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

In article <C22701B3.7B425%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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?

<snip>

In the end, Sandman, yes, I do believe that threads can be started in
response to a precipitating event

Thanks for answering the question.

You focus on people starting threads in response to Steve's trolling
and seem to not be able to understand why his threads and replied,
posted for *no* reason other than to troll and flame, are different
than the posts done in reply to his.

Your argument hinges on the presumption that Jesus responded to troll
posts from Steve and Steve responded to non-troll posts from yourself.
Both you and I are fully aware of the fact that Steve Carroll does not
agree with that presumption and as far as I am aware, he is in fact
responding to you - in new threads or otherwise - because he thinks
you are a troll.

So, in the end:

- Jesus responded to Steve Carroll because he thinks he is a troll
- Steve responded to you because he thinks you are a troll

And presumably, you have "responded", again in new threads or
otherwise, to Steve because you thought he was a troll.

These three situations are identical. Each person responds in the
manner they do because they think the other one is a troll. There is
no divine entity here to judge who is correct and who is incorrect.
Everyone knows that neither of these agrees with the others viewpoint.

I wish Steve would stop starting new threads in his trolling

Do you mean like you have? You have posted less threads about Steve,
or others, lately. But I think, but haven't checked, that you have in
the past started - numerically - a lot more threads about Steve than
vice versa. That's just an assumption on my part, though.

You spend time questioning those responding to Steve's trolling; have you
even asked Steve about his trolling or called him on it?

I can't answer that question since it assumes I am agreeing with your
description of his behaviour.

If you're asking if I've ever questioned Steves behaviour in this
group, then yes, I have.

Remember that I questioned Jesus' behaviour in this thread not because
of what he did, but the reason for why he did it. You're the one who
entered the discussion "defending" Jesus. Why are you not defending
Steve Carroll for the same reason? After all, Jesus started a new
thread about Steve Carroll. Steve has never started a new thread about
Jesus.


--
Sandman[.net]
.

Relevant Pages