On Fri, 21 May 2004 18:24:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:56:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote
>> >
>> >> Snipping without notation is a whole lot different to
>> >> editing an opponent's posts before then replying to
>> >> them.
>> >
>> >No it's not,
>>
>> Yes, it most certainly is. To edit your opponent's
>> post before replying to it is merely arguing with
>> yourself instead of your opponent.
>
>It's more than that, it's misrepresenting your opponent's point of view

Exactly!

>which is exactly what you do. In fact you hardly do anything else.

My snips, like yours aren't always noted, but that
Usenet protocol is a whole lot different to your and
"usual suspect"'s editing of your opponent's sentences.
What's more is that "usual suspect" denies he alters
his opponents sentences despite the evidenc I bring
here proving he does. http://tinyurl.com/2ox8r Just
follow that short thread from the beginning and you'll
see that he edited my posts before making his replies
to them. Once again, it's proven beyond all doubt that
he's lying

>> It's the most
>> reprehensible tactic available to him and cannot
>> be excused
>
>I'm not excusing it, I'm applauding it.

Goody for you, and I'm not surprised, since you have
also edited my posts as well.

For the record, when you asked me about the contents
of my grocery basket I told you it was fallen apples
and mustard cress. You edited those items in your
reply post to include non-vegan products without noting
it, hoping the reader in google archives would note I
actually buy those items. Your excuse for that unethical
stunt was just as unethical. You claimed you did it because
you thought I was lying, yet I might've actually been on a
vegan-type fast at the time of your asking.