Critical Mass - productive campaign to promote cycling or...

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:04:06 GMT, Mark Thompson
wrote:

As I mentioned before,isn't it funny that people who are losing
arguments always call the other person a 'troll' before vanishing in
shame.
But Duck, it _was_ a troll.

No you are incorrect.

To defend your own post - carefully itemising the contradictions of
the replier - does not constitute trolling.

Had I pursued someone from a separate thread (Clarkson pie eyed)
to this one ,purely to attempt to wind them up ( as you have done)
then it would be.

I don't see anything from you in this thread , apart from this sad
effort.

There seem to be a group of individuals who befoul this group with
their trollish mischief.
I have checked your past posts too and seen a pattern emerge which
would tend to suggest that you may be one of them.

One line replies,like the one above and many others of yours,do not
constitute reasoned argument or debate.

Random accusations of 'trolling' tend to say more about the poster.

Please feel free to prove that you are not a troll by highlighting the
flaws in my posts on this thread,and the valid contradictions
of"Mark".

If you fail to do so it would not be unreasonable to
assume,therefore,that you must be the tr*ll.

The Nottingham Duck wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 22:21:41 GMT, Nobody Here
wrote:

The Nottingham Duck wrote:
On 17 Sep 2005 12:27:04 GMT, Nobody Here
wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message . com, Peter
Headland ') wrote:

an eighth of Skunk

What in the world is Skunk?

'Skunk', m'lud, is a variety or cultivar of the herb Cannabis Sativa,
selected and prized for its pharmaceutical qualities. It is identified
by its pungent aroma.

And the complete ****e you talk when doing it, compounded by an reduced
ability to spot complete ****e as anything other than hilariously
amusing.

Paedophilia is another debilitating condition that impairs judgement.

So you *are* calling me a paedophile?

I was stating the obvious.

You seem to have an unhealthy interest in paedophilia. Why's that I wonder?

--
Nobby

in message , Nobody
Here ') wrote:

The Nottingham Duck wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 22:21:41 GMT, Nobody Here
wrote:

You seem to have an unhealthy interest in paedophilia. Why's that I
wonder?

The trouble with arguing with trolls is you get tempted down to their
level. Don't.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; how did we conclude that a ****ing cartoon mouse is deserving
;; of 90+ years of protection, but a cure for cancer, only 14?
-- user 'Tackhead', in /. discussion of copyright law, 22/05/02

John_Kane wrote:

It's always a good idea thought to keep an eye on the news. I don't
follow racing at all and I could not understand why my Festina
jersey was getting some strange stares in France. I got home to
discover that about a month before Festina had been in that big
dope scandel in the 1990s. Ooops!

I commuted in my Festina shorts this morning. They were a birthday
present from my wife and kids a couple of years ago. She'd bought them
in a bike shop where they'd eagerly produced them for her. I could
hardly tell her about the association with the scandal, could I?
Besides, I doubt many people around here would remember the name of the
team involved. A few fellow cyclists might get a quiet chuckle. I don't
think I'd take them to Europe though. :-)

Dave...

But Duck, it _was_ a troll.

No you are incorrect.

".. wanky students showing off their new Treks(and their devotion to
environmental issues in the vain hope of a bunk-up)?...all the real
cyclistos are out on TT's or Audax runs,... they are all
posers...'Treetrunk' or 'Jupiter Sunbeam'...unkempt youth got their
Leninist-Maoist tree-hugging arses in gear.."

You're right. None of that reads anything like a troll. Sorry to have got
you /so/ wrong.

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Nobody
Here ') wrote:

The Nottingham Duck wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 22:21:41 GMT, Nobody Here
wrote:

You seem to have an unhealthy interest in paedophilia. Why's that I
wonder?

The trouble with arguing with trolls is you get tempted down to their
level. Don't.

You are not wrong. :-)

--
Nobby

On 19 Sep 2005 07:20:58 GMT, Nobody Here
wrote:

The Nottingham Duck wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 22:21:41 GMT, Nobody Here
wrote:

The Nottingham Duck wrote:
On 17 Sep 2005 12:27:04 GMT, Nobody Here
wrote:

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message . com, Peter
Headland ') wrote:

an eighth of Skunk

What in the world is Skunk?

'Skunk', m'lud, is a variety or cultivar of the herb Cannabis Sativa,
selected and prized for its pharmaceutical qualities. It is identified
by its pungent aroma.

And the complete ****e you talk when doing it, compounded by an reduced
ability to spot complete ****e as anything other than hilariously
amusing.

Paedophilia is another debilitating condition that impairs judgement.

So you *are* calling me a paedophile?

I was stating the obvious.

You seem to have an unhealthy interest in paedophilia. Why's that I wonder?


You are the one who dived into the 'Huntley debate' on "Clarkson pie
eyed" in the apparent defence of Wiggin's claim that Huntley didn't
"lure" the two girls.

I cannot comprehend why someone who claims to have children should
interject in the manner you did.
The only possible reason would be that you wanted to cause mischief by
winding me up - gee,cobber how that back-fired on you !

Anyone can go back to that thread and see how you'd contributed
nothing to the OP,but leapt in where you thought you could cause the
most trouble.

If you didn't have form for trolling in other posts I'd put it down to
ill-judged humour.
Unfortunately for you,my URC cache goes back 6 months

It seems that in "Not always the drivers fault.." 28/7/05 posted by
John Burns, you had a tr*ll at 'Steven'.

Your first attack is reproduced below.Once again you fail to address
the OP but dive in with gratuitous abuse.Fortunately he susses you out
immediately :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"
On 30 Jul 2005 18:09:38 GMT, Nobody Here
wrote:

You are indeed very, very, *very* stupid. One of the small cabal of very
very stupid people who hang out here thinking they're very very smart,
but, like the rest of that cabal, sadly wrong.

You are rught about one thing - Guy is obsessive - he can't resist
arguing with stupidity. Personally, I don't think you've said anything
smart enough to be *worth* arguing about, so I wouldn't bother if it were me.

Your self appointed epithet "Nobody Here" seems very appropriate. The
lights may
be on, but there's no one at home.

Most of the posts I've seen you make are crude and insulting to
posters you
disagree with.

What is always lacking is any logical thought or reasoned argument.

This post is no different. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last sentence is very interesting - " Personally,I don't think
you've said anything smart enough to be *worth* arguing about,so I
wouldn't bother if it were me" , yet you continue to respond over
the next 3 days.

Why , when you say he's not worth arguing with ?
One can only conclude that you were TROLLING .

But his reply to your final tr*ll finishes you off brillliantly :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:35:46 GMT, Steven wrote:
On 01 Aug 2005 21:12:28 GMT, Nobody Here wrote:

Steven wrote:
Do you ever actually post anything constructive?

Ore are you just the twunt you appear to be?


I'm a twunt, he's a twunt,
We're all twunts together ...

I'm glad you're getting the message.

There *are* a few twunts hear, and you seem to be their poster boy.

Golly, am I? Cool!

I can see you're enjoying the job, that's why you're so good at it.

Of course, being a natural born twunt must help.

Your family must be *so* proud.

Do you resent the fact that noone seems to take you at all seriously?

I'm having nice, serious, cooperative conversations with Jon Senior and Sniper
at the moment, thanks. Conversations that actually lead somewhere.

Odd, that. I've not been following your posts with JS, but sniper's
having a go at you, too, in his own inimitable and less confrontational
fashion. But I guess you can't see that, either.

Certainly he's expressed his distaste for rudeness, which means he
must just
*love* your posts.

However, apart from that, he's made intelligent points and presented
them in a
rational coperative manner. I may not agree with them all, but I
restpect the
way he debates. Same with Jon Senior.

Do you think there's a reason for that? 'Cos there is ...

Yes, the twunts have found something else to amuse themselves.

Yup. Something more productive, indeed.

I would hope so. Engaging in circular arguments or reciting irrelevant
mantras
as Ian SMith and Guy were doing certainly wasn't very productive.

I'm only still here because
it's giving me a bit of gratuitous fun winding you up. Question is,
can you resist answering or not?

But I'm not wound up.

I'm just responding to a self admited troll.

Probably shouldn't but it's interesting to prod some creatures just to
see how
stupid they really are.

I don't seem to be anyway *near* your limit yet ;-) "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's read the last sentence again -

"I'm only still here because its giving me a bit of gratuitous fun
winding you up".

A clear and damning admission to TROLLING.


If I were you I would stop and think carefully before I posted anymore
of your nasty little trolls ,or this post could follow you
around,exposing you for what you really are.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:43:24 +0100, Simon Brooke
wrote:

in message , Nobody
Here ') wrote:

The Nottingham Duck wrote:
On 18 Sep 2005 22:21:41 GMT, Nobody Here
wrote:

You seem to have an unhealthy interest in paedophilia. Why's that I
wonder?

The trouble with arguing with trolls is you get tempted down to their
level. Don't.

I agree.But its also necessary to prove that they are trolls before
you denounce them as such.

Provide some evidence to back up what you claim.Otherwise you'll be
seen as the tr*ll.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:59:43 +0100, The Nottingham Duck
wrote:

You are the one who dived into the 'Huntley debate' on "Clarkson pie
eyed" in the apparent defence of Wiggin's claim that Huntley didn't
"lure" the two girls.

"It would appear that the two children *approached* Ian Huntley to pet
his dog and to ask after their classroom assistant. Huntley used this
approach to fulfill his perverted desires."

Do you believe that when Huntley took his dog for a walk he did so
with the intent of using the hound as a lure for children?

If not, what was the lure? Or, if you want to extend the definition
of 'lure', what was the form of Hutley's approach to his two victims?

The Nottingham Duck wrote:
[A huge snip]

If I were you I would stop and think carefully before I posted anymore
of your nasty little trolls ,or this post could follow you
around,exposing you for what you really are.

Oh my God, I've gatherd myself a *stalker*! Ooooh, how exciting. And
a crazed, drug addled one at that! Fantastic. :-)

How sad.

--
Nobby