Landscape

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

How could it be anything but relevant? By what definition of
"irrelevant" is it disqualified?

The topic was whether the passage was a request or a question. You
entered the thread telling us that you saw it as a challenge. That is
irrelevant. Both what you "saw" it as and whether or not it was a
challenge. You contributed nothing to the topic of whether it was a
request or a question, thus your comment was irrelevant.

Selective snippage as a cover-up is not a new ploy, but it is such a
transparent ploy that I wonder that you use it. I said:

I know what you said. I called it irrelevant. Why are you reposting the
same irrelevant passage?

I know you're a troll. I deal with you guys in another group whose sole
purpose is to take care of you trolls. Here in this group, I haven't got
the same patience to deal with simple minded trolls that have nothing
else to do but to try to argue everything in spite of them being wrong.

*plonk*


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-07-01 14:10:58 -0700, Sandman said:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

How could it be anything but relevant? By what definition of
"irrelevant" is it disqualified?

The topic was whether the passage was a request or a question. You
entered the thread telling us that you saw it as a challenge. That is
irrelevant. Both what you "saw" it as and whether or not it was a
challenge. You contributed nothing to the topic of whether it was a
request or a question, thus your comment was irrelevant.

Selective snippage as a cover-up is not a new ploy, but it is such a
transparent ploy that I wonder that you use it. I said:

I know what you said. I called it irrelevant. Why are you reposting the
same irrelevant passage?

I know you're a troll. I deal with you guys in another group whose sole
purpose is to take care of you trolls. Here in this group, I haven't got
the same patience to deal with simple minded trolls that have nothing
else to do but to try to argue everything in spite of them being wrong.

*plonk*

Note; there is a difference between a "troll" and a "flame warrior".
....and there are sub-categories of such "Flame Warriors", here are a
few commonly found in the photo NG's.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...ssrebutter.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tfuldodger.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...m/duelists.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/troller.htm


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2013070114281329267-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

I know what you said. I called it irrelevant. Why are you reposting the
same irrelevant passage?

I know you're a troll. I deal with you guys in another group whose sole
purpose is to take care of you trolls. Here in this group, I haven't got
the same patience to deal with simple minded trolls that have nothing
else to do but to try to argue everything in spite of them being wrong.

*plonk*

Note; there is a difference between a "troll" and a "flame warrior".
...and there are sub-categories of such "Flame Warriors", here are a
few commonly found in the photo NG's.

Well, maybe. I don't really subcategorize that much. I was perfectly
polite towards Tony in another thread and he was a complete asshole in
return. "troll" is just a catch-all phrase for anyone online whose
purpose is to be as large of an annoyance as possible towards other
posters. Eric Stevens and Tony Cooper are the only trolls I've killfiled
in this group.

--
Sandman[.net]

Savageduck wrote:

On 2013-07-01 14:10:58 -0700, Sandman said:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

How could it be anything but relevant? By what definition of
"irrelevant" is it disqualified?

The topic was whether the passage was a request or a question. You
entered the thread telling us that you saw it as a challenge. That is
irrelevant. Both what you "saw" it as and whether or not it was a
challenge. You contributed nothing to the topic of whether it was a
request or a question, thus your comment was irrelevant.

Selective snippage as a cover-up is not a new ploy, but it is such a
transparent ploy that I wonder that you use it. I said:

I know what you said. I called it irrelevant. Why are you reposting the
same irrelevant passage?

I know you're a troll. I deal with you guys in another group whose sole
purpose is to take care of you trolls. Here in this group, I haven't got
the same patience to deal with simple minded trolls that have nothing
else to do but to try to argue everything in spite of them being wrong.

*plonk*

Note; there is a difference between a "troll" and a "flame warrior".
...and there are sub-categories of such "Flame Warriors", here are a
few commonly found in the photo NG's.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...ssrebutter.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tfuldodger.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...m/duelists.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/troller.htm

I'd say this boy has been about a bit recently too

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/android.htm


--
sid