news

Re: Apple Ad debate

Snit
SubjectRe: Apple Ad debate
FromSnit
Date07/04/2006 10:05 (07/04/2006 01:05)
Message-ID<C0CF6F61.53F03%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
Client
Newsgroupscomp.sys.mac.advocacy
FollowsSandman
FollowupsSandman (22m) > Snit

"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net>stated in post mr-F38A57.09281304072006@individual.net on 7/4/06 12:28 AM:

Sandman
In article <C0CEEC1C.53DC8%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>wrote:

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.

Sandman
Why do they only speak poorly of you?

Snit
Not only is your premise false, the contrary statement has been made recently. I have shown where people speak poorly of you and Carroll as well. And the three of us are not the only ones.

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

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.

You have your work cut out for you... though likely you will just cut and run.

Why do all these "trolls" flock around just you?

Snit
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.

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

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.

Why are you against long threads?

Snit
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?

Well, who else points out your lies? Nobody does so as often as I do, not that I know of anyway. I do not follow all of your conversations, though, so others may. You should know this better than I do but I suspect you will deny it.

Snit
Do you believe I point out more of your lies than anyone else?

Sandman
I think you troll more than anyone else.

You are welcome to have unfounded and rather silly ideas such as that. I do not mind.

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

Sandman
Obviously you're talking about yourself.

Snit
Again you try to speak for me. No, Sandman, I was speaking of you and the other mentioned trolls: Carroll, Adams, Wally...

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

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

Do you want me to find examples where you snip and run? Where Steve does? Tim? All very easy to do.

Snit
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.

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

Snit
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".

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

Snit
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

Please define what you mean by "trolling circus".

Snit
falsely attributing quotes

Sandman
You again.

Snit
Please provide an example.

Sandman
The dog shit example. Done.

You mean when I *honestly* quote Edwin and you and he lie about it. Again, the Google record proves me right... Edwin is the author of that quote. Since his first stating of his repulsive quote he has been dishonestly attributing it to me. Do you need me to point out the exact post *again* where he first authored the quote and dishonestly attributed it to me?

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

Sandman
Done.

Your lies are not support.

Snit
running from clear evidence of your lies

Sandman
You again. Go figure.

Snit
See above. Look at how you run from the facts in your trolling summary.

Sandman
And how you run from yours:

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 [X] Projection 8 [X] 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>

7. Projection ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Entire essays could be written on this particular criteria. Suffice it to say, that a troll is often eager to project his own shortcomings upon others so his own will be less obvious. For instance, a troll is often found accusing its "opponents" of the things he himself is being accused of, often using the same phrasing. A good example of this is Michael Glassers "Snit Circus", a term coined by Sandman [1]to describe the never ending loop of Snit trolling most threads Michael Glasser joins end up in. Michael himself has since then tried to label his opponents posts as a circus, calling them troll and picking up current phrases used to describe him. The troll does this so that a casual reader who isn't informed will see these labels in reference to not only the trolls actions, but also his opponents actions.

1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3c374e5a389 1fa0b>

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.

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

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. How funny. I bet you thought people read all your rubbish, eh?

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.

Snit
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.

Sandman fits his own criteria: Unsubstantiated accusations

Snit
I, being very focused on honor and honesty

Sandman
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.

Snit
Again, more of your personal attacks - and again without a shred of evidence.

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

Sandman fits his own criteria: Unsubstantiated accusations

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

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

Snit
More of your silly lies - as has been pointed out, others talk about your trolling - not just me. Same can be said for Carroll, Adams, etc. I am not the only one to note your trolling.

Sandman
Actually, you are. Neither of the above people have huge Snit-like network of people telling them they're trolls.

Sandman fits his own criteria: Unsubstantiated accusations, having an agenda,

Snit
Keep in mind, though, that even if 1000 people suddenly jumped up and down and proclaimed you, or me, or Carroll or *anyone* a troll, a liar, or whatever, that would not be evidence.

Sandman
Which is to an expected standpoint foor someone like you - who has the largest amount of people call him a troll in the history of csma, and still would like to deny he is a troll. For any sane people, having 20, 30, 40 or 1000 people constantly telling him that he's a troll, he would get the point.

Sandman fits his own criteria: Unsubstantiated accusations

Snit
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.

You think far too highly of your endless battering.

-- ??Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros ? Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family" ? OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users


Thread