On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:50:54 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
> "Sean Inglis" <none@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:15:00 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>> rgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Roy Culley) writes:
>>>
>>>> begin risky.vbs
>>>> <sfhvghkz1f8.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:54:15 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're doing a grand job Erik. Quoting all of Roy's [News] posts with
>>>>>> your stunning one liner followups so that those who have Roy S kill
>>>>>> filed get to see his posts in their entirety. A truly cunning bit of
>>>>>> Linux advocacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, I try.
>>>>
>>>> Being an idiot? IMHO you have succeeded. Well done Erik.
>>>
>>> If being an idiot is getting people to see Roy's posts then you've said
>>> enough about your true opinion of them. Well done. Mouth, foot, mmmpphhh.
>>
>> Being an idiot is attempting to drown out Roy's posts, and actually
>
> How is replying to Roy drowning out his posts? Please explain carefully
> and in details. It would appear to me that the silly prank Erik played
> did absolutely the opposite and bought Roys posts to those of us who
> killfiled his inane spam ages ago. So, when you are ready ....
>
This is *exactly* my point, and I have explained this in the second part of
the sentence. Perhaps you should read to the end before composing your
response?
Just to be clear; my opinion is that in an infantile fit, Erik is replying
to each of Roy's posts with an inanity, thus increasing the noise on the
group in an attempt to shift the balance to useless off-topic from useful
on-topic postings. His childish strategy has the opposite effect to the
intention, particularly in view of the fact that he has left the substance
of Roy's posts intact when replying.
This is obvious. Your post is ill-considered.
>> promoting their ranking and retention, which is exactly what
>> Erik has done (and you are doing), presumably in an attempt to return to
>> the "good old days" where wankers endlessly troll at will.
>
> I am doing? No I am not. More downright lies. I might have added one
> reply, but certainly didnt engage in mass replying.
>
Ah, ok, I admit to ambiguity here. An in view of the trouble you evidently
have sensibly parsing a whole sentence, I'll make a greater effort in
future. And what do you mean by *more* lies?
My intention wasn't to accuse you of mass-posting (of which you are
clearly not guilty), but to affirm that your pointless replies have much
the same effect as Erik's; they keep the thread alive. Simple fact,
simpleton.
> What trolls? Can you tell me who they are? Someone who reports
honestly
> is a troll? You need to grow up. More explaining necessary please. What
> IS a troll to you? I asked Kier once and he spat the dummy and got his
> panties well and truly in a twist.
An examination of the group title and charter will make this plain
for you. You're leaning against an open door taking this line.
>
>> Well done, gents.
>
> Err, thanks. I think.
|
|
