Subject | Re: Snit digest 123 / 2015-12-10 |
From | Snit |
Date | 12/11/2015 16:26 (12/11/2015 08:26) |
Message-ID | <D2903924.66B37%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (10h & 12m) > Snit |
SandmanI merely get a list of posts... not threading. Yeah, it is a horrid news reader - just never found it important enough to move to a new one. Looked into Unison but did not see a way to have it mark or sort posts based on content, so did not move to it. Might still do so, though. Heck, surprised my ancient one still works with modern OS X... at some point it will likely cease to. Also it leads to me making mistakes such as this one, which I take full responsibility for. While my Usenet reader is garbage, it is MY choice and I COULD have looked at headers or even Google Groups to check my assumption.
In article <D28F440D.66A16%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:SandmanThe 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 snipSnit
Ah, my news reader does not track such.
Yes, it does. Entourage will display new threads as new threads and since they lack the References header will not be displayed as a child to an earlier post.
When someone removes context in a disingenuous way, to return it is not in any way dishonest. Again, this is not what happened here, but that is what I mistakenly thought happened.SnitSandman
If this is the case then I was, in deed, in error to assume it was a response to my post. I stand corrected.
The point is that you explicitly and manually copied content from another post into your reply as quoted material, which regardless of how your newsreader "displays" it for you is disingenuous.
I have made it clear I was in error, but sure, an apology is in order I suppose (not really a big deal and it seems this error is being turned into a circus, but whatever).SandmanI 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
As have you, as noted.
Where is your apology to owl?