Subject | Re: Sandman still lying about his CSS |
From | Sandman |
Date | 02/16/2017 19:54 (02/16/2017 19:54) |
Message-ID | <sandman-b5d86fd78d4c7aba1d30ed858a9ae340@individual.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
PGP | Sandman |
Follows | Snit |
Followups | Steve Carroll (5m) > Sandman Snit (9m) > Sandman |
This post of yours now is logged as "Ignoring 99%" in the snip/ignore statistics of your responses (or lack of responses) to my posts that does not log your trolling:SandmanSandmanSnit
Not sure how many times I've asked now and you've ignored the question: Why? Why would I want to Skype with you?
Already answered: since it would bypass your primary trolling games which work in text you would never want to.
Your lying aside, what reason do I have to Skype with you? Why is it so hard for you to answer this?SandmanSnitSandmanAnd I ask again - What accusations?Snit
Any and all.
And now I ask for the third time - *What accusations?*
I have answered repeatedly: your accusations where you obsess over me
Such as?SnitSandman
claiming I have forged PDFs
I have no "accusations" of you forging PDF's, I have fully substantiated claims that you forged PDF's. Stop trying to drag up arguments from the past.SnitSandman
accusing me of using names I have not
Which I have never done.SnitSandman
and on and on and on and on and on.
yet you can't point to a single one! Go figure.Snit
But no matter how many times I answer your question you can snip it and otherwise play games and say I have not (see below for perfect examples). In text.In a Skype session that would be harder -- hence the reason you will never Skype.Sandman
Why do you imagine that facts and logic is "harder" via Skype?SandmanSnitSnitSandman
You have all sorts of accusations about me using socks,
Nope, none of that. I have substantiated claims however. You know, those facts you fear so much.
Even if you claim to believe it you make the accusation (which also shows your obsession with me).
You need to look up the word "accusation". When you "accuse" someone for something, that is merely a claim. That's your style, you accuse people of things. I don't accuse, I claim and then I substantiate that claim. And as long as that substantiation is uncountered, it stands as full substantiation for the claim and as such is not a mere "accusation". Accusations are for people to feeble to provide substantiation. Like you.SandmanSnitSnitSandman
all sorts of nonsense trolling.
Yet none that you can point to.
I just noted it.
Nope, you just accused me for it, without providing any substantiation. Go figure.Snit ignored the rest since he can't deal with reasoned discussion, or respond to any of the points I raise below, further feeding his snipping/ignoring statistics:Snit
Since you cannot handle text without trolling: <https://youtu.be/lF8yk7ul4Mw>.