Google| Subject | Re: Proof Sandman keeps running from. |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 08/03/2009 11:13 (08/03/2009 11:13) |
| Message-ID | <mr-81355D.11135103082009@News.Individual.NET> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Snit (43m) > Sandman Snit (1h & 11m) > Sandman |
In article <C69BEC8C.3F87A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:
"a message-ID" not "Message-ID's", When quoting something, that quote should be found in one (1) message, not be stitched together from two different posts. Otherwise:SandmanSnit
Snit's quote-forging: Snit: I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
Too bad.
Your quote forging is easy to spot, since you can never attach a Message-ID to those quotes, because there isn't one, like in this case.
You claim I did not "attach" a message ID. Look again... exact quote from what I said before:
----- What made Sandman freak out... my *returning* context he dishonesty snipped:
[1] I will not stop being honest and honorable, no matter how you misrepresent it or what demands you make.
Sandman: [2] Too bad.
That is the *exact* sentence I wrote and the *exact* response you gave (though you followed it with BS and lies). Now you are pulling a Carroll and insisting your dishonesty is my fault. Nope. You lied. Again. And you were busted. Again.
[1] <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/3960b606a8b7c118> [2] <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d06248dbb4125599> -----
Those last two lines are links to the actual posts... where you can get the message ID if you want it. Seriously, how pathetic can you be, Sandman?
I wrote:
But you can't do that, because it doesn't exist, since you forged the quote, since you're a dishonest lying troll.
<mr-14A3EE.17120501082009@News.Individual.NET>
You responded to that post with this:
Ok <C699CBA9.3F495%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Of course, I had to snipi away parts of your response and restore parts of what I wrote in order to make the later to be in response to the former - i.e. you like you did.
-- Sandman[.net]
07/30/2009-
