Google| Subject | Snit digest 165 / 2015-12-19 |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 12/19/2015 11:18 (12/19/2015 11:18) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-c7879315f5222aaa46162122df272247@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Slimer (6h & 4m) > Sandman Snit (7h & 17m) |
In article <D299E365.6764E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
Snit[X] Obfuscation (http://tinyurl.com/ot32axl) [X] Ignoring evidence (http://tinyurl.com/nz5x39v) [X] Projection (http://tinyurl.com/nr52vt4) [X] Lying (http://tinyurl.com/ncvfhl2)
[1176] ... You snipped most of the key content
Sandman: 30 Snit: 0
Here is what you're running from:
What claim? That this is how I found your wife's FB page? Certainly. I know you think that by removing the comment, you removed every trace of her involvement on that page. If you visit that page now, there is no comment by Anne Glasser, going there and searching for the text "Anne Glasser" shows no hits.SnitSandmanSandmanSandman
I'll try to be more clear. This is your claim:Snit 12/15/2015 09:05:33 PM <D295C09D.67140%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>"The comment is not from anyone in my family...""The comment" was a comment on a web page that was made by this profile account:Snit
A claim you make with no support. You will neither support it nor rescind it, going against your own claim that you will do so. In other words you are breaking your word.
I already did, remember?<>
Note the link in the status bar.Snit
The ease at forging that would be trivial.
Maybe, but remember - this is how I found your wife's FB page, via this comment.
I challenge you to back this claim.
Fortunately, since the FB plugin is asynchronous, it behaves differently when google indexes it, so if you search for "Anne Glasser" on that site on google:
<https://www.google.com/search?&q=anne+glasser+site:dcourier.com>
The second hit is that very page, and that's there for the sole reason that that comment page looked like this:
<
>I saved the google result as screenshot since at some point, google will re- index this page and the second hit will disappear since you have removed the comment. At this point, you will obviously claim that the evidence is invalid:
<
>Sorry, that was a response to your implication that it was forged. Not until you provide substantiation that it is forged would I have need to disprove it. Since you cannot provide such substantiation, I needn't disprove it.SandmanSnit
Regardless, it isn't forged,
I challenge you to back this claim?
Your fully "quotable" lie still substantiated.Sandman
and I have sufficiently substantiated that the comment came from your wife. If you want to disprove my substantiation, be my guest, but merely claiming it is forged are just empty words.So, proof of my claim: provided Proof of your lie:Snit 12/15/2015 09:05:33 PM <D295C09D.67140%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>"The comment is not from anyone in my family..."Substantiated.
Not at all. I knew you wife's name before this comment of hers was made public, but that's about it. I have no need to find anything out about your private life.SandmanSnitSandman
Which are you going to do with this claim? The answer: neither. You will simply break your word. You will lie. It is what you do.
Another lie from Snit.Here's the lie of yours I have quoted and proven:Snit 12/15/2015 09:05:33 PM <D295C09D.67140%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>"The comment is not from anyone in my family..."Snit
So there is evidence you forged the image. OK. Fine...
Where is your evidence of forgery? Oh, right. Nowhere.This is your problem - I make claims and I can support them. In response, all you have are empty meaningless words.The thing is, you are free to disagree or dislike the proof to your hearts content, but it is proof, and unless you can actually disprove it, your disagreement with it means absolutely nothing.Snit
Comes down to you have an image to "back" your words, and your words to "back" your image...
And ironically, had you not lied about it this time, I wouldn't have made the effort to expose your lie and thus learn more about your private life.
Your lies have made your wife's personal life more exposed on USENET than it had had you not lied.
Again, had you been honest and honorable, your first response to this thread would have been "So what?" and that's it, nothing more would have happened. You wouldn't have had a need to remove your wife's comment, no need to deny the onslaught of evidence you lied, no need for this "argument" at all.
You chose this, which is a pity.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- troll 48 | lying/lie 131 | incest 2 sex 0 | honorable 6 | honest 18 run 5 | css 6 | tilde 0
-- Sandman
12/15/2015-
-
-
