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

"Sandman" <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
mr-F4B584.09290221032007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/21/07 1:29 AM:

In article <C2262A95.7B368%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

So new threads can now be considered "responses"? Ok, so why did you
compare this to Steve Carroll, whose new threads also could be
considered responses to a supposed trolling from you? What do you
think the difference is, Michael?

Sandman, I find it sad that you repeatedly run from questions and just snip
them. Here are the questions you ran from... repeatedly in some cases:

* Do you think Steve Carroll will ever grow up enough to stop spewing
lies and half truths about me in his .sig? I do not.

* You claimed I was bringing up old "***". I noted that this was not
the case and that
- you dragged up old posts of mine from the last year
- made accusations based on them
- you 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?

A simple apology for your accusations would do on that one, Sandman.

It is clear you and I disagree on the idea if threads can be started in
response to a precipitating event. I believe they can be, and even believe
you have done so in the past. You, however, seem to disagree and keep
asking me over and over if I really believe this to be the case or if I
think Steve's trolling threads are responses... to what you will not say.

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

--
? If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
? Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
? One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted




.