Skip to main content
news

Re: Apple Ad debate

Sandman
SubjectRe: Apple Ad debate
FromSandman
Date07/03/2006 23:21 (07/03/2006 23:21)
Message-ID<mr-0CE0E9.23211003072006@individual.net>
Client
Newsgroupscomp.sys.mac.advocacy
FollowsSnit
FollowupsSnit (19m) > Sandman

In article <C0CECC4B.53D68%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>wrote:

Snit
What makes you think my "persona" is any different in other groups?

Sandman
I don't.

Snit
Then why do you think I am not followed around by trolls such as yourself elsewhere?

I've given two possible explanations. A third would be that you're lying.

Sandman
I offered it as an explanation. Another reason could be that they are more tolerant towards trolls in your other groups. I really don't know why they tolerate you, if you behave the same way there as you do here - where you're the most hated and most killfiled person in the history of csma.

Snit
Gee, care to support your personal attacks against me?

Again?

Funny how people in other groups do not feel the need to spew personal attacks as you do.

You mean as "we" do, don't you? After all, you're being persecuted by several "trolls" here, right? For some unspeakable reason, a whole slew of "trolls" have decided unanimously to harass you and only you in csma. Strange indeed.

I am honest and honorable wherever I am, not just in CSMA.

Sandman
You meant "just not in CSMA". Ooops.

Snit
Gee, Sandman, do I get to speak for you, too?

No, Sandman, I meant exactly what I wrote.

So then you lied? You have never engaged in honesty in csma.

I do find it sad how you refer to being honest and honorable as being a "troll persona"; says a lot about your values.

Sandman
Obfuscation.

Snit
How do you figure?

I have never refered to being honest and honorable as being a troll persona.

Fact is nobody lies about me the way you and the other trolls of CSMA do.

Sandman
Given that the amount of "lies" I tell about you is "zero", you just said that nobody tells zero lies about you.

Snit
Denying your lies does not make them go away.

Claiming they exist doesn't create any.

Sandman
Why do so many people tell all these lies, Michael? Is it a conspiracy?

Snit
Keep in mind a lot of people speak poorly of you, Carroll, and others in CSMA. These are things I have conclusively shown to be true.

Sure they do. Problem is, I don't have a whole pack of people with whom I constantly argue that constantly keep calling me a troll. You do.

In fact, the people that HAVE called me troll are people who have huge almost Snit-like arrays of people calling them trolls, such as Mayor, or Josh or Edwin.

Why do you think that is you and other trolls in CSMA see me one way and people who are not CSMA trolls do *not* see me that way?

Sandman
Yeah - why is that? Why are you the most hated person in the history of csma? Why is it that every single person you keep arguing with pretty much only argue with you, and isn't having lengthy discussions with lots of OTHER people. The common factor is you, and only you. Why is that? How come all these evil "trolls" like Steve, George, Tim, Ed, Wally, Sandman, Elizabot, Jim, Rick, Steve, Alan all focus on only you? What makes you so special for these "trolls"? Why can't they find someone else to troll?

The important thing here is how you relate to them. You claim they troll YOU. Which - if the above scenario were true - would be correct, since they only make fun of you, only "harass" you. But the difference is when you ask each of them about you - they probably won't say "Yeah, Snit trolls ME". They would probably all say "Yeah, Snit trolls THE GROUP". You're a troll of csma, not a troll of just a single person.

Because that's a fact. Neither of the above posters match the objective troll criteria other in posts they make to you (things like role reversal for example). It's not a common thing for them to any other poster. They don't create antagonizing threads on a regular basis, they don't create sock puppets and things like that.

You're the only one, in the ENTIRE group that matches the objective troll criteria in so many ways in so many thread sto so many posters. Sure, there are "lesser" trolls such as Josh and the Mayor that also match the criteria on a wide basis - but they couldn't hold a candle to you if their life depended on it.

The above were one of those rare moments where I actually talk with you (as opposed to just make fun of you and prove that you're a troll). We'll see how much you snip and/or run :-D

Snit
Posting accusations and noting how your group think buddies agree does not support your claims. Please note that I happily support my claims in relation to you with actual data and quotes from you. You simply cannot do so. That, too, is very telling.

And Michael runs, just like I said he would. See, this is exactly why I so rarely actually talk with you, and just fall back on pointing out your lies and trolling.

Snit Objective Troll Criteria Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 [X] Obfuscation 2 [ ] Antagonizing threads 3 [X] Ignoring evidence 4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media 5 [ ] Quote-scavanging 6 [ ] Thread hijacking 7 [ ] Projection 8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations 9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations" 10 [ ] Forging posts and material 11 [ ] Insults 12 [ ] Role Reversal 13 [ ] Lying 14 [ ] Having an agenda 15 [ ] Diversion ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Obfuscation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a trolls main weapon. Most trolls are not very good debaters or have very good or compelling arguments, so it's of outmost importance that they are well versed in obfuscation instead. This is mainly noticeable when their "opponents" say something that has even the slightest chance to be misinterpreted. So even if this misinterpretation is the most far fetched on can think of, it's naturally the only valid way it could possibly be interpreted according to the troll. A fine example of this is in one of Steve Carrolls posts which was a reply to CSMA_Moderator (a periodic poster that posts quotes that point out the number of people that has said unfavorable things about Michael Glasser. Steve Carroll posted this reply [1] to the original post and quite clearly only quoted one quote and stated that he was the author of that quote. It is noteworthy that he directs his comment to Snit, which is due to the fact that somehow Snit wants to claim that Steve is the one who is posting as CSMA_Moderator and Steve just plays the same card back.

Snit, being a troll, responds [2] by interpreting Steves reply as an admittance that he is not the author of the quote he quoted, he is the author of the entire post that was posted under the name CSMA_Moderator. You can't get much far fetched than that.

1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9f843713b31 751a1> 2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fbee674dfde 048da>

3. Ignoring evidence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A troll is likely to end up in situations where he has made some really wild claims about something. When facts and proof is posted, the troll needs to ignore or evade that in order to keep his "act" up.

An example would be when Edwin posted about there being 830 *million* workstations [1] sold in the first half of 2004. This number turned out to be a misprint, but the fact that the number was totally ludicrous didn't stop Edwin from ignoring common sense and kept on supporting the number.

1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4efb772585f 7b922>

---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Objective Troll Criteria http://csma.sandman.net/TrollCriteria ----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Sandman[.net]

Snit (19m) > Sandman