Re: This neighborhood is going to the dogs...

Snit wrote:
"TheLetterK" <none@xxxxxxxx> stated in post
QJvMf.41812$X7.37779@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 2/26/06 10:05 PM:



I'm mad because you're a dishonest sack of dog ***.

Yet it is you who has been altering quotes in so many posts recently.
It is you who cannot accept the following true statements:

Prove it.

I have already posted proof. From an earlier post:
-----
By all means find an earlier reference than when you wrote it in this post:
Post: <%dtLf.2719$eQ3.683@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: <http://snipurl.com/myqh>

There is no doubt he is the author of the quote he is now trying to
attribute to me. TLK is lying. Period. No doubt Steve Carroll will not
back down from his claim: Steve approves of such lying as shown by his use
of the same dishonest tactic.

Just to be complete, here is the post TLK was responding to:
Post: <C023A613.464EF%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: <http://snipurl.com/myqn>

Please note that the quote is *not* in that post.
-----

I do not expect, of course, for you to do the right thing and admit to your
dishonesty. Heck, it is very, very unlikely you will stop doing it even
though the Google record is filled with much more proof that that.


Gee, you asked me to prove you are forging quotes and I did.

No, you demonstrated that you did, indeed, write the words that you attribute onto me.

You did not
even give a response.

It doesn't warrant a response. We've been over this many times. I'm not going to encourage your slow thought processes any longer.

Are you planning on *still* piling your lies higher
by denying your dishonest actions? I note below you continue to dishonestly
alter quotes. Do you deny that?

Yes. There's no alterations occurring that distort the original meaning that you attempted to convey.



You have said nothing that changes these lies:

* OS X is *still* partially based on FreeBSD
* You *still* based your contrary claims on multiple definitions
* You *still* have not shown why other definitions even from
the page you linked to are not acceptable to you
* You *still* are denying the mounds of evidence that have been
shown to you from multiple sources, including many others
using the terms contrary to how you feel it should be used
and a definition *you* pointed to
* You *still* are dishonestly attributing your own quotes to me
* You *still* are name calling and spewing insults instead of
making reasoned arguments
* You *still* are saying that I should trust you for no other
reason that you have stated something.

If you disagree, so be it, but I have *no* desire to respond, again, to each
of your points. How many times do you want to have the same conversation?

Until you get it through your pointy little head that unfounded assertions and the quoting of others is not a valid means to defend a point that could easily be proved by the presentation of citations within the code being discussed. If Apple modified FreeBSD, as you claim with your 'based on' assertion, then they would have had to provide proper attribution. Show the attribution and you prove your point. Until then, shut up about it.
.