Skip to main content
news

Re: Snit digest 124 / 2015-...

tmelmosfire (Snit)
SubjectRe: Snit digest 124 / 2015-12-12
Fromtmelmosfire (Snit)
Date2015-12-12 23:02 (2015-12-12 14:02)
Message-ID<c02e5bac-28fb-4b21-a1f4-f97fd4961d8b@googlegroups.com>
Client
Newsgroupscomp.os.linux.advocacy
FollowsSnit
FollowupsSnit (23m)

On Saturday, 12 December 2015 20:15:53 UTC, Snit wrote:

Snit
On 12/12/15, 1:06 PM, in article sandman-8be907e2506cbe8046d6bf92d4630956@individual.net, "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <D291927F.66D42%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:

Snit
[823] Again, empty accusations from you where you ignore what has been [823] said in the past... your trolling (8) is growing as you beg me to [823] join your circus.

Sandman
[X] Ignoring evidence (http://tinyurl.com/nz5x39v) [X] Diversion (http://tinyurl.com/o63ee7l)

And you're back into full-on troll mode, you didn't even last two days before you started to troll again.

What you ran from:

Here is further proof: <http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/snitforge.php> You can click on the posts to expand them to see how #6 was forged where you:

1. Inserted the content from #5 as quoted text 2. Inserted my text from #3 3. Ignored the quoted text from #3

100% proof that you lied when you claimed you hadn't done it, and lied by quote-forging a post. There is nothing you can do but ignore this because you *can* *not* counter it in any way. There is no way you can take this substantiation and refute any single part of it.

1: Tim <081220150852313464%teadams$2$0$0$3@earthlink.net> 2: Snit <D28C37D5.6658B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> 3: Sandman <sandman-1b731858d268284815c3e50a9ccedd02@individual.net>

4: Tim <081220150855133133%teadams$2$0$0$3@earthlink.net> 5: Snit <D28C37B8.6658A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

6: Snit <D28C46DE.665C7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

In post *6* which was a new thread, you quoted my content from post *3* and added content from post *5* and *4* to my post and thus forged the context of my post.

Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- troll 8 | lying/lie 13 | incest 0 sex 0 | honorable 0 | honest 2 run 3 | css 4 | tilde 0

Snit
1) Not bring up long dead debates, INCLUDING trolling someone over being butthurt over them when you have been proved to be wrong. 2) Not change subject lines to count trolling or otherwise push a circus. 3) Not add or alter the content of quoted materials in any way other than to snip, and when doing so note it. No trolling by adding numbers and other indicators at the start of lines or in the middle. Just reply without trolling. 4) Not have ANY web pages or other material where you make accusations about another person or blame them for your own lying saying they asked you to lie or otherwise post such nonsense. 5) If someone goofs give them a chance and note where you think they went astray. Above you break #1, #2, #3, #4.

Looking at Sandman's posts he likely is another Steven Petruzzellis sock. He backs him no matter what and just like Petruzzellis when his relentless accusations are shown to have no support he just denies it and blames you then repeats the same accusation. He is pulls things from usenet and has a completely insane trolling site with claims which make no sense.

He wants attention and as you note he always runs from one fact; his CSS failed to validate. Sandman refuses to speak of this because you have proved it failed. He also snips whenever you speak of it proving you are right his vendetta is based on that one ancient debate.

Sandman will not speak of his CSS because it it is ripping him apart from the inside out. He will move the topic to saying A is not A, to defend Petruzzellis, to accuse you of making him lie and troll in usenet and on the web

Snit (23m)