Subject:
|
Re: Robert: Just another Troll
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Apr 2001 20:27:44 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Q_HARLEQUIN_P@HOTMAIL.COMihatespam
|
Viewed:
|
987 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 15:58:48 GMT, "Bruce Schlickbernd"
<corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> > 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.
Oh you are so right, what can I say, I guess ya beat me, huh Bruce?
> > > 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*?
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 mean look at you, here you are
trying to egg me on, creating thread offshoots in which you change the
subject to slander me, you backpedal and sidestep every time I bring
up a good point you can't argue or debate against and you're generally
just throwing a fit. I on the other hand am perfectly rational and
calm about the whole situation. Want some good advice Bruce? Take a
day off from obsessing over my posting and just relax, it'll do you
some good I think.
> I'm
> for one sick of it. Basically, I'm dishing out to you what you have been
> doing to everyone else.
I see, you've been hurt, you think everyone else has been hurt and you
feel a need to get back at me for being such a terrible person. You
know Bruce, perhaps I'm secretly a lesson in growing thicker skin.
Although that's not my purpose it seems like good after effect.
> This is something of a waste on my part because
> absolutely no one needs me to point out the troll that you are.
I'm a troll? LOL, if you think I'm a troll you really have no idea.
If I were trolling Lugnet, it probably wouldn't be here, and if anyone
ever did try and troll Lugnet, just what exactly do you think is the
only thing standing in their way? Oh, oh that's right, me. I mean
you people really don't have any clue as to what you almost did to
your own group about 6 months ago when you said my name was the M--
Ha--er. I mean did it even once occur to you all that there are
people who are so pathetically obsessed with getting back at me that
they search ALL DAY LONG for any kind of reference that even vaguely
points to me? And that those people know they can't attack me head on
and so they will attack groups and such that they think I'm interested
in. If you want to know how bad a real troll invasion can be why
don't you go to say alt.fan.scarecrow (where I did my latest work) and
ask them about the situation. Or why don't I just include a quote
from Pauls:
"Thank you.
I owe you big time.
You did an unmistakable job."
See Bruce, sometimes I may not seem like a very nice guy, but all in
all, I am, and a lot of times I'm one of the only people you can turn
to when you've got some kind of a major problem on the Inet. Yes
there are some who question my methods, in fact my methods (which you
have not even seen) are so damaging and chaotic that it caused a few
members of the group I belong to:
http://www.petitmorte.net/about.shtml
to quit, and these are not exactly people with real strong ethics to
begin with.
> Honestly,
> fools like you are best ignored - if you can't be in the spotlight, you'll
> eventually go away.
Oh you are so wrong on that one. See Bruce, I don't NEED you for
anything. I'm here simply to further my understanding of things and
to have some fun debates mainly centered on quick wit rather than just
"I'm right, you're wrong" kinda stuff. You can ignore me all you want
(and I really think you should), it won't bother me in the least bit.
> > 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.
LOL, autoflame grade: B-
I think you missed the quotes. : )
> > > > > > 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.
Certainly you realize how futile that is though? You CANNOT get back
at me, my skin is simply too thick. All in all though I think it
might be good for you. I could even act hurt by them, but I don't
want that to wind me up in the victim locker.
> > > 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.
I think that anyone thinking about coming to my defense would be
worried about playing the fool, or damaging established relationships
with someone they don't know very well. I can assure you though
Bruce, you are not a snarling animal, all in all you are quite benign
to me.
> > > 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.
Puff up, puff up, they hate that!
> > > > 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!
You confuse insulting with the reality of the situation. Too bad your
skin isn't as thick as your skull though, huh?
> 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.
Oh looks like ya got me again, huh? What can I say, you're so much
better at this than I am.
> > > > 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.
Well you didn't ask a question, I did though, where is your
substantive answer?
> Couldn't resolve your contradiction, could
> you?
You didn't ask me to, although in all reality I couldn't anyway since
I don't have any contradictions.
> Where's the cleverness? Here's another box of cookies, junior.
Are they those coconut ones the girl scouts sell? I really like those
one's.
> Tell me, would you describe yourself as a self-abuser or merely a troll?
I'm a troll's troll Brucey, I attack all the bad things that go bump
in the night and protect people like you from ever having to deal with
something genuinely mean and nasty. And if you think I'm being mean
and nasty in any way, well, let's hope you never have to see what the
real thing can be like.
> > > > 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.
Guilty conscience? Well, maybe when I accidently talked a stalker
down to a suicide level and then lost my stupid Inet
connection...yeah, but pointing out the painfully obvious to
you...nah, doesn't even phase me.
> It's hard to have a
> perception problem with someone as transparent as you.
Well if you're perceiving me so well I guess I'm not that transparent,
huh? Or do you just have some really good glasses?
> > > > 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.
Actually I'm the only proven thing that works against a troll Bruce.
You can't really ignore a good troll in this day and age, even with
filters, what with variable number based nyme shifting, proxy's, anon
posting, forgeries, etc, etc, etc.
Robert
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll
|
| (...) I'm still waiting on your cleverness... (...) Not for lack of trying. (...) Hey, I'm just having some fun! I think you need to develop a thicker skin. Note above how *you* are the one claiming *we* (that includes you, junior) are flaming each (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Robert: Just another Troll
|
| (...) 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 think I missed that same meeting - why are you flaming *everyone*? I'm for one sick of it. (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
