Google| Subject | Re: Apple Ad debate |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 07/04/2006 10:49 (07/04/2006 10:49) |
| Message-ID | <mr-E7FFCF.10491804072006@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Snit (3h & 37m) > Sandman |
In article <C0CF75F2.53F1B%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>wrote:
SnitYou're a troll, according to the Objective Troll Criteria, and I am not.
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net>stated in post mr-BA5E3C.10304704072006@individual.net on 7/4/06 1:30 AM:SandmanSnit
In article <C0CF6F89.53F04%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>wrote:SandmanYeah, I noticed. He's doing a lot of "ignore facts and make up a flase summary instead" lately.Snit
Sandman fits his own trolling criteria: Unsubstantiated accusations
You will find substantiation here:
http://csma.sandman.net/pages/AntagonizingThreads
Look at Examples. They grow you know. It's only one so far, but the save-back function of the Trolling Criteria was just recently developed.
Other than proving you have an agenda, showing off your antagonizing media or whatever you call it, and otherwise proving you fit your own criteria, did you have a point you wanted to make?
Boy are you regretting that you REQUESTED the Troll Criteria from me. As the criteria notes:
"t is important to note that this very list could be called "antagonizing through other media" since it points to specific people, mostly Michael, throughout the definitions. But fact is that Michael himself requested this very list of objective troll criteria, and as such - it doesn't really constitute trolling."
-- Sandman[.net]
07/02/2006-
