Adobe's Low hanging .... ?

On 8 Aug 2014 10:03:30 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:


I have complained in the past about your use of surreptitious
deletions.

Message-ID:
"Which is more than you can say of your surreptitious deletions."

Message-ID:
"Why bother to comment when you have surreptitiously deleted relevant
text?"

"We have been round this so many times that I'm quite sick of it. I am
particularly sick of the dishonest way in which you delete text and
try to twist what other people have said. "


I have identified the places in articles where you have
surreptitiously deleted text:

Message-ID:
and Message-ID:

In response to Tony Cooper I have written of you:

" He makes his arguments by hidden deletions and distortions which
although created by Sandman look as though they come from the
other party. That way he does his best to ensure he is on the
winning side."

Up to now, all that you have said in your defence is:

Message-ID:
"I trim posts. What parts are you missing?"

Now, you are most upset that I have given you an article in which I
replaced and identified the parts that you had removed. You have
accused me of messing things up. You have accused me of creative
editing. You have accused me of cutting and pasting things way out of
context. Someone who knew nothing about all this could be forgiven for
thinking I was guilty of forging and uttering a fictitious document.
In fact, all I have done is put back the text which you had
surreptitiously removed.

You live in a bizarre world.

And I have complained about your creative editing of quoted material. It's
a troll tactic, to cut and paste text to make it appear to have said
something it didn't in the post you were responding to.

Yes it is. That's why I'm complaining about it.

No you're not, you're performing it.

Read above: I've been complaining about it for some time.
Keep up wwith this surreptitious snipping if you want to. It doesn't
bother me. I've got a macro to restore it.


You're so much of a troll that you have a macro set up to edit the quoted
material of the posts you're responding to? That's pretty amazing
commitment to being a complete asshole!

I have to ask what kind of person is it who thinks that restoring
unaltered the relevant original text is the action of a troll?

Could it be that it is the action of a person why wishes to imply by
the nature of his response that the original text said something other
than it did? No, it could hardly be that, could it?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Read above: I've been complaining about it for some time. Keep
up wwith this surreptitious snipping if you want to. It doesn't
bother me. I've got a macro to restore it.

Sandman:
You're so much of a troll that you have a macro set up to edit the
quoted material of the posts you're responding to? That's pretty
amazing commitment to being a complete asshole!

I have to ask what kind of person is it who thinks that restoring
unaltered the relevant original text is the action of a troll?

Could it be that it is the action of a person why wishes to imply by
the nature of his response that the original text said something
other than it did? No, it could hardly be that, could it?

"action of a person why wishes"? Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Quote editing is a troll tactic, yes. You have done it many times now.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 9 Aug 2014 08:22:59 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:


I have complained in the past about your use of surreptitious
deletions.

Message-ID:
"Which is more than you can say of your surreptitious deletions."

Message-ID:
"Why bother to comment when you have surreptitiously deleted relevant
text?"

"We have been round this so many times that I'm quite sick of it. I am
particularly sick of the dishonest way in which you delete text and
try to twist what other people have said. "


I have identified the places in articles where you have
surreptitiously deleted text:

Message-ID:
and Message-ID:

In response to Tony Cooper I have written of you:

" He makes his arguments by hidden deletions and distortions which
although created by Sandman look as though they come from the
other party. That way he does his best to ensure he is on the
winning side."

Up to now, all that you have said in your defence is:

Message-ID:
"I trim posts. What parts are you missing?"

Now, you are most upset that I have given you an article in which I
replaced and identified the parts that you had removed. You have
accused me of messing things up. You have accused me of creative
editing. You have accused me of cutting and pasting things way out of
context. Someone who knew nothing about all this could be forgiven for
thinking I was guilty of forging and uttering a fictitious document.
In fact, all I have done is put back the text which you had
surreptitiously removed.

You live in a bizarre world.

And I have complained about your creative editing of quoted material. It's
a troll tactic, to cut and paste text to make it appear to have said
something it didn't in the post you were responding to.

Yes it is. That's why I'm complaining about it.

No you're not, you're performing it.

Eric Stevens:
Read above: I've been complaining about it for some time. Keep
up wwith this surreptitious snipping if you want to. It doesn't
bother me. I've got a macro to restore it.

Sandman:
You're so much of a troll that you have a macro set up to edit the
quoted material of the posts you're responding to? That's pretty
amazing commitment to being a complete asshole!

I have to ask what kind of person is it who thinks that restoring
unaltered the relevant original text is the action of a troll?

Could it be that it is the action of a person why wishes to imply by
the nature of his response that the original text said something
other than it did? No, it could hardly be that, could it?

"action of a person why wishes"? Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Quote editing is a troll tactic, yes. You have done it many times now.

I've corrected the typo. It now reads:

Could it be that it is the action of a person why wishes to imply by
the nature of his response that the original text said something
other than it did? No, it could hardly be that, could it?

I'm sure you can understand the import of my comment now. There is no
'quote editing'. There is only response distortion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

I've corrected the typo. It now reads:

Not interested, if you continue to edit my quoted material, then you have
nothing more to add that relates to the actual topic being discussed.

--
Sandman[.net]

On 9 Aug 2014 10:24:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

I've corrected the typo. It now reads:

Not interested, if you continue to edit my quoted material, then you have
nothing more to add that relates to the actual topic being discussed.



What a liar!

By now it should be obvious all I've been doing is putting back the
original text to show how your 'response' distorts the actual topic
being discussed. No wonder you surreptitiously delete the text within
posts. You need to do so to conceal how you distort the discussion.
You have a blatant disregard for the truth.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
I've corrected the typo. It now reads:

Sandman:
Not interested, if you continue to edit my quoted material, then
you have nothing more to add that relates to the actual topic
being discussed.

What a liar!

By now it should be obvious all I've been doing is putting back the
original text to show how your 'response' distorts the actual topic
being discussed. No wonder you surreptitiously delete the text
within posts. You need to do so to conceal how you distort the
discussion. You have a blatant disregard for the truth.

Troll tactic: Role Reversal.

You are the one changing the content of posts, not I.

--
Sandman[.net]

On 10 Aug 2014 05:43:26 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
I've corrected the typo. It now reads:

Sandman:
Not interested, if you continue to edit my quoted material, then
you have nothing more to add that relates to the actual topic
being discussed.

What a liar!

By now it should be obvious all I've been doing is putting back the
original text to show how your 'response' distorts the actual topic
being discussed. No wonder you surreptitiously delete the text
within posts. You need to do so to conceal how you distort the
discussion. You have a blatant disregard for the truth.

Troll tactic: Role Reversal.

You are the one changing the content of posts, not I.

Haw!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-08-09, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

I've corrected the typo. It now reads:

Not interested, if you continue to edit my quoted material, then you have
nothing more to add that relates to the actual topic being discussed.

Uh... what actual topic ?

The only topic in the posts of you guys is the content of your previous
posts.



--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson