Subject | Re: Sandman's obsession with Snit is EXTREME! |
From | Snit |
Date | 02/21/2017 01:19 (02/20/2017 17:19) |
Message-ID | <D4D0D5BD.90C99%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (14h & 14m) > Snit |
SandmanDoes not even fit at all. You can talk about someone from time to time and not be obsessed. If you do so most of the time you are.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In article <D4D06E65.90B59%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:SandmanGreyCloudSnit
Guffaw!!! Define obsession... you can't.
Already done, in the above links (having 50% or more of your posts be ABOUT someone
Snit's posts that are ABOUT other people that are not in RESPONSE to those persons: 70%
My posts ABOUT Snit that are not in response TO Snit: 4.9%
Just because you spread your obsession over more than one person doesn't make you less obsessed with them.
It's like saying "You're a criminal if more than 50% of your income comes from stealing money from someone" and claim that you're not a criminal when 70% of your own income comes from stealing from ten different people.
Like I said, don't define your terms with measurable data, you never come out on top with that. You really should stick with things like "'cause I say so". It won't help the actual claim, but it wouldn't be as easy to shove down yourYou have already been busted lying, Sandman. Move the hell on.