Skip to main content
news

Re: Snit's google-seeding

Snit
Google Google
SubjectRe: Snit's google-seeding
FromSnit
Date2017-02-12 22:30 (2017-02-12 14:30)
Message-ID<D4C62220.8F9FD%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Client
Newsgroupscomp.os.linux.advocacy
Followsvallor
On 2/12/17, 2:27 PM, in article egc2arFl6qiU1@mid.individual.net, "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org>wrote:

vallor
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 20:41:06 -0700, Snit wrote:

Snit
On 2/11/17, 5:49 PM, in article eg9posF70s6U6@mid.individual.net, "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org>wrote:

vallor
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 17:10:44 -0700, Snit wrote:

Snit
Jonas Eklundh lied: <https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o>. Period.

vallor
[9 times in the same post]

Unbelievable. "Snit" really is the scum of the Earth.

Snit
This is sorta like how you accused me of spamming the group for RESPONDING to a large number of the trolling posts against me.

Hillarious.

Keep in mind you backed Sandman even after I provided 100% proof I was correct his CSS did not validate, AND showed specifics on his moving of goal posts and direct lies.

<https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o>

I will feel free to post a link to that EVERY time Jonas Eklundh trolls me... he has been doing it for over 10 years... even though the proof of his CSS failing for EVERY example of his WBM archived versions has been available the full time:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>

Absolute proof of my claim... and a decade later he STILL is trolling me. Now THAT is an example of "Google Seeding"... but from Sandman, not me.

Oh, and then we can look at Peter K?hlmann. Keep in mind I do not and will not mention the business sites Sandman is associated with. Peter does that to me pretty much daily and you do not say a word.

Your bias is showing. :)

vallor
https://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#tuquoque _ _ _ _ _ _ _ This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it.

I specifically noted I would NOT do what those who Google Seed do and gave examples (see comments on Peter).

Your claim is a direct lie. A quotable lie. That is a real lie... not like the type you accuse me of.

For instance:

"You're just being randomly abusive."

"So? You've been abusive too."

Not at all what I said. Not even close. I noted and have repeatedly noted I will NOT sink to the level of Peter and Carroll and others in COLA.

This is a personal attack, and is therefore a special case of Argumentum ad Hominem. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

"Snit" needs to apply his sig to himself! Booyah!

I am noting your open hypocrisy. Keep in mind I respond to a SUBSET of the trolling against me. Your response is to whine about my responses.

The real issue is the trolling itself. Why not join me in calling it out? Oh. If you did that the herd would reject you. You are simply posting to please the herd. So be it.

-- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.