From: David Masover <ninja@...>
Date: 2011-06-09T14:44:37+09:00
Subject: Re: CORE - Altering Behaviour of "each do" (default param "item")

On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 01:20:26 PM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> On 8 Ιούν, 21:00, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackr...@googlemail.com>
> > > Has anyone asked *how* he'd react?  
> 
> Why should they ask? It's much more fun to let the paranoia do the

In other words, you mention laws that seem relevant (until I do five minutes 
of research), and that you'll have to "take action".

You see this as "not a threat", yet you admit, right here, that you don't 
clarify things because it's "more fun to let paranoia do the..." something. 
What, do the work of convincing us that it's a legal threat?

It seems pretty clear that your intention was for people to interpret this as 
a legal threat. I see only two possible interpretations: Either you actually 
do intend to threaten (or at least intimidate) people with the force of law, 
or you only make it seem as though you would do so because it's fun to see how 
people react.

So, either you are genuinely making legal threats, or you are by definition a 
troll. Now that is fun.

> > > I'm curious about what sort of
> > > reaction is even possible in this case.
> 
> There are several options, but you cannot uncover them.
> 
> I react already, but until they realize how, it'll be too late.

Well, that's ominous. Looks like you've dropped from legal threats to vague, 
unspecified threats. I'm quaking in my little boots.

Here's the funniest part:

> > It's buried in the thread, but Ilias threatens (emptily, so far) to
> > sue whoever is pointing out his trollish nature.
> 
> So much miss-information in just one sentence - just fascination!

I suppose some of it might be, but it seems pretty obvious that either you do 
make exactly those threats, or you are exactly a troll. At least one of these 
things is true, as you've demonstrated here.

> But now it's really time to close this thread.

I might exit it as well, though. Ilias is far less productive to talk to than 
the most clueless newbie, the most diehard religious fundamentalist, or the 
most stubbornly dogmatic zealot of any kind. What makes him so frustrating is 
that despite initiating the conversation (by, for example, asking a question), 
he tends to outright dismiss any responses, rather than actually argue against 
them.

Most of his responses, and nearly all of the responses to anything I wrote, 
fall into these categories:

 - Unfounded assertions.
 - "Summarizing" (read: strawmanning) messages with little sentence fragment 
summaries, and then either ignoring it or responding to the strawman.
 - Telling us what to do or how to respond, as if he owns the group or thread.
 - Threats.
 - TL;DR.

There's also the most recent, isolated case of sarcastically repeating my 
message without once pointing out what makes it so ridiculous.

Every now and then, perhaps every five or ten messages, I actually get a 
response to my point, and it's a fantastically poor response -- like earlier 
in this thread where he actually responded, once, to my observation that the 
Wikipedia article seems to be removed for notability reasons, rather than 
personal attack. The response was to take a quote from the page I linked to, 
out of context.

When I put it back in context, he gets sarcastic and reminds me that he 
doesn't take me seriously, and we're back to this crap. So there's almost a 
discussion going on, but the signal-to-noise ratio is just impossible.

I doubt his response to this message will be any different. In fact, I'd bet 
money he doesn't read this far -- TL;DR again. The killfile option is 
definitely looking more attractive all the time.