WARNING: This is a photograph

Sandman wrote:

In article , sid wrote:

sid:
You'll lie and twist and squirm, you'll protest that your story
must be true because *you* said so and you'll claim that anybody
else view must be wrong because *you* said so. It don't work
like that I'm afraid!

Sandman:
You have yet to prove that I have lied even one single time.

You have yet to prove you didn't

Incorrect. Not only can I not prove a negative, but for this particular
occasion, I proved that I didn't lie.

You're a genius aren't you, you can't but you did. Brilliant!


Sandman:
You have yet to *DISPROVE* my substantiation.

You have yet to prove it.

Already done. You can't counter it.

Sandman:
As it is, you're the one full of nothing but words. You're so
utterly arrogant that you think that your claim is proven just
because you say so. That's not how proof works.

Apart from the gratuitous insult isn't that what I said to you
yesterday? How come that works for you and not for me?

It doesn't. My word is only good when it comes to what I think or want.

So that would be a yes then, you said the same thing as me and then agreed
with me.

When I proved that I didn't lie I proved so with support that showed
exactly what had happened.

FFS, can't you see that stuff that *you* made up does not constitute proof.

I'm beginning to suspect that you didn't even bother to look at the proof.
That's why you can't counter it.

clearly you can't!


Sandman:
I have proved my claim,

No, you haven't you demented ****! that was my gratuitous insult in
return.

Yes, it quite clearly illustrated that I supply support, you supply
insults. I think that speaks for itself.

What? Are you saying that you don't supply insults?


Sandman:
and you have yet to disprove that support. Until you can, you
should just shut the **** up.

and you have yet to prove that support. Until you can, you should
just shut the **** up.

I have proven it. The support is the proof. This is how proof works.

Counter it or shut the **** up. I know you CAN'T counter it, which is why
you're all busy trying to divert attention away from my support.

You support is bull****! You have admitted that you knew exactly where and
when you had edited my text, yet it seems that you would have us believe
that, all of a sudden, rather that talking about the post I was replying to,
like every other reply of mine, you thought I was talking about a post way
up the thread, that I had already replied to with no mention of snipping.
Yeah right!

You're a lying prick.

EOD for me but I'm sure you can carry on for a bit without me, it is your
usual style to congratulate yourself on your supreme beingness after all.

--
sid

On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 17:33:09 +0000, sid wrote:

Sandman wrote:

In article , sid wrote:

sid:
You'll lie and twist and squirm, you'll protest that your story
must be true because *you* said so and you'll claim that anybody
else view must be wrong because *you* said so. It don't work
like that I'm afraid!

Sandman:
You have yet to prove that I have lied even one single time.

You have yet to prove you didn't

Incorrect. Not only can I not prove a negative, but for this particular
occasion, I proved that I didn't lie.

You're a genius aren't you, you can't but you did. Brilliant!

With regard to the question of whether or not, or how, Sandman lies
you should have a look at my Message-ID:
of 8/08/2014 and the
messages to which that message points. It details how I caught out
Sandman altering the substance of articles by surreptitious snipping
from selective quoting, so as to as to distort the argument in his own
favour. That's deliberate lying, in my book.


Sandman:
You have yet to *DISPROVE* my substantiation.

You have yet to prove it.

Already done. You can't counter it.

Sandman:
As it is, you're the one full of nothing but words. You're so
utterly arrogant that you think that your claim is proven just
because you say so. That's not how proof works.

Apart from the gratuitous insult isn't that what I said to you
yesterday? How come that works for you and not for me?

It doesn't. My word is only good when it comes to what I think or want.

So that would be a yes then, you said the same thing as me and then agreed
with me.

When I proved that I didn't lie I proved so with support that showed
exactly what had happened.

FFS, can't you see that stuff that *you* made up does not constitute proof.

I'm beginning to suspect that you didn't even bother to look at the proof.
That's why you can't counter it.

clearly you can't!


Sandman:
I have proved my claim,

No, you haven't you demented ****! that was my gratuitous insult in
return.

Yes, it quite clearly illustrated that I supply support, you supply
insults. I think that speaks for itself.

What? Are you saying that you don't supply insults?


Sandman:
and you have yet to disprove that support. Until you can, you
should just shut the **** up.

and you have yet to prove that support. Until you can, you should
just shut the **** up.

I have proven it. The support is the proof. This is how proof works.

Counter it or shut the **** up. I know you CAN'T counter it, which is why
you're all busy trying to divert attention away from my support.

You support is bull****! You have admitted that you knew exactly where and
when you had edited my text, yet it seems that you would have us believe
that, all of a sudden, rather that talking about the post I was replying to,
like every other reply of mine, you thought I was talking about a post way
up the thread, that I had already replied to with no mention of snipping.
Yeah right!

You're a lying prick.

EOD for me but I'm sure you can carry on for a bit without me, it is your
usual style to congratulate yourself on your supreme beingness after all.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

sid:
You're a genius aren't you, you can't but you did. Brilliant!

With regard to the question of whether or not, or how, Sandman lies
you should have a look at my Message-ID:
of 8/08/2014 and the
messages to which that message points. It details how I caught out
Sandman altering the substance of articles by surreptitious snipping
from selective quoting, so as to as to distort the argument in his
own favour. That's deliberate lying, in my book.

This is the post that started it all:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=198020

Where Eric did a lot of quote-editing and adding text to quoted material that was
not there in my post.

I responded with:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=198035

And wrote:
"You have totally messed up your entire post with your cut and paste
editing. If you can't respond to what was written, then don't respond at
all."

He blamed me for his creative quote-editing, and started to snip out large parts
of the post, and the claims I make "surreptitious deletions":

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=198410

Eric even claims he has a macro that edits the quoted material of posts, which is
just weird:

http://usenet.sandman.net/reader/index/read?id=198880

For the record, I do sometimes snip out parts of a post that I do not reply to. I
don't snip to make it appear that a poster said something they didn't.

--
Sandman

You support is bull****!

That's an unsuccessful counter of my support. You have now failed four times in a
row and you are still claiming that I am lying in spite of being unable to
falsify the support that I was not lying.

This means, ironically, that you are a liar.

Have a nice life, troll.

--
Sandman

In article , sid wrote:

Sandman:
your confusion about the data is what's causing you so much
problems.

The only person that has claimed they were confused is actually you,
you buffoon!

I have pointed out your confusion in my support. You know, the support you have
been 100% unable to counter, or even discuss, or even point out any error in.

You lose, again.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
You'er just a liar and just too stupid to
realise it.

Sandman:
Prove it.

Whisky-dave:
As you say that's impossible.

Sandman:
Then you made a false claim. Either retract it or
prove it.

Whisky-dave:
I've asked you...

Sandman:
Stop asking me.

Stop asking me to prove you're a lair then.

Then stop making claims you can't support.

Sandman:
You made the claim,

you've made the claim that you are NOT a liar, you're the one making
the claim not me.

Your claim is still quoted above, Dave. Prove it.

Sandman:
If you have to ask me anything, then you have made an empty
claim.

I've made NO claim , you have.

Your claim is still quoted above, illiterate troll. Here it is again:

"You'er [sic] just a liar"

That's your claim. Prove it or shut the **** up.

Sandman:
Either prove it or retract it. Third chance. If you do neither in
your followup, you're a liar.

You failed to prove it and you are once again a proven liar.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
You'er just a liar and just too stupid
to realise it.

Sandman:
Prove it.

Whisky-dave:
As you say that's impossible.

Sandman:
Then you made a false claim. Either retract it or
prove it.

Whisky-dave:
I've asked you...

Sandman:
Stop asking me.

Whisky-dave:
Stop asking me to prove you're a lair then.

Sandman:
Then stop making claims you can't support.

I'm not making a claim. You're the one claiming you don't lie.

Here is your claim:

"You'er [sic] just a liar"

Prove it.

Sandman:
You made the claim,

Whisky-dave:
you've made the claim that you are NOT a liar, you're the one
making the claim not me.

Sandman:
Your claim is still quoted above, Dave. Prove it.

Prove you're not a lair then, yuo're the one claiming to not lie.

Here is your claim:

"You'er [sic] just a liar"

Prove it.


--
Sandman

Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015 14:45:37 UTC, Sandman wrote:


Jonas, Dave, will you guys get a room?
The least you can do is move this particular personal flame-war to email.


--
Savageduck

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Here is your claim:

You'er just a liar

Prove it.

--
Sandman