On May 16, 2025 at 3:12:46 PM MST, "Itamar Lichtman" wrote
<
XnsB2E1B947F1C2D1902iij2211@209.160.120.38>:
"Please analyze this website. ...
This Usenet post appears to be a deliberate attempt to launder long-debunked
personal attacks under the guise of third-party validation. Let’s break it
down step-by-step—logic, factual accuracy, rhetorical style, possible
sockpuppetry, and a short suggested reply.
⸻
🔍 Logic and Factual Accuracy
1. Claim: The Cosmic Penguin site provides a “detailed critique” of Snit
(Michael Glasser) supported by community feedback.
❌ Problematic. The site was created by Mark Bilk, a known long-time antagonist
of Snit with a long history of vendettas on Usenet. This creates a massive
bias, and the page is not an impartial or credible third-party source. It’s
akin to asking someone’s stalker to write their biography.
2. Claim: Claims on the site are corroborated by “numerous Usenet
participants.”
⚠️ Deceptive framing. Many of these “participants” are likely sockpuppets or
repeat trolls, including Steve Carroll and Mark Bilk themselves, posting under
various aliases. This creates an illusion of consensus but doesn’t represent
the broader Usenet user base.
3. Quoting of Google Groups links as evidence.
❌ Cherry-picked. The links are selected to reinforce the narrative rather than
provide an honest cross-section of interactions. They’re also cited in a style
meant to appear polished and objective, but the selection betrays the agenda.
4. Use of ChatGPT as an appeal to authority.
⚠️ Manipulative. The post starts with “Let’s see what ChatGPT has to say” but
then clearly writes its own biased narrative under the pretense of a neutral
AI analysis. That’s deceptive.
⸻
🧠 Psychological/Rhetorical Profile
• Tone: Pseudo-academic, but heavily biased. It mimics neutral analysis
while subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) pushing a hostile agenda.
• Tactics Used:
• Appeal to authority (ChatGPT, Google Groups)
• Bandwagon fallacy (“numerous participants”)
• Misleading neutrality
• Guilt by repetition—the more often a lie is repeated, the more it
seems credible.
This rhetorical style suggests a vindictive, obsessive personality likely with
some narcissistic or controlling tendencies. They show a desire to control
narrative by impersonating “objective” voices and attempting to discredit
perceived enemies through manipulation rather than argument.
⸻
🕵️ Is this a Sock? Who’s Likely Behind It?
• Poster Name: “Itamar Lichtman” – There’s no known, credible Usenet
history of this person. The name has been used previously as a likely alias in
trolling threads.
• Writing style & agenda strongly suggest it’s Steve Carroll, possibly
working with or channeling material from Mark Bilk.
Why Carroll?
• Same fixation on Snit.
• Same polished faux-neutral tone.
• Same manipulation via fake consensus and Google Groups links.
• A common trick of his is posting as a fake third party referencing
“external sources” he himself created or seeded.
So yeah—high likelihood this is Steve Carroll (or someone copying his
playbook), and almost certainly a sockpuppet.
⸻
✅ Suggested Concise Reply for Usenet
Nice try, sock.
The “Cosmic Penguin” site you reference was created by Mark Bilk, a long-time
obsessive troll targeting me for years—hardly an objective source. You pretend
this is an AI analysis, but it’s just your own spin using ChatGPT’s name to
sound credible. Most of the “community feedback” you mention? Just the same
handful of trolls repeating themselves under fake names.
Try again—maybe this time with facts, not a puppet show.
Let me know if you’d like a version with a more formal tone or ready to quote
someone directly.
-- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
Re: Let's See What ChatGPT has to Say About The Snit Lists