Post by Snit5) You made up a bizarre story about my having the info changed at
TruePeopleSearch, even though it is very unlikely they would allow
people to change OTHER'S information. And that does not explain
Provide MID where I wrote what you're claiming.
Post by SnitPost by GremlinYour continued sharing of the cell number has not at any point in
time disputed what I've consistently written, either.
How many times have we covered this? You simply fail to understand
what you read. Damn... you are simply not able to understand
SIMPLE concepts. Once again you show what a cowardly fraud you
are.
Yes well, as I told you before, each time you dox me, I select
another one at random. <G> At some point, Anne is going to catch
wind of what's going on, you can't keep her in the dark forever,
Michael. What do you suppose she's going to do to you when she finds
out what you've been doing? :) Do you think she'll be sympathetic
because you have severe mental issues?
https://ibb.co/g4NBDPk
NAME First Name Middle Name Last Name Calissa Renea Coffey BIRTH
INFORMATION Birth Date Age Astrological Sign December 14, 1993 26
Sagittarius POSSIBLE ALIASES Calissa Coffe Calissa R Coffey POSSIBLE
JOBS Job Worked Dates Worked at CALLER WIRELESS SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBER Issued Location: Tennessee Issued Years: 1994 POSSIBLE
RELATIVES Name Age Dalton John Simmons 26 (approx.) Amanda Nicole
Jones 40 (approx.) Cecilia Lynn Dean 56 (approx.) Wanda Lorine
Coffey 75 (approx.) Charvis Ramone Coffey 25 (approx.) Cecil Robert
Coffey 74 (deceased 2017) Cecil Revel Coffey 32 (approx.)
Ralpheal Cameron Coffey Cecil G Coffey 82 (deceased 1988)
Charvis Coffey POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS Name Type Malia Oberloh Friend
Malia Oberloh Friend (Follower) Haley Michelle Friend (Follower)
POSSIBLE PHONES PHONE NUMBER - (865) 235-7219 Carrier: New Cingular
Wireless Pcs Llc - Ga (AT&T Mobility) Carrier Location: Knoxville,
TN 37921 Line Type: Mobile Is Connected: No Is Prepaid: No PHONE
NUMBER - (865) 236-7219 Carrier: Powertel Nashville Licenses Inc
(T-Mobile) Carrier Location: Knoxville, TN 37921 Line Type: Mobile
Is Connected: No Is Prepaid: No POSSIBLE EMAILS Email Address Is
Disposable Valid Since
POSSIBLE EMAILS Email Address Is Disposable Valid Since
***@yahoo.com No ***@goldmail.etsu.edu No
***@yahoo.com No ***@yahoo.com No POSSIBLE
LOCATIONS 4836 BUTLER DR S, MIDWAY PARK, NC 28544-1361 Dates Seen At
Address: September 15, 2017 - October 8, 2020 Is Deliverable: No Is
Receiving Mail: No Sex Offenders Nearby: 43 Sex Offenders 5626 HINES
VALLEY RD, LENOIR CITY, TN 37771-7768 Dates Seen At Address: April
1, 2003 - November 4, 2019 Is Deliverable: No Is Receiving Mail: No
Phone Numbers: (865) 988-9471 Sex Offenders Nearby: 49 Sex Offenders
400 JL SEEHORN JR RD, JOHNSON CITY, TN 37614-6504 Dates Seen At
Address: June 1, 2014 - July 16, 2019 Is Deliverable: No Is
Receiving Mail: No
Domain: facebook.com URL: http://facebook.com/people/_/1000000067607
Category: Personal Profiles Name: Calissa Coffey Valid Since: Jul.
14, 2010 User IDs: ***@facebook Usernames:
calissa.coffey TWITTER Domain: twitter.com URL:
http://www.twitter.com/Coffeybeans15 Category: Personal Profiles
Name: Calissa Coffey Valid Since: Sep. 3, 2011 User IDs:
***@twitter Usernames: coffeybeans15 Followers: 3 Following: 9
PINTEREST Domain: pinterest.com URL:
http://pinterest.com/calissacoffey/ Category: Personal Profiles
Name: Calissa Coffey Valid Since: Dec. 28, 2012 Usernames:
calissacoffey EMAIL OWNERS USA Category: Contact Details Name:
Calissa Coffey Valid Since: Apr. 3, 2018 Addresses: 5626 Hines
Valley Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 400 Jl Seehorn Jr Road, Johnson
City, TN 37614 4836 Butler Drive S, Midway Park, NC 28544 Phone
Numbers: (865) 236-7219 (423) 737-1546 Category: Email Address Name:
Calissa Coffey EMAIL OWNERS USA Category: Contact Details Name:
Calissa Coffey Valid Since: Apr. 3, 2018 Addresses: 5626 Hines
Valley Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 400 Jl Seehorn Jr Road, Johnson
City, TN 37614 4836 Butler Drive S, Midway Park, NC 28544 Phone
Numbers: (865) 236-7219 (423) 737-1546 Category: Email Address Name:
Calissa Coffey Valid Since: Nov. 7, 2017 Addresses: 5626 Hines
Valley Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 Category: Contact Details Name:
Calissa Coffe Valid Since: Apr. 3, 2018 Addresses: Johnson City, TN
37614 Phone Numbers: (423) 737-1546 Category: Contact Details Name:
Calissa Coffe Valid Since: Sep. 29, 2017 Addresses: Johnson City, TN
37614 Category: Contact Details Name: Calissa Coffey Valid Since:
May. 22, 2015 Addresses: 400 Jl Seehorn Jr Road, Johnson City, TN
37614 BUSINESSES CONTACTS Category: Contact Details Addresses:
Knoxville, TN 37917 Phone Numbers: (865) 236-7219 Jobs: Worked at
CALLER WIRELESS USA MOBILE OWNERS Category: Contact Details Name:
Calissa Coffey Valid Since: Nov. 2, 2013 Addresses: 5626 Hines
Valley Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 Phone Numbers: (865) 235-7219
Name: Calissa Coffey Valid Since: Sep. 1, 2013 Addresses: 5626 Hines
Valley Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 Phone Numbers: (865) 236-7219
MYSPACE Domain: myspace.com URL:
http://www.myspace.com/calissacoffey Category: Personal Profiles
Name: Calissa Coffey Valid Since: Dec. 22, 2009 Usernames:
calissacoffey MySpace Friends: Malia Oberloh, Malia Oberloh, Haley
Michelle
Post by Snitif you can get your two working brain cells to coordinate, that
you repeatedly told lies about your number not being in the
databases it was in.
rofl.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
17. Lies by introducing personal attacks and nonsense arguments
and claims into the discussion, in order to motivate the person
he's attacking to withdraw from the discussion. Glasser then
claims victory.
Post by SnitCan you FINALLY understand this? I bet not.
Once again, you make a piss poor attempt to be an insulting prick as
you try to talk down to me as if you're a superior officer or
something. rofl, so funny.
Post by SnitYou might know a thing or two about programming or electronics
ROFL. What's going on here? Are you backing away from talking shit
about my knowledge concerning those subjects now? I wonder what
could have possibly made you decide to try to get out of that.
Did it have anything to do with Davids laptop thread? :) I did some
righteous education, there, didn't I. And I'm not even done helping
him out yet. I'm waiting on him to answer a question about it so I
can continue with my diagnosis.
Remember, simplesnit, I got him up
and going with nothing more than what the picture could tell me. The
same picture everyone else had access too, who missed the fact it
has usb ports AND an optical drive; the picture even shows you where
they are located. David hasn't disputed a single fucking thing I've
written about his laptop. I got the locations of all the ports,
including the location of it's power jack from the picture. H0h0h0.
rofl. I've scored bragging rights if wanna use em. rofl.
I was able to do that because, despite what you've recently been
trying to pass off about me, I actually am, a real, certified,
computer technician, and contrary to some of my peers who took a
college course or two, I actually do know what the fuck I'm doing;
with decades of experience actually doing it to back me up.
More importantly, I really did that and went into such great detail
to prove a point concerning you and the shit you've been writing
about me. David got the benefit of my help and I completely trashed
your bullshit 'fraud' claim or the bullshitter you've been trying so
desperately to paint me out as in front of all the regulars as well
as some who know you from other newsgroups.
I also enjoyed taking a few who like to pretend to be things they
aren't, to school. I showed them, and you, how a real technician who
does know his/her shit goes about solving a problem. In Davids case,
how to identify what the machine is, and get drivers for it, that
work, with the hardware it has. Btw, the picture showed me that the
machine didn't have a wifi card changed out; was probably using the
original oem components for everything, including the ram. There's
tells. One of which are toolmarks. If you look close where the wifi
card actually is, you won't find any tool marks. It's never been
changed out. <G> The ram slots also have tells; those are the
original ram chips as installed from factory. I doubt David has even
removed them a single time for inspection or dusting. I'm confident
he hasn't, the holders don't have the mark you'd expect to see if
they changed position to release the chip, even so much as a single
time.
The HD bay, again, no tool marks, it's the original drive. No
visible wear on the interface on the drive or the bay. The HD was
inserted at factory and it's never been removed. No stress markings,
either. It's the original drive.
The optical drive is factory as well, it's never been changed out.
The picture David shared isn't able to give me full hardware
specifications, but what it does share is still quite useful. As I
just showed you, again. <G>
Yea, helping David for the opportunity to do what I just did, again,
was worth the time. Well worth it.
Post by Snitbut when it comes to even simple concepts you repeatedly prove you
are just flat out unable to understand even SIMPLE concepts.
AZ is a simple concept. I understood it just fine. Anyone who read
the threads can see you couldn't process it, and required extensive
hand holding help. So, wanna try with another accusation? Maybe one
you have a slight chance of supporting?
I really don't see why you think projecting your own well known and
documented issues onto me, or anyone else, is actually going to
work? Has that ever worked for you? I just don't see how it would.
Post by SnitPost by GremlinYou haven't
posted anything which disputes what I've written at any point in
time.
Not that you understand but keep in mind you are a fraud and an idiot.
ROFL. Snit, I can't very well be an idiot and be a certified
technician who's already demonstrated they actually do know what
they are doing, if I was an idiot. Are you sure you're using the
correct word to try and insult me?
Further, I couldn't write the types of code i've been known to write
if I was an idiot. It's a bit more complex than the scripting
you play with. I don't know very many idiots who can
read/write assembler, either...I really don't think you thought this
attempt to be insulting out very well.
It's not a matter of misunderstanding something you've shared to
backup your statements, Snit. It's a matter of you simply not doing
so. Despite being asked to, several times for different accusations
you've made. What's the problem in finding MIDs to support them? Why
do you seem to be having such difficulty doing that?
Post by SnitPost by GremlinYou've simply opted to try doxing me in an effort to get me to
back off so you can continue writing lies about myself and
others.
See: more lies from you.
I disagree. Publishing the cell doesn't prove or disprove it is or
isn't in your incoming "caller id" logs. So, what other reason,
aside from an attempt to dox would you post it, knowing I asked you
many times prior not to do so? Do you have a reasonable answer for
that, or not? If you do, feel free to share it.
Post by SnitYou prove you are a fraud again.
You have a tendency of making rather absurd claims. I don't think
you actually comprehend what the word evidence or proof actually
mean. You seem unable to provide either when asked to do so.
Post by SnitPost by GremlinI'm still not backing off, and you've published the number how
many times now?
I respond to your attacks by reminding you what a fraud you are
and how crappy you are at understanding the tech you use.
I'm not attacking you, and continuing to publish the number isn't a
response to any attack. rofl, it's just a weak attempt to continue
trying to dox me - as I've stated from the jump..
It only had 'effect' the first time, followups are, well, pointless.
Post by SnitYou have the power here
ROFL, I have no power here or anywhere else, Snit. this is an alt. newsgroup.
Post by Snitstop lashing out
I don't know what you mean by this emotional statement.
I haven't been.
Post by Snitand being a fraud
I'm sure it's quite clear to most that I'm not what you're claiming here.
Do you have anything to support your latest accusation?
Post by Snitand I will stop replying.
I said nothing about you not replying to me, snit. I only commented
about the real reason you began to publish the cell number. I don't
think at this point with the excuses you just provided for having
done it that you can still claim you had to to prove something;
since it never proved anything either way. I'm almost certain you
just indirectly admitted that you've been trying to dox me; to
intimidate me into shutting up. :) And backing off. Which is what
you've indirectly demanded I do, if I don't wish for you to continue
trying to dox me. rofl.
So, continue posting the cell if that's what you're
going to do, each time, I'll release another snit relative to the
Wolves. Until I run out, then I'll feed the remainder of them all, as
a stew. rofl! (Halloween humour)
When I run out of individual people to publish from the collection,
I'll just share the whole thing, lock stock and both barrels
publically. It's more detailed than what I've been posting to
usenet, anyway; that infos mostly a 'teaser'. rofl.
Post by SnitBut here is the thing: you have no self control either.
Sure I do.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
19. Lies by claiming that the person he's attacking is mentally ill.
He repeatedly offers to find the person help in overcoming his
alleged "illness". Snit Michael Glasser is a psychopath who
pretends to be a psychologist.
Post by SnitYou can't stop yourself.
You aren't making any sense.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
19. Lies by claiming that the person he's attacking is mentally ill.
He repeatedly offers to find the person help in overcoming his
alleged "illness". Snit Michael Glasser is a psychopath who
pretends to be a psychologist.
Post by SnitYou are on a downward spiral, much as you have
described your drunk parents.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
8. Lies by introducing nonsense, e.g., "Marshmallow Men".
19. Lies by claiming that the person he's attacking is mentally ill.
He repeatedly offers to find the person help in overcoming his
alleged "illness". Snit Michael Glasser is a psychopath who
pretends to be a psychologist.
When did I describe either of my parents as having a drinking
problem? provide mid, or url, or admit you just lied on me again.
rofl.
Post by SnitIs it your drunk / abusive parents you are going to blame for you being such a fraud?
When did I describe either of my parents as drunks and/or abusive?
Provide mid(s), urls, etc, to backup your statements, snit.
While you're attempting to do that, feel free to backup your latest
accusation that I'm a fraud.
Incidently:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
17. Lies by introducing personal attacks and nonsense arguments
and claims into the discussion, in order to motivate the person
he's attacking to withdraw from the discussion. Glasser then
claims victory.
--
Confucius say: "If you park, don't drink, accidents cause people."