Subject | Re: Snit digest 123 / 2015-12-10 |
From | Snit |
Date | 12/12/2015 04:15 (12/11/2015 20:15) |
Message-ID | <D290DF7D.66C78%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Sandman |
SandmanOf course it is. If my assumption about his meaning was correct then noting the context is fine. He has not - and likely will not - ever say what he was in reference to. He was, as you do so often, trolling.
In article <D2903924.66B37%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:SandmanSnitSnitSandman
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.
Not only is that an incorrect statement in itself, it is also irrelevant, since no content was removed for someone to "reinsert".
And, re-inserting whatever quoted material to make it seem it was in the preceding posters post is very much disingenuous.SnitSandman
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.