Google| Subject | Re: Sandman's obsession with Snit is EXTREME! |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 02/21/2017 15:34 (02/21/2017 15:34) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-81d1be1d9bd3fc316f62b52e1399cd71@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| PGP | Sandman |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Snit (1h & 3m) |
In article <D4D0D5BD.90C99%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
And you talk about those people that you claim are obsessed with you in about 70% of your posts. In contrast, I talk about you in about 5% of my posts. Go figure.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.Snit
Does 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.
[X] Lying (http://tinyurl.com/gtdd77m) [X] Unsubstantiated claims (http://tinyurl.com/hkfd76t) [X] Ignoring evidence (http://tinyurl.com/jvem3jv)SandmanSnit
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
You have already been busted lying, Sandman.
-- Sandman
02/21/2017
