Google| Subject | Re: Proof Sandman keeps running from. |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 08/03/2009 09:14 (08/03/2009 09:14) |
| Message-ID | <mr-F70631.09140203082009@News.Individual.NET> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Snit (17m) > Sandman Snit (19m) > Sandman Snit (1h & 5m) |
In article <C69AE337.3F645%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:
I admit to using your trolling technique to make a point, yes. The point, of course, was totally lost on you since if there is anyting stronger than your urge to troll csma, it's your capacity for denial.SnitSnitSandman
Clearly you are dishonestly snipping... and then lying and saying you are doing what I did when I *returned* other content you dishonestly snipped.
That's exactly what I did above.
Good to see you admit to it.
As did I - I *returned* the context which you had dishonestly snipped away when you answered with "Ok". When returning that context, I made it appear that your Ok was in response to the context that you had snipped away. This is your Circus, Snit. I'm just using it against you.SandmanSnit
You had snipped out the part I returned which made it look like your "Ok" was a response to something you had snipped out.
A bummer when your trolling bites yourself in the ass like this.
I did no such thing. I *returned* the context you had dishonestly snipped.
I.e. the context you dishonestly snipped in this post:
<C699CBA9.3F495%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
07/30/2009-
