Subject | Re: Snit digest 165 / 2015-12-19 |
From | Sandman |
Date | 12/20/2015 00:43 (12/20/2015 00:43) |
Message-ID | <sandman-2783afbd2c3bfd82caf8c59e47b0e0eb@individual.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Snit |
Followups | Steve Carroll (23m) Snit (2h & 41m) > Sandman |
Agreed, that was a jumble, my bad.SandmanSnit
Yeah, logic and panic never worked good for Snit. He wants to remove the comment yet also at the same time remove the comment, which a supposed forger obviously wouldn't do synced with Snit's realization that there was a comment from his wife online!
That is not even English.
Comes down to you and Carroll are pointing to one FB account and CLAIMING, with NO support, that this is the account that the comment came from.Claiming + support, that is. Remember, support can be wrong, support can be disproven, but support is support. Just ignoring it won't make it go away, just merely claiming it may or can be a forgery doesn't make it one.