If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 05:12:48 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
wrote: Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup? I've never noticed him. Steve -- http://www.npsnn.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on thisnewsgroup?
On 23/06/2018 07:12, Arlen Holder wrote:
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup? Less so than you. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
Arlen Holder wrote:
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup? All mixmin posters are trolls. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:05:47 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup? All mixmin posters are trolls. Hi Vanguard, That's an idiotic racist statement from you - which shows that your thought process is easily shown to be exactly that of a racist mindset. Both of us have been on Usenet for decades, where you use a different privacy-based model than I do, both of which are valid. Many people use what I term the "chit-chat model", where you post mostly to other people's threads; hence you don't have any particular vested interest in the outcome of the thread; hence who you are often contains more importance than what technical value you actually add to the thread. I use what I term the "Q&A model", where I mostly post to my own threads, each of which asks a question or requests testing, using, and improving any one of my thousands of tutorials; hence I have a huge vested interest in the outcome, where we, together, almost never fail to find the answer to good hard questions. Here is a sample of some of the related solutions in my personal archives (this screenshot is simply the top-50 setup items, in order, for Windows) http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_restore1.jpg In the Q&A model, the only header that is meaningful is the SUBJECT line, since it clearly asks a specific technical question, and the only post that matters is the SUMMARY post, generally painstakingly written up after the solution to thank everyone and to add to the tribal knowledge archives so that the next person stands on our shoulders when they encounter the problem. Since I clearly have a vested interest in the outcome of the Q&A threads, how I handle the inevitable bullying trolls is quite different than how I handle them in the chit-chat threads (all of which I also read). In the chit-chat model threads, I don't feed the trolls, nor drop to their level, but in the Q&A model threads, once the trolls infest the thread, it's like them bringing dung to the potluck picnic. The moment the trolls show up, the public picnic is already ruined. The thing about trolls is that they're all cowardly bullies, who thrive on attention - but - who usually don't like negative attention. It's a difficult task to decide *how* to deal with trolls in the Q&A model, whereas it's a trivial task to decide how to deal with them in the chit-chat model. In the chit-chat model, you're not invested in the outcome of the thread - but - in the Q&A model, you are invested in the successful outcome of the thread. Bearing in mind the moment the trolls infest any thread, it's already ruined, your only hope is to salvage what you can, and prevent the *next* Q&A thread from being infested by the trolls. You have to understand that huge difference to understand why I confront the troll bullies directly, naming them directly, and pointing out directly their lack of ability to contribute value. Vanguard ... that you think all mixmin posters are trolls simply proves that your racist thought process is no different than Mayayana's. You will hate me for pointing out fact - but it's a fact nonetheless that your thought process is easily shown to be exactly that of a racist mind. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on thisnewsgroup?
Arlen Holder wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 10:05:47 -0500, VanguardLH wrote: Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup? All mixmin posters are trolls. Hi Vanguard, That's an I think that was a satirical comment about "troll algorithms". Vanguard just invented his own algorithm. "Discussing a troll" doesn't change anything. The only time a discussion about a troll makes sense, is if you're crafting kill-file filters. I mean, there are some really dedicated mental individuals out there. The administrator of my server has some names that comes to mind, of people that have tried hundreds of times to create new accounts, just for the purpose of annoying people. These are mental individuals with boundless energy. They can keep up a campaign like this for a couple years straight. One of them actually died of Alzheimers, but the only way we can be sure, is if he never comes back :-( You never know about trolls, as even with six feet of dirt on top of them, they can still almost reach the Enter key. Paul |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
On 23 Jun 2018, VanguardLH wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10: All mixmin posters are trolls. Truth. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 23:56:49 -0400, Paul wrote:
I think that was a satirical comment about "troll algorithms". Vanguard just invented his own algorithm. Hi Paul, Ah, I see. OK. That makes sense. I missed the satire, and, since I'm currently using mixmin, it's apropos (as I can use any number of a dozen or more nntp servers). And, I never hide who I am in the body of the message, no matter what the headers indicate, even going so far as to use the same screenshots of my extremely well-organized systems, such as this iOS one, by way of example: http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_ios_library_1.jpg [Who on earth has the iOS homescreen set up in a pyramid for example, where 99.9999% of iOS users wouldn't even know *how* to do something as simple as that!] Likewise, I use terms like "orthodox" and "heterodox" for the start menu: http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_win10menu808.jpg [Who else on earth uses such names!] Similarly, I use the same extremely well organized paths for decades! http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_my_win10_cascade_menu.jpg [Who else on this planet uses *those* same paths for two decades!] Even without all those detailed tell-tale screenshots, I have a Q&A factual style, starting with detailed questions, and then responding to all valid suggestions with detailed tests, and then summarizing the results, where each of these (and thousands more) writeups are a direct result: http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_restore1.jpg Given that I don't hide who I am, it's amazing that "geniuses" such as Frank Slootweg, Wolf K, and yes, even Mayayana, claim to be veritable deities in that they can 'sniff me out' (which I find patently hilarious). It simply shows how low they are on the DK scale when it comes to self-assessment of skills. If it takes someone more than ten seconds to figure out my posts, then I assert they're almost certainly stupid, since my posts are obvious - so whenever someone asserts I'm trying to avoid killfilters, I can only think that they're the dumbest people on this planet - and yet they abound! That such ignorance abounds is scary to me, since those ignorati carry the same voting power that you and I carry ... which is partly why I responded strongly to what I perceived Vanguard's statement to be. But, as you noted, I erred, in that Vanguard was simply being witty. So I apologize to Vanguard for whooshing on his satirical humor, which, I agree, is funny in a dry intelligent manner. Which means then, that he's likely not of a racist mindset as Mayayana showed himself to be (where we're using the common definition of racism which is that of applying assumptions to a person based only on a single trait of a group). I openly and publicly apologize to Vanguard for assuming he actually thought what he said, and not realizing it was a clever joke. "scussing a troll" doesn't change anything. Paul ... I appreciate that you don't ever seem to fall to the level of confronting the trolls - but - I'm not sure what you would do for a thread that you authored where the trolls infested it. Remember, you have to always realize there are two models: a. chit chat model (you're not invested in the outcome) b. Q&A model (you're invested in the outcome) We also have to remember there are different types of trolls. a. Snit-like trolls (e.g., GoodGuy) == inveterate losers b. Slootweg-like trolls (e.g., Char Jackson) == reasonable people There is actually a third type who defies categorization: c. nospam-like trolls (e.g., Wolf K.) == zero value contribution Of these types of trolls, the ones that are inveterate can only be killfiled, where, truth be told, the only two people in my two decades of being on Usenet that I've had to plonk are Snit (and his many nyms) and Good Guy (whose constant rabid pedophilic accusations show his creepy perversions all too clearly). I think the rest of the trolls *can* be shamed into compliance, but not by delving into the types of silly semantic arguments that the nospam and slootweg types love to engage in - but in simply pointing out that they can't provide any on-topic value. You, and I, on the other hand, almost always provide not only on-topic value, but well-researched well-documented well-tested on-topic value. We're different than most people. Extremely different. We mainly speak fact. The only time a discussion about a troll makes sense, is if you're crafting kill-file filters. I disagree but I perfectly well understand your sentiment. You need to bear in mind there is a reason I explicitly *name* the trolls, and that I explicitly point out their trolling. It's not to save the current thread, where the current thread is already ruined the moment the trolls like Wolf K show up. It's to save the *next* thread ... where ... I think ... you must admit, that the trolls didn't infest the last few technical threads, which, I believe, is partial proof of concept. (Of course, if the GoodGuy or Snit-like trolls infested any thread, I'd never see it since they're the only ones in my killfile currently.) I mean, there are some really dedicated mental individuals out there. The administrator of my server has some names that comes to mind, of people that have tried hundreds of times to create new accounts, just for the purpose of annoying people. These are mental individuals with boundless energy. They can keep up a campaign like this for a couple years straight. I agree. That Snit-like troll stalked me and followed me around the net, as did GoodGuy, with their perversions, and even Frank Slootweg carries his perversions around with him (although Frank *can* comprehend sense while the other creeps can't). Good Guy went so far as to have stated he reported me to the UK authorities, simply for wanting privacy! Snit went so far as to make this creepy stalking video literally about me! https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo *With people that creepy on the Internet, who wouldn't want privacy!* Those two are inveterate trolls. No amount of shaming will work on them. However, trolls like Mayayana can comprehend sense. As can Vanguard. When they directly bully me ... I directly bully back. Frontally. Note the key distinction that I only bully them back *after* they bully me first (which is how it works with such bullies). And notice I bully them by confronting what they "do", which is why I bullied Vanguard back since I saw his comment as racist (where I apologize for missing that he was simply joking). None of this is by accident. Also notice, very clearly ... something that both Frank Slootweg and Char Jackson haven't the capacity, it seems, to comprehend - which is that I respond in like manner to their "intent and tone". Yes. Intent and tone. If they're purposefully helpful in intent and tone - I'm a mirror back of their purposefully helpful intent and tone. If they're not purposefully helpful in intent and tone - I'm a mirror of their intent and tone. That is not by accident. It happens all the time with these nospam-like trolls, such as Frank Slootweg and Char Jackson. While nospam is rarely purposefully helpful, both Frank and Char Jackson have shown the capacity to be purposefully helpful at times. So they're both different than most trolls. As one example, Frank Slootweg is the one who gave us the best archives that we have to date for this newsgroup, and Char Jackson kindly reviewed my list of the first 50 actions to manually set up a Windows 10 system. When they're purposefully helpful in intent and tone, I mirror their intent and tone. Truth be told, most times I don't even *look* at who is posting, since I use the Q&A model where who you are is less important than what you say. Then there are the Wolf K. trolls. They *never* add value. But, they're not persistent like the snit-like trolls are. So they can more easily be dismissed by pointing out that they don't add any value when they post. It's key to remember that when I point out the lack of value in the trolls' posts, I'm not usually responding to who they are as much as I am responding, like a mirror, to what they say. For example, both Frank Slootweg and Char Jackson have asked me, in the past (I have a fantastic memory by the way) why I treat them will ill intent and tone sometimes and why I treat them courteously other times (Frank going so far as to consider that sycophantic). I simply smile when they ask that - as it shows they don't comprehend what I'm telling you - which is that I strategically respond to each post based on the perceived intent and tone. You notice that I did that in responding to Vanguard, where, in this particular case, I whooshed on his intent and tone - but I can easily openly apologize for missing that he was simply joking. One of them actually died of Alzheimers, but the only way we can be sure, is if he never comes back :-( You never know about trolls, as even with six feet of dirt on top of them, they can still almost reach the Enter key. Methinks that the snit-like good-guy like trolls might just be that persistent! In summary, I thank you Paul, for having the capacity to *understand* everything that I say - just as I have to capacity to understand most of what you say (your technical skills are far above those of mine). What I thank you most for is that you're always *purposefully helpful*, as am I, even as I directly confront the trolls who infest threads I care about the outcome of. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 00:06:51 -0400, Nil wrote:
All mixmin posters are trolls. Truth. Is that really the most value you can add, Nil? Really? That's all you have to offer? You're that useless, Nil? C'mon. Even you, Nil, aren't that dumb as to not be able to add a single iota of value to this thread, are you? *How dumb are you, Nil?* It's a serious question. How dumb are you? Let's see with facts how dumb you are Nil. Shall we? I simply ask you, Nil, to name a *single post* in your *entire life*, which added on-topic technical value to *any thread*. *Q: Has Nil even once added on-topic technical value to *any thread*?* (name just one post in his entire life that added value) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
On 24 Jun 2018, Arlen Holder wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10: Is that really the most value you can add, Nil? Shut up and go back to stroking your ego to climax. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 01:45:09 -0400, Nil wrote:
Shut up and go back to stroking your ego to climax. I simply ask you, Nil, to name a *single post* in your *entire life*, which added on-topic technical value to *any thread*. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
On 24 Jun 2018, Arlen Holder wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-10: I simply ask you, Nil, to name a *single post* in your *entire life*, which added on-topic technical value to *any thread*. I'm only here for the cameraderie. Wanna go bowling sometime? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 03:23:31 -0400, Nil wrote:
I'm only here for the cameraderie. Wanna go bowling sometime? What's sad is that you consistently prove the veracity of my conclusion that you're worthless in terms of ability to contribute to this newsgroup. Adding (Nil ) to a killfile raises the IQ of the group as a whole. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
"Arlen Holder" wrote in message
news Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup? Don't know, but your post shows that you are. You are already plonked so don't bother replying as I won't see it. -- wasbit |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Has the moronic poster "Sam Hill" *always* been a troll on this newsgroup?
Arlen Holder , aka The Lying Liar lied:
Given that I don't hide who I am, it's amazing that "geniuses" such as Frank Slootweg, Wolf K, and yes, even Mayayana, claim to be veritable deities in that they can 'sniff me out' (which I find patently hilarious). Still waiting for proof from The Lying Liar. Also notice, very clearly ... something that both Frank Slootweg and Char Jackson haven't the capacity, it seems, to comprehend - which is that I respond in like manner to their "intent and tone". Yes. Intent and tone. If they're purposefully helpful in intent and tone - I'm a mirror back of their purposefully helpful intent and tone. If they're not purposefully helpful in intent and tone - I'm a mirror of their intent and tone. Nope. If you do not like *what* people write, you attack *immediately*. It's absolutely *not* about 'intent and tone', it's *only* about *content*. If you do not *like* the content - which is nearly always the case - you attack the messenger and hir character. Guess what, Usenet does not exist to please Mr. EMAK, so live with it. Want a challenge? In future, when you flame a poster, tell *why* the poster is wrong/uniformed/whatever, i.e. - as adults do - address the *message* and do not attack the poster, especially not the poster's character. In the meantime, we're not holding our breath. [...] |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|