Subject | Re: Snit post-editing |
From | Snit |
Date | 12/10/2015 23:03 (12/10/2015 15:03) |
Message-ID | <D28F44AF.66A18%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Barry H (Snit) |
Followups | Peter Kohlmann (18m) > Snit |
Barry H (Snit)I have not checked, but Sandman says the post I responded to was not a direct response to my post, but instead a new thread. As such I should not have listed it as removed material I added back but, perhaps, noted what content he was likely in response to or just asked him. I broke one of the rules and, being honest and honorable, openly admit it.
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:24:32 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:owlBarry H (Snit)
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>wrote:Steve Carrollowl
On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:23:54 PM UTC-7, owl wrote:owlSteve Carroll
The lying scumbag Snit responds to one of my posts and adds words to my post. Stop humping my leg you pathetic Assburger!
Message-ID: <D28F2200.669CB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/OseGBQy6U Hc/0P5QrUP8BQAJ
I had not quoted anyone in that post, yet the lying Assburger Snitfeen Pathtik added all that crap above my post as if I had responded to a post of his.
This is another one of those famous "unquotable lies" of his.
WTF is he on now?! Meth?
Now the lying tweeker is lying yet again, saying that my newsreader somehow "snipped context" from my own original post -- which was not a reply to any other post from which context could even have been snipped!
How so?