Re: [OT] We have a troll - 02-25-2006 , 09:18 PM
Quoth "Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight (AT) gmail (DOT) com>:
(There *is* an Ellison connection; see the Wikipedia entry on The
Terminator if need be :-).)
Rules of the Evil Overlord #193. "If I am using the hero's girlfriend
as a hostage and am holding her at the point of imminent death when
confronting the hero, I will focus on her and not him. He won't try
anything with his true love held hostage. On the other hand, the fact
that she has been weak, slow-witted, naive and generally useless up to
this point has no bearing on her actions at the moment of dramatic
Re: [OT] We have a troll - 02-25-2006 , 10:10 PM
"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote
Re: [OT] We have a troll - 02-25-2006 , 10:58 PM
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne (AT) acm (DOT) org> wrote:
claiming that one side of a religious dispute is allowed to troll
while another is not allowed to speak, at all?
Go down his examples. People have called each other names on Usenet
for a long time. These same individuals calling me names, would call
others just the same thing, in other threads, when they became
frustrated that they didn't get full agreement, or whatever injury
Re: [OT] We have a troll - 02-25-2006 , 11:05 PM
"David Cressey" <dcressey (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:
context, from people sometimes engaged in religious arguments, where
they quickly turned to trolling, and insanity, including calling me a
troll. You ought to investigate a little further, and see the sort who
made those accusations.
There's a long message which I posted in this thread which explains
all of that. It's the part he didn't tell you.
Re: [OT] We have a troll - 02-25-2006 , 11:20 PM
Mark Johnson <102334.12 (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:
threads in this ng, but was careful not to include any of my replies
to such accusations. In his court, I could not defend myself. And I
took him to task for that, subsequently.
Re: We have a troll - 02-25-2006 , 11:36 PM
Reasonable sources for dealing with this sort of thing, given it now
appears to be occuring on cdt, can be found at:
A noteworthy line from the above links is: "When you try to reason with
a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at
a troll, he wins. The _only_ thing that trolls can't handle is being
all best, Jim.
Re: We have a troll - 02-26-2006 , 12:30 AM
"JOG" <jog (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote:
trolling. Stop with the character attacks. Stop with all this useless
Enough already! How many times does it have to be said. Enough with
these pointless threads.
Re: [OT] We have a troll - 02-26-2006 , 03:56 AM
Marshall Spight wrote:
opposing camp/argument, but this one is obviously different.
I can only assume some institution providing care has allowed access to
usenet for release. I can't conceive of a person in this condition
functioning in the wider world.
It is curious, perhaps a badge of honour, that the same call sign has
been in use for so long.