Nuxx:6WL3l.68684$he4.20918@newsfe22.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!news2!eweka.nl!hq-usenetpeers.eweka.nl!cyclone03.ams.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe22.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID: <6WL3l.68684$he4.20918@newsfe22.ams2> From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Troll Drawings Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:41:20 +0000 References:        <222sk4106tmg9itd87v7v7072bm1m2lb72@4ax.com>       Lines: 73 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe22.ams2 1229949698 82.21.204.127 (Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:41:38 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:41:38 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 4878 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:681605

Chris Malcolm wrote: > _  wrote: >> Chris Malcolm wrote: >>> _  wrote: >>> >>>> _ wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:18:13 +0000, Rob Ward wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Google groups shows exactly *one* post from >>>>> "robert.ward@sparrow.invalid.demon.co.uk". >>>>> >>>>> A cynic might suspect (given the style, topic, newgroup, and previous >>>>> sudden appearances and disappearances of such "unique" posters) that this >>>>> is yet another nymshift by the troll. >>>> How, precisely, would that make the questions raised 'different'? If >>>> they are valid points, and on first blush they certainly *appear* so, >>>> there is no relevance on the person who raised them! Oh no, hang on, I >>>> forgot. Its a case of 'Your opinions are not valid purely on the premise >>>> that I dont like you'. >>>> Lemme tell you something - do with it what you will. I have *definitely* >>>> lowered my estimation of cycling and cyclists as a result of reading >>>> this group the last couple of months. >>> "I"? >>> >>>> I've no doubt that has translated >>>> into giving cyclists less consideration when I come across them on the >>>> roads. >>> "I"? >>> >>>> I'd *imagine*, but wouldn't wish to speak for them, that the same >>>> scenario is occurring to Nugent, Judith, and anyone else from 'outside' >>>> who happens to be reading here. >>> "I"? >>> >>> But "I" is one of a very large gang of "people" who suddenly appear on >>> this newsgroup from nowhere, with no posting history, to make a >>> comment, and then immediately disappear again. The comments are of >>> same style and content as those of a notorious troll. >>> >>>> That alone should make any rational >>>> cyclist here think that they must be doing something wrong, >>> As wrong as being silly enough to engage with "your" pathetic attempts >>> to resuscitate long dead arguments by pretending to be a new person? >>> >>> Despite your claims to logic you have failed to recognise that you're >>> employing arguments which depend on "I" being a real new >>> identity. It's very sad that the only way you can get people to pay >>> attention to you is by pretending to be someone else. > >> This would be an amazing insight, were it not for the fact that I'm >> neither Judith nor Nuxx. Chapman will confirm that for you if needed. >> So, now we've established that, how about answering the question? > > It doesn't matter who "you" in fact may be, and rather odd that "you" > should choose only to deny that you are one of two specific > trolls.

You said above "notorious troll". I took it to mean you were referring to one of those two posters (who I dont necessarily agree *are* trolls, by the way). Sorry, was I wrong there?

> All that matters is that if "you" really do have the kind of > reading history in this newsgroup that "you" claim, and are not a > troll, then "you" would be very well aware of the folly of such > effective troll mimickry. > Which elements of 'troll mimickry' are you referring to? Oh, sorry, you mean the definitive troll signature of 'failing to agree that cyclists are by definition always right'. Yeah, sorry, I cant disguise that one.

> It's not difficult to behave unlike a troll, unless of course you > suffer from the pathological compulsions of trollery. >