Google| Subject | Re: Snit digest 123 / 2015-12-10 |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 12/12/2015 02:38 (12/12/2015 02:38) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-65c555bc152473039298d3f7475c9764@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Snit (1h & 37m) |
In article <D2903924.66B37%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
Not only is that an incorrect statement in itself, it is also irrelevant, since no content was removed for someone to "reinsert".SnitSnitSandman
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.
When someone removes context in a disingenuous way, to return it is not in any way dishonest.
And, re-inserting whatever quoted material to make it seem it was in the preceding posters post is very much disingenuous.
And even then Owl has yet to say who he thought was begging you and for what and with what text.That's 100% irrelevant.
-- Sandman
12/10/2015-
-
-
-
