On 2024-10-02, Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> wrote:
> On 2024-10-02, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You say ChaGPT is wrong, but it called you out on your focus on your failure
>> to respond to content and just lash out. The content is very very accurate...
>
> Prove it... and I mean with actual proof.
>
> And then you can goofsplain how all your ChatGPT posts manage to leave
> out your sordid posting history. Start with this...
>
><https://i.postimg.cc/Rmk8XRv1/arrest-record-fingerprinted.gif>
>
> ... get ChatGPT to 'help' you and don't forget to explain how Apd
> produced the exact same data as seen in this screenshot (that you didn't
> contest when I originally posted it because it was *still* available for
> "others" to see on that AZ gov site), minus the resolution.
>
> What does ChatGPT have to say about that or the fact that you tacitly
> called Apd a liar (because you said I was lying, despite the fact that I
> produced this screenshot before Apd produced his data)?
>
> What does it say about the fact that I specifically stated I only cared
> about this one arrest of you for publicly harassing your wife, only to
> see you pivot away from that to all kinds of other BS in a goofy attempt
> to avoid addressing it?
>
> What does it say about your initial responses in the thread that
> prompted you to begin this 'circus' of yours?
>
> We know what you *won't* do... so I asked ChatGPT:
>alt.computer.workshop
>
> "What do you make of this post:"
>
><begin quote of post>
> In article <XnsB0E1B1313...@135.181.20.170>, bti...@wacko.org says...
>>
>> Charlie Glock <"Charlie Glock"@localhost.com> wrote in
>> news:NfXgN.9525$9cLc...@fx02.iad:
>>
>> > On 2023-12-20, Nobody Home <nobod...@liamg.com> wrote:
>> >> You might wish to take a look at this website. Plug in the correct
>> >> data and it becomes interesting. VERY INTERESTING.
>> >>
>> >> https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx?AspxAuto
>> >> DetectCookieSupport=1
>> >>
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/6p2wwecw
>> >>
>> > How about a hint as to what the 'correct data' is?
>> >
>> Search on Michael Glasser. It pops up a list of criminal and civil
>> cases against Mr. Michael Glasser aka snit. He has quite the record.
>
> Just tried it. Here is what showed up. Snit seems to have a lot of
> issues. Everything from custody of his kids to disorderly conduct
> fighting in public. Not good.
>
> Court, Arrest or Criminal Records Offense Type: Criminal Unique ID: Info
> Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of Origin: Info Pending...
>
> Offense: SPEED GREATER THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT Disposition:
> BAIL/DEPOSIT GIVEN/FORFEITED
>
> Offense: HARASS-FOLLOW IN PUBLIC
>
> Offense: DISORDERLY CONDUCT-FIGHTING Disposition: COMPL DISMISSED BY CTY
> ATTY Case Number: M-1343-CM-2022000047 Case Filing Date: 08/05/2023
> State Of Origin: AZ
>
> Level: NONE Description: 14 - CHINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL
>
> Level: UNKNOWN Description: 183 - PRESCOTT MUNICIPAL
>
> Level: UNKNOWN Description: 183 - PRESCOTT MUNICIPAL Offense Type:
> Criminal Unique ID: Info Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of
> Origin: YAVAPAI
>
> Offense: LOCAL CHARGE Disposition: DEFENSIVE DRIVING/DISM NO MVD Case
> Number: 22616154 Case Filing Date: 01/07/2008 State Of Origin: AZ
>
> Level: TRAFFIC Description: PRESCOTT VALLEY MUNICIPAL Offense Type:
> Criminal Unique ID: Info Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of
> Origin: YAVAPAI
>
> Offense: LOCAL CHARGE Disposition: COMPL DISMISSED BY OFFICER Case
> Number: 27946890 Case Filing Date: 09/16/2010 State Of Origin: AZ
>
> Level: TRAFFIC Description: PRESCOTT VALLEY MUNICIPAL Offense Type:
> Criminal Unique ID: Info Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of
> Origin: YAVAPAI
>
> Offense: LOCAL CHARGE Disposition: DEFENSIVE DRIVING/DISM NO MVD Case
> Number: 29544340 Case Filing Date: 10/27/2011 State Of Origin: AZ
>
> Level: TRAFFIC Description: PRESCOTT VALLEY MUNICIPAL Offense Type:
> Criminal Unique ID: Info Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of
> Origin: YAVAPAI
>
> Offense: NOT SPECIFIED Case Number: P-1300-DO-201000273 Case Filing
> Date: 03/25/2010 State Of Origin: AZ
>
> Level: DOM REL Description: 12 - YAVAPAI COUNTY SUPERIOR Offense Type:
> Criminal Unique ID: Info Pending... Offense: Info Pending... County Of
> Origin: PIMA
>
> Offense: FAIL TO CARRY VEHICLE REGISTRATION CARD Disposition: PLEA
> GUILTY/RESP SENT IMPOSED
>
> Offense: FAIL TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESP Disposition: COMPL
> DISMISSED BY COURT
>
> Offense: LOCAL CHARGE Disposition: PLEA GUILTY/RESP SENT IMPOSED Case
> Number: 11237946 Case Filing Date: 03/29/1999 State Of Origin: AZ
>
> Level: TRAFFIC Description: TUCSON MUNICIPAL COURT
>
> Level: TRAFFIC Description: TUCSON MUNICIPAL COURT
>
> Level: TRAFFIC Description: TUCSON MUNICIPAL COURT
>
><end quote of post>
>
> (note: From here on out my questions and those of other posters in the
> thread are prefaced by the bot with "<fill in the name> said:")
>
> ChatGPT said: ChatGPT
> This post appears to be part of a Usenet thread focused on exposing
> someone named Michael Glasser (referred to as "snit"), where the user is
> sharing a summary of Glasser's public court and criminal records. The
> post contains a detailed list of alleged offenses, including traffic
> violations, disorderly conduct, and legal disputes, mostly from Arizona
> courts. The tone suggests that the person posting is trying to highlight
> Glasser's past legal troubles, possibly as part of an ongoing argument
> or to discredit him in the context of the Usenet discussion.
>
> The inclusion of URLs to public case lookup tools, combined with the
> somewhat gossipy nature of the post, suggests that the poster is
> encouraging others to dig up or verify the information. Given the nature
> of Usenet, where debates and personal disputes sometimes escalate, this
> could be part of a larger narrative aimed at tarnishing Glasser’s
> reputation in the group.
>
>
> ChatGPT: You said: What do you make of this response by Glasser:
>
> The list has no relation to reality.
>
> ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Glasser's response, "The list has no relation to
> reality," is a straightforward denial of the allegations or records
> being shared in the original post. By dismissing the list entirely, he's
> implying that the information is either fabricated, misrepresented, or
> not relevant to him. This kind of brief, categorical rejection is common
> in online disputes where someone may feel unfairly attacked, especially
> in the often combative environment of Usenet.
>
> Without engaging with the specifics of the claims, Glasser’s response
> could suggest a few things:
>
> Deflection or Dismissal: He may not want to address the details,
> choosing instead to discredit the entire post without getting into
> specifics.
>
> Inaccuracy of the Information: He might be claiming that the records
> have been wrongly attributed to him, or that they’ve been manipulated to
> paint a false picture.
>
> Frustration: Given the nature of Usenet, it could be an expression of
> frustration, dismissing what he sees as baseless attacks or harassment.
>
> In a broader sense, such a response puts the burden back on the accusers
> to either provide more substantial proof or drop the issue. If the
> accusations were indeed false or exaggerated, this denial might be his
> way of avoiding legitimizing them by engaging too deeply.
>
>
>
> You said: And then another post (Charlie Glock) asked Glasser:
>
> Maybe, but how do you explain the list? It looks legit to me. What say
> you?
>
> ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Charlie Glock's follow-up question
> challenges Glasser's denial by suggesting that the list of offenses
> seems "legit" and asking Glasser to explain it. This shifts the dynamic,
> as Glock is not satisfied with the blanket denial and is pressing
> Glasser for a more detailed response or justification.
>
> This post might be seen as:
>
> Demand for Accountability: Glock is essentially asking Glasser to
> provide a more thorough explanation or rebuttal. The implication is that
> Glasser's simple denial isn't enough to refute what appears to be
> credible information.
>
> Invitation to Clarify: While the tone might be confrontational, Glock
> could be offering Glasser an opportunity to clear things up, especially
> if there are misunderstandings or errors in the information shared. The
> phrase "What say you?" invites a more direct response.
>
> Legitimizing the Accusation: By stating that the list "looks legit,"
> Glock is signaling that others in the discussion might believe the
> accusations unless Glasser can explain or counter them.
>
> In a forum like Usenet, where debates can be relentless, this type of
> questioning can escalate tensions, pushing Glasser to either provide a
> more substantial defense or risk appearing evasive.
>
>
>
> You said: And Glasser then replied with:
>
> It is fiction. That was easy. But you are a sock, so you are fiction,
> too.
>
> ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Glasser's response is again a flat-out denial,
> calling the list "fiction" and dismissing it as false. By saying "that
> was easy," he is implying that the accusation isn't even worth a serious
> or detailed rebuttal, perhaps to suggest that it's so obviously untrue
> it doesn't warrant further discussion.
>
> His comment about the other user being a "sock" refers to a
> sockpuppet—an online alias used by someone to disguise their identity or
> create the illusion of multiple people supporting a particular
> viewpoint. In calling Charlie Glock a "sock," Glasser is accusing them
> of not being a legitimate participant in the discussion, which further
> undermines Glock's question by implying that it, too, is fictional or
> insincere.
>
> This response serves a few purposes:
>
> Dismissal of the Allegations: Glasser sticks to his assertion that the
> list is entirely fictional, reinforcing his earlier rejection of the
> claims.
>
> Attack on the Accuser's Credibility: By accusing Glock of being a
> sockpuppet, Glasser attempts to shift the focus from the allegations
> against him to the credibility of the accuser. If the accuser is not
> real or acting in bad faith, then the allegations lose legitimacy in the
> context of the discussion.
>
> Deflection and Minimization: Instead of engaging with the details of the
> accusations, Glasser continues to minimize their importance by using
> humor or sarcasm ("That was easy") and deflects attention to the issue
> of the supposed sockpuppet identity.
>
> This kind of response is typical in contentious online environments
> where participants often challenge each other's identities, motives, and
> arguments.
>
>
> You said: What does the fact that Glasser didn't even acknowledge that
> the data, which *was* seen by several posters in that thread (I was one
> of them and I even took a screenshot of one arrest) came from a legit
> government website mean?
>
> ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Glasser’s failure to acknowledge the legitimacy of
> the government website, despite multiple users (including you) verifying
> the data, could suggest a few things about his strategy or approach to
> the situation:
>
> Avoidance of Incriminating Details: By ignoring the fact that the data
> came from a legitimate government website, Glasser may be trying to
> avoid engaging with specific details that could undermine his blanket
> denial. Acknowledging the source’s legitimacy would require him to
> address the data more seriously and explain how or why it might still be
> incorrect or misrepresented.
>
> Deflection Tactic: Glasser may be using a common online debate tactic by
> dismissing everything as "fiction" without addressing the evidence to
> avoid being pinned down in a factual argument. This helps him avoid
> being backed into a corner where he would need to provide proof or
> explanation.
>
> Perception Management: He could be trying to maintain control of the
> narrative by reducing the discussion to a matter of opinion (fiction vs.
> reality), rather than dealing with verifiable facts. By labeling both
> the data and his accuser as "fiction," Glasser aims to make it seem like
> the entire thread is based on fabrications, which could dissuade others
> from taking the claims seriously.
>
> Denial Strategy: Glasser may be using a strategy of complete denial,
> refusing to acknowledge any element of the information shared in the
> thread. He may believe that addressing the legitimacy of the data or its
> source would give the allegations more weight or legitimacy, which could
> work against his interests.
>
> In sum, his refusal to acknowledge the source's legitimacy suggests a
> deliberate choice to minimize the credibility of the accusations by
> avoiding direct confrontation with the factual evidence others have
> provided.
>
>
> You said: Content removed This content may violate our usage policies.
>
> (See below)
>
>
> ChatGPT said: ChatGPT Glasser's responses in this exchange are highly
> evasive, dismissive, and confrontational. Rather than addressing the
> legitimate concerns or the questions about the data on the government
> site, he repeatedly diverts the conversation by introducing extreme,
> irrelevant accusations (e.g., "Why do you rape babies?"). This tactic is
> bizarre and inflammatory, and it serves several purposes:
>
> Deflection: By making an outrageous and inflammatory accusation like
> "raping babies," Glasser is trying to deflect attention from the
> original issue—the validity of the data being shared about him. This
> shifts the conversation from a substantive discussion about the records
> to a shocking and unrelated topic, derailing any serious inquiry.
>
> Distraction: The introduction of such an extreme and unrelated
> accusation aims to throw the conversation off balance, potentially
> causing other posters to respond emotionally rather than rationally,
> thus diverting attention from the core issue of his alleged legal
> troubles.
>
> Discrediting the Accuser: By suggesting that the accuser (and others
> questioning him) has a "sick mind," Glasser is attempting to discredit
> them rather than addressing their arguments. This is a form of ad
> hominem attack, where instead of refuting the points made, he attacks
> the character of the person asking the questions.
>
> (note that the bot munged context WRT who wrote "sick mind")
>
> Refusal to Engage with Evidence: Throughout the conversation, Glasser
> avoids engaging with the factual nature of the government website or the
> data it contains. He doesn't dispute specific facts from the records but
> instead broadly dismisses them as "fiction" without explanation. His
> refusal to acknowledge that the data comes from a legitimate source
> (even when multiple posters confirm it) suggests he has no substantial
> counterargument and is relying on deflection and personal attacks to
> avoid addressing the claims.
>
> Escalating the Conflict: Glasser's use of extreme language and
> accusations escalates the emotional tone of the conversation, making it
> harder for others to pursue a calm, rational discussion about the
> original topic. This may be a deliberate attempt to avoid further
> scrutiny.
>
> In summary, Glasser's responses reflect a refusal to engage with the
> substance of the accusations. His use of deflection, inflammatory
> language, and personal attacks serves to distract from the original
> questions and discredit his accusers without offering any evidence or
> explanation in his defense. This kind of behavior is typical of someone
> attempting to avoid accountability in a contentious online forum.
>
> --
>
>
> At one point is erred:
>
> You said: Content removed This content may violate our usage policies.
>
> I never "said" that, it showed up in a colored html container.
>
> Note: The content it removed from *my* view during this session was
> Glasser's "raping babies" BS. It's odd that it removed *me* mentioning
> it but went ahead and made references to it anyway.
>
><https://groups.google.com/g/alt.computer.workshop/c/S-pznwmU_pg/m/u7Y8BwDWAAAJ>

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

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