Subject | Re: spreadsheet ergonomics |
From | Sandman |
Date | 04/07/2017 16:20 (04/07/2017 16:20) |
Message-ID | <sandman-53830ced111072c1ddf6f114b298fbe9@individual.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
PGP | Sandman |
Follows | Snit |
Followups | Steve Carroll (1h & 6m) > Sandman |
Thus far you have posted no examples to substantiate your claims:SnitSandmanSnitSandmanchrisvSnit
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.
Yeah, just the words "many others". That's all that's needed for you to substantiate your claim.
Well, that and examples...
No examples posted, no.
You mean other than the multiple examples I posted. Yeah, other than that, no examples.
But that is an idiotic way to say "no examples" -- you are just flat out lying.[X] Lying (http://tinyurl.com/gtdd77m)
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.