Subject | Re: Snit digest 192 / 2015-12-23 |
From | Snit |
Date | 12/23/2015 00:26 (12/22/2015 16:26) |
Message-ID | <D29F2A52.67BAB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (9h & 58m) |
SandmanSlimer whines about me repeating much the same thing... but at least what I copy and paste is honest. You repeat:
In article <D29ECD22.67B46%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:SnitSandman
[1376] Sandman posts his image over and over and over and over... trying to [1376] burn the image into your mind. But what account was that comments [1376] tied to.
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>
Prosecution statement validated by exhibit that has yet to be disproven by the defense, statement stands. The court rests.
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- troll 0 79 | lying/lie 1 209 | incest 0 2 sex 0 0 | honorable 0 7 | honest 0 29 run 0 5 | css 0 11 | tilde 0 0