Google| Subject | Re: Snit digest 165 / 2015-12-19 |
| From | Snit |
| Date | 12/20/2015 03:24 (12/19/2015 19:24) |
| Message-ID | <D29B5F75.677ED%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (5h & 54m) > Snit |
On 12/19/15, 4:43 PM, in article sandman-2783afbd2c3bfd82caf8c59e47b0e0eb@individual.net, "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanI still have no idea what you are even trying to say with that.
In article <D29B15C9.67795%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:SandmanYeah, 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!Snit
That is not even English.
Agreed, that was a jumble, my bad.
What I think I meant to say that logic and panic doesn't work good for you -
you wanted to remove the comment while at the same time blame the comment on someone else, but if the comment had remained, you couldn't do that.The only way I could have had a comment removed is if it remained until I had it removed! Your comment there makes no sense
And below you just spew unsupported claim after unsupported claim after accusation after accusation. Just on and on and on... with nothing to "back" your image but your words, and nothing to "back" your words but your image. I challenge you to back each of them... knowing full well you will not, and then will break your word and not rescind your claims. You WILL lie.
----- But by removing the comment you reduced the likelihood of it being made by a forger, since this supposed forger would have had no reason to remove the comment at the same time it was brought to your attention. ----- No evidence I removed the comment.
No evidence I could "reduce the likelihood of it being made by a forger"... whatever that even means.
No evidence the forger would not have EVER reason to remove it on their own (they would not want it to be known what account it really was tied to).
----- The comment was made by your wife ----- You offer no support for this claim. You have your own words "backed" by your own "image" which is "backed" by your own words. At some point Carroll will jump in to "back" your claim, because you two troll together. That is not in any way support for your claim.
So you have no support, but you also will not rescind it, breaking your own word.
----- something you have yet to disprove ----- You assume here I have some obligation to disprove your every accusation you make up about me and my family. Nope. You have the obligation to back your accusations and to keep your word to rescind your claims when you fail. As you have done. Instead you break your word and lie. And you will keep lying. This is 100% predictable.
But by removing the comment you reduced the likelihood of it being made by a forger, since this supposed forger would have had no reason to remove the comment at the same time it was brought to your attention.-- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>SnitSandman
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.
The comment was made by your wife, and that is a claim that has been supported, something you have yet to disprove.
Or as John said back in august:
<XnsA4F3BD0F93AD1johngrubor@178.63.61.145> "The comment was made by your wife, Anne, using a Facebook account, since that site uses Facebook Comments. Her name and photo link back to a fairly closed profile but there's enough there to know who she is. One of the family members she discloses is a male by the last name of Glasser, and Facebook lists her relationship with him as him being her brother in law, so it's obviously your brother.
Unless someone has managed to set up a fake Anne Glasser Facebook page and hoodwink your family members, Snit. How likely is that?
It's your spouse in that comment thread bemoaning her never ending workload, and you should hang your head in shame for being a lazy bastard."
It's not like this was a secret or anything. I'm not the only one that correctly pointed it out.
12/15/2015-
-
-
