Sandman
You're ignoring and blocking again. Neither of these alleged "trolls" have huge Snit-like network of people calling us trolls.

Snit
Group think does not replace logic.

With that said, please support your claims of who does and does not have any network of people calling whoever names... and then explain why I or anyone should care who calls who names.

What evidence do you have that they do?

Sandman
Reading the group, of course. People like Steve Carroll, Elizabot, Wally, Tim and me doesn't have this long threads that go back and forth for ages with anyone else but you. It's only with you.

Snit
Who else questions their - and your - lies as much as I do?

Sandman
Actually, other people that can muster up long threads are known trolls that do it just to mess with people. Like Edwin, Tom, Mayor to name a few oldies.

Snit
Why are you against long threads?

To the extent that you and the other mentioned trolls "flock" around me the answer is clear - you do the same thing to *anyone* who points out your lies.

Sandman
Such as?

Snit
Well, who else points out your lies?

Nobody does so as often as I do

Sandman
But it's you who constantly snip and run, however.

Snit
But, of course, you cannot support that accusations because....

Do you need me, again, to show examples where you and they sink to dishonest snipping?

Sandman
Do you need me to show you snipping? You did it in the very post I'm replying to. Go figure.

Snit
Incorrect... unless you count your very long and silly .sig or whatever it is you spew at the end of so many of your posts. Would you feel better if I left that rubbish of yours in? If so, why? Heck, even if you cannot give a reason, if it makes you feel better I will leave your end-rubbish in.

You can say that if you wish, but without an example your claim is just another of your empty accusations.

Sandman
Example? I specifically mentioned "this post".

Snit
Ah, I do not quote your end-rubbish. I did not know that offended you. I shall leave it in if you like.

For the record: I have no obligation to respond to your reams of obfuscation, even if you dishonestly label it "evidence".

Sandman
And I have no obligation to respond to your trolling circus

Snit
Please define what you mean by "trolling circus".

Sandman
The dog shit example. Done.

Snit
You mean when I *honestly* quote Edwin and you and he lie about it.

I do wish you to support your claim. Please do.

Sandman
Done.

Snit
Your lies are not support.

Wow... do you often have BS after your "end-rubbish"? I rarely look. Heck, until this post I had never noticed your link to your site where you talk about what makes you a troll.

Let's see, which of your criteria do you often match?

Diversion - you do it often. Heck, why else do you post your end-rubbish?

Having an agenda - you make it clear you have an agenda to bad-mouth me. I mean, wow, look at how much you try to make me look as bad as you. Pathetic.

Lying - you do this repeatedly. Need examples?

Role Reversal - again, you do this often, pretending that when I and others write about you we did not *really* mean you.

Insults - as has been noted, you spew lots of personal insults.

Forging posts and material - well, above you support Edwin forging quotes he, and you, claim are mine.

Unsubstantiated "refutations" - perhaps your trademark. Look at how often you did this in the whole Dreamweaver debate.

Thread hijacking - Your spewing your flames has nothing to do with Apple ads.

Projection - need examples of you doing this repeatedly? Much of it would overlap with your role reversal.

Unsubstantiated accusations - see the section on your insults... you do this very often.

Antagonizing through other media - how many times do you mention me in your web site? You take this one to the extreme!

Quote-scavanging - look at how many posts of mine you "scavenged" for your antagonizing site. Any reason not to count those?

Antagonizing threads - if you find threads designed to reduce the obfuscation of trolls to be antagonizing then that is your problem. I do not follow your threads enough to know if you do this one...

Ignoring evidence - Your utter denial of your lying and your ignorance as shown in the Dreamweaver thread. No need to say anything more, this fits you to a T.

Obfuscation - again, look at the recent discussions on Dreamweaver. It was darn near impossible to stop you from spewing obfuscations. When I found a way to reduce the effects of your obfuscation, no doubt you found it to be antagonizing.

You unambiguously fit 13 of the 14 you list. Thanks for showing what makes you such a troll.

While you can find no legitimate flaw in what I say

Sandman
Other than all the flaws I already found and proved to be lies, of course - which means the entire thing.

Snit
Sandman fits his own criteria: Unsubstantiated accusations

Sandman
Typical Michael ignore mode. Evidence was given to you in the very post you replied to.

Snit
Sandman fits his own criteria: Unsubstantiated accusations

I grow bored with your post. I snipped the rest.

Sandman
Of course, it had facts in it - so you snipped and ran from it.

Snit
You think far too highly of your endless battering.