On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:57:55 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

It is not unfair when the Swedish person starts criticizing usage of
American English, especially the spelling of artificial words. Please
don't start that one again.

Peter, please, when did I *criticize* the *spelling* of "artificial
words"? I expect a link to this critique in your followup or admission
of making an incorrect claim. Failing both makes you a liar, just so you
know.

furgedaboudit.
I am too lazy to find the ink, where you "corrected" my spelling.

So you admit to having made an incorrect claim then. Good.

That is not a factual statement. You are too bright to have forgotten
your posting. As I said, it is not worth my tim to go back,mor reply
further to your provocations

*my* provocations, Peter? Are you not the one that posted *about me* in
response to another poster, making incorrect claims?

And you say that *I* provoke *YOU*? The mind boggles.

You claimed that I had criticized the spelling of an "artificial word",
and you have openly admitted that you will not support that claim, yet
claim you won't admit to it being in error - which makes you a liar.
I.e. you have made a statement that you know you can not support.

I would say the twisting contained in that paragraph above makes you a
liar. The article which PeterN can't be bothered finding is
Message-ID: , Date: Tue,
13 Aug 2013 19:00:53 +0200. Subject: Ken Rockwell and his "Pro"
friends...

[PeterN]
" So as far as further discussions along this line: furgedaboudit.
Believe it or not, that is real word in some parts of New York.

[Sandman]
No it isn't. It's slang, and written as "fuggedaboudit", so you
couldn't even get that right. Slang expressions aren't "real
words". The very definition of slang is that it consists of
non-standard and informal words and terms ... "

Stop making such statements, Peter. I will call you on them every time,
especially when they're about me.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens