|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/09/07 21:02
In article <s4KdnVFx89E8-5banZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <Md6dnWBhqOL1bZfanZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I have challenged him ...
> >>>
> >>> Ah! Changing the subject!
> >>>
> >> Nope. Brining it back to the original subject, troll.
> >
> > So, you are saying, it is a non-troll thing to do to go back to
> > an earlier subject when a person does not want to pursue a
> > particular side thread of a thread but that one who does want to
> > pursue a side thread and stay on it is a troll? Methinks this
> > troll attribution is a murky quantity <g>
> >
>
> I'm saying that when trolls are pinned down, they try to change the
> subject and otherwise deflect the conversation.
>
> Trolls are also good at misquoting and taking out of context.
>
> This describes you perfectly, troll.
I don't think so because I have not misquoted you, every side
issue can be unfairly cast as taking something out of context,
and it is you rather than me who keeps wanting to go back to the
original context. You were the one that accused Travis of being a
troll. Now I object to this strongly. I took you up on this
business, we were having a discussion about your conception of
trolling and I was interested in seeing if you had deeply
considered the matter, distinguishing trolling from other things,
good and bad. But you are showing signs of impatience and being
content to throw names about.
Now, about the *original* context (no, I am not changing the
subject), what was that? This thread is a big party with lots of
independent conversations going on.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|