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

In article <C227E31D.7B4E2%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

We've just decided that a "response" can be a direct follow-up or a
new thread. Steve Carrolls posts fall into these two categories (as
does every post in the entire usenet archive).

He is merely spewing forth trolling.

That is your opinion, and is irrelevant to the objective observer.

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.

What gives your word more value, in your opinion?

<snip repeated presumption that Steve Carrolls followups aren't
responses>

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?

It's pretty relevant in a thread about who is responding to who, in
new threads or otherwise.

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.

Where am I searching and what were my search results? Why are you
making claims about my actions you couldn't possibly support?

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.

Of course it is, why would you even think otherwise? It is clear that
*you* have seen his action and concluded them to be "trolling", but
one person does not make a judge.

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 still can't answer that question since it assumes I'm agreeing with
your opinion of his behaviour.

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.

The question was why you didn't defend Steve Carroll on the same basis
you're defending Jesus? Their actions are the same. Only your bias
would make you defend one and not the other.

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...

Irrrational to focus on what this thread is about? Hmmm.



--
Sandman[.net]
.