Google| Subject | Re: Apple Ad debate |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 07/04/2006 09:28 (07/04/2006 09:28) |
| Message-ID | <mr-F38A57.09281304072006@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Snit (37m) > Sandman |
In article <C0CEEC1C.53DC8%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>wrote:
You're ignoring and blocking again. Neither of these alleged "trolls" have huge Snit-like network of people calling us trolls.SnitSandmanSandmanSnit
I've given two possible explanations. A third would be that you're lying.
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?
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.
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.SandmanSnit
Why do all these "trolls" flock around just you?
What evidence do you have that they 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.
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.Such as?
Do you believe I point out more of your lies than anyone else?I think you troll more than anyone else.
But it's you who constantly snip and run, however.SnitKeep in mind how often you and the other trolls sink to dishonest snipping,Sandman
Obviously you're talking about yourself.
Again you try to speak for me. No, Sandman, I was speaking of you and the other mentioned trolls: Carroll, Adams, Wally...
Do you need me, again, to show examples where you and they sink to dishonest snipping?Do you need me to show you snipping? You did it in the very post I'm replying to. Go figure.
Example? I specifically mentioned "this post".SandmanSnit
You always snip/ignore/block when you can't handle the truth. Which is pretty much always. You even did it in this post!
You can say that if you wish, but without an example your claim is just another of your empty accusations.
For the record: I have no obligation to respond to your reams of obfuscation, even if you dishonestly label it "evidence".And I have no obligation to respond to your trolling circus
The dog shit example. Done.Snitfalsely attributing quotesSandman
You again.
Please provide an example.
I do wish you to support your claim. Please do.Done.
And how you run from yours:Snitrunning from clear evidence of your liesSandman
You again. Go figure.
See above. Look at how you run from the facts in your trolling summary.
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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
While you can find no legitimate flaw in what I sayOther than all the flaws I already found and proved to be lies, of course - which means the entire thing.
Typical Michael ignore mode. Evidence was given to you in the very post you replied to.SnitI, being very focused on honor and honestySandman
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.
Again, more of your personal attacks - and again without a shred of evidence.
Actually, you are. Neither of the above people have huge Snit-like network of people telling them they're trolls.SnitI 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?
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.
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.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.
I grow bored with your post. I snipped the rest.Of course, it had facts in it - so you snipped and ran from it.
-- Sandman[.net]
07/02/2006-
