Sandman
In article <D28F3895.669F7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:

Snit
[820] I returned context your Usenent client snipped - or maybe you [820] did so to be dishonest (2). Either way, nothing wrong with RETURNING [820] content you left out.

Sandman
The above is an outright and provable lie (hence the troll counter).

This was owl's post: <ghj30.5ppihqh@rooftop.invalid>

That was a new thread, no quoted material. It was not a response to an earlier post and as such had nothing "snipped".

Your response: <D28F2200.669CB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

Added quoted material to owl's post that wasn't there and shouldn't be there in the original. You quote-forged the post to show something that poster never intended.

Violation of point 3:

3) Not add or alter the content of quoted materials in any way other than to snip

I hereby invoke point number 5:

5) If someone goofs give them a chance and note where you think they went astray.

You "goofed" and I expect an explicit apology to owl momentarily.

Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- troll 7 | lying/lie 13 | incest 0 sex 0 | honorable 0 | honest 2 run 3 | css 4 | tilde 0