Re: OT: Steve Carroll's still a Douche Bag (in case you missed it)

"Sandman" <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
mr-25AB32.08124521032007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/21/07 12:12 AM:

In article <C225B8F6.7B2E1%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. Now explain how you're any
different if you flame him?

I have explained the differences to you: Jesus is *responding* to Steve's
trolling.

No

Yes, he is.

Steve, on the other hand, is coming out of the blue and spewing flames and
trolls into CSMA with *no* provocation.

So you understand what this means? You snipped it... not very honest of
you, eh?

There is a world of difference in those two posting styles. Heck, look at
Steve's .sig which contains lies and half-truths... he is not able to bring
himself to stop his trolling and flaming of me. In that way Tim Adams is the
same, but at least the body of Tim's actual posts are sometimes not filled
with such flaming. I believe Tim will actually reach a level of maturity
where his need to beg for attention in such a way will end... I do not
believe Steve will *ever* get there.

Curious: do you think Steve will ever "get there" - will he mature enough to
stop posting antagonizing lies and half truths in his .sig. I have already
gone on record as saying I do not believe Steve will "get there", though I
would be happy to be proved wrong on that.

He just calls me Snit's sock puppet.

I'm not defending Steve at all, but as far as I can see - Snit is the one
that called you someone's sock puppet, namely Steves.

I have yet to get Steve to answer one of my questions - he either ignores
what I said or answers some other question and not the one I asked.

Fine. So stop asking and let it be. If you can't make any progress, why
start multiple threads just to flame him?

He is doing so in *response* to Steve's trolling. If everyone called Steve
on his BS he would, eventually, leave. The only thing that has kept him hear
this long is that people in CSMA have co-trolled with him. He, like any
bully, will slink away without his gang.

Do you agree with this? Disagree? I am curious. It is another comment you
snipped. Odd.

He also reposts the same material over and over, apparently expecting
something new to happen

I can think of at least one other poster in csma that does something very
much like that. :-D

I haven't even been in this group that long and I've seen Steve post the
same *** repeatedly. At least Snit gives some appearance of wanting to
stop the arguments with Steve.

I thought so too, but the second I lifted my killfile, Snit didn't seem to
wait for long before dragging up old ***.

Let's see: you dragged up old posts of mine from the last year, made
accusations based on them, and lied about my past posting (claiming I was
stopping things I had not been doing). I responded by correcting the errors
in your claims and noting where your claims of having me kill filed were, at
best, unlikely.

I did, after we had exchanged a few more posts, note the precipitating event
that lead to your claims of kill filing me. So, Sandman, why do you whine
*I* was bringing up past claims when you were the one who was clearly doing
far more of that?

I would love to have you answer that question. Why did you avoid it?

The new threads were just to mock his new ShitPost series (which, once
again, was a repeat of the usual ShitPost series). Also, I hardly call two
posts "a lot"... certainly pales in comparison to the number of repeat
posts Steve has created.

Fair enough, I just wanted to let you know that to the audience outside of
you and Steve, you wouldn't come off as any better if you use the same
tactics, so to speak.

He is using the "same tactics" only on a very superficial level, though for
someone who is not really paying attention I can see where they could see it
that way.

Question: why don't you question Steve on his clearly more extreme usage of
these "same tactics"?

, he started a thread about Steve Carroll. It's the thread you're currently
writing in. Jesus has realised this and agreed with my conclusion. Who are you
arguing with?

The fact he started a thread in response to Carroll's trolling is not in
question. Why do you pretend it is?

--
I am currently being "targeted" by a forger.
Check the headers to make sure this is not from Individual.net

--
? There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
? There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
? Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS


.