Google| Subject | Re: Proof Sandman keeps running from. |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 08/03/2009 10:07 (08/03/2009 10:07) |
| Message-ID | <mr-88F229.10070203082009@News.Individual.NET> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Snit (10m) > Sandman Snit (16m) > Sandman |
In article <C69BE0C7.3F861%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:
Snit"Once someone clarifies their views it should be accepted" - Snit
Sandman stated in post mr-F70631.09140203082009@News.Individual.NET on 8/3/09 12:14 AM:SandmanSnit
I admit to using your trolling technique to make a point, yes.
You admit to trolling and you blame me. Take responsibility for your own actions.
What you ran from, and had to snip since it outlines how I did exactly what you did, which means you have to accept that you quote forged:
Good to see you admit to it.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.
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-
