Subject:
|
Re: Robert: Just another Troll
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Apr 2001 15:58:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
853 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Robert Bevens writes:
> Well your lame was pretty pathetic. You shouldn't expect any more
> than you're willing to give out yourself.
Hahaha. You got ever worse - where's this cleverness you keep gloating
about? A Mystic 8-Ball has better comebacks. Concentrate and ask again.
>
> > I thought you said you are clever - I'd
> > figure you'd use something good for a stock phrase. I'm not impressed.
>
> I think maybe I missed a meeting, I didn't know we were flaming
> against one another.
I think I missed that same meeting - why are you flaming *everyone*? I'm
for one sick of it. Basically, I'm dishing out to you what you have been
doing to everyone else. This is something of a waste on my part because
absolutely no one needs me to point out the troll that you are. Honestly,
fools like you are best ignored - if you can't be in the spotlight, you'll
eventually go away.
> If that was the case I probably would have given
> out a classic like, "I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are.
> I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid, so
> stupid it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different
> dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid.
> Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have
> collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape.
> Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid.
> You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a
> year. Quasar stupid. Nothing in our universe can really be this
> stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original
> big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated
> by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know."
But at least I'm still smarter than you. And more concise.
>
> > > > > That's not to say I'm trying to manipulate
> > > > > anybody, it just means I'm trying to control the way the debate
> > > > > unfolds.
>
> > > > You failed in your stated purpose. It seems you aren't as clever as you like
> > > > to think you are.
>
> > > I like how you say I failed in my stated purpose, but then fail to
> > > explain why. Not that it's any real surprise.
>
> > Oh, I'm sorry - you keep telling me how clever you are. I thought you could
> > figure it out. Here's a box of cookies while you think on it. Run along,
> > junior.
>
> Is there no floor to your intelligence?
Couldn't figure it out, could you, junior? Here's another box of cookies.
Oh, and to help you along, you have been refering to others as "son", an
attempt to belittle them. Which (pay attention, boy, I'm talking to you) is
exactly what I'm doing back. So, if you feel there is no floor to my
intelligence, then you are making the same comment about yourself. Mine at
least had an illustrative intent, which is more than I can say for yours.
> > Oh no, let's not take my word on it - anyone fooled by Robert's claim that,
> > "...I have no problems in letting you believe I'm wrong and you're right"?
> > Anyone actually believe his claim? See way up at the top or go back a few
> > messages.
> >
> > See. I'm a fair guy.
>
> I understand your need to dislike me and to think you've somehow
> proven me wrong, who am I to deny you that anamilistic urge?
No one spoke up in your defense, I note. I guess we're just a snarling pack
of animals.
> > So you won't be arguing the other side? What a surprise! Don't play poker
> > if your bluffs can be called so easily.
>
> Oh dang, looks like ya got me again, Cheif. Man yer a lot better at
> this than I am, huh?
Yup. You love to attack people, but when put on the defense (i.e. not
controlling the debate) you're simply pathetic.
>
> > > When I take a side I try to argue and debate it as if
> > > I do truly believe in it.
>
> > No, you are just afraid to really take a position. You really are very
> > transparent.
>
> Well I suppose that's better than being as thick headed as you, huh?
Ooooooo. That was clever - a simple-minded insult! Back on the offense. I
suppose that I shouldn't point out that you simply put in an insult because
you had no substantive answer. Transparent, as noted.
>
> > > I'm not a fraud, I just don't have a set of
> > > beliefs that are written in stone.
>
> > But that means you don't believe the above - or you just lied.
>
> Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a function?
Again, no substantive answer. Couldn't resolve your contradiction, could
you? Where's the cleverness? Here's another box of cookies, junior.
Tell me, would you describe yourself as a self-abuser or merely a troll?
>
> > > I try to redefine my beliefs and
> > > understanding through debating.
>
> > Why? To set your non-existent beliefs in stone? Or do you just get off on
> > jerking people around?
>
> I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem.
I didn't say that you had an attitude problem, but since your guilty
conscience brings it up, you most certainly do. It's hard to have a
perception problem with someone as transparent as you.
>
> > > However the best way I've found to do
> > > that is to argue against the side I'm actually in agreement with.
>
> > Sounds like intellectual masturbation.
>
> Most fortune cookies I've received haven't been half as insightful,
> thank you!!!
Clean up, afterwards, please.
I wonder if they have a can of Instant Billy Goats Gruff somewhere? Lacking
that, I guess I should follow my own advice and switch to ignoring him.
Perhaps that is what we should all do - it's the only proven thing that
works with a troll.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll
|
| (...) Bobby, just answer just *one* question, ok? Just *one*. Here goes...what is your point? *shake* *shake* *shake* ...OUTLOOK NOT SO GOOD... *shake* *shake* *shake* ...REPLY HAZY, TRY AGAIN... *shake* *shake* *shake* ...VERY DOUBTFUL... *shake* (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll
|
| (...) Oh you are so right, what can I say, I guess ya beat me, huh Bruce? (...) Well I'm not actually. I only flame when I get upset or when I'm hired and certainly haven't been hired for anything here, and I'm not upset...it seems you are though. I (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
126 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
