If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#841
|
|||
|
|||
Info Junkie wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:17:38 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: Info Junkie wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:21:30 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: TheNIGHTCRAWLER wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote: ivy_mike wrote: Jasper my boy, you're just feeding the trolls. This clown Walz and his buddy LeChevwhatever are nothing more than that. Ignore 'em. --------------------- You haven't been sufficiently brainwashed in your life, so you have to even delude yourself, eh? Steve I'll take a moment to remind all that a "troll" is an arguable and often contentious post on opinions that are guaranteed to provoke angst about mainstream ideology on life, the universe, or anything. --------------- Wrong, it is a spoiler that the poster then stands back from to watch the firworks. I neither initiate threads, nor stand back, and I stick around to fight. Thus I'm not a troll. Steve Which is why you've stopped reponding to my posts in the named Subject: Bill Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian. LOL ----------- That thread wandered off into realms unknown, a totally different subject matter that doesn't interest me, and *I* did NOT start that thread, which is the requirement for trolling. Your posts to me "wandered into" philosophy and other irrelevent "realms unknown" Mr Walz, not mine I attempted to keep you on-track wrt your claim vis-a-vis "reparations"....in this I failed and you stopped posting. --------------------------------- Nope, you posted off-topic crap and changed the Subject: line. Wrt "trolling", one should consider its definition: "troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames." ----------------------------------- Not me, I want a confrontational discussion on the issues. That's what newsgroups are for. People who don't like an opinion that is logically winning but unpopular among idiots like them will yell "troll" in order to obfuscate their loser status. whereas; "The content of a "troll posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a ----------------------- There are as many amateur daffynitions as there are amateurs on the Net. All you did was Google up one you liked, however stupid. Steve |
#842
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:50:29 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Info Junkie wrote: On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:17:38 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: Info Junkie wrote: On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:21:30 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: TheNIGHTCRAWLER wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote: ivy_mike wrote: Jasper my boy, you're just feeding the trolls. This clown Walz and his buddy LeChevwhatever are nothing more than that. Ignore 'em. --------------------- You haven't been sufficiently brainwashed in your life, so you have to even delude yourself, eh? Steve I'll take a moment to remind all that a "troll" is an arguable and often contentious post on opinions that are guaranteed to provoke angst about mainstream ideology on life, the universe, or anything. --------------- Wrong, it is a spoiler that the poster then stands back from to watch the firworks. I neither initiate threads, nor stand back, and I stick around to fight. Thus I'm not a troll. Steve Which is why you've stopped reponding to my posts in the named Subject: Bill Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian. LOL ----------- That thread wandered off into realms unknown, a totally different subject matter that doesn't interest me, and *I* did NOT start that thread, which is the requirement for trolling. Your posts to me "wandered into" philosophy and other irrelevent "realms unknown" Mr Walz, not mine I attempted to keep you on-track wrt your claim vis-a-vis "reparations"....in this I failed and you stopped posting. --------------------------------- Nope, you posted off-topic crap and changed the Subject: line. Please provide the evidence that I "changed the Subject line" Mr Walz, else you've lied. Wrt "off-topic crap", in my first post to those thread ('Subject: Bill Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian'.) I responded to the comments regarding "reparations"which you brought up Mr Walz, not I So, if "reparations" were part of "off-topic posts", you made it Mr Walz,, when you wrote "The only way to defeat such a hatred (racisim) is to pay reparations to blacks..."(Message-ID: ) Claiming otherwise Mr Walz must be backed by the evidence. Until you provide such evidence, your assertions are false. and your avoidance in admitting you've erred yet again, is clear to all. Wrt "trolling", one should consider its definition: "troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames." ----------------------------------- Not me, I want a confrontational discussion on the issues. That's what newsgroups are for. People who don't like an opinion that is logically winning but unpopular among idiots like them will yell "troll" in order to obfuscate their loser status. I wish it understood I've not stated nor implied you are a troll Mr Walz, rather your definition as to what a troll is or is not has been found t be less than accurate and the evidence has been provided you. I'm well aware of the usage of Usenet NGs Mr Walz. OTOH, what may be unpopular is not always "among idiots". Similarly, the "loser status" may also be applied to those that fail to admit they've erred...or run away from answering direct and honest questions posed to them,; or even making false excuses as to why they refused to respond by attacking the poster, invoking of fallacies, etc. Yet what I previously noted remains as fact: 'Which is why you've stopped reponding to my posts in the named 'Subject: Bill Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian'. and that 'I attempted to keep you on-track wrt your claim vis-a-vis "reparations"....in this I failed and you stopped posting.' Unless you provide evidence to back your assertions Mr Walz, they are false and may be considered as your attempt to invoke fallacies of distraction to avoid admitting you've erred...and been caught at it. whereas; "The content of a "troll posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a ----------------------- There are as many amateur daffynitions as there are amateurs on the Net. All you did was Google up one you liked, however stupid. Your free to claim what I posted as evidence as "amateur daffynitions", Mr Walz, but you've not refuted my evidence with any of your own. So, maybe you'll be more comfortable with that from an encyclopedia: "It should be noted that there is no official definition of 'troll'". (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Usenet_troll.html). So one may conclude that withiout an "official" definition Mr Walz, there can be no "requirement" as you've claimed. Readers may note you've made serveral assertions, but provide no evidence: 1. What a *professional* "daffynitions" is or is not wrt "troll" in Usenet 2. That which disproves the evidence provided you...professional or amateur 3. I''ve "changed the Subject: line" in another thread 4. To be considered a "troll", starting a thread is a "requirement" 5. Your evidence that what I responded to you in another thread was "off-topic". 6. More importantly, one original claim you've made: "it is a spoiler that the poster then stands back from to watch the firworks. I neither initiate threads, nor stand back, and I stick around to fight. Thus I'm not a troll." This last one is "precious" (for last of a better word). You comment may be true in this, misc.education NG Mr Walz, but a simple search would find you've lied if one considers various other NGs such as comp.os.cpm or sci.electronics.basics just to name a few, eh? ROTFLMHO. |
#843
|
|||
|
|||
Info Junkie wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:50:29 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: -------------- Your posts consist merely of illogical cut-n-paste ad hominems. They prove you're nothing but a little coward. You do this because you're DESPERATELY terrified of taking me on in structured and reasoned argument. Steve |
#844
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 04:47:15 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Info Junkie wrote: On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:50:29 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: -------------- Your posts consist merely of illogical cut-n-paste ad hominems. They prove you're nothing but a little coward. IOW Mr Walz, you now move onto ad hominem as you have been unable/incapable of backing your assertions with evidence and have been found to have lied multiple times. What I've "proven" Mr Walz, is that you've lied multiples times, run away when challenged by facts, invoke fallacies of distraction to avoid those that challenge you, and spew ad hominem when it becomes obvious you've lost the argument. Any claim you make to the contrary is but your self-delusion...unless of course, you can prove my assertions about you wrong...with evidence. You do this because you're DESPERATELY terrified of taking me on in structured and reasoned argument. The fact that I challenged you in another thread and it was YOU that "ran away" Mr Walz, not I, clearly shows the NG readers which of us is "DESPERATELY terrified" . ROTFLMHO |
#845
|
|||
|
|||
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Info Junkie wrote: On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:50:29 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: -------------- Your posts consist merely of illogical cut-n-paste ad hominems. They prove you're nothing but a little coward. You do this because you're DESPERATELY terrified of taking me on in structured and reasoned argument. Is that why you snip the portions of posts that PROVE you are a lying coward ? |
#846
|
|||
|
|||
Is that why you snip the portions of posts that PROVE you are a lying coward
Jasp; The best way to elliminate Steve is to ignore him! This man wants attention, attention he should not get! Kurt |
#847
|
|||
|
|||
The fact that I challenged you in another thread and it was YOU that "ran
away" Mr Walz, not I, clearly shows the NG readers which of us is "DESPERATELY terrified" . ROTFLMHO Steve's arguments are very narcisstic cut and paste giblish. Steve always runs away when faced with someone wanting to challenge him. I've kicked his ass before, and he signed me up for eharmony! Its the kind of rat that Steve is! Kurt |
#848
|
|||
|
|||
Ironfist5687 wrote:
The best way to elliminate Steve is to ignore him! Yeah, John, just like you've been ignoring him for the past 2+ years, under god knows how many aliases. -- Mike Rosenberg http://macconsult.com/diaperboy/ The John Wolf Fan Club http://www.macconsult.com Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida http://bogart-tribute.net Tribute to Humphrey Bogart |
#849
|
|||
|
|||
Info Junkie wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 04:47:15 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote: Your posts consist merely of illogical cut-n-paste ad hominems. They prove you're nothing but a little coward. IOW Mr Walz, you now move onto ad hominem as you have been unable/incapable of backing your assertions with evidence ------------------------- None of that is either needed or possible in this venue, structural argument is vastly superior and prevents **** like you from muddying issues with ad hominem. Stick to issues instead of persons or be **** upon!!!! and have been found to have lied multiple times. -------------------------- I don't lie, that is merely your delusion and posturing propaganda. It won't be allowed, and it won't work! Stick to issues, not persons, or be **** upon!!!! Bet you CAN'T!!!!! I BET you DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW!! What I've "proven" Mr Walz, is that you've lied multiples times, run away when challenged... --------------------- This post now truncated for your lying ad hominems and repetition. And without ever arguing issues from structure and logic. Stick to issues or be **** upon wherever you go!! Steve |
#850
|
|||
|
|||
Ironfist5687 wrote:
The fact that I challenged you in another thread and it was YOU that "ran away" Mr Walz, not I, clearly shows the NG readers which of us is "DESPERATELY terrified" . ROTFLMHO Steve's arguments are very narcisstic cut and paste giblish. Steve always runs away when faced with someone wanting to challenge him. I've kicked his ass before, and he signed me up for eharmony! Its the kind of rat that Steve is! Kurt ------------- Lie. Kurt is a pathological liar who can't argue issues because he's too stupid to even know how. Steve |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A first 'Parker Jensen' bill advances | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 8th 04 07:29 PM |