Litmus test for trolls
Snit
defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can be
shown in one question:
Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no", others -
such as myself -will respond with "yes"s.
Curious how others respond to the question:
Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Elizabot v2.0.2
> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can be
> shown in one question:
>
> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
Like when you claimed to have contected my ISP and the police, and
you've *refused* to offer any support for those statements?
> My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no", others -
> such as myself -will respond with "yes"s.
>
> Curious how others respond to the question:
>
> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
You don't seem to feel like you have any obligation to support your
claim that you have contacted the above mentioned people.
(Does this mean that you put yourself in the "troll most of the time"
category?)
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Snit
4234d35c$0$42482$7586...@news.frii.net on 3/13/05 4:57 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
>> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can be
>> shown in one question:
>>
>> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
>> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
>
> Like when you claimed to have contected my ISP and the police, and
> you've *refused* to offer any support for those statements?
Ok, I have been mostly ignoring your cries for attention, but I will offer
you this little lesson in logic. I doubt you will understand it, but
perhaps you will surprise me:
Contacting your ISP and the police about your threats against me
is not, in any way, an accusation against you.
Commenting on your accusations is making an accusation against you - and it
is one that has been proven repeatedly. Even you have quoted your thinly
veiled threats against me.
You did not like that I took your threats more seriously than you
anticipated. You wanted me to cower and act as a victim. I did not. I
contacted the legal authorities and informed them of your threats. I chose
not to press charges because no real harm was done (you did not carry your
threats out).
Do you still hold to the erroneous claim that I owe you *any* evidence,
support, or proof that I contacted the police about your threats?
>> My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no", others -
>> such as myself -will respond with "yes"s.
>>
>> Curious how others respond to the question:
>>
>> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
>> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
>
> You don't seem to feel like you have any obligation to support your
> claim that you have contacted the above mentioned people.
>
> (Does this mean that you put yourself in the "troll most of the time"
> category?)
You have no idea what an accusation is.
My contacting the police is not an accusation against you. My reporting
your threats - with print outs and URL's of your comments - was reporting my
well supported accusations against you.
In your response, I assume, you will show no understanding of what I have
just taught you. I hope you prove me wrong.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling.
People that create a lot of OT threads designed to start bullshit
arguments are generally seen as trolls. You know anyone like that, Snit?
> Seems likely it can be
> shown in one question:
>
> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
At this point, if *you* are the troll in question, no. If a total newbie
came in here and called you a troll I wouldn't second guess it for a
minute. Compared to yours, his/her word would be gold. Sorry... but you
did want the truth, right?
> My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no", others -
> such as myself -will respond with "yes"s.
>
> Curious how others respond to the question:
I believe 'others' in csma have made their feelings obvious, especially
if *you* are the one asking for the support of their claim that you're a
troll. As everyone here knows, it's pointless to offer you support on
anything you are in denial over because you'll just ignore its
existence. Hint: Don't bother asking me to support that.
> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
Too much coffee with that glue today, Snit? Why ask the same question
twice in one short paragraph? Or do you read so little of what even you
yourself write that you hadn't realized you already asked it?
B.B.
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
>defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can be
>shown in one question:
Does the From: header contain the string "Snit"? If yes, then troll.
Otherwise, maybe.
Dunno why I had my KF on you set to expire, but it's fixed now.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/
Snit
noone-9AE565....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 3/13/05 5:36 PM:
One: you should learn what a paragraph is.
Two: as usual, you neglected to answer the question. Even though it was
stated twice.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
BE5A1C7F.9A57%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 3/13/05 4:36 PM:
> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can be
> shown in one question:
>
> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
>
> My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no", others -
> such as myself -will respond with "yes"s.
>
> Curious how others respond to the question:
>
> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
Funny... nobody is willing to actually answer the question, but Elizabot,
Steve Carroll, and B.B. are willing to use the thread as a spring board for
their trolling.
Quite telling... and easy to support. :)
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Maybe you can 'teach' me:)
> Two: as usual, you neglected to answer the question. Even though it was
> stated twice.
I answered the question. Only if *you* are the troll in question is the
answer 'no'. Was it not obvious enough for you? Put down the glue...
Jason McNorton
SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID says...
> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling.
Look in a mirror.
Jim Lee Jr.
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can be
> shown in one question:
>
> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
>
> My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no", others -
> such as myself -will respond with "yes."
>
> Curious how others respond to the question:
>
> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
I think I would fail because I don't troll.
Snit
MPG.1c9eb971d...@news-40.giganews.com on 3/13/05 7:57 PM:
And then Jason jumps in to avoid the question and troll.
Seems the litmus test is very accurate:
Those that openly say people who accuse others should show support are not
ones to commonly troll.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in post
> BE5A1C7F.9A57%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 3/13/05 4:36 PM:
>
> > I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
> > defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can be
> > shown in one question:
> >
> > Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> > obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
> >
> > My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no", others -
> > such as myself -will respond with "yes"s.
> >
> > Curious how others respond to the question:
> >
> > Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> > obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
>
>
> Funny... nobody is willing to actually answer the question, but Elizabot,
> Steve Carroll, and B.B. are willing to use the thread as a spring board for
> their trolling.
Funny... I answered the question but you've apparently broken into the
medicine chest again tonight and got yourself juiced up enough to go
back into heavy denial mode. Look at the answers being given you, Snit.
> Quite telling... and easy to support. :)
Yes, the answers given to you are quite telling.
--
Steve
Wally
----------
In article <BE5A1C7F.9A57%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can be
> shown in one question:
>
> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
>
My answer yes! with the proviso that no obligation would exist if the person
has a history of removing said support when supplied, and then repeating his
request for it! nobody should be expected to waste time on such a futile
exercise, From a personal perspective only one person fits this exception,
coincidentally the author of this threads OP...Snit!
And yes! I am more than willing to provide proof of my assertion to 'anyone'
other than the person named above.
Snit
Uf9Zd.5070378$f47.9...@news.easynews.com on 3/13/05 10:26 PM:
>> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
>> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can be
>> shown in one question:
>>
>> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
>> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
>
> My answer yes!
Excellent. I must say, I am surprised to see you say that, but even with
you saying it, I would expect you to find some way to weasel out of your own
claim.
> with the proviso that no obligation would exist if the person has a history of
> removing said support when supplied, and then repeating his request for it!
Ah, yes, like Sandman and Tim Adams do so often... and others have jumped
in. Even then, though, if one were to make an accusation against them, I
would find that it would be the person making the accusation's
responsibility to support the claim, if asked.
And yes, that means if asked I would have to produce either evidence to
support my above accusation against those two, or at least admit an error.
I would be happy to do so - evidence would be easy to find. One or two
incidents might not show a strong enough trend - but I could likely find a
dozen or more for either of them very quickly.
As usual, I hold myself to a high standard - and if asked I will happily
deliver. As you discuss below, you do not hold yourself to as high of a
standard as I do.
> nobody should be expected to waste time on such a futile exercise, From a
> personal perspective only one person fits this exception, coincidentally the
> author of this threads OP...Snit! And yes! I am more than willing to provide
> proof of my assertion to 'anyone' other than the person named above.
Ah, but you will not provide any support when I ask - which I am doing now.
I am guessing you will troll and not provide any support, and then claim
that you are not trolling because you said this is the way you would troll.
I hope you find it in yourself to rise to the standard I use for myself.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Wally
----------
In article <BE5A7150.9F19%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit
<SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote in post
> Uf9Zd.5070378$f47.9...@news.easynews.com on 3/13/05 10:26 PM:
>
>>> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
>>> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can be
>>> shown in one question:
>>>
>>> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
>>> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
>>
>> My answer yes!
>
> Excellent. I must say, I am surprised to see you say that, but even with
> you saying it, I would expect you to find some way to weasel out of your own
> claim.
>
>> with the proviso that no obligation would exist if the person has a history
of
>> removing said support when supplied, and then repeating his request for it!
>
> Ah, yes, like Sandman and Tim Adams do so often... and others have jumped
> in. Even then, though, if one were to make an accusation against them, I
> would find that it would be the person making the accusation's
> responsibility to support the claim, if asked.
>
> And yes, that means if asked I would have to produce either evidence to
> support my above accusation against those two, or at least admit an error.
> I would be happy to do so - evidence would be easy to find. One or two
> incidents might not show a strong enough trend - but I could likely find a
> dozen or more for either of them very quickly.
Having witnessed how your 'evidence' is contrived anything you have to say
against anyone in this ng should be treated lightly, I tend to make my own
mind up about people wrt how they act, and more importantly how they act in
regard to certain others, for instance how someone reacts to you is no
indication of how they act generally, you simply aren't taken seriously
enough to be used as an indicator!
> As usual, I hold myself to a high standard
Forgeries can be of a high standard, but are none the less forgeries.
> and if asked I will happily
> deliver. As you discuss below, you do not hold yourself to as high of a
> standard as I do.
>
>> nobody should be expected to waste time on such a futile exercise, From a
>> personal perspective only one person fits this exception, coincidentally the
>> author of this threads OP...Snit! And yes! I am more than willing to provide
>> proof of my assertion to 'anyone' other than the person named above.
>
> Ah, but you will not provide any support when I ask - which I am doing now.
My views are clear on that point!
> I am guessing you will troll and not provide any support, and then claim
> that you are not trolling because you said this is the way you would troll.
I made my views perfectly clear on that point, and yet you claim it to be
your *guess* that leads you to that conclusion? is this a sign of your
honesty?
> I hope you find it in yourself to rise to the standard I use for myself.
I have absolutely no intention of using any quotes from you in a thoroughly
dishonest manner...no matter how much you hope!
Snit
But you will provide no support... and are thus merely trolling.
>
>> I am guessing you will troll and not provide any support, and then claim
>> that you are not trolling because you said this is the way you would troll.
>
> I made my views perfectly clear on that point, and yet you claim it to be
> your *guess* that leads you to that conclusion? is this a sign of your
> honesty?
>
>> I hope you find it in yourself to rise to the standard I use for myself.
>
> I have absolutely no intention of using any quotes from you in a thoroughly
> dishonest manner...no matter how much you hope!
And, again, you troll.
Sad. I hoped, but did not expect, you to rise to a higher standard than the
one you set for yourself.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling.
No need, everyone knows you are a troll, so no one needs to verify it.
Verification is only necessary if there is any doubts about you being a troll.
There isn't. You have managed to make two groups, csma and cola, to call you a
troll now. Great job. What group will you infect next?
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
mr-609C69.08...@individual.net on 3/14/05 12:27 AM:
> In article <BE5A1C7F.9A57%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
>> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling.
>
> No need, everyone knows you are a troll, so no one needs to verify it.
Incorrect... on multiple levels.
Likely you are simply not capable of figuring out where your logic is wrong,
and will only deny it if I point it out to you... but if you ask nicely I
will give you a chance.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
_________________________________________
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
> >> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling.
> >
> > No need, everyone knows you are a troll, so no one needs to verify it.
>
> <trolling snipped>
Thanks for proving my point, Michael.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
> <trolling snipped>
Why do you type comments only to snip them away? It would be interesting to
see what trolling of yours you decided to not post... would have to be
completely outrageous!
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
_________________________________________
Mike Dee
news:BE5A1C7F.9A57%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
No question mark included. Therefore a foregone conclusion to Snit, ie;
answers are arbitrary.
--
dee
Mike Dee
news:BE5A1C7F.9A57%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and
> well defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems
> likely it can be shown in one question:
FFS Snit, stare into a mirror for half an hour, would you?
--
dee
Mike Dee
news:BE5A1C7F.9A57%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID:
> My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no",
> others - such as myself -will respond with "yes"s.
PS.
How come you haven't x-posted this to COLA like you usually do?
--
dee
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> <snit circus snipped>
Don't you have more groups to infect?
--
Sandman[.net]
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 4234d35c$0$42482$7586...@news.frii.net on 3/13/05 4:57 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
>>>defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can be
>>>shown in one question:
>>>
>>> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
>>> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
>>
>>Like when you claimed to have contected my ISP and the police, and
>>you've *refused* to offer any support for those statements?
>
>
> Ok, I have been mostly ignoring your cries for attention, but I will offer
> you this little lesson in logic.
More Snit Logic?!? This should be hilarious!!!
> I doubt you will understand it, but
> perhaps you will surprise me:
>
> Contacting your ISP and the police about your threats against me
> is not, in any way, an accusation against you.
Please provide evidence for this claim of yours that you have contacted
those people.
> Commenting on your accusations is making an accusation against you - and it
> is one that has been proven repeatedly. Even you have quoted your thinly
> veiled threats against me.
To which "thinly veiled threats" are you referring?
I think you are referring to these comments of mine, as you have labeled
them to be "thinly veiled threats" in the past, IIRC.
"I will not hesitate to contact the Prescott Police Department if you
do. And that's a promise."
"I would not be upset if someone anonymously sent the following truths
to your place(s) of work:"
And then listed your filthy sigmond stuff.
> You did not like that I took your threats more seriously than you
> anticipated.
So you apparently read minds. I am not surprised that you believe you
hold psychic powers over me.
I hold in my hand, the envelopes containing the questions. These
envelopes have been hermetically sealed in a mayonnaise jar and stored
at Funk & Wagnall's since NOON to day! NO ONE, NOT EVENT THE GREAT
CARNAC has seen them! Are you ready to play?
> You wanted me to cower and act as a victim.
Actually, I, like Sandman, I would care if you got run over by a bus.
You aren't a very good psychic, are you?
> I did not.
Warmer.
> I
> contacted the legal authorities and informed them of your threats.
Hee hee hee!!!
> I chose
> not to press charges because no real harm was done (you did not carry your
> threats out).
IMO nothing was done because the "authorities" decided that you are a
hysterical nutcase.
Lucky for you that you didn't press your false charges against me. I am
not poor like you, and you'd be wasting the rest of your life away in
the loony bin.
> Do you still hold to the erroneous claim that I owe you *any* evidence,
> support, or proof that I contacted the police about your threats?
Don't you mean my alleged threats???
I ask for clarification purposes only.
>>>My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no", others -
>>>such as myself -will respond with "yes"s.
>>>
>>>Curious how others respond to the question:
>>>
>>> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
>>> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
>>
>>You don't seem to feel like you have any obligation to support your
>>claim that you have contacted the above mentioned people.
>>
>>(Does this mean that you put yourself in the "troll most of the time"
>>category?)
>
>
> You have no idea what an accusation is.
I hold in my hand, the envelopes containing the questions. These
envelopes have been hermetically sealed in a mayonnaise jar and stored
at Funk & Wagnall's since NOON to day! NO ONE, NOT EVENT THE GREAT
CARNAC has seen them! Are you ready to play?
> My contacting the police is not an accusation against you.
I never stated that is was. I simply asked you the question:
"Like when you claimed to have contacted my ISP and the police, and
you've *refused* to offer any support for those statements?"
Leave it to your poor reading comprehension skills for you to take a
question as an accusation.
> My reporting
> your threats - with print outs and URL's of your comments - was reporting my
> well supported accusations against you.
Because, by your own admission, "no real harm was done."
Thanks for your admission!!
> In your response, I assume, you will show no understanding of what I have
> just taught you. I hope you prove me wrong.
Well, you got one thing right. You got my response.
Hope you've enjoyed reading it as much as I have had writing it. You
clearly enjoy responding to my posts!
--
Steve Carroll
"Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote:
Other than Snit, let's see if you get any takers (that have names we all
recognize, of course... none of Snit's sockpuppets can play:)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Ya know, Snit... I sorta miss the good ol' days. Remember when it was
just you and I? Oh the fun we used to have... what with you trying real
hard to convince everyone and his brother/mother/father etc.. that I was
actually the troll and you were just fine. Now, most of csma are liars,
trolls and/or just plain stupid, right? What was that you said in cola
recently about most of csma?
"Most of the folks in CSMA struggle with simple logic"
Yeah... what losers we are all, huh? I've read where you stated you have
grown bored with csma several times now. I guess once you have exposed
an entire NG there's not much challenge left... oh well, at least you
have your new playground where you have already found several "trolls"
to point at. You've got a lot of ground to cover over there, buddy...
good luck:)
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote in post
> Uf9Zd.5070378$f47.9...@news.easynews.com on 3/13/05 10:26 PM:
>
> >> I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
> >> defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling. Seems likely it can
> >> be
> >> shown in one question:
> >>
> >> Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> >> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
> >
> > My answer yes!
>
> Excellent. I must say, I am surprised to see you say that, but even with
> you saying it, I would expect you to find some way to weasel out of your own
> claim.
>
> > with the proviso that no obligation would exist if the person has a history
> > of
> > removing said support when supplied, and then repeating his request for it!
>
> Ah, yes, like Sandman and Tim Adams do so often... and others have jumped
> in. Even then, though, if one were to make an accusation against them, I
> would find that it would be the person making the accusation's
> responsibility to support the claim, if asked.
I supplied many links with proof for you, only to have you totally
ignore then and do just like Wally claimed - remove said support and ask
for it again and again. As such, I don't feel the need to support my
statements - just go look at all the different 'original' versions of a
certain pdf file you had posted on your web site.
~snip
--
reguarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Tim
Snit
And, as predicted, you did not understand a word of what I wrote to you.
Do you still not understand why I owe you nothing in the way of evidence for
*anything* dealing with my life?
You may continue to beg to know more about my life... but I owe you
*nothing*.
You will not, of course, understand that, either. Does not take a psychic
to understand that your obsession will override any sense of understanding
you possess.
Now go find someone else to obsess over, Elizabot... and get this through
your emotionally immature brain:
I owe you no explanation or proof for:
* my family planning decisions
* my views on incest (I do no want to know why you begged me so long to
tell you!)
* what meetings I do or do not go to or why
* anything about my work life
* how big any part of my body is
* who I do and do not call
These are all things you have repeatedly begged for in the past... and I
have not and will not give you answers. Deal with it.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Elizabot v2.0.2
-----
Snit: "Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
obligation to offer support, esp. if asked"
My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no",
others - such as myself -will respond with "yes"s.
-----
You were wrong about your own answer. By your own standards, you "troll
most of the time."
Thanks for playing.
ebot
Geez, Snit. A new delusion? Where the hell did this one come from? Is it
the glue or the medicine chest today?
The other delusions on your obsessive list are older and have been
refuted in the past.
> * who I do and do not call
>
> These are all things you have repeatedly begged for in the past... and I
> have not and will not give you answers. Deal with it.
Poor delusional troll Snit can't deal with his own hypocrisy.
(p.s. you are a terrible psychic.)
--
"And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist will
contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender you
really are)." - Snit 10/11/04
Snit
> I take it that your answer to your own question is "no."
>
> -----
> Snit: "Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
> obligation to offer support, esp. if asked"
>
> My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no",
> others - such as myself -will respond with "yes"s.
> -----
>
> You were wrong about your own answer. By your own standards, you "troll
> most of the time."
>
> Thanks for playing.
What accusation that I have made do you think is not fully supported?
Let me guess - you will answer by trolling and flaming... not by pointing
out any accusation I have made that can not easily be supported.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Jason McNorton" <jm...@comcast.net> wrote in post
> MPG.1c9eb971d...@news-40.giganews.com on 3/13/05 7:57 PM:
>
>
>>In article <BE5A1C7F.9A57%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID says...
>>
>>>I am looking for the easiest way to determine in an objective and well
>>>defined manner who is and is not prone to trolling.
>>
>>Look in a mirror.
>
>
> And then Jason jumps in to avoid the question and troll.
>
> Seems the litmus test is very accurate:
>
> Those that openly say people who accuse others should show support are not
> ones to commonly troll.
Now you've altered your original argument. I see that you snipped it,
probably in the hopes that no one would notice. I will remind you:
-----
Snit:
Do you believe one who makes an accusation against another has an
obligation to offer support, esp. if asked.
My guess: those who troll most of the time will respond with "no",
others - such as myself -will respond with "yes"s.
-----
You fit in the "troll most of the time" category, as you have refused to
support many claims against me. Here are three examples of claims you
refuse to support:
That you've contacted my ISP
That you've contacted the police.
That you say I was "data-mining" your web site.
Elizabot v2.0.2
You're such a liar, Snit.
See my other posts in this thread that proves you will not supply
support for several of your claims against myself.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote in post
> gxaZd.1265488$Zm5.1...@news.easynews.com on 3/13/05 11:53 PM:
> But you will provide no support... and are thus merely trolling.
Ha! You will provide no support for your claims against me. There fore
you are merely trolling.
>>>I am guessing you will troll and not provide any support, and then claim
>>>that you are not trolling because you said this is the way you would troll.
>>
>>I made my views perfectly clear on that point, and yet you claim it to be
>>your *guess* that leads you to that conclusion? is this a sign of your
>>honesty?
>>
>>
>>>I hope you find it in yourself to rise to the standard I use for myself.
>>
>>I have absolutely no intention of using any quotes from you in a thoroughly
>>dishonest manner...no matter how much you hope!
>
>
> And, again, you troll.
>
> Sad. I hoped, but did not expect, you to rise to a higher standard than the
> one you set for yourself.
You don't even hold yourself to those standards, troll.
Snit
How are these accusations? You are jumping from *my* claim that one should
support accusations to the whole unrelated straw man that I owe you proof of
anything other than accusations.
In other words, you are lying... and the proof is in your own words, above.
See how easy it is to prove you are a lying, obsessive, emotionally immature
whacko.
Good bye Elizabot... I played your game long enough... and you have
repeatedly made accusations that I am not supporting something... and have
not been able to support *your* accusation.
Have fun trolling...
>
> That you say I was "data-mining" your web site.
You provided a list of data you retrieved from my site, again.. just
recently. Do you need me to point to your post?
>
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Elizabot v2.0.2" <Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> wrote in post
> 4235f31a$0$42483$7586...@news.frii.net on 3/14/05 1:24 PM:
<snip elephant dung by Snit>
>>That you say I was "data-mining" your web site.
>
>
> You provided a list of data you retrieved from my site, again.. just
> recently. Do you need me to point to your post?
The post were Rick asked me about your bookmark page?
I verified your stalker information was still there before I responded
to his post. (We all know how you like to alter your web site.)