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

In article <C2293EA5.7B623%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Sandman" <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
mr-3FF656.11351623032007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 3/23/07 3:35 AM:

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.


A post *can* be a response... even a start of a thread.

This does not imply that all posts or thread starts *are* responses.

You show no understanding of that... hence your false claim that Jesus was
acting as Carroll.

Said the guy who just falsely claimed that Jesus *was* me.

It is an objective fact that Carroll is posting many false and deceptive
things about me. He is doing so in response to *nothing*... he is merely
trolling. You can, of course, try to defend his trolling all you wish, but
you cannot alter the fact that he is, of course, trolling and flaming and
being clearly disruptive to CSMA. To deny any of that is, simply,
dishonest.

I'm "trolling" a well known ng troll, yeah... sure, Snit <eyeroll>.

When you post info on thread-starting and make absurd comments that are
irrelevant to that data, Sandman, you are being dishonest, or, at best,
amazingly foolish in a way that lets your bias be seen clearly by any
objective party.

Feel free to disagree with the above, Sandman, but do not pretend that you
can alter the facts or convince me that your bias is something I should
accept.


His "bias" includes having seen you troll this ng for years. Once again,
you are in 'I'm gonna pretend I don't want to be a troll' mode and are,
once again, found whining about why you are a "target".

Boo hoo... big bad Steve Carroll won't leave me alone... wahhhh!! LOL!

--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
"Once we see or hear of couples - even a relatively small number - who
engage in legal, consensual,adult incestuous relationships, the whole
idea of incest with minors becomes thinkable." - Snit
.