Proof of flatfish trolling?????? Where is the beef?
Lilly
I have gone back 90 days and I see lot's of accusations,
generalisations and bandwagon jumping, but I see very little, if any
facts.
Just because a handful of Linux idiots claim it is so doesn't make it
that way.
Where is the proof?
Using google, posting in a certain style and offering typical common
topics is hardly proof.
Go to any group and you will see the same stuff.
Between Roy Culley's "hand twisted" statistics and this flatfish
bullshit I am starting to think that this entire group, COLA, is
totally full of shit.
Is there ANYONE who can actually back up their claims with facts or do
you all wait for the first person to cry flatfish and jump aboard?
For a group of people who claim that they are Unix devotees, you sure
seem to be lacking in the precision department.
So where are the facts?
Where is the proof?
And lastly, what scares you so much about this flatfish?
Seems to me that you are running like scared sheep trying to find the
shepherd to lead you home.
Personally, I find it very amusing to watch and as a psychology major,
you have provided me with reams of information to use during my
lectures.
Liam Slider
> psychology major,
Yeah yeah, heard that one before too. Give it a rest already.
Baruch
>
> Personally, I find it very amusing to watch and as a psychology major,
> you have provided me with reams of information to use during my
> lectures.
Sure we have... your psychology class wants you to examine the psyche of
Linux advocates.
I would question any psychology that thinks it can know anything about the
people behind the messages on a newsgroup. Sure, there is endless
conjecture as to who we are, but in general you'd be lucky to get the
gender right much of the time - especially with non-gender-specific names,
but even with names such as "John". Some people choose neutral or
masculine handles to avoid problems that might arise from using feminine
names (such as jerks behaving in a sexist manner).
I have seen many peoplee here try to analyze the typical poster here. These
analyses are mere guesses. There is no reliable feedback, no way to do
what psychologists call "reality testing", and hence the conclusions you
arrive at are essentially irrelevant. You could make equally valid guesses
without ever reading any of the posts, since there's just no reliable way
of checking any conclusions...
...dream on, "psyche student"... and don't forget to take your medicine.
GreyCloud
Lilly wrote:
> Flatfish
Yeup. You are flatphish. Same style, same BS. And same X-posting.
Also the psychology major part... Trolling, Trolling, Trolling...
Keep them trolls a rolling, RAWHIDE!
--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.
GreyCloud
Lilly wrote:
http://students.cs.byu.edu/~er222/Virtual%20Zoo/sea.wav
This is where I traced you to. You live there don't you.
Rick
(snip)
>
> Well guess what?
>
> I am calling your bluff.
>
> Prove your points with facts, or clam up.
Why do you care?
--
Rick
Hamilcar Barca
> So where are the facts?
allison_...@yahoo.com 24.191.209.79
anonymous 24.190.106.231
Baba Booey 67.153.93.156 google
Babu Singh 67.153.93.156 google
Bjarne Jensen 81.181.65.2 google
Charlie (flatfish) 24.190.110.36 Also see Aftab Singh
flatfish+++ 24.190.102.21
flatfish+++@linux+++mail.org 24.190.109.193 cv.net
flatf...@mariana.trench 24.190.107.9
flat...@linuxmail.org 24.190.109.193
gill...@maryann.net 24.190.107.85
Gunnar -hidden- news.uni-berlin.de
itchy balls 67.153.93.156 google
kathy_...@hotmail.org 24.190.107.54
Lilly 195.80.184.164 google
long_to...@linuxmail.org 24.190.107.96
Lukumi Babalu Aye 216.22.119.2 google
Major Mynor 67.153.93.156 google
Mo...@penny.org 24.190.107.9
nate_m...@yahoo.com 24.190.107.54
Patricia 24.190.99.113 cv.net
Patricia 24.190.99.62 cv.net
Patricia 24.190.99.63 cv.net
Sean -hidden- news.uni-berlin.de
Sean Macpherson 24.191.211.43 cv.net
Stephan Simonsen 24.191.211.11 cv.net
Thorsten 24.191.209.63 cv.net
Winnie Septos 67.153.93.156 google
> Where is the proof?
If it looks like a Flatfish, smells like a Flatfish, and trolls like a
Flatfish, it's a Flatfish.
QED, Flatfish.
Hamilcar Barca
Hamilcar Barca
>
There's nothing for you here, Flatfish. Swim on.
Hamilcar Barca
Hamilcar Barca
Baruch
>>
>> ...dream on, "psyche student"... and don't forget to take your medicine.
>
> Actually you are wrong.
> USENET has been used many times in basic classes because it is so
> revealing towards typical behavior types.
> While I would say COLA wouldn't be near the top of the list, who knows.
> Someday it might replace alt.social.overweight as the group to go to when
> one wants to look at the underbelly of society.
Actually, I have *nothing* wrong, though you would have had to read my post
to know this.
Usenet has been *misused* many times in basic classes. Attempting to arrive
at conclusions about people through anonymous postings is both futile, and
it lacks the most important element in scientific technique - verification
of conclusions (more properly, it would be the ability to *falsify* the
conclusions).
There is no reliable way for anyone to test any conclusions arrived at by an
analysis of postings. The postings are anonymous. Certain behaviors may
be attributed to certain types of individuals, but there is no way to
confirm that the attributions are made correctly. You can't even always
tell whether posts under the same name are from the same individual - two
or more people may share a handle. Conversely, as we have seen, one person
can create as many different handles as he or she wants, trying to convince
other that they're actually different people.
Any psychology based on Usenet is cargo-cult science, mere fantasy without
any confirmation. It has as much place in scientific investigation as do
creation myths.
This is not to say that some psychologists don't try to do this anyway. No
doubt, they do. However, this does not in any way validate the process.
It simply shows that some psychologists are clueless about the scientific
method. This is actually a tradition in psychology, begun with the
estimable Sigmund Freud (who basically stated that if certain of his
statements were questioned, it was a result of "resistance" on the part of
the patient or student or colleague, and not because Freud might be wrong).
Enjoy your classes. However, you probably would benefit more from the
practical aspect of psychology, than the theoretical.
Linønut
> So what is the proof that all of these posts come from flatfish?
> I have gone back 90 days and I see lot's of accusations,
> generalisations and bandwagon jumping, but I see very little, if any
> facts.
>
> Just because a handful of Linux idiots claim it is so doesn't make it
> that way.
>
> Where is the proof?
> Using google, posting in a certain style and offering typical common
> topics is hardly proof.
There is no such thing as proof in an environment where anything can be
simulated (after all, it is only text).
Nonetheless, whether or not the style emanates from a single noxious and busy
entity, or from a concatenation of cretins of the same ilk as yourself, by your
posts we know, and by your posts we justify the plonking thereof.
<a giant sucking sound ensues as "Lilly" evaporates into /dev/null>
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Linųnut
Uncle Fester
<sondek41_ad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Someday it might replace alt.social.overweight as the group to go to when
>one wants to look at the underbelly of society.
Hell, all this time I thought it was alt.binaries.erotica.facesitting!
Oh....you said *underbelly* -- never mind.
Uncle Fester
kier
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:17:45 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>
> Do you EvER say anything of value?
Do you?
(Crossposts removed)
--
Kier
Kurt Hensler
> Flatfish "Lilly" wrote:
>> Where is the proof?
> QED, Flatfish.
Are you really that stupid? <-- rhetorical question, no response needed.
Rosemarie Garvey
> Flatfish "Lilly" wrote:
>> Where is the proof?
> QED, Flatfish.
I think you just proved that they AREN'T Flatfish. Are you Flatfish too?
GreyCloud
Lindy wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:17:45 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>
>>
> You are a joke.....
No, you are... nice self nuke, moron.
> I see no proof of your statements which is exactly my point.
Of course you can't, you're an idiot.
> You fools never seem to back anything up.
I don't see anything backing up any of your claims either.
> You simply go off half cocked making crazy claims and hope to hell that
> nobody will call your bluff.
You were already half-cocked, shorty.
>
> Well guess what?
>
> I am calling your bluff.
>
> Prove your points with facts, or clam up.
>
If it smells like a fish, looks like a fish, feels like a fish...
Guess what? Iiitttttssss FlatPhish!
GreyCloud
Lindy wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:17:45 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>
> Do you EvER say anything of value?
>
Another self nuke, bozo.
Don't see anything of value from your trolls.
Hamilcar Barca
> Are you really that stupid?
Cilia Flatfish, is that you?