Subject:
|
Re: Robert: Just another Troll
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 03:24:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
890 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Robert Bevens writes:
> 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'm still waiting on your cleverness...
>
> > > > 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.
Not for lack of trying.
> 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.
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 other. So you just lied, one way or the other.
Why am I having a duel of wits with an unarmed man? C'mon, at least put up
a fight - you're just too easy to catch in contradictions.
> I mean look at you, here you are
> trying to egg me on,
Which is what you have been doing to a host of people. Typical wimp that
can dish it out but can't take it.
> creating thread offshoots in which you change the
> subject to slander me,
Change it back - I thought you were clever. And since the troll accusation
is both accurate and I'm not the first to say it in relation to you, it
ain't slander.
> 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.
Gosh, you sound upset.
When you have brought up even one good point, I'll give you a pat on the
head. As to argue or debate against, that's what *everyone* is saying about
you! The thing that is amusing for someone who thinks themselves such a
wit, you haven't even figured all that I am doing is using your own tactics
against you. That's it. Nothing else. So, any criticism that you have for
my style is only a criticism of your own style, only you're not bright
enough to see it.
> I on the other hand am perfectly rational and
> calm about the whole situation.
Ego-densense mechanism. You're not calm - you're getting frustrated because
you no longer controlling the debate.
> Want some good advice Bruce?
Not from you - you don't have any. But here's some advice to you - stopping
acting the fool. Treat people the way you would like to be treated yourself
- all I'm doing is treating you the way you have treated others. Don't like
it? Can't take a dose of your own medicine? Now you know what it's like to
be on the receiving end.
> Take a
> day off from obsessing over my posting and just relax, it'll do you
> some good I think.
As I said, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
>
> > I'm
> > for one sick of it.
Get a clue! I'm sick of you baiting everyone and sneering at everyone and
strutting your ego around and so is everyone else. Sick of it? Try an
apology to everyone, or at least put a sock in your mouth.
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.
Hurt by you? Where?
You
> know Bruce, perhaps I'm secretly a lesson in growing thicker skin.
You just told me you're sick of this - develop a thicker skin, yourself.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel with a hand grenade
> 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.
And the others that have typified you as such...?
> 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.
You're standing in the way of trolls? Come out of the sun and drink some water.
> 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.
You're being too obscure - I have no idea what you are talking about.
> 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?
No. Why would I bother thinking about that? You flatter yourself.
> 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.
Ummmmm, if you really are a paranoid, I'll lay off you. Get help. I'm not
joking or making fun of you with this comment.
> 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:
Baiting people for the thrill of annoying them is something a troll does.
That certainly appears to be what you are doing. If you mean there are
worse trolls, I won't argue that.
>
> "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.
Maybe you are. I just wish you'd act like a pleasant human being here.
> 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.
Is this supposed to be a threat? You'd just be proving me right. But if
you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, I can't stop you.
>
> > 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.
You don't need me because I'm whupping your candy-behind. But you need that
spotlight.
> 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.
I'm giving you plenty of quick wit, your own brand in fact, and you're
wilting. No, you like it when you can attack others and dodge back into
safety by claiming you have no position to defend or side-stepping without
substantive reply.
> You can ignore me all you want
> (and I really think you should), it won't bother me in the least bit.
It'll only really work if everyone ignores you. I'm willing if others are.
>
> > > 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-
Brevity is the soul of wit. And I'd rather have a B- than your F.
>
> 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 admitted your were sick of it. You have given lie to your statement
above. Oh please, this is too easy. I can't stand it.
> 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.
Transparent ego-defense mechanism. You have no idea when you are
contradicting yourself.
>
> > > > 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.
Make up your mind, am I an animal or not? Or did I err in presuming by
"anamilistic" you meant "animalistic"? I don't like to take cheap shots on
typing errors.
>
> > > > 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!
Side-step.
>
> > > > > 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?
Another simple-minded insult. You're on a roll.
>
> > 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.
Let's keep you thinking that.
>
> > > > > 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?
Hey, I called you out first!
>
> > 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.
More threats, Robby?
>
> > > > > 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.
What does this have to do with your behavior *here*? I don't care what you
do elsewhere. Being a hero elsewhere doesn't give you carte blanche to be
obnoxious here.
>
> > 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?
I could have 20/200 vision and no glasses and could see through 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.
>
> 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.
Who cares? You are being a troll *here*.
Tell you what. You want to take this off-line, I'm willing. You want to
continue here, you win. I'm not willing to subject anyone else to this any
longer, no matter how much you deserve it.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Robert: Just another Troll
|
| (...) Hey Bruce, watch yer attributions - You're actually replying to your own post ((URL) I really think such long & scathin) replies belong in e-mail, rather than a public post. I'd say the same to Robert / Matthew / Mad / ??? but I feel it would (...) (23 years ago, 8-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
