Subject | Re: Snit post-editing |
From | Sandman |
Date | 12/12/2015 11:45 (12/12/2015 11:45) |
Message-ID | <sandman-05a03183ed02dcf4381c758f64a3f5d4@individual.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Snit |
Followups | Snit (5h & 14m) > Sandman |
Incorrect, I show exactly that.SnitSandmanSandman
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.Snit
You do not show evidence anything was forged.
Yes, I do. I even explain it and you can use the above Message-ID's to verify it yourself.
You show no evidence of any comment being forged.
Incorrect, I have done exactly that.SnitWell? Are you satisfied with the support or do you want further support for you having lied?Sandman
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.
You have not quoted any lie from me. Nor shall you.