Subject | Re: spreadsheet ergonomics |
From | Sandman |
Date | 04/06/2017 19:44 (04/06/2017 19:44) |
Message-ID | <sandman-a4c96375d58a33d82742ce740129e172@individual.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
PGP | Sandman |
Follows | Snit |
Followups | Snit (29m) > Sandman |
Yeah, just the words "many others". That's all that's needed for you to substantiate your claim. No need for anything that can be verified, sure.SnitSnitSandman
Look at Carroll and his "gluey" and the "he who shall not be named" and the "the thing" and more.
I can't "look" at anything because you provided no substantiation to look at. Only mere claims. So you have two claims that need support:"What about when those who troll me refer to me with derogatory nicknames"What "nicknames"?"as they do so often..."How often is that?chrisv
Well, you must concede that the thing is sometimes mentioned, without using its name.
Including in this post and many others, some of which I pointed out just yesterday. No need to dig through the past. No need for databases. No need for anything but actually looking at the posts on COLA.
But Sandman will ALWAYS deny evidence.I can see Snit's vision of court vividly in front of me:
He will ALWAYS lie when the truth does not fit his trolling nonsense.What "truth" against what supposed "nonsense"? You brought up this irrelevant obfuscation in response to my actual data on how often *you* mention others in posts not in response to them. The data said nothing about how often they mentioned you.