Sandman
In article <D290E006.66C82%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:

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.

Sandman
Yes, I do. I even explain it and you can use the above Message-ID's to verify it yourself.

Snit
You show no evidence of any comment being forged.

Sandman
Incorrect, I show exactly that.

Here is further proof: <http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snitforge.php>

You can click on the posts to expand them to see how #6 was forged where you:

1. Inserted the content from #5 as quoted text 2. Inserted my text from #3 3. Ignored the quoted text from #3

This was something you manually and knowingly did to forge the context of my post.

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.

Well? Are you satisfied with the support or do you want further support for you having lied?

Snit
You have not quoted any lie from me. Nor shall you.

Sandman
Incorrect, I have done exactly that.

The first lie is the quoted material in itself. The second lie is this:

Snit Re: Snit post-editing 12/10/2015 <D28F42B0.66A13%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

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

As I have proven 100%, there was no context that was accidentally or purposely removed by me that you returned. You added context that was not present in my post to lie about what I had responded to.

This is your problem - as can be noted, I have the means to support my claims 100% and you have nothing but mere words to respond to that substantiation.