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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Nil consistently proves my point, in every post, that his posts are worthless.
Arlen Holder wrote:
On 27 Jun 2018 10:57:43 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: 1) Apparent case of sarchasm. 2) Non sequitur logical fallacy/failure. More silly semantic games from Frank Slootweg, who hasn't a clue about the answer to any real problem. Your newest fallacy - calling everything you don't *like* "silly semantic games" -, is getting more weary by the minute. So we can only conclude that - despite your claims to the contrary -, logic is clearly *not* your forte. [Rewind/Repeat:] Now give yourself and us a break and see your health professional for your AS! It's completely out of control! |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Nil consistently proves my point, in every post, that his posts are worthless.
On 27 Jun 2018 17:30:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Your newest fallacy - calling everything you don't *like* "silly semantic games" -, is getting more weary by the minute. Ah, but that's *all* you play, Frank Slootweg: Silly semantic games. Do you need me to remind you when you played those silly semantic games on the header question, Frank Slootweg? If you incessantly playing your silly semantic games makes *you* weary, think about your incessant trolling effect on those of us with normal intelligence, Frank Slootweg. So we can only conclude that - despite your claims to the contrary -, logic is clearly *not* your forte. That you don't comprehend the simplest of logic, doesn't negate the logic. [Rewind/Repeat:] What you fail to comprehend is that I don't change my stripes, Frank Slootweg. The more I alienate your type of troll from the Q&A threads I care about, the *more useful* those threads are, for me, and for *everyone* who reads them. That you don't comprehend that simple logical equation yet, is indication that it needs to be repeated a few more times, so that you get the facts. Bear in mind that by alienating you from the useful threads, you can *still* play your silly semantic chit-chat games on the other threads, so my approach of purposefully alienating you on Q&A threads should not impinge upon your normal chit-chat source of Usenet amusement. Now give yourself and us a break and see your health professional for your AS! It's completely out of control! I think my approach is well in control, in that I am purposefully pointing out your trolling in threads I care about, with the express purpose of alienating you. If you haven't figured that out yet, then I may need to repeat it. Alienating you *benefits* everyone in a Q&A thread where we care about coming to a successful solution to the problem set. The strategy is simple: * Eliminate you from Q&A threads where the successful outcome matters. The tactics are simple: * Point out your incessant trolls, Frank Slootweg, in those Q&A threads. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Nil consistently proves my point, in every post, that his posts are worthless.
On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 09:04:31 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
Anyone can post whatever they want, for whatever reasons. Thus, no matter how much you beg, whinge, curse, attack, etc, you can't control the posters... Ah, but I can. This is a rare post from you, Wolf K., where you actually made sense. Bear in mind there are two kinds of trolls: 1. Snit like - where - you're right - these trolls are immune to reason. 2. nospam like - where - these trolls still have a morsel of decency left. If a troll is Snit-like, then nothing I do will shame them into stopping their incessant worthless trolling - but - if they're nospam like - then they still have a shred of decency left - which is what I appeal to. It's a simple strategy. I use simple tactics. In any case, I have long since stopped trying to figure out what you want me to do. It's interesting that you claim to be unable to figure out the patently obvious since I'm completely transparent as to both the strategy of confronting the trolls in threads I care about, and in the tactics of calling them out for what they do. It's a simple strategy - with simple tactics used to implement it. Calling me a moron and a troll etc will certainly _not_ encourage me to invoke whatever "scraps of decency" I have left. I'm 100% transparently obvious as to my risk:reward equation. *What is the risk of alienating you versus the reward of alienating you?* As I see it, the *less* you post to Q&A threads I care about, the more useful those Q&A threads will be (to me, and to everyone on this ng). You can *still* post all you want to your chit-chat threads, which seem to amuse you, since I ignore your trolls in threads I don't care about. It is a very simple equation. This exchange is becoming exceedingly tedious. When you finally realize that my goal is to proactively alienate you worthless trolls from posting to the threads I care about, then you'll finally understand my strategy and tactics. Nothing I do is by accident. I don't want you worthless trolls posting to threads I care about. It's really that simple. You can post all you want to your chit-chat threads, so it shouldn't be too much of a strain on your Usenet amusement model. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Nil consistently proves my point, in every post, that his posts are worthless.
On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 16:06:01 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
That's funny. Remember Wolf K, you're the one who was dead wrong when I asked about Cortana, where Paul clearly explained that it's almost impossible since Microsoft breaks everything that did work (if it did work at all). When I painstakingly responded to you with my prior research results, you instantly and forever remained silent, since you, like nospam, always try to "appear intelligent" by making outlandish guesses and then not backing any of them up. So by that action of yours, I can tell that you *still* have a morsel of decency left. *That's a good thing, Wolf K, that you have a shred of decency remaining.* |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Nil consistently proves my point, in every post, that his posts are worthless.
Arlen Holder wrote:
On 27 Jun 2018 17:30:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: Your newest fallacy - calling everything you don't *like* "silly semantic games" -, is getting more weary by the minute. Ah, but that's *all* you play, Frank Slootweg: Silly semantic games. For once in your life, try reading for comprehension! I say your calling everything you don't *like* "silly semantic games" is a (logical) fallacy. You respond that *all* I do is play silly semantic games. Ergo you acknowledge that you do not *like* anything I say, i.e. I do *not* play silly semantic games! Sorry to rain on your parade, but *that* is how logic works, I mean *real* logic, not the Mr. EMAK variety. Do you need me to remind you when you played those silly semantic games on the header question, Frank Slootweg? You mean the one you failed to answer/prove? If you incessantly playing your silly semantic games makes *you* weary, think about your incessant trolling effect on those of us with normal intelligence, Frank Slootweg. As said many times befo You are not one in a set of "us". There are *no* people in these groups who support your MO with regard to alleged 'trolls', 'bullies', etc.. YOU ARE ALL ALONE. You've been challenged to come up with a name of someone who supports your MO. As usual, deafening silence followed. What you fail to comprehend is that I don't change my stripes, Frank Slootweg. What you fail to comprehend Mr. EMAK, is that we - YTIW - won't change our stripes, because there's absolutely no reason to do so. The more I alienate your type of troll from the Q&A threads I care about, the *more useful* those threads are, for me, and for *everyone* who reads them. "from" implies that you think you (can) have success. Earth to Mr. EMAK: You CANNOT have success, because - as several other have also told you (hint! hint) - you don't control who posts what. That you apparently *think* you (can) control that, only shows that AS is not your only mental disorder. In any case, your - failing - MO absolutely does NOT make the threads more useful for those who read them. Now give yourself and us a break and see your health professional for your AS! It's completely out of control! I think my approach is well in control, in that I am purposefully pointing out your trolling in threads I care about, with the express purpose of alienating you. Earth to Mr. EMAK: You have no control over anybody except yourself. So your 'alienating' accomplishes absolutely nothing. If you haven't figured that out yet, then I may need to repeat it. Alienating you *benefits* everyone in a Q&A thread where we care about coming to a successful solution to the problem set. s/we/I/ Nope, it doesn't. See above. The strategy is simple: * Eliminate you from Q&A threads where the successful outcome matters. With zero effect. The tactics are simple: * Point out your incessant trolls, Frank Slootweg, in those Q&A threads. That your tactics are simple propably explains their total failure. BTW, please don't project your multiple-personality disorder on me! I'm just one person. [Rewind/Repeat:] Now give yourself and us a break and see your health professional for your AS! It's completely out of control! |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Nil consistently proves my point, in every post, that his posts are worthless.
On 28 Jun 2018 14:38:20 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Sorry to rain on your parade, but *that* is how logic works, I mean *real* logic, not the Mr. EMAK variety. Hi Frank Slootweg, You are in the same category of the three trolls who have a shred of decency left, where Char Jackson and nospam are much like you are. *You can almost never contribute technical value to any conversation.* And yet, you persist in proving me right in every post. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Nil consistently proves my point, in every post, that his posts are worthless.
Arlen Holder wrote:
On 28 Jun 2018 14:38:20 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: Sorry to rain on your parade, but *that* is how logic works, I mean *real* logic, not the Mr. EMAK variety. Hi Frank Slootweg, You are in the same category of the three trolls who have a shred of decency left, where Char Jackson and nospam are much like you are. Since you dodge and divert the only comment which you did *not* snip, we - YTIW - have to conclude that you implicitly acknowledge all the other comments which you *did* snip. QED. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Nil consistently proves my point, in every post, that his posts are worthless.
On 28 Jun 2018 17:37:33 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Since you dodge and divert the only comment which you did *not* snip, we - YTIW - have to conclude that you implicitly acknowledge all the other comments which you *did* snip. QED. Frank Slootweg, You think I don't read you like a book? *All you *can* do, is play silly semantic games, Frank Slootweg.* You are on Usenet for your own amusement, and not to help anyone else. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|