> > On 09/10/12 22:49, Snit wrote:
> > > On 10/9/12 2:36 PM, in article PN0ds.235330$AT4.178...@fx19.am4, "Goblin"

> > > <bytes4f...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > >> On 09/10/12 22:32, Snit wrote:

> > >>> Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd.  Amazing.

> > >> I thought the "herd" was a mindset which favoured Linux to the expense

> > >> of everything else, not a sarcastic (and obvious bait) aimed at you?

> > > Here are the characteristics I have noted about the herd:

> > > * They attack outsiders - to the point that the term "troll" is

> > > (essentially) used to mean anyone outside of the herd.  If an outsider comes

> > > in and sucks up to the herd they might be able to escape being called this

> > > for a short time... but it is rare.  More often than not that are attacked

> > > or accused of being a "sock" of a "troll"... merely because they do not buy

> > > the irrational worldview of the herd.  Look at you, TomB, who has already

> > > started targeting  Onion Knight in this way.  Carroll also targeted Kaba in

> > > such a way, though I did not see the herd glom on to that attack she he let

> > > it go.

> > > * They seek to avoid outside information: look at how often the herd speaks

> > > of who they are kill filtering and encourage each other to also kill filter

> > > those outside of their group.  They *want* to be closed off to other ideas.

> > > Just earlier today, TomB, you were encouraged to KF those who are not of the

> > > herd.

> > > * They blame the problems of desktop Linux adoption on one simple (and

> > > incorrect) explanation - the boogieman (generally MS though sometimes others

> > > are included in this made up conspiracy).

> > > * They offer almost completely unconditional "love" to each other - no

> > > matter how extreme the lie they are loath to call each other out.  For

> > > example, not a single herd member has called TomB out on his outrageous

> > > behavior of contacting my Usenet provider simply because I quoted Stallman

> > > and noted how repulsive his comments are.

> > > * They share the same irrational beliefs: such as their irrational denial of

> > > Stallman's comments, even though they come directly from his own site, the

> > > aforementioned obsession with the boogieman, the attacks against those who

> > > are not of the herd, the claim that they support choice as they attack those

> > > who do not chose as they do... all irrational.  All very cultish.

> > >> Is the herd now Anti-Snit?

> > > I am not of the herd, so yes. This does not mean they are necessarily any

> > > more anti-Snit than anti-anyone-who-is-not-a-part-of-the-herd. Then again, I

> > > have proved the herd wrong on many things... and they fear me (hence the

> > > reason they place me on the level of their whole group and call me a "herd

> > > of one").

> > >> Because if so, then you've had issues with the Microsoft advocates here like

> > >> Foster, so he must be part of the herd as well (I'm sure he'll love that one)

> > > I do not follow. Just because the herd does not like me does not mean that

> > > trolls like Foster should like me.

> > >> I said to you before Michael, I have no issues with your views or indeed

> > >> you, but you fall into the same holes every time with posts like these

> > >> and your "herd" remarks don't help.

> > > I respect your views, but in this case you are not using logic: just because

> > > group A has attribute X does not mean that all who have attribute X are a

> > > part of group A. For example, dogs have four feet but that does not mean all

> > > animals with 4 feet are dogs! And yet you tried to push the idea that if the

> > > herd is anti-Snit then all who are anti-Snit are a part of the herd. Do you

> > > see the error in logic in your claim?

> > No.  I was just making the point that you highlighted his sarcastic post

> > aimed at you as further proof of being a herd member.

> > Your words:

> > > Wow... and you deny you are a part of the herd.  Amazing.

> > (in respect of his sarcastic remark about you)

> >    He was not talking about Linux, not talking about FOSS, he was not

> > even engaging in some direct point you made.  You were baited with a

> > sarcastic post which to me was an obvious tongue in cheek bait, which

> > you then highlighted to further show/imply he was part of the herd.

> So what? He's been doing this very thing for a decade, what makes this

> application of it so special?

> > Your list here is what was already known about your definition of the

> > herd.  I was asking if that definition had been extended (in light of

> > his post) to include an anti-snit position.

> I just included a tiny sampling of how Snit has been defined by a

> number of people... this, as opposed to the ramblings of a med-head

> who, in order to deny reality feels he must turn it on its head and

> call entire newsgroups of people "liars".

> (snip rambling)