cc <scatnubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Jan 18, 5:25 am, Kier <val...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:07:23 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>> > In article <l98665-o76....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > Mark Kent <mark.k...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> Kier says:
>> >> >>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
>>
>> >> in response to (paraphrasing) does he work for the BBC? This *is*
>> >> trolling, Roy!
>>
>> > You didn't just ask out of the blue if he worked for the BBC. You asked
>> > in the middle of the thread, in a place where the implication was that
>> > he is likely astroturfing for them.
>>
>> And given what I do for a living, I find that most *un*likely :-)
>>
>> He did not even have a courtesy to ask me directly the first time. Did he
>> really not expect me to respond?
>>
>
> It would be best not to question the Almighty. He has a very specific
> definition of troll: You can't respond with any kind of emotion, but
> he can respond with any kind of emotion, including asking a loaded
> question implying you are shilling for the BBC. It doesn't have to
> make sense to you or me. He's the King of COLA and rules with an iron
> fist. Is calling it the "MSBBC" intended to evoke an emotional
> response? Sure it is, but as one of Mark's favored children, Roy gets
> a pass. Mark created this group so he could have a place to talk to
> Roy (and for William Poaster to pop in and mention how big his
> killfile is), the rest of us just need to accept that.
I am glad I had Mark Kent pegged for what he is a long time ago. An
egotistical wind bag who thinks that this group is HIS cot and every
thread his toy.
He surely can not be for real. NOONE would be stupid enough to think
anyone is interested in his smelly kids, or how long his stereo "for his
parents" work. He's a classic example of a Harry Enfield "It's only me"
nosey neighbour that knows everything and is there to tell everyone at
every opportunity. A wanker of the first order and very much to be
ignored.
|
|
