"..Cyclists and pedestrians in the UK are in greater danger than those in most other industrialised

[DavidR]

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote
> "Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote
>> wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Silent majorities are silent because they are not bothered.
>>
>>> Please don't feed the local troll.
>>
>> If you believe he is a troll then ignore him.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luke
>>
> Indeed I do, as it's in my kill-file, as it is in many of those who post
> here. Alas, some who fail to recognise that they are being baited by the
> troll still answer him and it's such a shame, really, as it then means
> that they may well end up in a kill-file to avoid the spread of the
> troll's spoutings.

If a thread doesn't interest me I simply don't read it. I set "Hide read
messages" and mark quite a few as "Mark as read" just from the subject.

I don't have a problem with people responding to Matt.

 

[Adam Lea]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Crispin wrote on 19/05/2007 09:41 +0100:
>>
>> What happens when somebody then responds to Troll B?
>>
>> They get a series of, "don't feed the troll" follow-ups, ironically
>> often quoting a quote of a quote of a quote of Troll B!
>>
>> Troll B's pretty harmless, and his straw man arguments can be very
>> amusing and also very annoying, but not too different from the helmet
>> threads.
>
> In that case amuse yourself by reading his posts and not kill filing him.
> But please don't wrestle with him. Many trolls have destroyed or nearly
> destroyed newsgroups not because of their troll posts but because of the
> actions of the troll wrestlers who think they can change the troll by
> reasoning or that others will be entertained by their wrestling. Remember
> the first law of pig wrestling - the pig enjoys it and you just get mucky.
>

If what Matt B posts is really as absurd as what some people think it is
then it should be possible to destroy his arguments with one or two good
logical counterarguments that expose the absurdity for all to see, should it
not? Or am I being to naive here?

 

[_]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:45:27 +0100, Adam Lea wrote:

> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tom Crispin wrote on 19/05/2007 09:41 +0100:
>>>
>>> What happens when somebody then responds to Troll B?
>>>
>>> They get a series of, "don't feed the troll" follow-ups, ironically
>>> often quoting a quote of a quote of a quote of Troll B!
>>>
>>> Troll B's pretty harmless, and his straw man arguments can be very
>>> amusing and also very annoying, but not too different from the helmet
>>> threads.
>>
>> In that case amuse yourself by reading his posts and not kill filing him.
>> But please don't wrestle with him. Many trolls have destroyed or nearly
>> destroyed newsgroups not because of their troll posts but because of the
>> actions of the troll wrestlers who think they can change the troll by
>> reasoning or that others will be entertained by their wrestling. Remember
>> the first law of pig wrestling - the pig enjoys it and you just get mucky.
>>
>
> If what Matt B posts is really as absurd as what some people think it is
> then it should be possible to destroy his arguments with one or two good
> logical counterarguments that expose the absurdity for all to see, should it
> not? Or am I being to naive here?

The latter.

He's a troll - he does not want to win, what he wants is an argument.

The only way to win is not to play.

 

[Tony Raven]

Adam Lea wrote on 21/05/2007 23:45 +0100:
>
> If what Matt B posts is really as absurd as what some people think it is
> then it should be possible to destroy his arguments with one or two good
> logical counterarguments that expose the absurdity for all to see, should it
> not? Or am I being to naive here?
>
>

The fallacy of the Troll Wrestler. It assumes that Troll's are here for
the debate and can be silenced with logical arguments. They are not and
they won't. The only way to stop them is to withhold the attention they
crave. Either that or those of you who have been wrestling with Troll B
are woefully short of good logical counter arguments because he's still
here spouting the same twaddle.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Adam Lea wrote:
>
>If what Matt B posts is really as absurd as what some people think it is
>then it should be possible to destroy his arguments with one or two good
>logical counterarguments that expose the absurdity for all to see, should it
>not?

It is. But once his arguments have been destroyed 20 or 30 times and
he still keeps posting because he's a troll, is there any real benefit
to that?

 

[Matt B]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Adam Lea wrote:
>> If what Matt B posts is really as absurd as what some people think it is
>> then it should be possible to destroy his arguments with one or two good
>> logical counterarguments that expose the absurdity for all to see, should it
>> not?
>
> It is. But once his arguments have been destroyed 20 or 30 times...

Name my arguments that have been destroyed.

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

On 22 May, 08:45, [email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Adam Lea wrote:
>
> >If what Matt B posts is really as absurd as what some people think it is
> >then it should be possible to destroy his arguments with one or two good
> >logical counterarguments that expose the absurdity for all to see, should it
> >not?
>
> It is. But once his arguments have been destroyed 20 or 30 times and
> he still keeps posting because he's a troll, is there any real benefit
> to that?

Or, spams the boards with his own particular hobby horse on disparate
threads.

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> On 22 May, 08:45, [email protected] (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Adam Lea wrote:
>>
>>> If what Matt B posts is really as absurd as what some people think it is
>>> then it should be possible to destroy his arguments with one or two good
>>> logical counterarguments that expose the absurdity for all to see, should it
>>> not?
>> It is. But once his arguments have been destroyed 20 or 30 times and
>> he still keeps posting because he's a troll, is there any real benefit
>> to that?
>
> Or, spams the boards with his own particular hobby horse on disparate
> threads.

What "boards" - I only ever post on this one usenet _group_[1]? And
which "particular hobby horse" are you referring to?

OTOH, talk about hypocrisy. Tell us that /you/ don't "spam the boards",
and that you have /no/ "hobby horses".

[1] For the resident pedants: some threads may have inherited cross-posting.

--
Matt B

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Adam Lea wrote:
> >
> >If what Matt B posts is really as absurd as what some people think it is
> >then it should be possible to destroy his arguments with one or two good
> >logical counterarguments that expose the absurdity for all to see, should it
> >not?
>
> It is. But once his arguments have been destroyed 20 or 30 times and
> he still keeps posting because he's a troll, is there any real benefit
> to that?

To be fair, much of the time Matt just fails to respond to any post in
which an argument of his is found to be comprehensively wrong.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Matt B]

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Alan Braggins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Adam Lea wrote:
>>> If what Matt B posts is really as absurd as what some people think it is
>>> then it should be possible to destroy his arguments with one or two good
>>> logical counterarguments that expose the absurdity for all to see, should it
>>> not?
>> It is. But once his arguments have been destroyed 20 or 30 times and
>> he still keeps posting because he's a troll, is there any real benefit
>> to that?
>
> To be fair, much of the time Matt just fails to respond to any post in
> which an argument of his is found to be comprehensively wrong.

Eh? Can you give an example?

--
Matt B

 

[Don Whybrow]

Matt B wrote:
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>
>> To be fair, much of the time Matt just fails to respond to any post in
>> which an argument of his is found to be comprehensively wrong.
>
> Eh? Can you give an example?
>

You still haven't told us what sort of cycling you do. We know you have
a bike, but when/how do you ride it?

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Invalid thought detected. Close all mental processes and restart
body.

 

[Matt B]

Don Whybrow wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>>
>>> To be fair, much of the time Matt just fails to respond to any post in
>>> which an argument of his is found to be comprehensively wrong.
>>
>> Eh? Can you give an example?
>
> You still haven't told us what sort of cycling you do. We know you have
> a bike, but when/how do you ride it?

For which argument of mine, which was "found to be comprehensively
wrong", did the question you cite as an example, remain unresponded to???

--
Matt B