Sandman
In article <D28F42B0.66A13%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:

owl
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.

Sandman
Yeah, he did the same here: <D28C46DE.665C7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

Where he posted a new thread with my content from: <sandman-1b731858d268284815c3e50a9ccedd02@individual.net>

Which was a response to this post: <D28C37D5.6658B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

But he replaced the quoted material with the content of this post instead: <D28C37B8.6658A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

Snit
Returning context you either accidently or purposely remove is not a lie, no matter how much you guys try to twist it.

Sandman
This is an outright lie number #2 since your "request".

In the posts mentioned above you did NOT return context that was removed. You pasted in context from ANOTHER post in your followup to my post, thereby forging the context of my post.

Snit
Interesting how you feel the need to make things up about me to push accusations... it shows how you know I am a very honest person.

Sandman
Outright lie #3 since your request, the above is not "made up" and can be easily checked by you or anyone. It is 100% the truth and most news readers will let you click the Message-ID's to view the posts.

But I'll happily support it further:

1: Tim <081220150852313464%teadams$2$0$0$3@earthlink.net> 2: Snit <D28C37D5.6658B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> 3: Sandman <sandman-1b731858d268284815c3e50a9ccedd02@individual.net>

4: Tim <081220150855133133%teadams$2$0$0$3@earthlink.net> 5: Snit <D28C37B8.6658A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

6: Snit <D28C46DE.665C7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

In post *6* which was a new thread, you quoted my content from post *3* and added content from post *5* and *4* to my post and thus forged the quotes.

The reason is obvious, in my post (#3) I correctly pointed out that you brought up arguments from the past as a response to a post (#1) that wasn't in response to you. You then added the content from post #5 and #4 to your #6 thread because in #4 Tim was already talking about that old argument, so your goal was to make it appear that I didn't correctly point that out. But I did.

There, let me know if you want me to further substantiate this lie of yours.

And a lie it is, fully "quotable" as you can see.