Skip to main content
news

Snit digest 191 / 2015-12-22

Sandman
Google Google
SubjectSnit digest 191 / 2015-12-22
FromSandman
Date12/22/2015 08:57 (12/22/2015 08:57)
Message-ID<sandman-0ff5101bd1a7dbea1713163af1f3ba3a@individual.net>
Client
Newsgroupscomp.os.linux.advocacy
FollowsSnit
In article <D29E20DA.67AA8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:

Snit
[1369] Keep in mind the facts:

Indeed. Here are the facts:

CASE: Defendant statement: "The comment is not from anyone in my family"

Defense exhibit: <none>

Prosecution statement: "The comment was made by your wife"

Prosecution exhibit: <>

Defendant statement: You offer no support for this claim

Defense exhibit: <none>

[1370] * Sandman has not backed his claim that the comment was as he [1370] claims...

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

[1371] * Sandman claims I or my wife remove a post.... his support being [1371] that it is tied to his claim... which is not supported at all... [1371] which is NO support at all.

[X] Obfuscation (http://tinyurl.com/ot32axl) [X] Ignoring evidence (http://tinyurl.com/nz5x39v) [X] Lying (http://tinyurl.com/ncvfhl2)

Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- troll 1 79 | lying/lie 0 208 | incest 0 2 sex 0 0 | honorable 0 7 | honest 0 29 run 0 5 | css 0 11 | tilde 0 0

-- Sandman