Skip to main content
news

Re: Apple Ad debate

Sandman
Google Google
SubjectRe: Apple Ad debate
FromSandman
Date07/04/2006 (07/04/2006)
Message-ID<mr-001B50.00001804072006@individual.net>
Client
Newsgroupscomp.sys.mac.advocacy
FollowsSnit
FollowupsSnit (45m) > Sandman
In article <C0CEDCD2.53D9A%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>wrote:

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

Snit
Why don't you try the truth? The fact is trolls who infest advocacy groups, such as yourself, tend to speak poorly of me.

Why do they only speak poorly of you? Why do all these "trolls" flock around just you?

Keep in mind how often you and the other trolls sink to dishonest snipping,

Obviously you're talking about yourself. You always snip/ignore/block when you can't handle the truth. Which is pretty much always. You even did it in this post!

falsely attributing quotes

You again.

running from clear evidence of your lies

You again. Go figure.

I, being very focused on honor and honesty

Although, not in csma, where you're focused on everything but honor and honesty, given the onslaught of lying you do on a daily basis.

I am "rewarded" with more of your trolling. So be it.

Why is it that you're the only one that's being "rewarded", Michael? What's so special about you?

Gee, care to support your personal attacks against me?

Sandman
Again?

Snit
If you claim you have, please point to the post.

Lookup the Relational Troll Statistical Model.

Again note how happy I am to do so

BUt yet you never do, in spite of being "happy", whatever that has to do with anything.

though then you and other trolls whine that I post the same info repeatedly. So be it. There is nothing wrong with you posting something again when you are asked or when it is appropriate.

But no one ever asks for your antagonizing threads that are shock-filled with your lies. No one. Ever.

Sandman
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.

Snit
What makes you think that?

I don't think that - you do.

Sandman
You have never engaged in honesty in csma.

Snit
Please note how when I accuse you of lying, as I just did, I provide a clear example.

Where?

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

Snit
Incorrect - you claimed my "persona", which is to be honest and honorable

No, your "persona" is to be a troll that is the most hated and most killfiled in the history of csma.

is a troll persona.

Obfuscation.

Denying your lies does not make them go away.

Sandman
Claiming they exist doesn't create any.

Snit
We can debate this all we like, Sandman

No, you can't. "debating" isn't in your basic programming.

but the fact is you are neglecting to point out any lies you think I have told.

Only if you ignore the ONSLAUGHT of lies I have pointed out, of course.

Sandman
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.

Snit
Do you value your participation in the group-think group in CSMA?

I value being honest and reasonable, yes.

Sandman
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.

Snit
Yet you think that the words of you, Carroll, Adams, Wally and other such trolls who lie so often should hold value. Do you see your hypocrisy?

Neither of which have huge Snit-like network of people that agrees with you that we're trolls. Go figure.

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.

Sandman
And Michael runs, just like I said he would.

Snit
What point do you think I "ran" from?

Every single one.

Sandman
See, this is exactly why I so rarely actually talk with you,

Snit
But above you claimed you were part of the group that follows me around trolling and calling me names.

Where above? Obfuscation.

Sandman
and just fall back on pointing out your lies and trolling.

Snit
What lie? What trolling?

All of it. This very post is an example of me pointing out your lies and your trolling.

<snip Snit Circus>

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

6. Thread hijacking ---------------------------------------------------------------------- When a troll has issues with a specific person (or several), the troll will be inclined to bring up this issue whenever it is humanly possible, even if it means to enter a totally unrelated thread to post a lengthy post about why poster X is stupid as a reply to something that had nothing to do with X at all. A very good example of that is in this post [1] where Michael hijacks a thread just because the concept of sex was mentioned and that gave him the opportunity to once again mentioned a totally unrelated sex-based issue he is having with Steve Carroll.

1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b4775197aa7 0e598>

8. Unsubstantiated accusations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A troll needs to accuse people of all sort of things, and since substantiating accusations is time consuming, the troll is likely to accuse people without substantiation. This is of course closely related to obfuscation, since most of the time when the troll actually does offer substantiation, it's based on the trolls own obfuscation.

14. Having an agenda ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A troll always have an agenda, a goal or a motive. Something that drives the troll. This is very apparent when the troll hijacks threads [1] or when he is creating antagonizing threads [2].

Without the agenda, the troll has no purpose. The Agenda is not static, however, and evolves along the way when the troll finds new objective, enemies or issues to incorporate into the Agenda.

1:<http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=91362> 2:<http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=91358>

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

-- Sandman[.net]

Google
Snit (45m) > Sandman