Sandman
In article <D295B30D.67120%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:

Snit
[1037] So many unquotable lies (80)! Horrible! Keep in mind I posted links [1037] to the proof Carroll lies (81) about being hacked and forged.

Sandman
Incorrect, you did no such thing. You posted claims, not proof. There is quite a difference.

Snit
[1038] Yet you fail to quote one. Why is that?

Sandman
Here's a recent one:

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."

Where you lied about returning context when what you in fact was doing was forging the context.

Snit
[1039] Meanwhile SANDMAN is the one who noted material is from "Steve [1039] Carroll" then denied it when he realized he just worked against his [1039] co-troll (26).

Sandman
[X] Ignoring evidence (http://tinyurl.com/nz5x39v) [X] Unsubstantiated accusations (http://tinyurl.com/pojrtxt) [X] Lying (http://tinyurl.com/ncvfhl2)

Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- troll 26 | lying/lie 81 | incest 2 sex 0 | honorable 2 | honest 5 run 5 | css 6 | tilde 0