Google| Subject | Re: Sandman's obsession with Snit is EXTREME! |
| From | Steve Carroll |
| Date | 02/20/2017 23:42 (02/20/2017 14:42) |
| Message-ID | <66ff035e-8ee0-4ff1-accd-fdf27aff63f7@googlegroups.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Follows | Sandman |
On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 3:34:51 PM UTC-7, Sandman wrote:
SandmanLOL!
-----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 your throat with actual data. :)True, but most of his 'claims' are red herrings anyway, and he can bend those to fit either scenario. IOW, he may be more 'evolved' than you're giving him credit for ;)
02/20/2017
