urc's resident "troll feeder"

On 29 Jan 2009 22:32:38 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

One thing has not changed: the trolls' main aim is to turn the group
against itself. In this they seem to have succeeded admirably.

Actually, that's wrong on two accounts:

1: Their aim is to damage the group, the way in which that is done is
irrelevant. As it happens, you seem intent on helping them along.

2: The group has not been turned against itself, only againt the three
people doing the damage - Nuxxy, judith and you.

Just to clarify, do you advocate leaving all egregious idiocy
unchallenged, regardless of who posts it?

I don't. I haven't seen anyone suggest that, only that idiocy posted
by the two people whose sole aim is to obtain a response should be
ignored, regardless of how idiotic.

I think you are now arguing with a straw man - which is the sort of
thing that people who know they are in the wrong often turn to.

And does your newsreader have the facility to ignore a thread?

Why? Are you looking for help finding one?

regards, Ian SMith


Beautiful - the greatest ****wit on urc - crucified by the second
greatest ****wit.

I could not have done better myself.

PS "Their aim is to damage the group" - you are wrong as I have
explained.

Have you found where the HC clearly endorses filtering?

I can't find it - I'm sure that you are wrong when you say that.

judith

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

On 29 Jan 2009 22:32:38 GMT, Ian Smith said
in :

1: Their aim is to damage the group, the way in which that is done is
irrelevant. As it happens, you seem intent on helping them along.
2: The group has not been turned against itself, only againt the three
people doing the damage - Nuxxy, judith and you.

So, given that I have deleted unread every nuxxious emission for
quite some time and have also deleted unread everything from judith
and added every single new nym used by it without any reply, since
before Christmas, what else do I need to do to *now* to stop them
trolling, Ian?

I'm not denying past errors, I want to know what else you think I
should do to stop them trolling.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:13:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On 29 Jan 2009 22:32:38 GMT, Ian Smith said
in :

1: Their aim is to damage the group, the way in which that is done is
irrelevant. As it happens, you seem intent on helping them along.
2: The group has not been turned against itself, only againt the three
people doing the damage - Nuxxy, judith and you.

So, given that I have deleted unread every nuxxious emission for
quite some time and have also deleted unread everything from judith
and added every single new nym used by it without any reply, since
before Christmas, what else do I need to do to *now* to stop them
trolling, Ian?

I'm not denying past errors, I want to know what else you think I
should do to stop them trolling.

Guy

Guy - why continue to lie even mo

You clearly responded to me on 29 January; the 29th January is not
"before Christmas" ; still accuracy on facts was never a strong point
was it?

To answer your questions on what you need to do: apologise for your
previous "errors", admit your mistakes and correct your lies.

PS - as I point out above - when you say that you have deleted
everything by Judith - unread, you're telling porkies again aren't
you.

eg: did you delete this one without reading it?

judith

"Clive George" wrote in message
news
"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

"Tim Dunne" wrote in message
om...

It's depressing that, instead of modifying your irritating posting
habits, you're doing exactly what I said you would and put your hands up
and say 'who me?'


Cognitive dissonance?

Speaking of which, I've just finished that book wot was recommended on the
subject. It's rather good. ("mistakes were made (but not by me)").



Seconded. The only issue I had with it is that it seems to give the
impression that it is wrong to justify why one made a decision if that
decision turned out to be wrong for whatever reason. Sometimes you have to
make decisions without having all the facts available to you.

Ian Smith writes:

2: The group has not been turned against itself, only againt the three
people doing the damage - Nuxxy, judith and you.

If this is true, perhaps you can explain why I today had anonymous
email to tell me not to feed the trolls - given that I am not any of
those three people nor, to the best of my recollection, have replied
to them in, oh, ages.

I assume the email came from someone who reads this group, but as Is
say, there was no real name and it wasn't an email address I
recognise.


-dan

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:56:46 +0000, Daniel Barlow
wrote:

Ian Smith writes:

2: The group has not been turned against itself, only againt the three
people doing the damage - Nuxxy, judith and you.

If this is true, perhaps you can explain why I today had anonymous
email to tell me not to feed the trolls - given that I am not any of
those three people nor, to the best of my recollection, have replied
to them in, oh, ages.

I assume the email came from someone who reads this group, but as Is
say, there was no real name and it wasn't an email address I
recognise.


-dan


It was most likely from the ****wit Taylor - he has taken upon himself
to be the net-nazi for the group - the only problem is, that every
one of his tactics to date has gone up his arse.

On Jan 29, 10:38*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

The problem is that I am too slow in
diagnosing the stubborn trolling idiots from the clueless newbies.

You called me a "troll" in your first post to me. So either you were
lying about thinking that, or you're lying above.

The real reason why you were so determined to argue with me at every
opportunity for so long is that you knew I was right about cameras,
and you hated that I was exposing the truth about them, in the same
way that you hated that Paul Smith was doing so.

Pretty much, it works for me. This is Usenet, you'll never change
anyone's mind. What you need to realize is that in hundreds of posts,
all you've achieved is the continued occupation of this group by a
number of single issue mental cases with no purpose but to disrupt.

Ha ha. "Mental cases". So anyone who fights fire with fire and
adopts an abrasive style when (and only when) posting in a group full
of lying motorist-hating freaks (or, if you like, "single issue mental
cases") is a "mental case" now? Whatever. Is a soldier "violent"
just because he uses weapons when and where he needs to? No, but he
recognises that unfortunately, it's sometimes necessary.

I personally think that those who prefer bullying motorists to saving
lives are pretty ****ed up, but there we go.

The thread with Dragon in it had numerous participants. *The last
two threads based on nuxxious emissions have zero input from me. *I
have not replied to a single post from judith in over a month,
others have fed that particular troll. *I think you are being overly
harsh in blaming me for all this. *I don't deny responsibility, but
I do deny /sole/ responsibility.

Crapman, I was perfectly happily ignoring you until you popped up on
one of my threads very recently and accused me of trolling in it,
despite *everyone* else managing to take it at face value and reply
civilly and usefully. You may not be replying directly, but you're
still reading my posts and replying indirectly (and replying directly
as "A little bird"), and you still can't resist stirring it and trying
to censor discussions about speed enforcement for fear that the truth
may be arrived at.

I'll cut you a deal. You don't mention me, you don't accuse me of
trolling, you don't participate in my threads in any way, shape or
form (either as yourself or "A little bird"). You don't try to stop
people discussing things which *you* personally don't want them to
discuss because you don't want logical conclusions to be reached. If
you can manage that (and of course you won't be able to), I'll gladly
go back to pretending that you don't exist.

On Jan 29, 11:13*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

So, given that I have deleted unread every nuxxious emission for
quite some time

"Quite some time" presumably meaning a couple of weeks, if that? You
trolled in my "Does the punishment fit the crime" thread, remember?
(The one that had 100+ reasonable replies from others, remember?)
That wasn't "quite some time" ago, was it? You also replied twice to
my "Guy Chapman: Did You Know?" thread, using two different addresses,
and one reply was directly to me. Why oh why do you keep lying so
blatantly when it is so easily shown that that's the case? Why do you
think people are so thick?

You like trouble, you like confrontation, and you will *never* be able
to genuinely ignore the "trolls" (i.e. the many people who hate you)
who come onto this group.

On Jan 30, 12:56*am, Daniel Barlow wrote:
Ian Smith writes:
2: The group has not been turned against itself, only againt the three
people doing the damage - Nuxxy, judith and you.

If this is true, perhaps you can explain why I today had anonymous
email to tell me not to feed the trolls

That just about sums up this place.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Daniel Barlow wrote:
Ian Smith writes:

2: The group has not been turned against itself, only againt the three
people doing the damage - Nuxxy, judith and you.

If this is true, perhaps you can explain why I today had anonymous
email to tell me not to feed the trolls

Because someone is _trying_ to turn the group against itself? I don't
know - I pay less attention to anonymous email than to what is written
on toilet walls.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|