later folks... 24

What claim am I trying to justify?

Why merely try something that has been fully supported?

Obviously incorrect.

This is always a good sign that you can't refute anything said. You call it "babbling" and try to ignore and block it. Ironic.

No, it's the same old *fact* as it's always been.

See what I mean? I am not aware of a single troll killfiling you, and I have certainly not suggested that any troll has done so.

Michael Objective Troll Criteria Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 X Obfuscation 2 Antagonizing threads 3 X Ignoring evidence 4 Antagonizing through other media 5 Quote-scavanging 6 Thread hijacking 7 X Projection 8 Unsubstantiated accusations 9 Unsubstantiated "refutations" 10 Forging posts and material ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Obfuscation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a trolls main weapon. Most trolls are not very good debaters or have very good or compelling arguments, so it's of outmost importance that they are well versed in obfuscation instead. This is mainly noticeable when their "opponents" say something that has even the slightest chance to be misinterpreted. So even if this misinterpretation is the most far fetched on can think of, it's naturally the only valid way it could possibly be interpreted according to the troll. A fine example of this is in one of Steve Carrolls posts which was a reply to CSMAModerator (a periodic poster that posts quotes that point out the number of people that has said unfavorable things about Michael Glbutter. Steve Carroll posted this reply 1 to the original post and quite clearly only quoted one quote and stated that he was the author of that quote. It is noteworthy that he directs his comment to Snit, which is due to the fact that somehow Snit wants to claim that Steve is the one who is posting as CSMAModerator and Steve just plays the same card back.

Snit, being a troll, responds 2 by interpreting Steves reply as an admittance that he is not the author of the quote he quoted, he is the author of the entire post that was posted under the name CSMAModerator. You can't get much far fetched than that.

3. Ignoring evidence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A troll is likely to end up in situations where he has made some really wild claims about something. When facts and proof is posted, the troll needs to ignore or evade that in order to keep his "act" up.

An example would be when Edwin posted about there being 830 *million* workstations 1 sold in the first half of 2004. This number turned out to be a misprint, but the fact that the number was totally ludicrous didn't stop Edwin from ignoring common sense and kept on supporting the number.

7. Projection ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Entire essays could be written on this particular criteria. Suffice it to say, that a troll is often eager to project his own shortcomings upon others so his own will be less obvious. For instance, a troll is often found accusing its "opponents" of the things he himself is being accused of, often using the same phrasing. A good example of this is Michael Glbutters "Snit Circus", a term coined by Sandman 1to describe the never ending loop of Snit trolling most threads Michael Glbutter joins end up in. Michael himself has since then tried to label his opponents posts as a circus, calling them troll and picking up current phrases used to describe him. The troll does this so that a casual reader who isn't informed will see these labels in reference to not only the trolls actions, but also his opponents actions.

-- Sandman.net