Google| Subject | Re: Poll: Snit Leaves i=or Snit Stays... |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 02/07/2017 22:28 (02/07/2017 22:28) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-c413c25d7842eb7695fd4f523f4de400@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| PGP | Sandman |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Snit (1h & 18m) > Sandman |
In article <D4BF55CE.8EE37%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
Let's test this, shall we?SnitSandman
The following is a demonstration, to Sandman, of why his "discussion" style is useless and counter productive.
The fun part is that you actually think "discussion" is possible with you. That's hilarious!
Lengthy discussion about why and when you act the way you do, with links to examples. Snit's response: Ignore mode.SnitSandman
Seriously, Sandman, THAT is all you are doing.
Lie #1The problem for you is that you know you can't counter me when I lay forward the facts, so you have to ignore it like you did here:<sandman-a459b8571216b6738922d69d8cc959a9@individual.net> <sandman-032961c6950650694b36860e4d084c0c@individual.net> <sandman-f7120e505a1061dbb77ae7dae685b93d@individual.net>But then from the other side of your mouth you want to claim I never support my claims, which of course I do. So even though I do just note that you are telling the same lie again when I've already disproven it, you want to use that "method" as a response to a post of mine that contains support, just so you can ignore it.At no point in time will you be able to focus on the message and respond to the content, it will always be diverted into focusing on the messenger and making empty lies.
Snit's response: Fingers in ears, going *lalalalala* :)SnitSandman
It is idiotic trolling from you.
And it's *really* ironic for you to call "empty unsupported claims" as "idiotic trolling", when that's *all you do*.As has been noted, all my counts of your lies have been countered by me at some point. Let me know if you want me to insert the same response every time you tell the lie of if you're fine with me just noting your lie when I've already disproven it. I'm sure I could whip up a script to accommodate your trolling regardless.
SnitWhat you are "interested" in is of no concern to me. It is clear that you are 100% unable to uphold a normal conversation, tell the truth or counter the facts in any way.
If you are sincere in wanting a true conversation by all means let me know. Just claiming, mindlessly and without any evidence, that every sentence must be dissected or deemed a lie is insane. Not interested.
Let us take just one topic... the indisputable fact you attribute the words of others to meLie #1
(including tmelmosfire, Carroll, meat, and many others). I say this is dishonest of you on the basic principle that people are responsible for their own actions.It's still a lie on your part, given the fact that I have supported with facts that those are but some nyms you have used for your sock puppets. You have yet to counter any of that support in any way, shape or form so the evidence as stated stands undisputed today.
You are free to counter that evidence with better evidence, but until you do so, mere claims mean absolutely nothing.
Without denying you do this (the evidence is simply too strong to pretend otherwise) how can you defend this?Why ask me this in an unrelated thread, when you ignored the evidence when presented? You weren't able to approach the subject then, so why are you trying to approach it now?
Here are some other, more relevant, things for you to "discuss":
Claim 1: You stated that you in post <D4B695AE.8CB9D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> "noted a six hour gap" between two posters. This is a direct lie, you did not "note" any of the kind, yet you kept claiming you had done so.
Claim 2: You claimed I lied when I correctly stated that your support lacked means for verification seeing how it lacked Message-ID's when it was very obvious that my claim was 100% correct
Claim 3: You claimed I "falsely put your name in the 'from' content" (whatever that means) which I also have never done
Claim 4: You claimed my support lacked Message-ID's which was a blatant lie, given the fact that all my support had Message-ID's.
Let's start with that, shall we? :)
-- Sandman
02/06/2017-
