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

"Sandman" <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
mr-909AD6.09150822032007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/22/07 1:15 AM:

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?

I did respond, fully, to your question. You snipped the answer. You have
ended any chance of reasoned dialog between us in this thread - you just snip
and run.

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

Thanks for answering the question.

I have done so repeatedly. One example:

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.

It is not honest of you to snip replies to your questions and then pretend
they have not been replied to.

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.

Incorrect. In most of Steve's posts he is not responding to *any* posts
from me. He is merely spewing forth trolling. *Nothing* more. He is not
adding *anything* of value to CSMA. This is beyond obvious, Sandman. Any
denial of this is, frankly, clearly dishonest.

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.

What Steve says on this issue is irrelevant. Completely. His word is of
zero value. To pretend differently would be dishonest.

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

Incorrect. And, frankly, dishonest of you to say. Steve is not
*responding* to anything... he is spewing forth vile hate filled posts in
response to nothing but his own psychological problems. Again, Sandman, to
pretend otherwise is not honest.

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.

Again, Sandman, there is no equivalence between what Steve is doing and what
I or Jesus or John are doing. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

I wish Steve would stop starting new threads in his trolling[, but I also
wish he would stop his trolling in existing threads. I am happy, however,
that people are calling him on his trolling - even if I do not agree 100%
with every form of response.] - returned what was snipped

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.

Who cares who has started more threads and when and why? That is a bizarre
and meaningless statistic. Steve tends to alter names of threads... count
that (as if it had any meaning, either!)

In the end you are frantically searching for some stat that can make me look
anywhere near as despicable as Steve, no matter how weak the stat's value
might be.

That is not honest of you, Sandman, and I shan't pretend otherwise.

You spend time questioning those responding to Steve's trolling; have you
even asked Steve about his trolling or called him on it? I do not believe so
- the most I have seen from you is a denial that you are defending him.

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

The fact that he is aggressively spewing forth massive amounts of BS
trolling into CSMA is hardly a debatable point. Again, if you pretend
otherwise you are lying. I am *not* going to get sucked into defending
something that is so amazingly obvious - Steve Carroll is in one of his
trolling frenzies. This is simple fact.

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

That is, however, not what I am asking. Have you questioned his recently
behavior? Have you called him on his trolling frenzy? I do not believe
so... but you do nit pick and whine about my behavior. This shows your
bias. Again, Sandman, to pretend otherwise would be dishonest.

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?

To defend Steve Carroll's trolling frenzy would be absurd. The very fact
you ask is, frankly, quite the "tell" of your bias.

After all, Jesus started a new thread about Steve Carroll. Steve has never
started a new thread about Jesus.

Please note your irrational focus on thread-starting... as I note, above,
this is a meaningless stat you selected to support your bias.

Do not expect further responses in this thread, Sandman. Have the last
word, it will make you, I suppose, happy. In the end, however, there is
nothing you can say that can alter how clearly you have just shown your
irrational bias to be. Thanks for making it so clear.

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

--
? Teaching is a "real job"
? The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
? The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets




.