I submit that on or about Fri, 23 Sep 2005 06:55:43 +0100, the person
known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
<
[email protected]> made a statement
(<
[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:
>>>Look,chum,you made a bit of a ****-up in mistaking my bit as a defence
>>>of Blair,and you've been corrected.
>>No, he made a specific point which was correct: that some people
>>disagree with you re the evilness of Blair.
>No , you dozy tr*ll , he thought I was defend Blair.
Amazing, isn't it, how many trolls there suddenly are on this
newsgroup? And all of them (quite by coincidence I'm sure) disagree
with you! Here is a Clue for you: trolling is *not* the expressing of
a differing opinion.
I read the thread. No assumption is necessary: the simple fact is,
some people disagree with you re Blair being evil.
I don't think he's evil, I think he has Convictions. A politician
with Convictions can be a very dangerous thing, it can also be a good
thing. In this case I think it's dangerous, because Blair's
Convictions led him to ignore wise counsel form others.
>Either you are a tr*ll or a mong who can't read properly.
Neither. You, on the other hand are a disputatious idiot.
>You seem to think that because you post more regularly than the other
>tr*lls that you can post any old abuse or inflammatory replies.
False. Actually I post very irregularly at present, but nowhere in my
post was my posting history mentioned, let alone used as support for
my position.
>Why did you post this reply when the thread's dead save for the
>tr*ll-bashing ?
Your post and mine are separated by under thirty hours.
But as to why I waded in, I was amused by the utter absurdity of
accusing Dave Larrington of trolling. If you stop picking fights and
calling everyone who disagrees a troll, and if you spend many hours
learning about the subject matter of this newsgroup, and if you
sharpen your wits until they bleed, you might one day aspire to be as
popular and valued a poster as Dave. But I'm not holding my breath.
>>Funny, isn't it, how many trolls there suddenly are when you are
>>involved in the discussion?
>Well if you can only reply to points with abuse or attempts to wind-up
>the posters , without producing evidence or presenting an alternative
>view then you are a tr*ll.
It seems to take nothing to wind you up beyond simply disagreeing with
your aggressively-put assertions.
>As you've proved your inability to read posts properly get someone
>else to read all my posts from the last 10 days.
I read most of them. And very tedious it was, too. Quite why someone
with so little to say has to say it at such length I cannot for a
moment imagine. Perhaps that explains your reluctance to put your
name to what you write, who knows.
>See how many people have bested me in debate - none .
>They either tr*ll in their replies,or run off crying because they
>can't defend their positions.
Since by your definition anyone who disagrees is trolling, it is hard
to see how your criteria for besting you in debate could be met. I
think you will find that others do not share your judgment regarding
whether you've been bested in debate, but what would I know -
evidently I am a troll (i.e. I disagree with you).
>p.s. This post was off-topic anyway.Do remember to label them as such.
The post was a reference to a prior debate regarding the nomination
for the honorary degree, and numerous other threads regarding the
woolly ****** and his opinions on cycling and other matters.
The original link was also forwarded to me by the Campaigns and Policy
Manager of CTC. If Roger thinks it's of interest to fellow-cyclists,
who am I to disagree?
You will find in any case that Agent makes it trivially easy to skip
OT threads, if they offend you.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
