GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

Big Crotch on a Small Fish

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 24, 10:16 am, Snit wrote:
Sandman stated in post
on 11/24/10 8:51 AM:

In article
,
Steve Carroll wrote:

which doesn't change the fact that your retarded interpretation
of the statements above is... well, still retarded.. :P

What's with the personal attacks, ed? Come on, you stated that you
"absolutely" disagreed with a two-part statement without any
further information. Elaborate guesswork was required by the
reader of your statement.

If you think aforementioned guesswork was too elaborate, that's
your prerogative, but I fail to see how that would warrant such
attacks and dismissal to the guessers ability to maintain a
conversation.

Be easy now, ed is one of the few good trolls we have left, we
don't want to drive him off

Hmmm... I think this brings up an advocacy ng discussion point.
What is the difference between a 'good' troll and a 'bad' one? We
all obviously have a well rounded idea of what a 'bad' troll does.
We all sorta know what a 'good' troll looks like but, if we had to
define it, what's the criteria for drawing that fine line? IOW,
what are the actions that stand right on the edge? I think this is
trickier to answer than it first appears...

I think you have to separate "good vs. bad" from "effective vs.
ineffective". I.e. some trolls may be effective in sheer number of
replies but be really bad at trolling so that most of those replies
are just people that point out how wrong that troller is in his
initial setup. Trolls like zara, Tom Elam and Muahman fit in this
category. They are really really bad trolls that count replies as
the only metric of success.

I would not say that is you, but it might be Steve. When people do
not reply to his trolling he has been known to post his "crickets
chirping" and other similar BS in a desperate attempt to get
responses.

When one analyzes the "people" I have used the term with a very clear
picture develops.

A good troll may not be very effective in the long run. Daniel
Johnsson is a pretty good troll. He pours out a lot of
misinformation, lies and misconceptions about more technical issues
that may look legit to the casual observer, but turns out to be
pure fantasy 9 times of 10.

This is neither you nor Steve. You actually seem rather technically
competent (though you are loath to admit your weaknesses); Carroll,
while he sometimes heads this way (such as his BS about Mac problems
which were clearly made up) tends to just spew nonsense and nit
picks.

Is this a reason why it's Sandman you've chosen to target with your
"professional" jealousy?

A very good troll is someone that is actually correct from time to
time. And someone who manages to keep up the steam in a thread by
continuously inserting new material, not by flaming it's
participants (mostly)

That is more of what you do - you post a lot of good info, but then
lie through your teeth and then lash out at those who point out your
lies. If they do it "too much" then you start making dishonest web
pages about them.

Minus the providing a lot of good info bit you just described what you
did on this ng before he ever did it. That he took your lead should
have been expected by you, after all. you were the one who essentially
asked him to do what he eventually ended up doing. Of course, the
difference between his implementation and yours is that his is focuses
on trolls in general, you targeted specific people with the intention
of antagonizing them. It's ironic and hypocritical of you to whine
about this for these reasons.

To a casual observer you might even seem to *believe* your lies,
given how you often do make valid points on other topics.
Interesting to see how you recognize this and label your own actions
as those of a "very good troll".

I think Edwin is a good troll (his current sock puppet is a bit lame
though) and of course, the mother of all trolls is Snit. Both are
good AND effective trolls.

I respond to trolls (such as you and Steve) - which is not the same
thing as being a troll.

So how do you account for the fact that virtually everyone you've come
into contact with in this ng has labeled you a liar, troll or worse,
yet, few of them, relatively speaking, (relative to you) have labeled
Jonas or I in similar fashion?

But part of your trolling is to obfuscate facts by calling
others what you are... but you sorta blew it this time by noting
your own actions, above.

I ask the same question here I just asked. Of course you can't answer
it here, either.

LOL!

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch