Peter Kohlmann
The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:

Snit
On 12/10/15, 2:30 PM, in article n4cqpm$1oo$1@dont-email.me, "Barry H" <barryum@linuxmail.org>wrote:

Barry H (Snit)
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:24:32 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:

owl
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>wrote:

Steve Carroll
On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 1:23:54 PM UTC-7, owl wrote:

owl
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>

Peter Kohlmann
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/OseGBQy6U

owl
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.

Steve Carroll
WTF is he on now?! Meth?

owl
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!

Barry H (Snit)
How so?

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.

Peter Kohlmann
Except that you do this regularly. At least once per week, and usually *much* more often, you reply to posts with "quotes" which have never been part of the thread in the first place but come from a different thread, and often are days or even weeks old

So your "admitting" an error is neither honest nor honorable, but yet another outright lie from you