[not from the Armey thread - this is from the "I've Been Caught..." thread - but I wanted to document yet another lie from the lying liar:]

Lying crapweasel Charles Johnson deletes comments #174, #176, and #177 by fluffyabsolutist and then characterizes the comments as a ‘melt down’:

181- Charles +1 [Tue, Sep 14, 2010 8:37:56am]
And another member of the class of 2004 wakes up and melts down.
Whenever I post an article defending myself against an attack from these idiots, this happens.

Judge for yourself:

35- (reply to 32 ) Charles +3 [Mon, Sep 13, 2010 9:26:15am ] 3 replies (14 total)
I removed two words from the post. The entire post is still there for anyone to read. The words were removed because they were wrong. It’s kind of silly to say I should footnote and document insignificant changes like this. If I had added or removed something of real substance I would have noted it in a dated update, as I always do.

174- (reply to 35 ) fluffyabsolutist -3 [Tue, Sep 14, 2010 12:20:50am ] 1 reply (2 total)
    ”If I had added or removed something of real substance I would have noted it in a dated update, as I always do.”
Dear me. Really, really pathetic. By all means change your position, but have some integrity for goodness sake. Practice what you preach. Changes to old published articles should be signalled to the reader. It’s up to them do decide if a change is significant. I think the surreptitiousness of the edit says a lot about significance, at least in the mind of the editor.

128- JeffM70 +1 [Mon, Sep 13, 2010 10:42:58am ] 1 reply
The thing is you were honest about it, Charles. Rather than change the post secretly, you posted an update saying the article has been edited and linked to an explanation as to why. Boy, they caught you red-handed admitting a change. How sneaky of you.

176- (reply to 128 ) fluffyabsolutist -2 [Tue, Sep 14, 2010 12:35:19am ]
In fact, the update was initially surreptitious (you’d need to look elsewhere to discover this). Makes sense, given the ‘updated’ link is to this article, which was prompted by the pointing and jumping up and down from the evildoers..

175- (reply to 174 ) tnguitarist [Tue, Sep 14, 2010 12:32:22am ] 1 reply
And what is this whole post?

177- (reply to 175 ) fluffyabsolutist -1 [Tue, Sep 14, 2010 12:35:50am ]
Damage control? I have no idea.

(Notice in post #128 naive user JeffM70 thinks that Charles didn’t change the 2008 post secretly.)

Some loozards have excused Charles’ behavior because he, after the fact, linked to this thread from the surreptitiously edited 2008 post. They excused him because this thread was supposed to be explication of, and perhaps a little penance for, that ‘edit’. But Mad King Yertle will abide none of either, and so he strips the truth from the ‘explanatory’ thread.

The loozards that have chosen to remain in this fetid swamp will, however, obviously abide anything, and they are, all of them, beneath contempt, beyond ridicule, and utterly bereft of integrity. It’s the LGF tipping point. When the game was “refute Charles’ ill-considered, poorly argued, historically inconsistent, newly embraced leftist positions” it could be fun. Now the game is “see if you can catch sneaky Charles cheating” and only loons and loozards will be playing.