Google| Subject | Snit digest 156 / 2015-12-17 |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 12/17/2015 19:21 (12/17/2015 19:21) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-dbe3ed76b0f19f0601156af32a0fdb87@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Marly Parlor (3m) Snit (50m) > Sandman Snit (3h & 42m) |
In article <D29832FC.6735F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
Snit[X] Unsubstantiated accusations (http://tinyurl.com/pojrtxt) [X] Lying (http://tinyurl.com/ncvfhl2)
[1125] You have admitted to contacting my wife and cyberstalk me...
I have done no such thing. I contacted your wife when you used her email address when posting to usenet. I felt it was important that she knew that you were putting personal information about her online in usenet.
[1125] now you want me to help you find out about my family! Nope!I don't need your help to find out things about your family. Thing is, I don't want to find out anything about your family. I am questioning your claim when you said:
Snit 12/15/2015 09:05:33 PM <D295C09D.67140%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
"The comment is not from anyone in my family..."
about a comment made by this FB profile:
<https://www.facebook.com/anne.glasser.37>
See - *I* already know this is your wife's FB profile. It's not like I'm actually asking you whether or not it is. I am exposing your lie, again. You lied when you said the above comment. You lied when you claimed it was not from someone in your family. And it was such a unneeded lie, since there was no incriminating content in that comment.
Had you chosen the honest and honorable way, your response to the OP would have been "Yeah, so what? So dishes stacks up now and then, that's life" and while some may have made fun of you because you are universally disliked in this group, you would have at least been honest.
But no, you had to choose the dishonest route, you had to lie about - which means that your claim is being scrutinized, so people (including me) clicks the link of the profile that made the comment, and it is clear that this IS your wife, that you were indeed lying.
Had you not denied it, no one would have clicked the link, and more of your private life hadn't been exposed. See what your dishonesty leads to?
I mean, it is clear that you dislike having your private life exposed, and that you go to extraordinary lengths to limit your family's exposure to the internet instead of limiting your own behavior that clearly has resulting in a lot of animosity towards you.
What is your line of thinking here. When your wife for whatever reason visits that page again and sees that her comment has been removed. Confused she turns to you and asks - hey, did you remove my comment from this page? I can't see it any longer.
While I'm sure you'd lie to her as well, there may come a time when you have to find an explanation to why you have limited her online endeavors. What will you say?
"right, yeah, so I 'confront the troll' in these newsgroups, and they dislike me very much because of that and yeah.. so that's why I had to remove your comment... sort of... hmmm"
It just doesn't make any sense.
[1126] You also moved goal posts from the article and the comment posted [1126] there to a Facebook account! You are being dishonest (16). Again.The comment was made via FB, there is no goal post move. You explicitly stated that the comment from the aforementioned FB profile did not come from someone in your family, which was an outright lie. Fully quoted.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- troll 42 | lying/lie 106 | incest 2 sex 0 | honorable 5 | honest 16 run 5 | css 6 | tilde 0
-- Sandman
12/15/2015-
-
-
