A Boost to Morale/Filler

Post by Jonathan Thomas
The will of TGP shall never be destroyed. Chriz, you rock man. You
really do. Haights, Steffan, you're welcome to join us. Why do I offer
you this? Because we want no quarrels with you.

Indeed. I get along with these people in agnp. agp seems to have died
completely which is a shame because I used to hang around there more than in
agnp before I found that agp didn't have enough posts to keep me only there.

--
The End.

Anonunit

2004-08-01 12:19:41 UTC

From: Chriz (***@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-07-27 20:23:01 PST

"agp seems to have died completely which is a shame because I used to
hang around there more than in agnp before I found that agp didn't
have enough posts to keep me only there."

Hey, what's AGP? I'm just asking because I remember being told once a
long time ago that a new newsgroup was going to be made called
"alt.games.pokemon". I'm just wondering if that's it.

From: Steffan Alun (***@aber.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-07-29 18:43:03 PST

"Why? Because he's the only person willing to participate in this
pantomime?"

Chriz is Jon's friend. Surely, Jon and Chriz have known each other
since before this "pantomime." It's not as if Jon asked Chriz to help
him fight for TGP; Chriz came in and now helps Jon "revive" TGP.

"What? You know, we're barely even trolling. We certainly have no
real
aims. The group's dead, so it's not like it can be killed further.
We
don't expect you to stop posting just because we're here grinning in
the
background. We expect you to stop posting when you stop caring.
Which you
will."

If you come here it means you have aims whether it is to make someone
angry, to stop anyone from posting here, to get Jon to stop posting,
to make fun of Pokemon, to post about something else that's not about
Pokemon, or to post about it; they're all really aims. TGP is not dead
it's just no doing well unlike ADGP which really is dead.

From: Steffan Alun (***@aber.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-07-30 09:18:02 PST

"It's a symbiotic relationship. Lynn IS the group, the group IS
Lynn.
Seeing new members - specifically Anonunit - doesn't make us all
scared and
nervous, it just makes us pity the group all the more. It's a dead
group,
and Lynn's attempts at keeping it alive are pathetic."

I'm not a new member. I just haven't posted here for a while. Unless
you consider a new member someone who's name has changed. On the other
hand, not someone who just began posting in this newsgroup; but
someone who has "joined" the unfriendly relationship between two sides
of different opinions. I'm not here to scare anyone or make anyone
anxious. Back in the year 2000; my WebTV thing simply stopped working.
I couldn't find any other way to post here again. After a few months,
I got myself a computer. I still remembered a few e-mail addresses so
I e-mailed those people and I actually got a response. It wasn't an
angry response or anything. They just said ADGP was still doing well.
I didn't know what else to say or ask; so I just didn't bother that
person. Many months later I tried e-mailing the people whose e-mail
addresses I still remembered. None of them answered that time. Not so
long ago (early this year); I began looking people up on the Internet.
I typed "champthom" on my browser/toolbar search engine thing. His
name popped up in several places. Eventually I found TGP again and saw
all this. I didn't know how to e-mail Jon because his e-mail address
had changed from ***@webtv.net to ***@msn.com. At first,
I wasn't sure what his e-mail was. Therefore, I e-mailed Chriz and
asked him. He got me in contact with Jon. I asked Jon what had
happened to ADGP and the people whose names I remembered. Somehow, I
concluded to post here again.

From: Steffan Alun (***@aber.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-07-30 18:13:02 PST

"No, that's pretty clear. From what I've seen of you, your attitude
towards
Usenet groups is that they're just groups - means to an end. Lynn,
however,
does seem to be emotionally attached to TGP. You're wasting your time
in
responding to him, because he doesn't care one bit for what you have
to
say - all he cares about is that you contribute and keep the group
alive."

Emotionally attached to TGP how? What you think Jon is somehow messed
up in the head? Psychologically insane? Mentally retarded? If he is,
so what? It doesn't do anyone any harm. Jon just wants you to Stop
being a "troll." All you have to do is ask him exactly what he wants.
He'll tell you; then Whatever. I guess this newsgroup will start
discussing about Pokemon or anything else that doesn't get a sly
remark from people.

From: Steffan Alun (***@aber.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-07-31 17:00:06 PST

"All those you named had the sole purpose of causing anger and
disrupting the
group. They were successful.

Haights and I are just kicking back in a group already dead. How can
we
disupt a conversation between two people? We can't. We don't. We
just
point out why your actions are futile."

You're pretty much doing the same thing that they did. It's just that
the way you're doing it is what makes Jon call you the "lamest trolls
ever". And obviously; Alex (one of the most "annoying" trolls back
then) was either one of those people who really hate those cutesy-type
of things like Pokemon, or just someone who really liked to piss
people off. Those trolls even posted articles that had something
programmed on them that caused Web TV to shut down and other things
like that. One of them even figured out my exact home address and
e-mailed it to me threatening to do something. Back then I was very
reluctant to release personal information such as my actual name
(neither Clay Del Campo nor Adam James are my actual names) and my
correct age. So I have no idea how they did it. However, it was a good
thing that there are so many other obstacles that that troll would've
gone through before actually getting to me. In addition, yes; you are
disrupting a conversation when one of you all of a sudden drops in and
curses out something.

"First point - Haights and I weren't listed there, so out of all of
those,
the lamest can't be us. But on a less pedantic note..."

"Why didn't you respond to anything else I said? Afraid to
acknowledge your
real motivation for staying here?"

It's that intentionally annoying tone in your writing that gets Jon
to call you a "troll." Sure; people talk and type that way between
friends; but you're all just playing war games here. All you do is go
back and forth telling each other what each side thinks they're right.
How long has this been going on? This can really go on for many more
years. TGP doesn't have to be about Pokemon anymore it can be about
you just fighting repeatedly. Why not just kick back together? This is
starting to look like a movie or something with the whole sentimental
crap but it's true. You call this pathetic when really you put as much
effort to keep TGP alive as Jon does. Either YOU give up and go away
or something or just help rebuild what was once alive and well (and
yes; TGP was at one point alive and well).

From: Steffan Alun (***@aber.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-07-31 17:07:02 PST

"What do you think trolling IS, Lynn?"

There are many meanings for a lot of words. Words are being made up
all the time and so are the definitions for them. Those words are
usually considered slang; but the English language itself has changed
dramatically. Moreover, with the Internet and all; whether the words
"spam" and "newbie" existed before or after the invention of the
Internet; these words aren't even in most dictionaries I have. So, you
tell me what trolling is. Is there an official definition you can show
me somewhere? Give me a reliable link to prove to me what "trolling"
really means.

"Seriously, we're not trying to stop you from posting. We're just
pointing
out that posting here is a complete waste of time. Neither you nor
Chriz
will be here forever, so don't bother kidding yourself."

Well, technically you really are trying to stop Jon from posting. If
you're pointing out that posting here is a complete waste of time then
your target is to stop Jon from posting. As for the whole being here
forever part; that really depends. I mean; come on; eventually
something's going to happen. Maybe someone's computer (or whatever
they use to post here) is going to crash. Then maybe they won't be
able find a way to keep posting here for a while. And during that time
the posts might continue to decrease until the point that TGP is
deleted (or whatever) and then that person comes back and finds out
that TGP really is finally gone. The way my Web TV box (or whatever it
is) stopped working while I was still posting in ADGP. I didn't post
in TGP (after ADGP was created) because everyone appeared to have been
posting only to ADGP at that time. Luckily, I came back and found out
that TGP is still around. Then of course there's the other unfortunate
event of death (whether by accident or natural, whatever), which
surely stops people from posting here.

"Why do you say this as though we WANT a place to talk about Pokémon?
We
already have somewhere to do that."

From what I've heard, there are many Pokemon newsgroups out there.
And from what I remember; each newsgroup was made for every category
of Pokemon someone can possibly think of. Including: the card games,
the video games, the anime, the movies, and many more merchandise.
Even some newsgroups were created that were meant for the same
category. From the name; you can see that tnn.games.pokemon and
alt.discuss.games.pokemon; that both newsgroups discuss the category
of Pokemon games. That creates competition, which is good. Competition
is always good. Competition is everywhere. And the reason two
newsgroups of the same category would co-exist like that was because
people from the original newsgroup would want to break off from it and
form a new newsgroup with people they know and agree with. Of course;
TGP was no longer any competition to ADGP; but ADGP was troll-free
(for a long period of time) for some reason. I still don't understand
how that happened; but I'm guessing that's the reason why ADGP was
created; to escape TGP and leave it to the trolls. TGP somehow
survived and ADGP didn't. I guess people whom did not agree with
others in ADGP decided to come back to TGP and continue standing up to
the trolls. Coming to TGP (back then); I pictured a battlefield. Now
what I imagine is a ghost town with less than a dozen people made up
of bandits and law enforcers.

Now I'm guessing you're going to reply with something smart to say. I
don't actually expect a "You're right." From anyone when I actually
know that I'm right. This is just going to go on for a very long time,
maybe even when you both know for sure that you're both adults and
that there's no point in making fun of each other's "puberty" or
whatever. And if one of your is a lot younger than the other, it still
doesn't give you the right to force someone else advice no matter what
the age difference.

Steffan Alun

2004-08-01 18:38:06 UTC

Post by Anonunit
agp seems to have died completely which is a shame because I used to
hang around there more than in agnp before I found that agp didn't
have enough posts to keep me only there.

Hey, what's AGP? I'm just asking because I remember being told once a
long time ago that a new newsgroup was going to be made called
"alt.games.pokemon". I'm just wondering if that's it.

Yes, that's it. It died also. All Pokémon groups on Usenet other than AGNP
have suffered immensely, and AGNP would have gone the same way if it wasn't
for the PokéWars!

Post by Anonunit
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-07-29 18:43:03 PST

Post by Anonunit
Why? Because he's the only person willing to participate in this
pantomime?

Chriz is Jon's friend. Surely, Jon and Chriz have known each other
since before this "pantomime." It's not as if Jon asked Chriz to help
him fight for TGP; Chriz came in and now helps Jon "revive" TGP.

When did I state otherwise?

It seems to me Chriz seems to be a bored indivudual, who needs his fix of
groups, and since he can't get it in any one Pokémon group, he's a member of
many, and is willing to actively participate in all of them. Whatever the
case, he doesn't seem as obsessive as Lynn - he's never said he's trying to
revive the group, but you and Lynn seem to believe quite strongly that
that's what you're doing.

Post by Anonunit
What? You know, we're barely even trolling. We certainly have no
real aims. The group's dead, so it's not like it can be killed further.
We don't expect you to stop posting just because we're here grinning in
the background. We expect you to stop posting when you stop caring.
Which you will.

If you come here it means you have aims whether it is to make someone
angry, to stop anyone from posting here, to get Jon to stop posting,
to make fun of Pokemon, to post about something else that's not about
Pokemon, or to post about it; they're all really aims.

Our aim is to be entertained by Lynn's attitude towards it. Entertainment
is all it is.

Post by Anonunit
TGP is not dead
it's just no doing well unlike ADGP which really is dead.

ADGP?

TGP may as well be dead. What's going on now isn't the bustling activity of
a successful, thriving Pokémon group. The fact that there are as many
trolls as there are "regulars" is the first sign of the times. The second
sign is that Lynn has decreed that everything posted to this group is
on-topic. The third sign is that a thread discussing the death of the group
is the most thriving thread on the group. The fourth sign is left as an
exercise for the reader.

Post by Anonunit
It's a symbiotic relationship. Lynn IS the group, the group IS
Lynn. Seeing new members - specifically Anonunit - doesn't make us all
scared and nervous, it just makes us pity the group all the more. It's
a dead group, and Lynn's attempts at keeping it alive are pathetic.

I'm not a new member. I just haven't posted here for a while. Unless
you consider a new member someone who's name has changed. On the other
hand, not someone who just began posting in this newsgroup; but
someone who has "joined" the unfriendly relationship between two sides
of different opinions.

You've missed my point.

If you left once, you'll leave again. It probably won't take too long
either. Eventually, Chriz will follow suit - this will happen when the
group hasn't seen a new post in months. That will leave us and Lynn, and
eventually, Lynn will also have to give up.

Post by Anonunit
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-07-30 18:13:02 PST

Post by Anonunit
No, that's pretty clear. From what I've seen of you, your attitude
towards Usenet groups is that they're just groups - means to an end.
Lynn, however, does seem to be emotionally attached to TGP. You're
wasting your time in responding to him, because he doesn't care one bit
for what you have to say - all he cares about is that you contribute and
keep the group alive.

Emotionally attached to TGP how? What you think Jon is somehow messed
up in the head? Psychologically insane? Mentally retarded?

No, I just think he's too hung up on the group. He sees it as more than
just a place to chat, so he's desperate to revive it. He doesn't want to do
this because he thinks the place has potential - he wants it because he
wants his beloved TGP to thrive.

Post by Anonunit
If he is,
so what? It doesn't do anyone any harm. Jon just wants you to. Stop
being a "troll."

I'm not trolling. Lynn's the one who called me that.

Post by Anonunit
All you have to do is ask him exactly what he wants.

I'm pretty sure I already know.

Post by Anonunit
He'll tell you; then. Whatever. I guess this newsgroup will start
discussing about Pokemon or anything else that doesn't get a sly
remark from people.

Not for long, it won't.

Post by Anonunit
All those you named had the sole purpose of causing anger and
disrupting the group. They were successful.
Haights and I are just kicking back in a group already dead. How can
we disupt a conversation between two people? We can't. We don't. We
just point out why your actions are futile.

You're pretty much doing the same thing that they did.

So? That doesn't mean our intent is the same. They behaved like this when
the group could actually be called a group. We're not trolling - we're just
a reminder of the reason the group died.

Post by Anonunit
It's just that
the way you're doing it is what makes Jon call you the "lamest trolls
ever".

What's the point in putting in effort to kill a group that will die anyway?
We're doing a better job of sustaining its life than Lynn is.

Post by Anonunit
In addition, yes; you are
disrupting a conversation when one of you all of a sudden drops in and
curses out something.

The best way to combat a troll is to not reply. A troll's sole aim is to
disrupt and to generate replies to his or her own topic. Only dumbasses
reply to trolls.

The fact remains that we're NOT trolls, but if you think we are, why are you
still talking to us?

Post by Anonunit
First point - Haights and I weren't listed there, so out of all of
those, the lamest can't be us. But on a less pedantic note...
Why didn't you respond to anything else I said? Afraid to
acknowledge your real motivation for staying here?

It's that intentionally annoying tone in your writing that gets Jon
to call you a "troll."

I know why he calls me a troll. I just don't understand why he doesn't
treat me like one if he truly believes that that's what I am.

Post by Anonunit
Sure; people talk and type that way between
friends; but you're all just playing war games here.

Untrue. The easiest way to kill this group would be to leave it. Every
group needs someone to hate - that's human nature. We - Haights, Pahsons
and I - represent your antagonists. You see us as a common enemy. This
makes you feel like you're actually achieving something when you post. If
we all left, eventually, you'd get bored with each other, and the group
would die.

We're not playing war games. We just enjoy the fact that people think we
are.

Post by Anonunit
All you do is go
back and forth telling each other what each side thinks they're right.
How long has this been going on? This can really go on for many more
years.

Assuming you lot have the resolution, yes, it could. However, you have to
remember that Haights, Pahsons and I are older than Lynn - possibly older
than you and/or Chriz too, but I can't be sure of that. My point is that
between the three of us, we've already been through major lifestyle
changes - going to Uni, getting married, and even having kids - and we know
how those changes can affect online life. We can comfortably stick around
for some time, but rest assured that when it's time for Lynn to leave home
for whatever reason, he'll have bigger issues than keeping this place going,
and the group will die.

We'll probably stick around until then, but don't be fooled into thinking
we're responsible when this place finally goes to the dogs - we're a
symptom, not a cause.

Post by Anonunit
TGP doesn't have to be about Pokemon anymore it can be about
you just fighting repeatedly. Why not just kick back together?

We have a place to do that. We have no interest in such things. If you
care so much, why do you encourage us further?

Post by Anonunit
This is
starting to look like a movie or something with the whole sentimental
crap but it's true. You call this pathetic when really you put as much
effort to keep TGP alive as Jon does.

I have said this before. We're doing it because it's fun, however.

Post by Anonunit
Either YOU give up and go away
or something or just help rebuild what was once alive and well (and
yes; TGP was at one point alive and well).

It was once, yes. It no longer is. I prefer it this way. Why would I
rebuild it?

Post by Anonunit
What do you think trolling IS, Lynn?

There are many meanings for a lot of words.

Only because people are too dumb to learn the true definition. "Troll" is
used incorrectly almost as often as "spammer" and "irony" are. Ironically.

Post by Anonunit
Words are being made up
all the time and so are the definitions for them.

Yes, but a newsgroup "troll" has a specific definition, and the word is all
too often used incorrectly.

Post by Anonunit
Moreover, with the Internet and all; whether the words
"spam" and "newbie" existed before or after the invention of the
Internet; these words aren't even in most dictionaries I have.

You've missed my point.

Post by Anonunit
So, you tell me what trolling is.

You're admitting you don't really know?

Post by Anonunit
Is there an official definition you can show
me somewhere? Give me a reliable link to prove to me what "trolling"
really means.

It's not that easy. Everyone THINKS they know, but few people really do.
Successful trolls do. Incidentally, I'm not trolling.

Post by Anonunit
Seriously, we're not trying to stop you from posting. We're just
pointing out that posting here is a complete waste of time. Neither you
nor Chriz will be here forever, so don't bother kidding yourself.

Well, technically you really are trying to stop Jon from posting.

What have we done to attempt such a thing?

Post by Anonunit
If
you're pointing out that posting here is a complete waste of time then
your target is to stop Jon from posting.

No, it's to make him REALISE it. I'm sure that when he realises this, he'll
continue to post anyway, because he's just that pig-headed.

Post by Anonunit
As for the whole being here
forever part; that really depends. I mean; come on; eventually
something's going to happen. Maybe someone's computer (or whatever
they use to post here) is going to crash.

In the long run, we'll all die. In the really long run, the internet will
become obsolete and a new technology will replace it. In the extremely long
run, the human race as a species will die out. In the exceptionally long
run, the entire universe will be sucked back into the point of its origin
and everything that exists will immediately cease to be.

The group will definately not exist forever. If you ask me, though, it
won't even exist in five years' time.

Post by Anonunit
Why do you say this as though we WANT a place to talk about Pokémon?
We already have somewhere to do that.

From what I've heard, there are many Pokemon newsgroups out there.

Only one matters.

Post by Anonunit
And from what I remember; each newsgroup was made for every category
of Pokemon someone can possibly think of. Including: the card games,
the video games, the anime, the movies, and many more merchandise.

Yes. You're correct. TGP was a poor man's AGNP from the start. It never
served a purpose that wasn't already served by existing groups, and now that
Lynn's claimed the group as his own and told people it's an off-topic group,
it's UTTERLY pointless.

Post by Anonunit
Even some newsgroups were created that were meant for the same
category. From the name; you can see that tnn.games.pokemon and
alt.discuss.games.pokemon; that both newsgroups discuss the category
of Pokemon games. That creates competition, which is good. Competition
is always good. Competition is everywhere.

You can't be serious.

You're comparing Pokémon newsgroups to economy?

Let's extend that metaphor, then. Let's say AGNP is the US Dollar. A bunch
of people decide to create a new currency - we'll call it the Sonata. At
first, people think it's awesome, and start using Sonatas. Interest
dwindles, and now only three people use it. Sure, each of them can buy
anything the other two own, but they can buy no more than that.

We're basically a bunch of rich guys who come strolling over to waft out
lovely Dollars in your face. The only reason we're not told to leave them
alone is because they think they can convince us to use Sonatas as well.

Post by Anonunit
And the reason two
newsgroups of the same category would co-exist like that was because
people from the original newsgroup would want to break off from it and
form a new newsgroup with people they know and agree with.

o_o

Post by Anonunit
Of course;
TGP was no longer any competition to ADGP; but ADGP was troll-free
(for a long period of time) for some reason. I still don't understand
how that happened; but I'm guessing that's the reason why ADGP was
created; to escape TGP and leave it to the trolls.

Ah, right, I remember ADGP now. Yeah, that seems an accurate history. It's
a dumb reason for creating a group, though. What, you escape the group as
soon as some mean guys show up? Way to show your dedication.

Post by Anonunit
TGP somehow
survived and ADGP didn't. I guess people whom did not agree with
others in ADGP decided to come back to TGP and continue standing up to
the trolls. Coming to TGP (back then); I pictured a battlefield. Now
what I imagine is a ghost town with less than a dozen people made up
of bandits and law enforcers.

They're not law enforcers even. They're estate agents who want the bandits
to stay in case they decide to buy a home.

Post by Anonunit
Now I'm guessing you're going to reply with something smart to say. I
don't actually expect a "You're right."

For what it's worth, for the most part, you ARE right. I just don't agree
with your conclusions.

Post by Anonunit
And if one of your is a lot younger than the other, it still
doesn't give you the right to force someone else advice no matter what
the age difference.

There's not a huge gap between me and Lynn, if I recall correctly - four or
five years, say - but the fact remains that I'm not forcing him to do
anything. I'm just observing and offering my own views.

--
Steffan

Anonunit

2004-08-02 00:03:16 UTC

Post by Anonunit
agp seems to have died completely which is a shame because I used to
hang around there more than in agnp before I found that agp didn't
have enough posts to keep me only there.

Hey, what's AGP? I'm just asking because I remember being told once a
long time ago that a new newsgroup was going to be made called
"alt.games.pokemon". I'm just wondering if that's it.

Yes, that's it. It died also. All Pokémon groups on Usenet other than AGNP
have suffered immensely, and AGNP would have gone the same way if it wasn't
for the PokéWars!

Post by Anonunit
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-07-29 18:43:03 PST

Post by Anonunit
Why? Because he's the only person willing to participate in this
pantomime?

When did I state otherwise?
It seems to me Chriz seems to be a bored indivudual, who needs his fix of
groups, and since he can't get it in any one Pokémon group, he's a member of
many, and is willing to actively participate in all of them. Whatever the
case, he doesn't seem as obsessive as Lynn - he's never said he's trying to
revive the group, but you and Lynn seem to believe quite strongly that
that's what you're doing.

As you've just stated yourself, Chriz is not as "obsessive" as Jon.
Chriz is not exactly "willing" to participate in this "pantomime." He
just posts here, and that helps Jon's attempts to "revive" TGP whether
Chriz wants that or not.

Our aim is to be entertained by Lynn's attitude towards it. Entertainment
is all it is.

You claim that that you want Jon to "realize" that his struggle is
futile. From this I assume that you think that you have a moral
obligation to force your ideals into Jon. If you are entertained by
Jon's shot at TGP's revival; then you have contradicted yourself and
your morality. There is an obvious sadistic pleasure in watching all
this. Your beliefs aren't the issue here; it is you that needs help.

Post by Anonunit
TGP is not dead
it's just no doing well unlike ADGP which really is dead.

ADGP?
TGP may as well be dead. What's going on now isn't the bustling activity of
a successful, thriving Pokémon group. The fact that there are as many
trolls as there are "regulars" is the first sign of the times. The second
sign is that Lynn has decreed that everything posted to this group is
on-topic. The third sign is that a thread discussing the death of the group
is the most thriving thread on the group. The fourth sign is left as an
exercise for the reader.

You've missed my point.
If you left once, you'll leave again. It probably won't take too long
either. Eventually, Chriz will follow suit - this will happen when the
group hasn't seen a new post in months. That will leave us and Lynn, and
eventually, Lynn will also have to give up.

As I've said before, I left not because I wanted to, but because I had
to. I had no choice but to not post to TGP or any other newsgroup. And
I didn't know until now how to come back to start posting again.

Post by Anonunit
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-07-30 18:13:02 PST

Emotionally attached to TGP how? What you think Jon is somehow messed
up in the head? Psychologically insane? Mentally retarded?

He's not hung up on the group, he only posts here like how he has been
doing for a very long time now. And what's wrong with reviving it? If
it were, people like me would come back from the earlier times of TGP
and make an actual use out of TGP. The existence of AGNP does not make
TGP's existence pointless. If TGP was created in the first place, and
it was thriving, then there will once again be demand for it.

Post by Anonunit
If he is,
so what? It doesn't do anyone any harm. Jon just wants you to. Stop
being a "troll."

I'm not trolling. Lynn's the one who called me that.

Jon calls a troll because there's a reason to. He has even called a
few friends of his trolls (only when they acted like trolls.) He's
been here long enough to know the exact definition of a troll.

Post by Anonunit
All you have to do is ask him exactly what he wants.

I'm pretty sure I already know.

Then why don't you obey?

Post by Anonunit
He'll tell you; then. Whatever. I guess this newsgroup will start
discussing about Pokemon or anything else that doesn't get a sly
remark from people.

Not for long, it won't.

The whole Pokemon thing itself has lasted for years. The show is still
going on with new episodes. And both AGNP and TGP are still newsgroups
where you can post to. And now that TGP is an "offbeat newsgroup" then
people can come here to chat about anything. Earning TGP the need for
its existence. Old members will leave, new members will show up, and
the cycle will continue making this an ever-existing newsgroup.

You're pretty much doing the same thing that they did.

So? That doesn't mean our intent is the same. They behaved like this when
the group could actually be called a group. We're not trolling - we're just
a reminder of the reason the group died.

Post by Anonunit
It's just that
the way you're doing it is what makes Jon call you the "lamest trolls
ever".

What's the point in putting in effort to kill a group that will die anyway?
We're doing a better job of sustaining its life than Lynn is.

Post by Anonunit
In addition, yes; you are
disrupting a conversation when one of you all of a sudden drops in and
curses out something.

The best way to combat a troll is to not reply. A troll's sole aim is to
disrupt and to generate replies to his or her own topic. Only dumbasses
reply to trolls.

The fact that you're the lamest trolls ever give people the reason to
reply to a troll. The first trolls of TGP weren't very easy to reply
to. As for you, your typing is readable and you reply with calm and
clear arguments.

Post by Steffan Alun
The fact remains that we're NOT trolls, but if you think we are, why are you
still talking to us?

It's that intentionally annoying tone in your writing that gets Jon
to call you a "troll."

I know why he calls me a troll. I just don't understand why he doesn't
treat me like one if he truly believes that that's what I am.

Post by Anonunit
Sure; people talk and type that way between
friends; but you're all just playing war games here.

Untrue. The easiest way to kill this group would be to leave it. Every
group needs someone to hate - that's human nature. We - Haights, Pahsons
and I - represent your antagonists. You see us as a common enemy. This
makes you feel like you're actually achieving something when you post. If
we all left, eventually, you'd get bored with each other, and the group
would die.
We're not playing war games. We just enjoy the fact that people think we
are.

Post by Anonunit
All you do is go
back and forth telling each other what each side thinks they're right.
How long has this been going on? This can really go on for many more
years.

Assuming you lot have the resolution, yes, it could. However, you have to
remember that Haights, Pahsons and I are older than Lynn - possibly older
than you and/or Chriz too, but I can't be sure of that. My point is that
between the three of us, we've already been through major lifestyle
changes - going to Uni, getting married, and even having kids - and we know
how those changes can affect online life. We can comfortably stick around
for some time, but rest assured that when it's time for Lynn to leave home
for whatever reason, he'll have bigger issues than keeping this place going,
and the group will die.
We'll probably stick around until then, but don't be fooled into thinking
we're responsible when this place finally goes to the dogs - we're a
symptom, not a cause.

Post by Anonunit
TGP doesn't have to be about Pokemon anymore it can be about
you just fighting repeatedly. Why not just kick back together?

We have a place to do that. We have no interest in such things. If you
care so much, why do you encourage us further?

If you have another place to kick back, then why did you say that you
are in TGP to kick back? I notice you have given us many reasons why
you stay in TGP. Not just because you want Jon to realize something.

I have said this before. We're doing it because it's fun, however.

Another reason why you stay in TGP. To torture Jon.

Post by Anonunit
Either YOU give up and go away
or something or just help rebuild what was once alive and well (and
yes; TGP was at one point alive and well).

It was once, yes. It no longer is. I prefer it this way. Why would I
rebuild it?

Post by Anonunit
What do you think trolling IS, Lynn?

There are many meanings for a lot of words.

Only because people are too dumb to learn the true definition. "Troll" is
used incorrectly almost as often as "spammer" and "irony" are. Ironically.

Post by Anonunit
Words are being made up
all the time and so are the definitions for them.

Yes, but a newsgroup "troll" has a specific definition, and the word is all
too often used incorrectly.

You've missed my point.

Post by Anonunit
So, you tell me what trolling is.

You're admitting you don't really know?

Post by Anonunit
Is there an official definition you can show
me somewhere? Give me a reliable link to prove to me what "trolling"
really means.

It's not that easy. Everyone THINKS they know, but few people really do.
Successful trolls do. Incidentally, I'm not trolling.

Well, technically you really are trying to stop Jon from posting.

What have we done to attempt such a thing?

You want Jon to realize that TGP is dead and it will be completely
gone soon. You go on and on about how much of a waste of time it is to
post here. Your intents is to make Jon realize that there is no point
in posting to TGP. Thus; Jon would stop posting to TGP.

Post by Anonunit
If
you're pointing out that posting here is a complete waste of time then
your target is to stop Jon from posting.

No, it's to make him REALISE it. I'm sure that when he realises this, he'll
continue to post anyway, because he's just that pig-headed.

In the long run, we'll all die. In the really long run, the internet will
become obsolete and a new technology will replace it. In the extremely long
run, the human race as a species will die out. In the exceptionally long
run, the entire universe will be sucked back into the point of its origin
and everything that exists will immediately cease to be.
The group will definately not exist forever. If you ask me, though, it
won't even exist in five years' time.

Post by Anonunit
Why do you say this as though we WANT a place to talk about Pokémon?
We already have somewhere to do that.

From what I've heard, there are many Pokemon newsgroups out there.

Only one matters.

You can't be serious.
You're comparing Pokémon newsgroups to economy?
Let's extend that metaphor, then. Let's say AGNP is the US Dollar. A bunch
of people decide to create a new currency - we'll call it the Sonata. At
first, people think it's awesome, and start using Sonatas. Interest
dwindles, and now only three people use it. Sure, each of them can buy
anything the other two own, but they can buy no more than that.
We're basically a bunch of rich guys who come strolling over to waft out
lovely Dollars in your face. The only reason we're not told to leave them
alone is because they think they can convince us to use Sonatas as well.

o_o

We did not leave as soon as some "mean guys" showed up. TGP had dozens
of trolls before that. We left because people who weren't as dedicated
to posting to TGP asked those who were dedicated to join them and form
a new newsgroup. Once I began posting in ADGP I came back here every
once and a while to see how TGP was doing. The most dedicated posters
continued to post at TGP while at the same time posting to ADGP. I
wasn't as dedicated as anyone back then, I was only following people
to ADGP. Especially since I was no longer even posting to TGP once I
was practically kicked out of the newsgroup and regarded as just
another "troll." And yes, I was in fact myself a "troll." I was
looking for my own posts while I was in TGP as "ClayFromCA" back in
1999 just yesterday. I found quiet a few. All I did really is naively
discuss about Pokemon and everything that pure Pokemon fans dislike
about newbies. I still had a few friends and that's how I must've
found ADGP. There really is no exact definition for trolling. If you
think that I was criticized because those people were just "dumbasses"
then consider this. I was once playing a massively multiplayer online
role playing game (MMORPG). The game had several "mean guys" that were
actually very powerful compared to any troll I've ever seen in any
newsgroup. I tried asking for the administrators of the game for help.
They did not help. I went to the G4 web site (G4 is a network for
games, now it's called G4TTV ever since it "meld" together with Tech
TV. Back then, G4 was still just G4) and asked for help there. I
posted four messages in three different newsgroups. Each message was
slightly different. All I did was copy and paste everything and make a
few changes that corresponds to the newsgroup I posted to. People did
not see it as a call for help. They saw it as spam and called me a
troll. A few requested to ignore me, yet people went on replying
anyway. I myself made a few replies to explain my behavior. In the
end, the administrators of the forums locked my threads so they may be
replied to again. So if the administrators themselves considered me a
troll because of what I did, then why shouldn't we consider you as
trolls?

They're not law enforcers even. They're estate agents who want the bandits
to stay in case they decide to buy a home.

Post by Anonunit
Now I'm guessing you're going to reply with something smart to say. I
don't actually expect a "You're right."

For what it's worth, for the most part, you ARE right. I just don't agree
with your conclusions.

Post by Anonunit
And if one of your is a lot younger than the other, it still
doesn't give you the right to force someone else advice no matter what
the age difference.

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-03 01:34:16 UTC

In a daze, I read Anonunit's post, then collasped.

Post by Anonunit
The fact that you're the lamest trolls ever give people the reason to
reply to a troll. The first trolls of TGP weren't very easy to reply
to. As for you, your typing is readable and you reply with calm and
clear arguments.
As for you, your typing is readable and you reply with calm and
clear arguments.
As for you, your typing is readable and you reply with calm and
clear arguments.
As for you, your typing is readable and you reply with calm and
clear arguments.

Well, what the fuck. Can anyone be so brain dead?

--
http://animehistory.keenspace.com/d/20020310.html
http://www.cafeshops.com/creexul.2534632
Charlie Sheen: I'm gonna carve this turkey, WITH MY MANHOOD!
http://asagi.sakura.ne.jp/~walhalla/gallery/gallery_image/womb.jpg
T Iceduck: For the record
T Iceduck: I think that post is mean
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/bushcrimefamily.htm

Steffan Alun

2004-08-03 16:39:05 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
It seems to me Chriz seems to be a bored indivudual, who needs his fix of
groups, and since he can't get it in any one Pokémon group, he's a member of
many, and is willing to actively participate in all of them. Whatever the
case, he doesn't seem as obsessive as Lynn - he's never said he's trying to
revive the group, but you and Lynn seem to believe quite strongly that
that's what you're doing.

...so, in other words, Chriz is willing to participate in this pantomime.
"Just posting here" is exactly what I mean by that.

Post by Steffan Alun
Our aim is to be entertained by Lynn's attitude towards it.

Entertainment

Post by Steffan Alun
is all it is.

You claim that that you want Jon to "realize" that his struggle is
futile. From this I assume that you think that you have a moral
obligation to force your ideals into Jon.

Not at all. I just feel like it.

Post by Anonunit
If you are entertained by
Jon's shot at TGP's revival; then you have contradicted yourself and
your morality. There is an obvious sadistic pleasure in watching all
this. Your beliefs aren't the issue here; it is you that needs help.

"Our aim is to be entertained by Lynn's attitude towards it. Entertainment
is all it is."

That is, morals aren't an issue - entertainment is ALL it is.

Post by Steffan Alun
If you left once, you'll leave again. It probably won't take too long
either. Eventually, Chriz will follow suit - this will happen when the
group hasn't seen a new post in months. That will leave us and Lynn, and
eventually, Lynn will also have to give up.

It hardly matters. You won't be here long.

Post by Steffan Alun
I just think [Lynn]'s too hung up on the group. He sees it as more than
just a place to chat, so he's desperate to revive it. He doesn't want to do
this because he thinks the place has potential - he wants it because he
wants his beloved TGP to thrive.

He's not hung up on the group, he only posts here like how he has been
doing for a very long time now. And what's wrong with reviving it?

He won't revive it, and that's my point. There's nothing wrong with doing
so, but the fact remains that he ISN'T and WON'T do so.

Post by Anonunit
If TGP was created in the first place, and
it was thriving, then there will once again be demand for it.

In the same way that there'll once again be a demand for a Home Improvement
group? Or a Big Bad Beetleborgs group? Or a Digimon group? Groups are as
popular as the fandom they support, and Pokémon is nowhere near as popular
as it was when multiple groups were created and justified. One is plenty
now.

Post by Anonunit
If he is,
so what? It doesn't do anyone any harm. Jon just wants you to. Stop
being a "troll."

I'm not trolling. Lynn's the one who called me that.

Jon calls a troll because there's a reason to. He has even called a
few friends of his trolls (only when they acted like trolls.) He's
been here long enough to know the exact definition of a troll.

He's still wrong. Acting like a troll doesn't necessarily make you a troll.

More to the point, do you believe me to be a troll just because Lynn says
so?

Post by Anonunit
All you have to do is ask him exactly what he wants.

I'm pretty sure I already know.

Then why don't you obey?

Because I don't want him to have it.

Post by Anonunit
The whole Pokemon thing itself has lasted for years. The show is still
going on with new episodes. And both AGNP and TGP are still newsgroups
where you can post to.

Yes, but only one of these is active as a Pokémon group.

Post by Anonunit
And now that TGP is an "offbeat newsgroup" then
people can come here to chat about anything.

Why would they bother?

Post by Anonunit
Earning TGP the need for
its existence. Old members will leave, new members will show up, and
the cycle will continue making this an ever-existing newsgroup.

There's a problem here. Have you studied the difference between exothermic
and endothermic reactions in science? Basically, the problem here is that
members will eventually be leaving at a greater rate than they arrive.
There is nothing to attract people here. If strangers come, looking for
Pokémon, they'll spot that the group's heavily off-topic, lose interest and
leave. That means the only new members you'll get will find the place by
word-of-mouth. That means that if one person leaves, it leaves one person
fewer to recruit new members. There's no way to fight the trend -
eventually, there won't be anyone left to tell others, so nobody will come.

Post by Steffan Alun
The best way to combat a troll is to not reply. A troll's sole aim is to
disrupt and to generate replies to his or her own topic. Only dumbasses
reply to trolls.

By your logic, we're the GREATEST trolls ever to come here. A troll's sole
purpose is to generate replies - to cause flamewars, to disrupt groups, and
to generally make everyone feel a bit more pissed off than they did before
reading the troll's post.

If you really think we're trolls, you're being hypocritical by replying to
us. By replying to the people you think are trolls - or "feeding the
trolls" as it's commonly known - you're extending the """flamewar""" of your
own free will. Your own superiority complex and feeling of
self-righteousness are the things killing the normal flow of this group, not
our pessimism or stubborn behaviour.

Post by Steffan Alun
The fact remains that we're NOT trolls, but if you think we are, why are you
still talking to us?

It's all part of the same package. We're here to relax, we're here for
entertainment, we're here to tell Lynn why he's wrong. We relax by enjoying
the entertainment, the entertainment is telling Lynn he's wrong, and we do
this when we're relaxed. It's a circle of reasoning.

I have said this before. We're doing it because it's fun, however.

Another reason why you stay in TGP. To torture Jon.

Hey, you're the one who used the word "torture", not me.

Post by Anonunit
Well, technically you really are trying to stop Jon from posting.

What have we done to attempt such a thing?

Not necessarily. I don't doubt for a second that Lynn wouldn't bother
leaving the place alone even if he realised he was wasting his time. Maybe
my aim will cause Lynn to stop posting, but that's more of an added bonus
than a goal in and of itself.

Post by Anonunit
We did not leave as soon as some "mean guys" showed up. TGP had dozens
of trolls before that. We left because people who weren't as dedicated
to posting to TGP asked those who were dedicated to join them and form
a new newsgroup. Once I began posting in ADGP I came back here every
once and a while to see how TGP was doing.

So...you stopped caring about TGP but wanted an all-but-identical group to
do exactly the same thing?

Post by Anonunit
The most dedicated posters
continued to post at TGP while at the same time posting to ADGP. I
wasn't as dedicated as anyone back then, I was only following people
to ADGP. Especially since I was no longer even posting to TGP once I
was practically kicked out of the newsgroup and regarded as just
another "troll." And yes, I was in fact myself a "troll."

That surprises me, considering you don't seem to know what one is.

Post by Anonunit
I was
looking for my own posts while I was in TGP as "ClayFromCA" back in
1999 just yesterday. I found quiet a few. All I did really is naively
discuss about Pokemon and everything that pure Pokemon fans dislike
about newbies.

A newbie is not a troll. In fact, newbies make poor trolls.

Post by Anonunit
I still had a few friends and that's how I must've
found ADGP. There really is no exact definition for trolling.

Yes, there is.

Post by Anonunit
If you
think that I was criticized because those people were just "dumbasses"
then consider this. I was once playing a massively multiplayer online
role playing game (MMORPG). The game had several "mean guys" that were
actually very powerful compared to any troll I've ever seen in any
newsgroup. I tried asking for the administrators of the game for help.
They did not help. I went to the G4 web site (G4 is a network for
games, now it's called G4TTV ever since it "meld" together with Tech
TV. Back then, G4 was still just G4) and asked for help there. I
posted four messages in three different newsgroups. Each message was
slightly different. All I did was copy and paste everything and make a
few changes that corresponds to the newsgroup I posted to. People did
not see it as a call for help. They saw it as spam and called me a
troll.

That's a newbie mistake. It was not spam, because you were not advertising
anything, and therefore it was not commercial, and you didn't intend to
irritate anyone, so it wasn't a troll. Whoever claimed you were did so
because they were ignorant of what the words "spam" and "troll" mean.

Post by Anonunit
A few requested to ignore me, yet people went on replying
anyway. I myself made a few replies to explain my behavior. In the
end, the administrators of the forums locked my threads so they may be
replied to again. So if the administrators themselves considered me a
troll because of what I did, then why shouldn't we consider you as
trolls?

Because the administrators were wrong. Being a dumbass is not the same as
being a troll.

--
Steffan

Anonunit

2004-08-04 01:32:00 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
It hardly matters. You won't be here long.

How would you know? Are you a prophet of some sort?

Post by Steffan Alun
He's still wrong. Acting like a troll doesn't necessarily make you a troll.
More to the point, do you believe me to be a troll just because Lynn says
so?

You should know better by now that trolling is cruel and that's what
you are.

Post by Anonunit
All you have to do is ask him exactly what he wants.

I'm pretty sure I already know.

Then why don't you obey?

Because I don't want him to have it.

Why? Do you want it? Even though according to you, TGP will be gone in
less than five years.

Post by Anonunit
The whole Pokemon thing itself has lasted for years. The show is still
going on with new episodes. And both AGNP and TGP are still newsgroups
where you can post to.

Yes, but only one of these is active as a Pokémon group.

As Jon has clearly explained before, AGNP is not an easy place to
discuss Pokemon. Just because it is active it doesn't mean that it's
any better than TGP.

Post by Anonunit
And now that TGP is an "offbeat newsgroup" then
people can come here to chat about anything.

Why would they bother?

Because the only people they have to deal with is you, unlike AGNP
where there are several critical people.

Post by Steffan Alun
The best way to combat a troll is to not reply. A troll's sole aim is

Post by Steffan Alun
disrupt and to generate replies to his or her own topic. Only dumbasses
reply to trolls.

The first trolls of TGP got what they wanted. They caused flamewars.
They disrupted groups. They pissed off people. And in the beginning
when I was called a troll, (even though as you said I was only a
newbie) they actually got rid of me with insults and got rid of many
trolls when TGP was doing great. The reason you're the lamest trolls
ever is because you don't work together and you use words instead of
resorting to the extreme like what the earlier trolls did.

Post by Steffan Alun
If you really think we're trolls, you're being hypocritical by replying to
us. By replying to the people you think are trolls - or "feeding the
trolls" as it's commonly known - you're extending the """flamewar""" of your
own free will. Your own superiority complex and feeling of
self-righteousness are the things killing the normal flow of this group, not
our pessimism or stubborn behaviour.

I'm not being hypocritical at all. I actually review what I post
something before I post it. Unlike you who just replies to everything
as you read it and don't review before you post. And it's not like
ignoring a troll is possible. It's like being told to ignore a bully.
The bully will not stop even if you ignore the bully. The bully will
eventually find a way to get around it and make sure that a response
to a bully is inevitable. You, like every other troll will find a way
to get someone's attention without using words. And what about newbies
that begin posting in a newsgroup? How would they know what trolls
are? They'll just think of them as rude people who need to be replied
to. And is replying to a post by someone who's considered not to be a
troll, but was replied to by a troll, replying to a troll?

I have said this before. We're doing it because it's fun, however.

Another reason why you stay in TGP. To torture Jon.

Hey, you're the one who used the word "torture", not me.

That is what you are doing. I only simplified it with one word.

Post by Anonunit
Well, technically you really are trying to stop Jon from posting.

What have we done to attempt such a thing?

Your goal IS to stop Jon from posting. With that, you will know that
Jon has given up. Thus, that is your goal.

So...you stopped caring about TGP but wanted an all-but-identical group to
do exactly the same thing?

I never cared for TGP. The first time I began posting here I was
immediately sent out. Then I moved on to ADGP where I wasn't sent out.
The reason I post here now is because Jon was part of ADGP and now
that ADGP is gone, he posts to TGP. Therefore, I will post here.

That surprises me, considering you don't seem to know what one is.

I never said I didn't know what it was. I merely asked you what you
thought the definition for it was.

Post by Anonunit
I still had a few friends and that's how I must've
found ADGP. There really is no exact definition for trolling.

Yes, there is.

Then tell me.

How are you so sure that you know what the definition of a troll is?

Because the administrators were wrong. Being a dumbass is not the same as
being a troll.

So even people who worked with and study about anything related to
games and technology, which includes the Internet, dumbasses as well?

Here's a few links to sites I found with "definitions" for a troll:

1. http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
2. http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
4. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition
5. http://members.tripod.com/~thewebtvguru/trolls/
6. http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html
7. http://spiralx.dyndns.org/howto.html
8. http://www.lisaviolet.com/cathouse/troll.html
9. http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
10. http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/t/troll.html

Other sources that might help:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Webster's Expanded Dictionary -edited by R.F. Patterson, M.A.,
D.Litt.- 1998 Edition defines "troll" to mean:

troll, vt. To roll; to pass round; to sing in a full, jovial
voice.--vi. To go round; a part-song; a reel on a fishing-rod; a
dwarfish being in Scandinavian mythology, dwelling in caves and
mounds.

The World Book Encyclopedia -T Volume 19- 1985 Edition defines "troll"
to mean:

troll. See FAIRY.

Merriam-Webster's School Dictionary -Merriam-Webster, Incorporated,
Publishers Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A.- 1999 Edition defines
"troll" to mean:

troll, vb. To sing the parts of (as a round or a catch) in succession;
to sing loudly or in a jovial way; to speak or recite in a rolling
voice; to fish or fish for with a hook and line drawn through the
water (as behind a slowly moving boat) [Middle English trollen "to
roll"]--n. troller--n. a lure or a line with its lure and hook used in
trolling; a song sung in parts successively--n. a dwarf or giant of
Teutonic folklore inhabiting caves or hills [Norwegian troll and
Danish trold, from Old Norse troll "giant, demon"]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can clearly see words change a lot through history. The word
"troll" can be manipulated to mean anything, and so anyone or anything
can be called a "troll." Are you sure you know what it means? Why not
go back in time to ask everyone who invented the words you use to see
what they truly mean? Does it matter? Why not ask what "irony"
"newbie" or "spam" mean? Go ahead.

Steffan Alun

2004-08-04 03:41:19 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
More to the point, do you believe me to be a troll just because Lynn says
so?

You should know better by now that trolling is cruel and that's what
you are.

You're in no place to judge. You still don't even know what a troll IS.

Post by Anonunit
All you have to do is ask him exactly what he wants.

I'm pretty sure I already know.

Then why don't you obey?

Because I don't want him to have it.

Why? Do you want it? Even though according to you, TGP will be gone in
less than five years.

Yes, it probably will be. And I'll be here for part of the ride at least.

Post by Anonunit
As Jon has clearly explained before, AGNP is not an easy place to
discuss Pokemon. Just because it is active it doesn't mean that it's
any better than TGP.

But it IS. I've seen no Pokémon discussion here ever, short of a
half-hearted post by Lynn here and there.

Post by Anonunit
And now that TGP is an "offbeat newsgroup" then
people can come here to chat about anything.

Why would they bother?

Because the only people they have to deal with is you, unlike AGNP
where there are several critical people.

Really? You should visit there at some point. Nobody's actually critical
there without reason.

The first trolls of TGP got what they wanted. They caused flamewars.
They disrupted groups. They pissed off people.

Right. And what is this we're creating now? Oh, it's a flamewar. Sure, it
may be milder than the wars of old, and we may both be civil, but it's
basically an exchange of vague and empty threats.

And guess what! It's disrupting the group.

Oh, and it seems it's also pissing people off.

Understand yet? I'm not trolling, but I don't need to - you're perfectly
happy to do that yourself.

Post by Anonunit
And in the beginning
when I was called a troll, (even though as you said I was only a
newbie) they actually got rid of me with insults and got rid of many
trolls when TGP was doing great.

You can only get rid of a troll by not responding. What they got rid of was
idiots. You weren't a troll, so the fact that you left is just a testimony
to your own apathy.

Post by Anonunit
The reason you're the lamest trolls
ever is because you don't work together and you use words instead of
resorting to the extreme like what the earlier trolls did.

Haha, why would we NEED to resort to the extreme when you're content to
overreact to words? Also, why would we need to work together?

And more to the point, when are you going to realise that my actions are not
the actions of a troll?

I'm not being hypocritical at all. I actually review what I post
something before I post it. Unlike you who just replies to everything
as you read it and don't review before you post.

Heh, I suppose you deserve a point for noticing that. Countless others have
failed to realise that completely.

The irony is, if I did review everything and read the full post before
replying, I'd be accused of wasting my time and having no life. Funny how
that works.

Post by Anonunit
And it's not like
ignoring a troll is possible.

Not only is it possible, it's HOW YOU'RE MEANT TO TREAT THEM.

Post by Anonunit
It's like being told to ignore a bully.
The bully will not stop even if you ignore the bully. The bully will
eventually find a way to get around it and make sure that a response
to a bully is inevitable.

That's the thing. That's true in real life - the bully will just beat you
up - but in text, there's nothing anyone can do to make you talk to them.

Post by Anonunit
You, like every other troll will find a way
to get someone's attention without using words.

I assure you I won't. I have no intention of using anything but plain text
here.

Post by Anonunit
And what about newbies
that begin posting in a newsgroup? How would they know what trolls
are?

Regulars should tell them as soon as the newbie replies to the troll. Of
course, this requires the regulars to actually know themselves.

Post by Anonunit
They'll just think of them as rude people who need to be replied
to. And is replying to a post by someone who's considered not to be a
troll, but was replied to by a troll, replying to a troll?

Wh- You lost me. Replying to a troll is replying to a troll. Replying to
anyone else isn't. End of story, pretty much.

Post by Anonunit
Another reason why you stay in TGP. To torture Jon.

Hey, you're the one who used the word "torture", not me.

That is what you are doing. I only simplified it with one word.

He doesn't seem too tortured to me.

Post by Anonunit
Your goal IS to stop Jon from posting. With that, you will know that
Jon has given up. Thus, that is your goal.

I'd settle for him telling me he realises the futility.

That surprises me, considering you don't seem to know what one is.

I never said I didn't know what it was. I merely asked you what you
thought the definition for it was.

Clearly, though, you've got it wrong.

Post by Anonunit
I still had a few friends and that's how I must've
found ADGP. There really is no exact definition for trolling.

Yes, there is.

Then tell me.

Alright.

A troll's sole purpose is to generate replies. That is all. Motive is
another matter entirely, but that is the difference between a troll and
anyone else - all a troll wants is that reply. Preferably several replies.
The troll will continue to post until he gets bored or until people stop
replying, whichever comes first.

To put it another way:

If you reply to a troll, you lose. If you killfile the troll, or leave an
argument by saying "I'm ignoring you now", the troll has won a victory known
as SPNAK, and once again, you lose. The only way to beat a troll is to not
reply in the first place.

If you actually believe I'm a troll, you believe I'm only here to generate
replies. You believe I'm only here to disrupt, distract and piss off.

Post by Anonunit
How are you so sure that you know what the definition of a troll is?

Because I know.

Because the administrators were wrong. Being a dumbass is not the same as
being a troll.

So even people who worked with and study about anything related to
games and technology, which includes the Internet, dumbasses as well?

Of course not. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity.

Post by Anonunit
1. http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

For the most part, too optimistic, but other than that, it's correct. Note
this:

"The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding
others not to respond to trolls."

Post by Anonunit
2. http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

This is much less accurate, but this bit may help you:

"people who pretend to be someone that they are not - they create personae
that you think are real, but they know is fictitious."

The first definition is very rare, assuming it exists at all, but this
definition is accurate, if not entirely clear in the way it's phrased.

Post by Anonunit
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"1. A post (on a newsgroup, or other forum) thought to be intended to incite
controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense.

"2. A person who posts these."

Or, to put it another way...a post intended to generate replies.

This bit mentions the mistake most people make:

"Trolls are sometimes caricatured as socially-inept. This is often due to
fundamental attribution error, as it is difficult to know the real traits of
an individual solely from their online discourse. Indeed, since intentional
trolls are alleged to knowingly flout social boundaries, it is difficult to
typecast them as socially inept since they have arguably proven adept at
their goal of inciting conflict."

Post by Anonunit
4. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition

"It's supposed to be troll in the sense of trawl. You just put out the bait
and see who bites. IMO, it's not particularly vicious."

Once again, it's my definition phrased differently. Did you bother reading
these sites, or did you just assume they'd prove me wrong?

Post by Anonunit
5. http://members.tripod.com/~thewebtvguru/trolls/

"Well, in a nut-shell, a TROLL is someone who constantly disrupts a NG for
no reason other than just because they CAN. They will often post off-topic,
and attack members of the NG that have done nothing to provoke hem. The
troll will then often try to make it look like the NG member had attacked
THEM. They will constantly refer to posts made by that member in which the
member had "flamed" them (verabally attacked them in the NG). What they
naturally fail to ALSO say is that the posts are in RESPONSE to a flame
originated by the troll himself."

This is not a definition of every troll, but rather a very specific kind of
troll. Still, it comes down to the same thing.

Post by Anonunit
6. http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html

That doesn't even contain a definition - it's a study into the concept
itself.

By the way, I highly recommend this study. Well worth a read, especially to
anyone interested in the study of psychology. Some things may seem a bit
off, but this is probably due to experimenter bias. She doesn't seem to
like the idea of trolling.

Post by Anonunit
7. http://spiralx.dyndns.org/howto.html

That has no definition either. More to the point, it refers specifically to
one website. That said, it's not a bad list of suggestions, and I guess you
could use this to work out what a troll's up to.

Post by Anonunit
8. http://www.lisaviolet.com/cathouse/troll.html

"Contrary to popular belief, the word "troll" doesn't refer to the little
gnome who lives under a bridge, but is actually a fishing term. You hear it
when people use a rod and reel. Putting along in the boat, letting the line
drag in the water, waiting for a bite, waiting for something to latch on to
their hook and then they reel the fish in. Which is what the internet
"troll" does."

...in other words, they seek replies and no more.

Post by Anonunit
9. http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm

"The old definition of a Troll is one who posts to generate
the maximum number of follow ups."

See a pattern?

Post by Anonunit
10. http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/t/troll.html

"To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or
flames; or, the post itself."

Et cetera.

Post by Anonunit
As you can clearly see words change a lot through history.

What?! The INTERNET troll has ONE definition - one who posts to generate
replies. All your own definitions confirm this.

Post by Anonunit
The word
"troll" can be manipulated to mean anything, and so anyone or anything
can be called a "troll."

This isn't true.

Post by Anonunit
Are you sure you know what it means?

Of course I do.

Post by Anonunit
Why not
go back in time to ask everyone who invented the words you use to see
what they truly mean?

Because I know what they meaned, since it's actually printed on one of the
pages you linked me to.

Post by Anonunit
Does it matter?

Not to me, but you're the one calling me a troll with no justification.

Post by Anonunit
Why not ask what "irony"
"newbie" or "spam" mean? Go ahead.

They all have one definition too, but are commonly misinterpreted. To claim
it has many meanings is a lazy man's way of saying he doesn't actually know
what it means.

--
Steffan

Anonunit

2004-08-05 02:30:51 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
More to the point, do you believe me to be a troll just because Lynn

says

Post by Steffan Alun
so?

You should know better by now that trolling is cruel and that's what
you are.

You're in no place to judge. You still don't even know what a troll IS.

I didn't call you a troll I called you cruel.

Post by Anonunit
All you have to do is ask him exactly what he wants.

I'm pretty sure I already know.

Then why don't you obey?

Because I don't want him to have it.

Why? Do you want it? Even though according to you, TGP will be gone in
less than five years.

Yes, it probably will be. And I'll be here for part of the ride at least.

Post by Anonunit
As Jon has clearly explained before, AGNP is not an easy place to
discuss Pokemon. Just because it is active it doesn't mean that it's
any better than TGP.

But it IS. I've seen no Pokémon discussion here ever, short of a
half-hearted post by Lynn here and there.

Post by Anonunit
And now that TGP is an "offbeat newsgroup" then
people can come here to chat about anything.

Why would they bother?

Because the only people they have to deal with is you, unlike AGNP
where there are several critical people.

Really? You should visit there at some point. Nobody's actually critical
there without reason.

By your logic, we're the GREATEST trolls ever to come here. A troll's

sole

Post by Steffan Alun
purpose is to generate replies - to cause flamewars, to disrupt groups,

and

Post by Steffan Alun
to generally make everyone feel a bit more pissed off than they did

before

Post by Steffan Alun
reading the troll's post.

The first trolls of TGP got what they wanted. They caused flamewars.
They disrupted groups. They pissed off people.

Right. And what is this we're creating now? Oh, it's a flamewar. Sure, it
may be milder than the wars of old, and we may both be civil, but it's
basically an exchange of vague and empty threats.

It doesn't really appear as if anybody has been threatened.

Post by Steffan Alun
And guess what! It's disrupting the group.

It's disrupting the group? I thought this was just a bunch of people
going on about nothing.

Post by Steffan Alun
Oh, and it seems it's also pissing people off.

I'm not pissed off.

Post by Steffan Alun
Understand yet? I'm not trolling, but I don't need to - you're perfectly
happy to do that yourself.

You can only get rid of a troll by not responding. What they got rid of was
idiots. You weren't a troll, so the fact that you left is just a testimony
to your own apathy.

Post by Anonunit
The reason you're the lamest trolls
ever is because you don't work together and you use words instead of
resorting to the extreme like what the earlier trolls did.

Haha, why would we NEED to resort to the extreme when you're content to
overreact to words? Also, why would we need to work together?
And more to the point, when are you going to realise that my actions are not
the actions of a troll?

Post by Steffan Alun
If you really think we're trolls, you're being hypocritical by replying

Post by Steffan Alun
us. By replying to the people you think are trolls - or "feeding the
trolls" as it's commonly known - you're extending the """flamewar""" of

your

Post by Steffan Alun
own free will. Your own superiority complex and feeling of
self-righteousness are the things killing the normal flow of this group,

not

Post by Steffan Alun
our pessimism or stubborn behaviour.

I'm not being hypocritical at all. I actually review what I post
something before I post it. Unlike you who just replies to everything
as you read it and don't review before you post.

Heh, I suppose you deserve a point for noticing that. Countless others have
failed to realise that completely.
The irony is, if I did review everything and read the full post before
replying, I'd be accused of wasting my time and having no life. Funny how
that works.

Post by Anonunit
And it's not like
ignoring a troll is possible.

Not only is it possible, it's HOW YOU'RE MEANT TO TREAT THEM.

That's the thing. That's true in real life - the bully will just beat you
up - but in text, there's nothing anyone can do to make you talk to them.

Just as I mentioned earlier. The first trolls used strange tactics
that could earn them the names "hackers." At some point they began
crashing Web TV users' connections to the Internet or other forms of
shutting things down and even causing harm.

Post by Anonunit
You, like every other troll will find a way
to get someone's attention without using words.

I assure you I won't. I have no intention of using anything but plain text
here.

Post by Anonunit
And what about newbies
that begin posting in a newsgroup? How would they know what trolls
are?

Regulars should tell them as soon as the newbie replies to the troll. Of
course, this requires the regulars to actually know themselves.

Wh- You lost me. Replying to a troll is replying to a troll. Replying to
anyone else isn't. End of story, pretty much.

Post by Anonunit
Another reason why you stay in TGP. To torture Jon.

Hey, you're the one who used the word "torture", not me.

That is what you are doing. I only simplified it with one word.

He doesn't seem too tortured to me.

Post by Anonunit
Your goal IS to stop Jon from posting. With that, you will know that
Jon has given up. Thus, that is your goal.

I'd settle for him telling me he realises the futility.

That surprises me, considering you don't seem to know what one is.

I never said I didn't know what it was. I merely asked you what you
thought the definition for it was.

Clearly, though, you've got it wrong.

Post by Anonunit
I still had a few friends and that's how I must've
found ADGP. There really is no exact definition for trolling.

Yes, there is.

Then tell me.

Alright.
A troll's sole purpose is to generate replies. That is all. Motive is
another matter entirely, but that is the difference between a troll and
anyone else - all a troll wants is that reply. Preferably several replies.
The troll will continue to post until he gets bored or until people stop
replying, whichever comes first.
If you reply to a troll, you lose. If you killfile the troll, or leave an
argument by saying "I'm ignoring you now", the troll has won a victory known
as SPNAK, and once again, you lose. The only way to beat a troll is to not
reply in the first place.
If you actually believe I'm a troll, you believe I'm only here to generate
replies. You believe I'm only here to disrupt, distract and piss off.

Post by Anonunit
How are you so sure that you know what the definition of a troll is?

Because I know.

Because the administrators were wrong. Being a dumbass is not the same

Post by Steffan Alun
being a troll.

So even people who worked with and study about anything related to
games and technology, which includes the Internet, dumbasses as well?

Of course not. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity.

Post by Anonunit
1. http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

For the most part, too optimistic, but other than that, it's correct. Note
"The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding
others not to respond to trolls."

Post by Anonunit
2. http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm

"people who pretend to be someone that they are not - they create personae
that you think are real, but they know is fictitious."
The first definition is very rare, assuming it exists at all, but this
definition is accurate, if not entirely clear in the way it's phrased.

Post by Anonunit
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"1. A post (on a newsgroup, or other forum) thought to be intended to incite
controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense.
"2. A person who posts these."
Or, to put it another way...a post intended to generate replies.
"Trolls are sometimes caricatured as socially-inept. This is often due to
fundamental attribution error, as it is difficult to know the real traits of
an individual solely from their online discourse. Indeed, since intentional
trolls are alleged to knowingly flout social boundaries, it is difficult to
typecast them as socially inept since they have arguably proven adept at
their goal of inciting conflict."

Post by Anonunit
4. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition

"It's supposed to be troll in the sense of trawl. You just put out the bait
and see who bites. IMO, it's not particularly vicious."
Once again, it's my definition phrased differently. Did you bother reading
these sites, or did you just assume they'd prove me wrong?

Post by Anonunit
5. http://members.tripod.com/~thewebtvguru/trolls/

"Well, in a nut-shell, a TROLL is someone who constantly disrupts a NG for
no reason other than just because they CAN. They will often post off-topic,
and attack members of the NG that have done nothing to provoke hem. The
troll will then often try to make it look like the NG member had attacked
THEM. They will constantly refer to posts made by that member in which the
member had "flamed" them (verabally attacked them in the NG). What they
naturally fail to ALSO say is that the posts are in RESPONSE to a flame
originated by the troll himself."
This is not a definition of every troll, but rather a very specific kind of
troll. Still, it comes down to the same thing.

Post by Anonunit
6. http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html

That doesn't even contain a definition - it's a study into the concept
itself.
By the way, I highly recommend this study. Well worth a read, especially to
anyone interested in the study of psychology. Some things may seem a bit
off, but this is probably due to experimenter bias. She doesn't seem to
like the idea of trolling.

Post by Anonunit
7. http://spiralx.dyndns.org/howto.html

Post by Anonunit
8. http://www.lisaviolet.com/cathouse/troll.html

Post by Anonunit
9. http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm

"The old definition of a Troll is one who posts to generate
the maximum number of follow ups."
See a pattern?

Post by Anonunit
10. http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/t/troll.html

"To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or
flames; or, the post itself."
Et cetera.

Post by Anonunit
As you can clearly see words change a lot through history.

What?! The INTERNET troll has ONE definition - one who posts to generate
replies. All your own definitions confirm this.

You missed the quoted definitions of "troll" I got from books of
reference. Sure, I purposely searched for the definition of Internet
trolls on the Internet when I could've easily showed you links to the
many other sites of the trolls that most people heard about before the
Internet. Those included in fairy tales, and stories of fantasy.

Post by Anonunit
The word
"troll" can be manipulated to mean anything, and so anyone or anything
can be called a "troll."

This isn't true.

Post by Anonunit
Are you sure you know what it means?

Of course I do.

Post by Anonunit
Why not
go back in time to ask everyone who invented the words you use to see
what they truly mean?

Because I know what they meaned, since it's actually printed on one of the
pages you linked me to.

I'm not saying to go back in time and ask those people in the sites I
gave you links to. I'm saying to go back in time and ask those people
who invented every single word you use to see if you use them
correctly. And it's not like the people in the sites of those links I
gave you invented the word "troll."

Post by Anonunit
Does it matter?

Not to me, but you're the one calling me a troll with no justification.

I've never even called you a troll.

Post by Anonunit
Why not ask what "irony"
"newbie" or "spam" mean? Go ahead.

They all have one definition too, but are commonly misinterpreted. To claim
it has many meanings is a lazy man's way of saying he doesn't actually know
what it means.

By the way, "spam" was at one point the name of a meat and it still
is.

Steffan Alun

2004-08-05 04:08:33 UTC

Post by Anonunit
You should know better by now that trolling is cruel and that's what
you are.

You're in no place to judge. You still don't even know what a troll IS.

I didn't call you a troll I called you cruel.

Oh, right. Your awkward phrasing confused me. I do apologise.

Post by Steffan Alun
And guess what! It's disrupting the group.

It's disrupting the group? I thought this was just a bunch of people
going on about nothing.

Exactly. Nothing, as opposed to the actual topic, which is Pokémon,
regardless of what Lynn says.

Post by Steffan Alun
Oh, and it seems it's also pissing people off.

I'm not pissed off.

I assume Lynn is. I could be wrong.

Post by Anonunit
Just as I mentioned earlier. The first trolls used strange tactics
that could earn them the names "hackers."

Then they weren't really trolls.

Post by Anonunit
At some point they began
crashing Web TV users' connections to the Internet or other forms of
shutting things down and even causing harm.

Trolls don't cause any harm other than the harm indirectly caused by
attempting to generate as many replies as possible.

Post by Anonunit
As you can clearly see words change a lot through history.

What?! The INTERNET troll has ONE definition - one who posts to generate
replies. All your own definitions confirm this.

Well, yes, but that's why the word "internet" is in capitals - I didn't mean
the fairy tale trolls. The INTERNET troll has ONE definition - one who
posts to generate replies. All your own definitions confirm this.

Post by Anonunit
Why not
go back in time to ask everyone who invented the words you use to see
what they truly mean?

Because I know what they meant, since it's actually printed on one of

the

Post by Steffan Alun
pages you linked me to.

Exactly. Anyone can just create a page defining whatever the hell they
want. That doesn't prove a thing, which is why I took the time to go
through them one by one.

I know what a troll is. All of the definitions you found were either
correct or very close, and this confirms that I'm correct. You posted your
proof, and it proves that I was right all along, so why do you still think
YOUR definition of "troll" is as valid as mine?

Post by Anonunit
Does it matter?

Not to me, but you're the one calling me a troll with no justification.

I've never even called you a troll.

You did accuse me of trolling, though, which is the same thing, isn't it?

And yes, that's a trick question, and really one you should have been asking
yourself since the start.

Post by Anonunit
Why not ask what "irony"
"newbie" or "spam" mean? Go ahead.

They all have one definition too, but are commonly misinterpreted. To claim
it has many meanings is a lazy man's way of saying he doesn't actually know
what it means.

By the way, "spam" was at one point the name of a meat and it still
is.

That's just pedantry - I'm referring to the internet term.

--
Steffan

Anonunit

2004-08-05 13:35:20 UTC

Post by Anonunit
Just as I mentioned earlier. The first trolls used strange tactics
that could earn them the names "hackers."

Then they weren't really trolls.

Post by Anonunit
At some point they began
crashing Web TV users' connections to the Internet or other forms of
shutting things down and even causing harm.

Trolls don't cause any harm other than the harm indirectly caused by
attempting to generate as many replies as possible.

At first of course the trolls used their usual strategy of text
flaming. Once a few saw that they were being ignored, they began
posting messages that turned off the Web TV once it was read. The
names "hackers" would be given to them only from those who understand
"hacking" as something when another user interrupts the use of someone
else's computer.

Post by Steffan Alun
Well, yes, but that's why the word "internet" is in capitals - I didn't mean
the fairy tale trolls. The INTERNET troll has ONE definition - one who
posts to generate replies. All your own definitions confirm this.

I did not give you those links assuming that they'd prove you wrong.
Neither you and I before our most recent posts told each other what we
thought the meaning of a troll was. I can't prove you wrong if I
didn't know what you were was thinking. I gave you those links to show
you that they all say that trolls basically have no conscience of
their own. Your "entertainment" here is nothing more but the will of
cruel mind. I did go through all those sites before showing them.

Post by Anonunit
Why not
go back in time to ask everyone who invented the words you use to see
what they truly mean?

Because I know what they meant, since it's actually printed on one of

the

Post by Steffan Alun
pages you linked me to.

Exactly. Anyone can just create a page defining whatever the hell they
want. That doesn't prove a thing, which is why I took the time to go
through them one by one.
I know what a troll is. All of the definitions you found were either
correct or very close, and this confirms that I'm correct. You posted your
proof, and it proves that I was right all along, so why do you still think
YOUR definition of "troll" is as valid as mine?

I still don't have my exact meaning of what a troll is.

Post by Anonunit
Does it matter?

Not to me, but you're the one calling me a troll with no justification.

I've never even called you a troll.

You did accuse me of trolling, though, which is the same thing, isn't it?
And yes, that's a trick question, and really one you should have been asking
yourself since the start.

I didn't accused you of trolling, either. I accused you of doing
whatever you've been doing here in TGP from the start.

Post by Anonunit
Why not ask what "irony"
"newbie" or "spam" mean? Go ahead.

They all have one definition too, but are commonly misinterpreted. To

claim

Post by Steffan Alun
it has many meanings is a lazy man's way of saying he doesn't actually

know

Post by Steffan Alun
what it means.

By the way, "spam" was at one point the name of a meat and it still
is.

That's just pedantry - I'm referring to the internet term.

Of course, spam like many other words now have at least two meanings
now that the Internet was invented. That means that no word now has an
exact meaning. There is "troll" for the Internet. And "troll" before
the Internet.

Newton Haights

2004-08-05 16:48:20 UTC

Post by Anonunit
Just as I mentioned earlier. The first trolls used strange tactics
that could earn them the names "hackers."

Then they weren't really trolls.

Post by Anonunit
At some point they began
crashing Web TV users' connections to the Internet or other forms of
shutting things down and even causing harm.

Trolls don't cause any harm other than the harm indirectly caused by
attempting to generate as many replies as possible.

Then they're trolls with AMBITION.

(I shouldn't say that, it's going against Steffan's (correct) definition of
a troll. In your example, the "trolls" were out for more than simple
replies.

Post by Anonunit
Why not
go back in time to ask everyone who invented the words you use to see
what they truly mean?

Because I know what they meant, since it's actually printed on one of

the

Post by Steffan Alun
pages you linked me to.

Exactly. Anyone can just create a page defining whatever the hell they
want. That doesn't prove a thing, which is why I took the time to go
through them one by one.
I know what a troll is. All of the definitions you found were either
correct or very close, and this confirms that I'm correct. You posted your
proof, and it proves that I was right all along, so why do you still think
YOUR definition of "troll" is as valid as mine?

I still don't have my exact meaning of what a troll is.

Oh, so you're just stupid.

Post by Anonunit
Does it matter?

Not to me, but you're the one calling me a troll with no

justification.

Post by Anonunit
I've never even called you a troll.

You did accuse me of trolling, though, which is the same thing, isn't it?
And yes, that's a trick question, and really one you should have been asking
yourself since the start.

I didn't accused you of trolling, either. I accused you of doing
whatever you've been doing here in TGP from the start.

And you've been bringing the concept of "troll" into the argument since
practically the beginning. But no, that's not a real accusation, is it?

Post by Anonunit
Why not ask what "irony"
"newbie" or "spam" mean? Go ahead.

They all have one definition too, but are commonly misinterpreted.

Post by Steffan Alun
claim

Post by Steffan Alun
it has many meanings is a lazy man's way of saying he doesn't actually

know

Post by Steffan Alun
what it means.

By the way, "spam" was at one point the name of a meat and it still
is.

That's just pedantry - I'm referring to the internet term.

Let's go back, shall we?

Post by Steffan Alun
Well, yes, but that's why the word "internet" is in capitals - I didn't mean
the fairy tale trolls. The INTERNET troll has ONE definition

CONTEXT, sir. CONTEXT.

Anonunit

2004-08-05 23:26:14 UTC

Post by Anonunit
Just as I mentioned earlier. The first trolls used strange tactics
that could earn them the names "hackers."

Then they weren't really trolls.

Post by Anonunit
At some point they began
crashing Web TV users' connections to the Internet or other forms of
shutting things down and even causing harm.

Trolls don't cause any harm other than the harm indirectly caused by
attempting to generate as many replies as possible.

Then they're trolls with AMBITION.
(I shouldn't say that, it's going against Steffan's (correct) definition of
a troll. In your example, the "trolls" were out for more than simple
replies.

Post by Anonunit
Why not
go back in time to ask everyone who invented the words you use to

see

Post by Anonunit
what they truly mean?

Because I know what they meant, since it's actually printed on one

of
the

Post by Steffan Alun
pages you linked me to.

Exactly. Anyone can just create a page defining whatever the hell they
want. That doesn't prove a thing, which is why I took the time to go
through them one by one.
I know what a troll is. All of the definitions you found were either
correct or very close, and this confirms that I'm correct. You posted

your

Post by Steffan Alun
proof, and it proves that I was right all along, so why do you still

think

Post by Steffan Alun
YOUR definition of "troll" is as valid as mine?

I still don't have my exact meaning of what a troll is.

Oh, so you're just stupid.

There's a difference between knowing the meaning of what a troll is
and knowing Steffan's meaning of what a troll is.

Post by Anonunit
Does it matter?

Not to me, but you're the one calling me a troll with no

justification.

Post by Anonunit
I've never even called you a troll.

You did accuse me of trolling, though, which is the same thing, isn't

it?

Post by Steffan Alun
And yes, that's a trick question, and really one you should have been

asking

Post by Steffan Alun
yourself since the start.

I didn't accused you of trolling, either. I accused you of doing
whatever you've been doing here in TGP from the start.

And you've been bringing the concept of "troll" into the argument since
practically the beginning. But no, that's not a real accusation, is it?

No. It is not a real accusation. I never called neither you or Steffan
trolls. Just because I brought in the concept of "troll" into the
argument doesn't mean I'm accusing anybody.

Post by Anonunit
Why not ask what "irony"
"newbie" or "spam" mean? Go ahead.

They all have one definition too, but are commonly misinterpreted.

To
claim

Post by Steffan Alun
it has many meanings is a lazy man's way of saying he doesn't

actually
know

Post by Steffan Alun
what it means.

By the way, "spam" was at one point the name of a meat and it still
is.

That's just pedantry - I'm referring to the internet term.

Let's go back, shall we?

Post by Steffan Alun
Well, yes, but that's why the word "internet" is in capitals - I didn't

mean

Post by Steffan Alun
the fairy tale trolls. The INTERNET troll has ONE definition

CONTEXT, sir. CONTEXT.

The word "troll" is still spelled and pronounced the same way it is
indicated in fairy tales and the Internet. Therefore, it is the same
word with different meanings. Just because there's a fairy tale troll
and an Internet troll it does not make the word "troll" two different
words. I'm only pointing out that there are many definitions for the
word "troll" (and several other words) not that there is a fairy tale
troll and an Internet troll.

Steffan Alun

2004-08-06 02:33:13 UTC

Post by Anonunit
I still don't have my exact meaning of what a troll is.

Oh, so you're just stupid.

There's a difference between knowing the meaning of what a troll is
and knowing Steffan's meaning of what a troll is.

Only in theory. In practice, they're the same thing.

Post by Anonunit
No. It is not a real accusation. I never called neither you or Steffan
trolls. Just because I brought in the concept of "troll" into the
argument doesn't mean I'm accusing anybody.

Then why mention it?

Post by Anonunit
The word "troll" is still spelled and pronounced the same way it is
indicated in fairy tales and the Internet. Therefore, it is the same
word with different meanings.

Well, yes, but since we're not TALKING about fairy tale trolls, they're not
relevant.

Post by Anonunit
Just because there's a fairy tale troll
and an Internet troll it does not make the word "troll" two different
words. I'm only pointing out that there are many definitions for the
word "troll" (and several other words) not that there is a fairy tale
troll and an Internet troll.

Ok. Point accepted.

However, there is still only one definition for an INTERNET troll.

--
Steffan

Anonunit

2004-08-07 17:20:43 UTC

Post by Anonunit
I still don't have my exact meaning of what a troll is.

Oh, so you're just stupid.

There's a difference between knowing the meaning of what a troll is
and knowing Steffan's meaning of what a troll is.

Only in theory. In practice, they're the same thing.

How can you know that they're the same thing if you don't even know MY
meaning of what a troll is? You can't actually compare my definition
with yours.

Post by Anonunit
No. It is not a real accusation. I never called neither you or Steffan
trolls. Just because I brought in the concept of "troll" into the
argument doesn't mean I'm accusing anybody.

Then why mention it?

Maybe you should read this thread from where it started with Jon's
post.

Post by Anonunit
The word "troll" is still spelled and pronounced the same way it is
indicated in fairy tales and the Internet. Therefore, it is the same
word with different meanings.

Well, yes, but since we're not TALKING about fairy tale trolls, they're not
relevant.

Ok. Point accepted.
However, there is still only one definition for an INTERNET troll.

I know that there's only one definition for an Internet troll. I've
been comparing definitions.

Steffan Alun

2004-08-07 19:08:44 UTC

Post by Anonunit
There's a difference between knowing the meaning of what a troll is
and knowing Steffan's meaning of what a troll is.

Only in theory. In practice, they're the same thing.

How can you know that they're the same thing if you don't even know MY
meaning of what a troll is?

Because unless it's the same as mine, it's incorrect.

Hell, it's not even MY definition - it is THE definition. You don't get a
personal definition for every word in the English language, you know.

Post by Anonunit
You can't actually compare my definition
with yours.

What IS your definition, then? I've told you mine, yet you seem to guard
yours like some national treasure.

Post by Anonunit
No. It is not a real accusation. I never called neither you or Steffan
trolls. Just because I brought in the concept of "troll" into the
argument doesn't mean I'm accusing anybody.

Then why mention it?

Maybe you should read this thread from where it started with Jon's
post.

Maybe you should realise that motive is not the same as history.

Ok. Point accepted.
However, there is still only one definition for an INTERNET troll.

I know that there's only one definition for an Internet troll. I've
been comparing definitions.

Why are you hiding your conclusions, then?

--
Steffan

Anonunit

2004-08-08 19:29:56 UTC

From: Steffan Alun (***@aber.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-07 12:09:06 PST

"Because unless it's the same as mine, it's incorrect."

There are still more than one meaning for the word "troll" whether it
is the Internet meaning or not.

"Hell, it's not even MY definition - it is THE definition. You don't
get a
personal definition for every word in the English language, you know."

I don't have a personal definition for every word in the English
language.

"What IS your definition, then? I've told you mine, yet you seem to
guard
yours like some national treasure."

I was never asked (before this) what the definition of a "troll" is.

"Maybe you should realise that motive is not the same as history."

The history is the reason for my motive. Let's look back on this
thread.

"Why are you hiding your conclusions, then?"

If you think I'm hiding my conclusions, then I'll show you my
conclusions. Once this whole argument has actually been concluded.

From: Steffan Alun (***@aber.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-01 11:39:05 PST

"TGP may as well be dead. What's going on now isn't the bustling
activity of
a successful, thriving Pokémon group. The fact that there are as many
trolls as there are "regulars" is the first sign of the times. The
second
sign is that Lynn has decreed that everything posted to this group is
on-topic. The third sign is that a thread discussing the death of the
group
is the most thriving thread on the group. The fourth sign is left as
an
exercise for the reader."

Say, what would happen if all of a sudden 50 people began posting to
TGP? Would you still consider TGP dead?

"I'm not trolling. Lynn's the one who called me that."

Jon doesn't normally negotiate with trolls. He is still negotiating
with you, isn't he?

"So? That doesn't mean our intent is the same. They behaved like
this when
the group could actually be called a group. We're not trolling -
we're just
a reminder of the reason the group died."

The group is not dead until it has been actually declared dead by the
officials.

"The best way to combat a troll is to not reply. A troll's sole aim
is to
disrupt and to generate replies to his or her own topic. Only
dumbasses
reply to trolls."

You're calling the majority of people that post to newsgroups
"dumbasses" right there.

"The fact remains that we're NOT trolls, but if you think we are, why
are you
still talking to us?"

I don't actually think you're a troll. At least, not yet.

"I know why he calls me a troll. I just don't understand why he
doesn't
treat me like one if he truly believes that that's what I am."

Maybe because the other trolls were gotten rid of by replying to
them. Since nobody else would help in any other way.

"Only because people are too dumb to learn the true definition.
"Troll" is
used incorrectly almost as often as "spammer" and "irony" are.
Ironically."

The G4 web site had it's definition of "spam" stated quite clearly.
That's where the people who accused me of being a "spammer" and a
"troll" got their definition from. G4 is full of people dedicated to
know these things including what the meaning of "spam" is. The
administrators that locked my threads so they may never be replied to
again meant to do that because it's what they know they should've
done. And the administrators are part of the same group of people that
make up the G4 network.

"Yes, but a newsgroup "troll" has a specific definition, and the word
is all
too often used incorrectly."

Someone who's a "troll" and someone who's just being mean, are still
unwanted in newsgroups. Whether or not anyone is ever called a
"troll."

"It's not that easy. Everyone THINKS they know, but few people
really do.
Successful trolls do. Incidentally, I'm not trolling."

If successful trolls know the definition of trolling, and you know
the definition of troll, then are you a troll?

From: Steffan Alun (***@aber.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-03 09:40:05 PST

"He's still wrong. Acting like a troll doesn't necessarily make you
a troll."

Someone who wants to be replied to does not make someone a troll,
either. If someone posts something in a newsgroup asking for help (and
it corresponds to what the newsgroup is about) does that make that
person a troll?

"More to the point, do you believe me to be a troll just because Lynn
says
so?"

I'm neutral here. I'm here to analyze the situation just as you say
you've been doing all this time.

"By your logic, we're the GREATEST trolls ever to come here. A
troll's sole
purpose is to generate replies - to cause flamewars, to disrupt
groups, and
to generally make everyone feel a bit more pissed off than they did
before
reading the troll's post."

Do your really consider this a flamewar? I mean, really, this is an
on-topic discussion. It's just another thread.

"If you really think we're trolls, you're being hypocritical by
replying to
us. By replying to the people you think are trolls - or "feeding the
trolls" as it's commonly known - you're extending the """flamewar"""
of your
own free will. Your own superiority complex and feeling of
self-righteousness are the things killing the normal flow of this
group, not
our pessimism or stubborn behaviour."

Is the normal flow of the group your continuation of pessimism and
stubborn behavior?

"A newbie is not a troll. In fact, newbies make poor trolls."

If a newbie is not a troll how can newbies make poor trolls?

"That's a newbie mistake. It was not spam, because you were not
advertising
anything, and therefore it was not commercial, and you didn't intend
to
irritate anyone, so it wasn't a troll. Whoever claimed you were did
so
because they were ignorant of what the words "spam" and "troll" mean."

Everybody that replied to me called me a troll and a spammer. That
was over a dozen people including those who worked there.

"Because the administrators were wrong. Being a dumbass is not the
same as
being a troll."

The administrators study these things, you're calling them dumbasses?
All the definitions I've seen so far aren't very specific on what a
"troll" is. They all might sound the same, but that doesn't make the
people who "simplified" those words for people to understand,
dumbasses.

From: Steffan Alun (***@aber.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-03 20:42:06 PST

"You're in no place to judge. You still don't even know what a troll
IS."

I never even said I didn't know what a troll was.

"Understand yet? I'm not trolling, but I don't need to - you're
perfectly
happy to do that yourself."

So you're calling me a troll?

"You can only get rid of a troll by not responding. What they got
rid of was
idiots. You weren't a troll, so the fact that you left is just a
testimony
to your own apathy."

Every troll goes away by some form of response.

"And more to the point, when are you going to realise that my actions
are not
the actions of a troll?"

I don't consider your actions as actions of a troll, I consider your
actions those of someone who is a little bit like a troll. As people
see it, trolls are people that see as others online as "objects" and
not as humans. You treat Jon like if he wasn't someone else.

"Regulars should tell them as soon as the newbie replies to the
troll. Of
course, this requires the regulars to actually know themselves."

It's difficult to look through things on the Internet. It's not like
filtering web sites will help you find the correct definitions of a
troll.

"Wh- You lost me. Replying to a troll is replying to a troll.
Replying to
anyone else isn't. End of story, pretty much."

Fine. Let's say someone posts something about Pokemon. Then a troll
replies to them. After that, someone else replies to the person who
first started the thread and answers them in a non-troll way. Is the
troll being ignored or replied to there?

"A troll's sole purpose is to generate replies. That is all. Motive
is
another matter entirely, but that is the difference between a troll
and
anyone else - all a troll wants is that reply. Preferably several
replies.
The troll will continue to post until he gets bored or until people
stop
replying, whichever comes first."

Five people have been posting here for a while now. Have either of
them gotten bored or have been deprived of replies? No. And the first
trolls of TGP weren't that easy to get rid of.

"If you reply to a troll, you lose. If you killfile the troll, or
leave an
argument by saying "I'm ignoring you now", the troll has won a victory
known
as SPNAK, and once again, you lose. The only way to beat a troll is
to not
reply in the first place."

Even if the troll was just another person posting there without any
hostility?

"If you actually believe I'm a troll, you believe I'm only here to
generate
replies. You believe I'm only here to disrupt, distract and piss
off."

What about Haights and Pahsons, do you think of them as trolls?

"Not to me, but you're the one calling me a troll with no
justification."

There really isn't any justification around here anymore

From: Steffan Alun (***@aber.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-04 21:09:03 PST

"Then they weren't really trolls."

So, every single person that was once thought of as trolls in TGP,
weren't really trolls? Even if they themselves called each other
trolls and formed groups against Pokemon?

"Trolls don't cause any harm other than the harm indirectly caused by
attempting to generate as many replies as possible."

They certainly damaged by Web TV.

"Well, yes, but that's why the word "internet" is in capitals - I
didn't mean
the fairy tale trolls. The INTERNET troll has ONE definition - one
who
posts to generate replies. All your own definitions confirm this."

That's fine if my definitions of an Internet troll confirms your
definition of an Internet troll.

"I know what a troll is. All of the definitions you found were
either
correct or very close, and this confirms that I'm correct. You posted
your
proof, and it proves that I was right all along, so why do you still
think
YOUR definition of "troll" is as valid as mine?"

I'm still sticking to the fact that the word "troll" and other words
have more than one meaning. It doesn't matter if the Internet added a
new definition to any of these words.

"You did accuse me of trolling, though, which is the same thing,
isn't it?"

No, not really.

Newton Haights

2004-08-09 01:56:48 UTC

"Anonunit" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

<snip>

You think anyone actually read that post?

Steffan Alun

2004-08-09 22:06:27 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Because unless it's the same as mine, it's incorrect.

There are still more than one meaning for the word "troll" whether it
is the Internet meaning or not.

Incorrect. There is ONE definition of an Internet troll.

Post by Anonunit
Hell, it's not even MY definition - it is THE definition. You don't
get a personal definition for every word in the English language,
you know.
I don't have a personal definition for every word in the English
language.

Let me rephrase that.

You don't get a personal definition for any word in the English language,
you know.

Post by Steffan Alun
What IS your definition, then? I've told you mine, yet you seem to
guard yours like some national treasure.

I was never asked (before this) what the definition of a "troll" is.

So? This post alone is evidence that you're unwilling to share it.

What is your definition?

Post by Steffan Alun
Maybe you should realise that motive is not the same as history.

The history is the reason for my motive. Let's look back on this
thread.

I'll get to this later, but the fact remains that your motive seems to be
more shaped by a damaged ego than anything I've actually SAID.

Post by Steffan Alun
Why are you hiding your conclusions, then?

If you think I'm hiding my conclusions, then I'll show you my
conclusions. Once this whole argument has actually been concluded.

Once you show your conclusions, the argument will start again. Or have you
just assumed that your conclusions will stun me into silence?

Post by Steffan Alun
"TGP may as well be dead. What's going on now isn't the bustling
activity of a successful, thriving Pokémon group. The fact that
there are as many trolls as there are "regulars" is the first sign of

the

Post by Steffan Alun
times. The second sign is that Lynn has decreed that everything
posted to this group is on-topic. The third sign is that a thread

discussing the death of the group is the most thriving thread on the
group. The fourth sign is left as an exercise for the reader.
Say, what would happen if all of a sudden 50 people began posting to
TGP? Would you still consider TGP dead?

No. Not if they were discussing the topic at hand.

Post by Steffan Alun
I'm not trolling. Lynn's the one who called me that.

Jon doesn't normally negotiate with trolls. He is still negotiating
with you, isn't he?

Are you finally admitting I'm not a troll?

Post by Steffan Alun
So? That doesn't mean our intent is the same. They behaved like
this when the group could actually be called a group. We're not
trolling - we're just a reminder of the reason the group died.

The group is not dead until it has been actually declared dead by the
officials.

There are no officials. The group is dead when no on-topic discussion
prevails. Resurrection is possible, but very, very unlikely.

Post by Anonunit
The best way to combat a troll is to not reply. A troll's sole aim
is to disrupt and to generate replies to his or her own topic.
Only dumbasses reply to trolls.
You're calling the majority of people that post to newsgroups
"dumbasses" right there.

...

What did you THINK I was getting at?

Post by Anonunit
The fact remains that we're NOT trolls, but if you think we are, why
are you still talking to us?
I don't actually think you're a troll. At least, not yet.

I will be a troll when and only when I start posting purely to generate
replies. I can't BECOME a troll without a conscious decision.

Post by Steffan Alun
I know why he calls me a troll. I just don't understand why he
doesn't treat me like one if he truly believes that that's what I
am.

Maybe because the other trolls were gotten rid of by replying to
them. Since nobody else would help in any other way.

You're kidding yourselves. The past trolls were gotten rid of by becoming
sufficiently unentertaining.

We won't leave just because you're replying to us. If anything, that's the
last reason we'll leave. Do you think we're that fickle?

Post by Steffan Alun
Only because people are too dumb to learn the true definition.
"Troll" is used incorrectly almost as often as "spammer" and
"irony" are. Ironically."

The G4 web site had it's definition of "spam" stated quite clearly.
That's where the people who accused me of being a "spammer" and a
"troll" got their definition from. G4 is full of people dedicated to
know these things including what the meaning of "spam" is.

Either link me this site or paste me their definitions. Unless you do, I
won't believe they have correct definitions that fit into your points.

Post by Anonunit
The
administrators that locked my threads so they may never be replied to
again meant to do that because it's what they know they should've
done. And the administrators are part of the same group of people that
make up the G4 network.

There's a difference between a post that shouldn't have been made and a
troll. Spam is something quite different again.

Post by Steffan Alun
Yes, but a newsgroup "troll" has a specific definition, and the word
is all too often used incorrectly.

Someone who's a "troll" and someone who's just being mean, are still
unwanted in newsgroups. Whether or not anyone is ever called a
"troll."

So? That's not my point.

Post by Steffan Alun
It's not that easy. Everyone THINKS they know, but few people
really do. Successful trolls do. Incidentally, I'm not trolling.

If successful trolls know the definition of trolling, and you know
the definition of troll, then are you a troll?

I didn't say that ONLY successful trolls know the definition.

Post by Steffan Alun
He's still wrong. Acting like a troll doesn't necessarily make you a troll.

Someone who wants to be replied to does not make someone a troll,
either.

No, but someone who wants that above all else - and are willing to go to any
lengths to get it - IS a troll. By definition.

Post by Anonunit
If someone posts something in a newsgroup asking for help (and
it corresponds to what the newsgroup is about) does that make that
person a troll?

Not usually, because what THEY want is to know the answer. Sure, that
requires a reply, but the reply itself is not what they want.

Post by Steffan Alun
More to the point, do you believe me to be a troll just because Lynn
says so?

I'm neutral here. I'm here to analyze the situation just as you say
you've been doing all this time.

Interesting that you're so unwilling to actually state your conclusions.

I say that that's what I'm doing, and I tell you what I've observed to back
up my claims. You've done nothing but argue. You've also refused to accept
any of my points. Are you sure YOU'RE not a troll?

Post by Anonunit
Do your really consider this a flamewar? I mean, really, this is an
on-topic discussion. It's just another thread.

Of course it isn't on-topic. The topic is Pokémon.

Post by Anonunit
Is the normal flow of the group your continuation of pessimism and
stubborn behavior?

Of course not. The normal flow of the group is - or at least, should be - a
discussion of all things Pokémon.

Post by Steffan Alun
A newbie is not a troll. In fact, newbies make poor trolls.

If a newbie is not a troll how can newbies make poor trolls?

What I'm saying is that newbies aren't automatic trolls, but even newbies to
specific groups don't make good trolls - the best trolls know their target
groups inside out.

Post by Anonunit
Everybody that replied to me called me a troll and a spammer. That
was over a dozen people including those who worked there.

All dozen-plus were wrong, then. If a dozen people, including three
scientists and a caveman, insisted that fire is cold, would you be willing
to stick your hand in one?

Post by Steffan Alun
Because the administrators were wrong. Being a dumbass is not the
same as being a troll.

The administrators study these things, you're calling them dumbasses?

Of course they don't study these things. They're administrators, not
linguists. Their job is to eliminate all undesirable posts. That includes
spam, trolls AND useless posts. When you get rid of it all, you don't need
to know the difference.

Post by Anonunit
All the definitions I've seen so far aren't very specific on what a
"troll" is.

THAT IS A LIE. You've PASTED ME *TEN* *SPECIFIC definitions of what a troll
is. I've even summarised them all for you. Not least of all, I GAVE YOU
the definition.

I ask again - what is YOUR definition?

Post by Anonunit
They all might sound the same, but that doesn't make the
people who "simplified" those words for people to understand,
dumbasses.

Most people hear words and use them without thinking about them too much.
They call anyone they dislike trolls. They call any undesirable postings
spam. This is a lazy way of labelling people, and shouldn't be done.

Post by Steffan Alun
You're in no place to judge. You still don't even know what a troll IS.

I never even said I didn't know what a troll was.

You don't really need to. You're making it obvious by continually avoiding
my question of what you think one is.

Post by Steffan Alun
Understand yet? I'm not trolling, but I don't need to - you're
perfectly happy to do that yourself.

So you're calling me a troll?

Heh, you misunderstood - reread what I said very carefully.

Post by Anonunit
Every troll goes away by some form of response.

Incorrect. Trolls crave responses. Ignoring them is the only defense.

Post by Anonunit
I don't consider your actions as actions of a troll, I consider your
actions those of someone who is a little bit like a troll.

Ok, just so we're clear.

Post by Anonunit
As people
see it, trolls are people that see as others online as "objects" and
not as humans.

These people are right to some extent, but that's not always true.

Post by Anonunit
You treat Jon like if he wasn't someone else.

Do I now? Where's your evidence?

Post by Anonunit
It's difficult to look through things on the Internet. It's not like
filtering web sites will help you find the correct definitions of a
troll.

So? That doesn't give you the right to make up your own definition and
accuse mine of being wrong.

Post by Anonunit
Fine. Let's say someone posts something about Pokemon. Then a troll
replies to them. After that, someone else replies to the person who
first started the thread and answers them in a non-troll way. Is the
troll being ignored or replied to there?

Ignored. As it should be.

Post by Anonunit
Five people have been posting here for a while now. Have either of
them gotten bored or have been deprived of replies? No. And the first
trolls of TGP weren't that easy to get rid of.

No, because they were given the replies they craved.

Post by Anonunit
Even if the troll was just another person posting there without any
hostility?

ALL trolls post with AT LEAST a LITTLE BIT of HOSTILITY.

Post by Anonunit
What about Haights and Pahsons, do you think of them as trolls?

Pahsons is an idiot. Haights is a bully. Neither of them are trolls.

Post by Anonunit
So, every single person that was once thought of as trolls in TGP,
weren't really trolls? Even if they themselves called each other
trolls and formed groups against Pokemon?

Exactly! NOW we're getting somewhere.

Post by Steffan Alun
Trolls don't cause any harm other than the harm indirectly caused by
attempting to generate as many replies as possible.

They certainly damaged by Web TV.

How so?

Post by Anonunit
That's fine if my definitions of an Internet troll confirms your
definition of an Internet troll.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. You're not allowed your own
definition. Mine happens to be correct, so if yours doesn't confirm mine,
yours is automatically incorrect.

This isn't arrogance. This is my concrete knowledge that on this matter I
happen to be correct.

Post by Anonunit
I'm still sticking to the fact that the word "troll" and other words
have more than one meaning.

BUT THEY DON'T, with regard to the internet.

Post by Anonunit
It doesn't matter if the Internet added a
new definition to any of these words.

IT ADDED *ONE* NEW DEFINITION FOR EACH.

Post by Anonunit
There really isn't any justification around here anymore.

There is no justice. There's only me.

--
Steffan

Anonunit

2004-08-10 03:25:37 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Because unless it's the same as mine, it's incorrect.

There are still more than one meaning for the word "troll" whether it
is the Internet meaning or not.

Incorrect. There is ONE definition of an Internet troll.

...Read below.

Let me rephrase that.
You don't get a personal definition for any word in the English language,
you know.

Yes, I know.

Post by Steffan Alun
What IS your definition, then? I've told you mine, yet you seem to
guard yours like some national treasure.

I was never asked (before this) what the definition of a "troll" is.

So? This post alone is evidence that you're unwilling to share it.
What is your definition?

My definition is the same as yours and everything else we've looked
at.

Post by Steffan Alun
Maybe you should realise that motive is not the same as history.

The history is the reason for my motive. Let's look back on this
thread.

I'll get to this later, but the fact remains that your motive seems to be
more shaped by a damaged ego than anything I've actually SAID.

You should really start reviewing people's posts, then whatever you're
going to reply with. I won't accuse you of not having a life.

Post by Steffan Alun
Why are you hiding your conclusions, then?

If you think I'm hiding my conclusions, then I'll show you my
conclusions. Once this whole argument has actually been concluded.

Once you show your conclusions, the argument will start again. Or have you
just assumed that your conclusions will stun me into silence?

I think you've assumed that my motive in TGP is to "stun you into
silence." I'm neutral. Just because I'm Jon's friend doesn't mean I'll
automatically hunt you down.

the

Post by Steffan Alun
times. The second sign is that Lynn has decreed that everything
posted to this group is on-topic. The third sign is that a thread

No. Not if they were discussing the topic at hand.

So this whole "New Order" thing about everything being posted here
being on-topic doesn't matter?

Post by Steffan Alun
I'm not trolling. Lynn's the one who called me that.

Jon doesn't normally negotiate with trolls. He is still negotiating
with you, isn't he?

Are you finally admitting I'm not a troll?

I never even admitted that you were.

The group is not dead until it has been actually declared dead by the
officials.

There are no officials. The group is dead when no on-topic discussion
prevails. Resurrection is possible, but very, very unlikely.

By officials I meant the people who delete newsgroups once there has
been absolutely no activity from anyone for whichever time it takes a
newsgroup has to be deleted.

...
What did you THINK I was getting at?

Good luck with those people you just called dumbasses.

Post by Anonunit
The fact remains that we're NOT trolls, but if you think we are, why
are you still talking to us?
I don't actually think you're a troll. At least, not yet.

I will be a troll when and only when I start posting purely to generate
replies. I can't BECOME a troll without a conscious decision.

So when you post to TGP you don't always expect a reply?

Post by Steffan Alun
I know why he calls me a troll. I just don't understand why he
doesn't treat me like one if he truly believes that that's what I
am.

Maybe because the other trolls were gotten rid of by replying to
them. Since nobody else would help in any other way.

You're kidding yourselves. The past trolls were gotten rid of by becoming
sufficiently unentertaining.
We won't leave just because you're replying to us. If anything, that's the
last reason we'll leave. Do you think we're that fickle?

Perhaps. I don't really know you that well.

Post by Steffan Alun
Only because people are too dumb to learn the true definition.
"Troll" is used incorrectly almost as often as "spammer" and
"irony" are. Ironically."

Either link me this site or paste me their definitions. Unless you do, I
won't believe they have correct definitions that fit into your points.

It's pretty easy to find the site. I myself, however, tried to look up
those threads I started back in March of 2003 (which I actually found
just this year. And those three threads were the only threads I ever
posted in any of the G4 forums) and I just got some error message.

There's a difference between a post that shouldn't have been made and a
troll. Spam is something quite different again.

The posts were actually on-topic. I posted them in three specific
forums that could've helped.

Post by Steffan Alun
Yes, but a newsgroup "troll" has a specific definition, and the word
is all too often used incorrectly.

Someone who's a "troll" and someone who's just being mean, are still
unwanted in newsgroups. Whether or not anyone is ever called a
"troll."

So? That's not my point.

My point is that you're mean even if you're not a troll.

Post by Steffan Alun
It's not that easy. Everyone THINKS they know, but few people
really do. Successful trolls do. Incidentally, I'm not trolling.

If successful trolls know the definition of trolling, and you know
the definition of troll, then are you a troll?

I didn't say that ONLY successful trolls know the definition.

Post by Steffan Alun
He's still wrong. Acting like a troll doesn't necessarily make you a troll.

Someone who wants to be replied to does not make someone a troll,
either.

No, but someone who wants that above all else - and are willing to go to any
lengths to get it - IS a troll. By definition.

Not just the fact that trolls like to piss people off whether they are
replied to or not?

Post by Anonunit
If someone posts something in a newsgroup asking for help (and
it corresponds to what the newsgroup is about) does that make that
person a troll?

Not usually, because what THEY want is to know the answer. Sure, that
requires a reply, but the reply itself is not what they want.

Post by Steffan Alun
More to the point, do you believe me to be a troll just because Lynn
says so?

I'm neutral here. I'm here to analyze the situation just as you say
you've been doing all this time.

Interesting that you're so unwilling to actually state your conclusions.

Once I've concluded I'll let you know.

Post by Steffan Alun
I say that that's what I'm doing, and I tell you what I've observed to back
up my claims. You've done nothing but argue. You've also refused to accept
any of my points. Are you sure YOU'RE not a troll?

Post by Anonunit
Do your really consider this a flamewar? I mean, really, this is an
on-topic discussion. It's just another thread.

Of course it isn't on-topic. The topic is Pokémon.

Post by Anonunit
Is the normal flow of the group your continuation of pessimism and
stubborn behavior?

Of course not. The normal flow of the group is - or at least, should be - a
discussion of all things Pokémon.

Post by Steffan Alun
A newbie is not a troll. In fact, newbies make poor trolls.

If a newbie is not a troll how can newbies make poor trolls?

What I'm saying is that newbies aren't automatic trolls, but even newbies to
specific groups don't make good trolls - the best trolls know their target
groups inside out.

Post by Anonunit
Everybody that replied to me called me a troll and a spammer. That
was over a dozen people including those who worked there.

All dozen-plus were wrong, then. If a dozen people, including three
scientists and a caveman, insisted that fire is cold, would you be willing
to stick your hand in one?

Post by Steffan Alun
Because the administrators were wrong. Being a dumbass is not the
same as being a troll.

The administrators study these things, you're calling them dumbasses?

Post by Anonunit
All the definitions I've seen so far aren't very specific on what a
"troll" is.

Post by Anonunit
They all might sound the same, but that doesn't make the
people who "simplified" those words for people to understand,
dumbasses.

Post by Steffan Alun
You're in no place to judge. You still don't even know what a troll IS.

I never even said I didn't know what a troll was.

You don't really need to. You're making it obvious by continually avoiding
my question of what you think one is.

Post by Steffan Alun
Understand yet? I'm not trolling, but I don't need to - you're
perfectly happy to do that yourself.

So you're calling me a troll?

Heh, you misunderstood - reread what I said very carefully.

Post by Anonunit
Every troll goes away by some form of response.

Incorrect. Trolls crave responses. Ignoring them is the only defense.

Post by Anonunit
I don't consider your actions as actions of a troll, I consider your
actions those of someone who is a little bit like a troll.

Ok, just so we're clear.

Post by Anonunit
As people
see it, trolls are people that see as others online as "objects" and
not as humans.

These people are right to some extent, but that's not always true.

Post by Anonunit
You treat Jon like if he wasn't someone else.

Do I now? Where's your evidence?

Post by Anonunit
It's difficult to look through things on the Internet. It's not like
filtering web sites will help you find the correct definitions of a
troll.

So? That doesn't give you the right to make up your own definition and
accuse mine of being wrong.

I didn't make up my own definition. And I didn't accuse yours of being
wrong.

Ignored. As it should be.

No, because they were given the replies they craved.

Post by Anonunit
Even if the troll was just another person posting there without any
hostility?

ALL trolls post with AT LEAST a LITTLE BIT of HOSTILITY.

Post by Anonunit
What about Haights and Pahsons, do you think of them as trolls?

Pahsons is an idiot. Haights is a bully. Neither of them are trolls.

Post by Anonunit
So, every single person that was once thought of as trolls in TGP,
weren't really trolls? Even if they themselves called each other
trolls and formed groups against Pokemon?

Exactly! NOW we're getting somewhere.

Post by Steffan Alun
Trolls don't cause any harm other than the harm indirectly caused by
attempting to generate as many replies as possible.

They certainly damaged by Web TV.

How so?

I've already given an example. They posted something that had
something strange that caused a Web TV to crash once the post was
viewed. It was difficult to connect from the on and a lot of the Web
TV's functions had failed.

Post by Anonunit
That's fine if my definitions of an Internet troll confirms your
definition of an Internet troll.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. You're not allowed your own
definition. Mine happens to be correct, so if yours doesn't confirm mine,
yours is automatically incorrect.
This isn't arrogance. This is my concrete knowledge that on this matter I
happen to be correct.

Post by Anonunit
I'm still sticking to the fact that the word "troll" and other words
have more than one meaning.

BUT THEY DON'T, with regard to the internet.

Post by Anonunit
It doesn't matter if the Internet added a
new definition to any of these words.

IT ADDED *ONE* NEW DEFINITION FOR EACH.

Post by Anonunit
There really isn't any justification around here anymore.

There is no justice. There's only me.

Steffan Alun

2004-08-10 12:18:02 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
What is your definition?

My definition is the same as yours and everything else we've looked
at.

Then why in the name of all that is holy are you ARGUING ABOUT IT?

Post by Anonunit
You should really start reviewing people's posts, then whatever you're
going to reply with. I won't accuse you of not having a life.

However, I *DO* have a life, so I actually DON'T have the time to do that.

Post by Anonunit
I think you've assumed that my motive in TGP is to "stun you into
silence." I'm neutral. Just because I'm Jon's friend doesn't mean I'll
automatically hunt you down.

You're clearly arguing, though. What is your argument?

Post by Anonunit
So this whole "New Order" thing about everything being posted here
being on-topic doesn't matter?

No, of course it doesn't. Lynn doesn't get to choose the topic of this
group just because he happens to be one of the only people who actually care
for it. The topic of the group is the topic chosen when it was created,
which is Pokémon. Unless it contains Pokémon discussion, it is not a valid,
on-topic group. It might as well be dead.

Post by Steffan Alun
Are you finally admitting I'm not a troll?

I never even admitted that you were.

Then why bring it up?

Post by Anonunit
The group is not dead until it has been actually declared dead by the
officials.

There are no officials. The group is dead when no on-topic discussion
prevails. Resurrection is possible, but very, very unlikely.

By officials I meant the people who delete newsgroups once there has
been absolutely no activity from anyone for whichever time it takes a
newsgroup has to be deleted.

There are no PEOPLE who delete newsgroups.

...
What did you THINK I was getting at?

Good luck with those people you just called dumbasses.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll all be at my door with baseball bats any time now.

Post by Anonunit
The fact remains that we're NOT trolls, but if you think we are, why
are you still talking to us?
I don't actually think you're a troll. At least, not yet.

I will be a troll when and only when I start posting purely to generate
replies. I can't BECOME a troll without a conscious decision.

So when you post to TGP you don't always expect a reply?

Hey, my motivations have always been clear. Yours are the ones that are
suspect.

Post by Anonunit
The G4 web site had it's definition of "spam" stated quite clearly.
That's where the people who accused me of being a "spammer" and a
"troll" got their definition from. G4 is full of people dedicated to
know these things including what the meaning of "spam" is.

Either link me this site or paste me their definitions. Unless you do, I
won't believe they have correct definitions that fit into your points.

Alright:

1) I don't know what G4 is.

2) If I did, I wouldn't know the URL.

3) If I did have the URL, I wouldn't know where to find these definitions
you're talking about.

4) Even if I could find these, I shouldn't have to, since they're YOUR
"evidence", and it's therefore YOUR job to do the legwork and get me a link.

Post by Steffan Alun
There's a difference between a post that shouldn't have been made and a
troll. Spam is something quite different again.

The posts were actually on-topic. I posted them in three specific
forums that could've helped.

Then they weren't spam.

To clarify, "spam" refers to commercial e-mail and posts - that is, messages
used purely to advertise, and without the consent of the recipient.

Unless you're posting to advertise something, you have not posted spam.
Rubbish e-mails are not spam unless they advertise.

Now, I don't mind when people use this word incorrectly. It's a bit
annoying, but nothing more. What I DO have a problem is when people make up
their own definitions of "troll" and apply it to me - they assume I've
adopted some specific means of communication for a specific, negative
reason, and they look no further.

Post by Anonunit
Someone who's a "troll" and someone who's just being mean, are still
unwanted in newsgroups. Whether or not anyone is ever called a
"troll."

So? That's not my point.

My point is that you're mean even if you're not a troll.

Alright, then you should have said that from the start without dragging the
concept of trolling into the thread.

Post by Steffan Alun
He's still wrong. Acting like a troll doesn't necessarily make you a troll.

Someone who wants to be replied to does not make someone a troll,
either.

No, but someone who wants that above all else - and are willing to go to any
lengths to get it - IS a troll. By definition.

Not just the fact that trolls like to piss people off whether they are
replied to or not?

Replies are the way you measure how pissed off people really are. Think of
politicians. Are they happy if people like them? No. They want people to
like them ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR THEM. Likewise, trolls want people to be
pissed off ENOUGH TO REPLY. If nobody replied to trolls, they'd eventually
go away.

Post by Steffan Alun
Interesting that you're so unwilling to actually state your conclusions.

Once I've concluded I'll let you know.

So, what? You have no opinions at all? You've stated countless times what
you believe NOT to be true, but never what you actually do think of the
whole thing.

Post by Steffan Alun
Trolls don't cause any harm other than the harm indirectly caused by
attempting to generate as many replies as possible.

They certainly damaged by Web TV.

How so?

Guess what.

That wasn't a troll's doing.

Post by Steffan Alun
There is no justice. There's only me.

--
Steffan

Newton Haights

2004-08-10 19:00:11 UTC

Post by Anonunit
It's pretty easy to find the site. I myself, however, tried to look up
those threads I started back in March of 2003 (which I actually found
just this year. And those three threads were the only threads I ever
posted in any of the G4 forums) and I just got some error message.

1) I don't know what G4 is.

Videogame-devoted channel in the States. Recently merged with Tech TV, a
technology-devoted channel.

Post by Steffan Alun
2) If I did, I wouldn't know the URL.

www.g4techtv.com

Post by Steffan Alun
3) If I did have the URL, I wouldn't know where to find these definitions
you're talking about.

Got me.

Post by Steffan Alun
4) Even if I could find these, I shouldn't have to, since they're YOUR
"evidence", and it's therefore YOUR job to do the legwork and get me a link.

On second thought, remember what happened LAST time he gave you links.

Steffan Alun

2004-08-11 00:34:09 UTC

1) I don't know what G4 is.

Videogame-devoted channel in the States. Recently merged with Tech TV, a
technology-devoted channel.

Appreciate the explanation.

Anonunit: I'm not from the US. Bear that in mind if you're talking about
something that seems to be obvious.

Post by Steffan Alun
2) If I did, I wouldn't know the URL.

www.g4techtv.com

I'd check this out, only...

Post by Steffan Alun
3) If I did have the URL, I wouldn't know where to find these definitions
you're talking about.

Got me.

...yeah, this is why. All I want to see is the alleged super-awesome
definitions on the site.

Post by Steffan Alun
4) Even if I could find these, I shouldn't have to, since they're YOUR
"evidence", and it's therefore YOUR job to do the legwork and get me a

link.
On second thought, remember what happened LAST time he gave you links.

They all proved me right and he pretended he was never trying to prove me
wrong.

A good track record.

--
Steffan

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-12 14:10:38 UTC

In a daze, I read Newton Haights's post, then collasped.

Post by Steffan Alun
1) I don't know what G4 is.

Videogame-devoted channel in the States. Recently merged with Tech TV, a
technology-devoted channel.

I love that channel. I wish I could watch it more often

Anonunit

2004-08-10 22:37:49 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
What is your definition?

My definition is the same as yours and everything else we've looked
at.

Then why in the name of all that is holy are you ARGUING ABOUT IT?

I'm not even arguing. I'm discussing.

Post by Anonunit
You should really start reviewing people's posts, then whatever you're
going to reply with. I won't accuse you of not having a life.

However, I *DO* have a life, so I actually DON'T have the time to do that.

Post by Anonunit
I think you've assumed that my motive in TGP is to "stun you into
silence." I'm neutral. Just because I'm Jon's friend doesn't mean I'll
automatically hunt you down.

You're clearly arguing, though. What is your argument?

I'm discussing the topic about what this thread is about.

Post by Anonunit
So this whole "New Order" thing about everything being posted here
being on-topic doesn't matter?

Why are you the person I mostly read about in this newsgroup?
Shouldn't there be someone looking over all the newsgroups even this
one? Isn't there someone that bans people from newsgroups?

Post by Steffan Alun
Are you finally admitting I'm not a troll?

I never even admitted that you were.

Then why bring it up?

I guess my last post wasn't evident. I brought it up because you asked
Jon what he thought trolling was.

Post by Anonunit
The group is not dead until it has been actually declared dead by the
officials.

There are no officials. The group is dead when no on-topic discussion
prevails. Resurrection is possible, but very, very unlikely.

By officials I meant the people who delete newsgroups once there has
been absolutely no activity from anyone for whichever time it takes a
newsgroup has to be deleted.

There are no PEOPLE who delete newsgroups.

Then how do newsgroups (like ADGP) dissapear? What happens when there
hasn't been any activity in a newsgroup for about a week? Who or what
decides what happens to a newsgroup?

...
What did you THINK I was getting at?

Good luck with those people you just called dumbasses.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll all be at my door with baseball bats any time now.

Post by Anonunit
The fact remains that we're NOT trolls, but if you think we are, why
are you still talking to us?
I don't actually think you're a troll. At least, not yet.

I will be a troll when and only when I start posting purely to generate
replies. I can't BECOME a troll without a conscious decision.

So when you post to TGP you don't always expect a reply?

Hey, my motivations have always been clear. Yours are the ones that are
suspect.

Either link me this site or paste me their definitions. Unless you do,

Post by Steffan Alun
won't believe they have correct definitions that fit into your points.

As Haights has mentioned the link is:

www.g4tecttv.com

1) I don't know what G4 is.

Seriously, even if you don't review your own messages before you post
them you should really try remembering the past of this thread. I have
already explained what G4 is.

Post by Steffan Alun
2) If I did, I wouldn't know the URL.

The reason why I said that G4 was easy to find was because all you had
to do was to go to your search toolbar and to type in "G4" you
could've found it easily on your search results. And if you used
"g4.com" for the address it would've been easy too.

Post by Steffan Alun
3) If I did have the URL, I wouldn't know where to find these definitions
you're talking about.

I looked up my posts in the G4 forums again and I found them. Here's
the definition they gave me for "spam."
<< - posting the same topic in multiple forums, or multiple times in
the same forum (example: "Can I get help with Pokemon?" posted in
Handheld, and Cheat!, and Blister) >>

Post by Steffan Alun
4) Even if I could find these, I shouldn't have to, since they're YOUR
"evidence", and it's therefore YOUR job to do the legwork and get me a link.

I didn't get an error message today when I tried looking up my
"evidence."

Post by Steffan Alun
There's a difference between a post that shouldn't have been made and a
troll. Spam is something quite different again.

The posts were actually on-topic. I posted them in three specific
forums that could've helped.

Then they weren't spam.
To clarify, "spam" refers to commercial e-mail and posts - that is, messages
used purely to advertise, and without the consent of the recipient.
Unless you're posting to advertise something, you have not posted spam.
Rubbish e-mails are not spam unless they advertise.
Now, I don't mind when people use this word incorrectly. It's a bit
annoying, but nothing more. What I DO have a problem is when people make up
their own definitions of "troll" and apply it to me - they assume I've
adopted some specific means of communication for a specific, negative
reason, and they look no further.

Post by Anonunit
Someone who's a "troll" and someone who's just being mean, are still
unwanted in newsgroups. Whether or not anyone is ever called a
"troll."

So? That's not my point.

My point is that you're mean even if you're not a troll.

Alright, then you should have said that from the start without dragging the
concept of trolling into the thread.

Why shouldn't I? It's not like anyone is going on about "Pokemon" or
anything.

Post by Steffan Alun
He's still wrong. Acting like a troll doesn't necessarily make you
a troll.

Someone who wants to be replied to does not make someone a troll,
either.

No, but someone who wants that above all else - and are willing to go to

any

Post by Steffan Alun
lengths to get it - IS a troll. By definition.

Not just the fact that trolls like to piss people off whether they are
replied to or not?

Post by Steffan Alun
Interesting that you're so unwilling to actually state your conclusions.

Once I've concluded I'll let you know.

So, what? You have no opinions at all? You've stated countless times what
you believe NOT to be true, but never what you actually do think of the
whole thing.

When have I stated what I believe NOT to be true?

Post by Steffan Alun
Trolls don't cause any harm other than the harm indirectly caused by
attempting to generate as many replies as possible.

They certainly damaged by Web TV.

How so?

Guess what.
That wasn't a troll's doing.

It was the same person known through the Pokemon newsgroups for
posting only to want replies. Once people began ignoring him, him and
the other trolls did the same thing for attention. And attention is
something that the links I gave you state what "trolls" want.

Newton Haights

2004-08-11 00:06:02 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
What is your definition?

My definition is the same as yours and everything else we've looked
at.

Then why in the name of all that is holy are you ARGUING ABOUT IT?

I'm not even arguing. I'm discussing.

You're ignoring his points. That's not discussing.

Post by Anonunit
You should really start reviewing people's posts, then whatever you're
going to reply with. I won't accuse you of not having a life.

However, I *DO* have a life, so I actually DON'T have the time to do that.

Post by Anonunit
I think you've assumed that my motive in TGP is to "stun you into
silence." I'm neutral. Just because I'm Jon's friend doesn't mean I'll
automatically hunt you down.

You're clearly arguing, though. What is your argument?

I'm discussing the topic about what this thread is about.

Post by Anonunit
So this whole "New Order" thing about everything being posted here
being on-topic doesn't matter?

Why are you the person I mostly read about in this newsgroup?
Shouldn't there be someone looking over all the newsgroups even this
one? Isn't there someone that bans people from newsgroups?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HA.

You have no fucking clue how USEnet works, do you? No fucking clue at all.

Post by Steffan Alun
Are you finally admitting I'm not a troll?

I never even admitted that you were.

Then why bring it up?

I guess my last post wasn't evident. I brought it up because you asked
Jon what he thought trolling was.

But if you don't believe he's a troll, then why bring it up FURTHER?

Post by Anonunit
The group is not dead until it has been actually declared dead by the
officials.

There are no officials. The group is dead when no on-topic discussion
prevails. Resurrection is possible, but very, very unlikely.

By officials I meant the people who delete newsgroups once there has
been absolutely no activity from anyone for whichever time it takes a
newsgroup has to be deleted.

There are no PEOPLE who delete newsgroups.

Then how do newsgroups (like ADGP) dissapear?

They get no activity, newsservers (say, news.individual.net) no longer carry
them because they're dead, and nobody finds access to them anymore.

Post by Anonunit
What happens when there
hasn't been any activity in a newsgroup for about a week?

A week? Have some patience, man.

Post by Anonunit
Who or what
decides what happens to a newsgroup?

Nobody. (woooooooooooooooooo *wriggles fingers in a "creepy" sign*)

1) I don't know what G4 is.

Seriously, even if you don't review your own messages before you post
them you should really try remembering the past of this thread. I have
already explained what G4 is.

...probably in one of those 20-kilo summary quote threads. In which you
flout all standards of quoting and generally make a boring message.

Again, do you seriously think people read those?

Post by Steffan Alun
2) If I did, I wouldn't know the URL.

We don't all have search toolbars. And he shouldn't have to search for the
site. It's your argument (EXCUSE ME IT'S YOUR DISCUSSION LOL), you post the
links.

Post by Steffan Alun
3) If I did have the URL, I wouldn't know where to find these definitions
you're talking about.

Then they're wrong. That's just repetition. You weren't advertising, you
were asking. If you were bragging on all three that you know the answers,
preemptively, before other people asked the questions, THAT would be spammy
(if not actual spam -- I don't know if the commercial aspect is necessary or
just the unwanted solicitation).

That's also wrong forums -- isn't Blister generally a game introduction
show? You really should have confined the request to Cheat!'s forums.

Post by Steffan Alun
4) Even if I could find these, I shouldn't have to, since they're YOUR
"evidence", and it's therefore YOUR job to do the legwork and get me a link.

I didn't get an error message today when I tried looking up my
"evidence."

...

...no, go on.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought there was a point to that one. You know, like
"here's my evidence, at this address." You know, right before you POST THE
LINK.

Post by Anonunit
Someone who's a "troll" and someone who's just being mean, are still
unwanted in newsgroups. Whether or not anyone is ever called a
"troll."

So? That's not my point.

My point is that you're mean even if you're not a troll.

Alright, then you should have said that from the start without dragging the
concept of trolling into the thread.

Why shouldn't I? It's not like anyone is going on about "Pokemon" or
anything.

True, you have a point there, bring trolling into it since he is trolling OH
WAIT HE'S NOT.

Post by Steffan Alun
Trolls don't cause any harm other than the harm indirectly caused by
attempting to generate as many replies as possible.

They certainly damaged by Web TV.

How so?

Guess what.
That wasn't a troll's doing.

You thickheaded little --

HE. WAS. A. TROLL. HE. BECAME. SOMETHING. MORE.

If all he wanted was attention, he'd find another place to troll. He
crashed WebTVs for revenge or anger or something. Not for attention, not
for replies.

Anonunit

2004-08-11 23:39:01 UTC

Post by Newton Haights
You're ignoring his points. That's not discussing.

How am I ignoring his points?

Post by Anonunit
Why are you the person I mostly read about in this newsgroup?
Shouldn't there be someone looking over all the newsgroups even this
one? Isn't there someone that bans people from newsgroups?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HA.
You have no fucking clue how USEnet works, do you? No fucking clue at all.

Now where'd you get that from? I was asking questions not saying what
is true.

Post by Newton Haights
But if you don't believe he's a troll, then why bring it up FURTHER?

Because I want to?

Post by Newton Haights
A week? Have some patience, man.

That too was a question.

Post by Newton Haights
Nobody. (woooooooooooooooooo *wriggles fingers in a "creepy" sign*)

Then why are people usually so scared to be off-topic?

Post by Newton Haights
...probably in one of those 20-kilo summary quote threads. In which you
flout all standards of quoting and generally make a boring message.
Again, do you seriously think people read those?

Of course, you and Steffan have. And I've seen even longer posts.

Post by Newton Haights
We don't all have search toolbars. And he shouldn't have to search for the
site. It's your argument (EXCUSE ME IT'S YOUR DISCUSSION LOL), you post the
links.

Right. Except last time I gave Steffan links he himself looked up
things to quote from the sites. I didn't feel like quoting them
because in one of them it said to not quote them in any way. So I
decided to not quote any of them in any way. And by search toolbars I
meant whatever you use to navigate the Internet.

Post by Newton Haights
Then they're wrong. That's just repetition. You weren't advertising, you
were asking. If you were bragging on all three that you know the answers,
preemptively, before other people asked the questions, THAT would be spammy
(if not actual spam -- I don't know if the commercial aspect is necessary or
just the unwanted solicitation).
That's also wrong forums -- isn't Blister generally a game introduction
show? You really should have confined the request to Cheat!'s forums.

I wasn't really asking them anything. And I wasn't asking them
anything about Pokemon. That definition I gave you was the example
they gave me. I posted in the forums of Portal, G4tv.com, and Pulse. I
mentioned in a earlier post (where I didn't quote too much) what I
posted in those forums.

Post by Newton Haights
...
...no, go on.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought there was a point to that one. You know, like
"here's my evidence, at this address." You know, right before you POST THE
LINK.

I was going to wait until the error message stopped showing. I'd give
the link later on. Since he did ask me for the link I had to say why I
couldn't show it to him right away. Which I did.

Post by Newton Haights
True, you have a point there, bring trolling into it since he is trolling OH
WAIT HE'S NOT.

Okay. I've already said several times before that I've never said he
was trolling. To clarify, I will now say that I DON'T believe Steffan
is a troll.

Post by Newton Haights
You thickheaded little --
HE. WAS. A. TROLL. HE. BECAME. SOMETHING. MORE.
If all he wanted was attention, he'd find another place to troll. He
crashed WebTVs for revenge or anger or something. Not for attention, not
for replies.

At first, they did what trolls do. They got replies and attention for
a short time. Once they were ignored, they crashed WebTVs for
attention. It's not possible they could be angry at about 30 people.

Steffan Alun

2004-08-11 01:01:03 UTC

Post by Anonunit
My definition is the same as yours and everything else we've looked
at.

Then why in the name of all that is holy are you ARGUING ABOUT IT?

I'm not even arguing. I'm discussing.

Actually, that's untrue. You've contributed nothing to this "discussion".
This is evident in the fact that I'm still not certain what your definition
is.

Post by Anonunit
I think you've assumed that my motive in TGP is to "stun you into
silence." I'm neutral. Just because I'm Jon's friend doesn't mean I'll
automatically hunt you down.

You're clearly arguing, though. What is your argument?

I'm discussing the topic about what this thread is about.

*Looks up*

You're discussing a boost to morale? You're discussing filler? This thread
deviated from any relevance a long time ago, so you can't plead ignorance.

Post by Anonunit
So this whole "New Order" thing about everything being posted here
being on-topic doesn't matter?

Why are you the person I mostly read about in this newsgroup?
Shouldn't there be someone looking over all the newsgroups even this
one? Isn't there someone that bans people from newsgroups?

Usenet is generally unmoderated unless the group contains the word
"moderated" in it. The word "alt" notes that the sky's the limit in terms
of rules. I have no idea what "tnn" denotes.

Post by Anonunit
I guess my last post wasn't evident. I brought it up because you asked
Jon what he thought trolling was.

That reminds me. Why aren't you here, Lynn? I thought you were trying to
resurrect the group. You're not doing too good a job of it if you can't
even show up for your own threads.

Post by Steffan Alun
There are no PEOPLE who delete newsgroups.

Then how do newsgroups (like ADGP) dissapear? What happens when there
hasn't been any activity in a newsgroup for about a week? Who or what
decides what happens to a newsgroup?

Nobody decides. It's automated.

Post by Anonunit
www.g4tecttv.com

Ok, and where are these definitions?

Post by Steffan Alun
1) I don't know what G4 is.

Seriously, even if you don't review your own messages before you post
them you should really try remembering the past of this thread. I have
already explained what G4 is.

Really? I know now, having read Haights's post, but his information didn't
sound familiar. You sure you explained?

Post by Steffan Alun
2) If I did, I wouldn't know the URL.

Alright, but I'm used to being given specific URLs instead of vague hints.

Post by Steffan Alun
3) If I did have the URL, I wouldn't know where to find these definitions
you're talking about.

This is incorrect. I've already defined spam for you. What you did was a
newbie mistake, which is completely different.

That said, since spam is almost always carbon copied to multiple people or
groups, it's very possible they were using the word metaphorically, but
either way, they're not DEFINING it correctly.

Post by Steffan Alun
4) Even if I could find these, I shouldn't have to, since they're YOUR
"evidence", and it's therefore YOUR job to do the legwork and get me a link.

I didn't get an error message today when I tried looking up my
"evidence."

That's not really the point. If you're going to reference further reading
material, you need to have a specific link handy, or else it adds no
integrity to your points.

Post by Anonunit
My point is that you're mean even if you're not a troll.

Alright, then you should have said that from the start without dragging the
concept of trolling into the thread.

Why shouldn't I? It's not like anyone is going on about "Pokemon" or
anything.

If you're not talking about trolling, don't mention it. It's pointless, and
the only purpose it serves is to make me believe that you are accusing me of
trolling. Your misleading use of semantics does make me suspect more and
more that you're only here to troll yourself.

Post by Steffan Alun
Interesting that you're so unwilling to actually state your conclusions.

Once I've concluded I'll let you know.

So, what? You have no opinions at all? You've stated countless times what
you believe NOT to be true, but never what you actually do think of the
whole thing.

When have I stated what I believe NOT to be true?

You've said you don't believe I'm a troll, you've said you don't believe
your definition of troll is any more valid than mine, you've said you don't
believe practically everything I've asked you whether you believe. However,
you guard that which you DO believe like some ancient treasure.

Post by Anonunit
I've already given an example. They posted something that had
something strange that caused a Web TV to crash once the post was
viewed. It was difficult to connect from the on and a lot of the Web
TV's functions had failed.

Guess what.
That wasn't a troll's doing.

Of course they want attention, but intentional sabotage aren't a troll's
actions. They're the actions of a vengeful, spiteful gang of people.

I don't speak for them. I wasn't part of the whole AGNP Troll Brigade
thing. However, I can assure you that I personally will do no more than
post - in plain text - to this group. Nothing more.

Understand yet?

--
Steffan

Anonunit

2004-08-11 23:58:00 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Actually, that's untrue. You've contributed nothing to this "discussion".
This is evident in the fact that I'm still not certain what your definition
is.

My definition for troll? It's the same as yours.

Post by Steffan Alun
*Looks up*
You're discussing a boost to morale? You're discussing filler? This thread
deviated from any relevance a long time ago, so you can't plead ignorance.

That's right. I'm discussing about what this thread is about. Jon
began this thread as a boost to morale/filler. Chriz, you, Haights,
and Pahsons came in. I saw what everybody had to say, and I joined in.
I'm helping Jon boost the morale. Just because the thread has gone in
another direction it doesn't mean it was because of me, it really all
started with how Jon wrote what he had to say, and how everybody
replied to him.

Post by Steffan Alun
Usenet is generally unmoderated unless the group contains the word
"moderated" in it. The word "alt" notes that the sky's the limit in terms
of rules. I have no idea what "tnn" denotes.

It's a good thing you answered my questions, Haights didn't.

Post by Anonunit
I guess my last post wasn't evident. I brought it up because you asked
Jon what he thought trolling was.

That reminds me. Why aren't you here, Lynn? I thought you were trying to
resurrect the group. You're not doing too good a job of it if you can't
even show up for your own threads.

One of the reasons you and Haights have been making me look bad is
because I am immediately thought of as someone who's trying to prove
you wrong or something. I've only been discussing with you about what
you said to Jon. Jon hasn't really said anything that I wish to
discuss to him about anymore.

Post by Anonunit
www.g4tecttv.com

Ok, and where are these definitions?

I already gave it to Haights. Here is the definition of "spam" that
they gave me:
<< - posting the same topic in multiple forums, or multiple times in
the same forum (example: "Can I get help with Pokemon?" posted in
Handheld, and Cheat!, and Blister) >>

Post by Steffan Alun
Really? I know now, having read Haights's post, but his information didn't
sound familiar. You sure you explained?

Yes I'm sure. Here it is again:

From: Anonunit (***@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-01 17:03:17 PST

"I went to the G4 web site (G4 is a network for
games, now it's called G4TTV ever since it "meld" together with Tech
TV. Back then, G4 was still just G4) and asked for help there."

Post by Steffan Alun
This is incorrect. I've already defined spam for you. What you did was a
newbie mistake, which is completely different.
That said, since spam is almost always carbon copied to multiple people or
groups, it's very possible they were using the word metaphorically, but
either way, they're not DEFINING it correctly.

That's fine. That's their definition. Not mine.

Post by Steffan Alun
You've said you don't believe I'm a troll, you've said you don't believe
your definition of troll is any more valid than mine, you've said you don't
believe practically everything I've asked you whether you believe. However,
you guard that which you DO believe like some ancient treasure.

So you're asking me what I believe in? Then ask me again the things
you want to know. They have nothing to do with me hiding any of the
things I believe in or with the fact that they're any less or more
valid than whatever you believe in.

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-12 14:13:36 UTC

In a daze, I read Anonunit's post, then collasped.

Post by Anonunit
Pahsons came

I love my name

I LUUUUUUUUUUUUV MY NAME

BTW, get out of my newsgroup.

Chriz

2004-08-13 05:14:04 UTC

Once upon a time Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic decided to

Post by Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic
In a daze, I read Anonunit's post, then collasped.

Post by Anonunit
Pahsons came

I love my name
I LUUUUUUUUUUUUV MY NAME

This sounds like a case of self love. This must be your site
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/

--
Insert advertisement here.

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-15 13:07:36 UTC

In a daze, I read Chriz's post, then collasped.

Post by Chriz
Once upon a time Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic decided to

Post by Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic
In a daze, I read Anonunit's post, then collasped.

Post by Anonunit
Pahsons came

I love my name
I LUUUUUUUUUUUUV MY NAME

This sounds like a case of self love. This must be your site
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/

No one is allowed to ever say to me that I waste my time online, EVER

Newton Haights

2004-08-14 03:06:53 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Really? I know now, having read Haights's post, but his information didn't
sound familiar. You sure you explained?

Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-01 17:03:17 PST
"I went to the G4 web site (G4 is a network for
games, now it's called G4TTV ever since it "meld" together with Tech
TV. Back then, G4 was still just G4) and asked for help there."

...probably one of those 20-KB long winding posts. You think a blurb that
short is going to be noticed?

Anonunit

2004-08-15 06:33:56 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Really? I know now, having read Haights's post, but his information

didn't

Post by Steffan Alun
sound familiar. You sure you explained?

...probably one of those 20-KB long winding posts. You think a blurb that
short is going to be noticed?

Probably? Why don't you look to be sure?

Newton Haights

2004-08-15 07:24:49 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Really? I know now, having read Haights's post, but his information

didn't

Post by Steffan Alun
sound familiar. You sure you explained?

...probably one of those 20-KB long winding posts. You think a blurb that
short is going to be noticed?

Probably? Why don't you look to be sure?

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22I+went+to+the+G4+web+site%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=f68d6a27.0408011603.708144bd%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&filter=0

(a) You had me look it up instead of showing me yourself. I'm not
surprised.

(b) It turns out it was one of those posts. Anonunit's advice works against
him(?). This, too, does not surprise me.

(c) Here's the entire paragraph he said that in, for those who don't want to
bother checking themselves.

"We did not leave as soon as some "mean guys" showed up. TGP had dozens
of trolls before that. We left because people who weren't as dedicated
to posting to TGP asked those who were dedicated to join them and form
a new newsgroup. Once I began posting in ADGP I came back here every
once and a while to see how TGP was doing. The most dedicated posters
continued to post at TGP while at the same time posting to ADGP. I
wasn't as dedicated as anyone back then, I was only following people
to ADGP. Especially since I was no longer even posting to TGP once I
was practically kicked out of the newsgroup and regarded as just
another "troll." And yes, I was in fact myself a "troll." I was
looking for my own posts while I was in TGP as "ClayFromCA" back in
1999 just yesterday. I found quiet a few. All I did really is naively
discuss about Pokemon and everything that pure Pokemon fans dislike
about newbies. I still had a few friends and that's how I must've
found ADGP. There really is no exact definition for trolling. If you
think that I was criticized because those people were just "dumbasses"
then consider this. I was once playing a massively multiplayer online
role playing game (MMORPG). The game had several "mean guys" that were
actually very powerful compared to any troll I've ever seen in any
newsgroup. I tried asking for the administrators of the game for help.
They did not help. I went to the G4 web site (G4 is a network for
games, now it's called G4TTV ever since it "meld" together with Tech
TV. Back then, G4 was still just G4) and asked for help there. I
posted four messages in three different newsgroups. Each message was
slightly different. All I did was copy and paste everything and make a
few changes that corresponds to the newsgroup I posted to. People did
not see it as a call for help. They saw it as spam and called me a
troll. A few requested to ignore me, yet people went on replying
anyway. I myself made a few replies to explain my behavior. In the
end, the administrators of the forums locked my threads so they may be
replied to again. So if the administrators themselves considered me a
troll because of what I did, then why shouldn't we consider you as
trolls?"

Huge meandering run-on paragraph. Again, you honestly thought we weren't
going to skim through that?

Anonunit

2004-08-17 05:06:02 UTC

Post by Newton Haights
(a) You had me look it up instead of showing me yourself. I'm not
surprised.

The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.

Post by Newton Haights
(b) It turns out it was one of those posts. Anonunit's advice works against
him(?). This, too, does not surprise me.

How is a long post "advice" that works against me?

Post by Newton Haights
(c) Here's the entire paragraph he said that in, for those who don't want to
bother checking themselves.
"We did not leave as soon as some "mean guys" showed up. TGP had dozens
of trolls before that. We left because people who weren't as dedicated
to posting to TGP asked those who were dedicated to join them and form
a new newsgroup. Once I began posting in ADGP I came back here every
once and a while to see how TGP was doing. The most dedicated posters
continued to post at TGP while at the same time posting to ADGP. I
wasn't as dedicated as anyone back then, I was only following people
to ADGP. Especially since I was no longer even posting to TGP once I
was practically kicked out of the newsgroup and regarded as just
another "troll." And yes, I was in fact myself a "troll." I was
looking for my own posts while I was in TGP as "ClayFromCA" back in
1999 just yesterday. I found quiet a few. All I did really is naively
discuss about Pokemon and everything that pure Pokemon fans dislike
about newbies. I still had a few friends and that's how I must've
found ADGP. There really is no exact definition for trolling. If you
think that I was criticized because those people were just "dumbasses"
then consider this. I was once playing a massively multiplayer online
role playing game (MMORPG). The game had several "mean guys" that were
actually very powerful compared to any troll I've ever seen in any
newsgroup. I tried asking for the administrators of the game for help.
They did not help. I went to the G4 web site (G4 is a network for
games, now it's called G4TTV ever since it "meld" together with Tech
TV. Back then, G4 was still just G4) and asked for help there. I
posted four messages in three different newsgroups. Each message was
slightly different. All I did was copy and paste everything and make a
few changes that corresponds to the newsgroup I posted to. People did
not see it as a call for help. They saw it as spam and called me a
troll. A few requested to ignore me, yet people went on replying
anyway. I myself made a few replies to explain my behavior. In the
end, the administrators of the forums locked my threads so they may be
replied to again. So if the administrators themselves considered me a
troll because of what I did, then why shouldn't we consider you as
trolls?"
Huge meandering run-on paragraph. Again, you honestly thought we weren't
going to skim through that?

Steffan himself picked out several things he would reply to. Those
things he picks out are all long statements that I made. You may have
skimmed through it, but he hasn't. The only reason he would've not
recognized what G4 was (after I had already given an explanation to
what it was) would be because over time he had forgotten it.

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-17 09:46:04 UTC

In a daze, I read Anonunit's post, then collasped.

Post by Anonunit
The only reason he would've not
recognized what G4 was (after I had already given an explanation to
what it was) would be because over time he had forgotten it.

Haha, he said you were DUMB

Newton Haights

2004-08-18 00:37:18 UTC

FUCKING READ WHAT I POST AND WHAT I REPLY TO BEFORE YOU REPLY YOURSELF,
IDIOT.

Post by Newton Haights
(a) You had me look it up instead of showing me yourself. I'm not
surprised.

The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.

YOU HAD ME LOOK UP _YOUR_LONG_MEANDERING_POST_ INSTEAD OF SHOWING ME
YOURSELF.

Post by Newton Haights
(b) It turns out it was one of those posts. Anonunit's advice works against
him(?). This, too, does not surprise me.

How is a long post "advice" that works against me?

You challenged me to look at the post when I suggested it was one of your
long posts. I checked. It was. The way you phrased the challenge, anyone
would think you knew it was short.

After two weeks. When you bring up G4 so often in the argument. No, he
wouldn't have forgotten.

Anonunit

2004-08-19 03:51:09 UTC

From: Newton Haights (***@aol.com)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-17 17:37:23 PST

"FUCKING READ WHAT I POST AND WHAT I REPLY TO BEFORE YOU REPLY
YOURSELF,
IDIOT."

From: Newton Haights (***@aol.com)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-10 17:06:09 PST

"You have no fucking clue how USEnet works, do you? No fucking clue
at all."

What unfriendliness

From: Newton Haights (***@aol.com)
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-17 17:37:23 PST

"YOU HAD ME LOOK UP _YOUR_LONG_MEANDERING_POST_ INSTEAD OF SHOWING ME
YOURSELF."

So?

"You challenged me to look at the post when I suggested it was one of
your
long posts. I checked. It was. The way you phrased the challenge,
anyone
would think you knew it was short."

I've seen posts that are even longer than the ones I've posted. In
addition, that was neither a challenge nor was it advice; it is your
fault if you thought otherwise.

"After two weeks. When you bring up G4 so often in the argument.
No, he
wouldn't have forgotten."

Bringing up G4 into the argument was a one-time thing. Steffan
replied as if he knew what he was going on about. I answered to what
he had understood. After a while, there was no longer a need to bring
up G4. Until the point Steffan had returned to the subject of G4 as
something that was never discussed about, was it time to bring it up
again.

Anonunit

2004-08-19 04:10:37 UTC

Newton Haights

2004-08-19 04:33:09 UTC

Post by Anonunit
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-17 17:37:23 PST
"FUCKING READ WHAT I POST AND WHAT I REPLY TO BEFORE YOU REPLY
YOURSELF,
IDIOT."
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-10 17:06:09 PST
"You have no fucking clue how USEnet works, do you? No fucking clue
at all."
What unfriendliness.

Welcome to the intarweb, bub.

Post by Anonunit
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-08-17 17:37:23 PST
"YOU HAD ME LOOK UP _YOUR_LONG_MEANDERING_POST_ INSTEAD OF SHOWING ME
YOURSELF."
So?

...

Post by Anonunit
_<

Post by Newton Haights
(a) You had me look it up instead of showing me yourself. I'm not
surprised.

The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.

YOU HAD ME LOOK UP _YOUR_LONG_MEANDERING_POST_ INSTEAD OF SHOWING ME
YOURSELF.

Post by Anonunit
The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.
The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.
The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.
The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.
The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.
The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.
The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.
The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.

Is it clear now? Do you see what I was clearing up before?

Post by Anonunit
"You challenged me to look at the post when I suggested it was one of
your
long posts. I checked. It was. The way you phrased the challenge, anyone
would think you knew it was short."
I've seen posts that are even longer than the ones I've posted. In
addition, that was neither a challenge nor was it advice; it is your
fault if you thought otherwise.

Ok, why did you insist I check the post to see whether it was indeed long?
If it was (which obviously it was) it didn't help anything. Even if it
wasn't, you (now obviously) didn't know for sure, so that wasn't it.

Stop sitting on the fence during this argument and ridiculing me and Steffan
for being on the wrong side.

Post by Anonunit
"After two weeks. When you bring up G4 so often in the argument.
No, he
wouldn't have forgotten."
Bringing up G4 into the argument was a one-time thing. Steffan
replied as if he knew what he was going on about.

IN GENERAL.

Read your paragraph again. It talks about your history in trolling. It
talks about instances you've been called a troll. It talks about instances
you've been accused of spamming. We were talking about trolling, AND
spamming. THE FACT THAT G4 FACTORED INTO THIS AT ALL IS IRRELEVANT. He
replied as if he knew what he was going on about WITH REGARDS TO TROLLING
AND SPAM, not with regards to what G4 is. With regards to the definitions
of trolling and spam, not the people who define them.

Post by Anonunit
I answered to what
he had understood. After a while, there was no longer a need to bring
up G4. Until the point Steffan had returned to the subject of G4 as
something that was never discussed about, was it time to bring it up
again.

And why would he return to G4 as something we never discussed?

BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Christ almighty, your logic is flawed. Why would he bring up G4 out of the
blue if he obviously didn't know what it was, never mind what it had to do
with the argument?

-- Haights

P.S.: And learn to fucking quote correctly. Seeing these digests throws me
off. Also, the

Post by Anonunit
quote
delimiters
on the left
of the screen

are there for a reason.

"Because when you see a few paragraphs in quotes,"

those paragraphs don't stand out nearly as well.

It's a USEnet standard. You're on USEnet. Standardize.

Anonunit

2004-08-20 04:17:05 UTC

Welcome to the intarweb, bub.

I've been here before. This is nothing new. However, I was expecting
more from you than this.

...

Post by Anonunit
_<

...?

Post by Newton Haights
(a) You had me look it up instead of showing me yourself. I'm not
surprised.

The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.

YOU HAD ME LOOK UP _YOUR_LONG_MEANDERING_POST_ INSTEAD OF SHOWING ME
YOURSELF.

Is it clear now? Do you see what I was clearing up before?

Ok, why did you insist I check the post to see whether it was indeed long?
If it was (which obviously it was) it didn't help anything. Even if it
wasn't, you (now obviously) didn't know for sure, so that wasn't it.
Stop sitting on the fence during this argument and ridiculing me and Steffan
for being on the wrong side.

I didn't actually insist. By employing the word "probably" you implied
that you have assumed that the post was long without you actually
checking it first. Once I saw this, I suggested for you to look
yourself. It was your choice to check it or to not.

IN GENERAL.
Read your paragraph again. It talks about your history in trolling. It
talks about instances you've been called a troll. It talks about instances
you've been accused of spamming. We were talking about trolling, AND
spamming. THE FACT THAT G4 FACTORED INTO THIS AT ALL IS IRRELEVANT. He
replied as if he knew what he was going on about WITH REGARDS TO TROLLING
AND SPAM, not with regards to what G4 is. With regards to the definitions
of trolling and spam, not the people who define them.

And why would he return to G4 as something we never discussed?
BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Christ almighty, your logic is flawed. Why would he bring up G4 out of the
blue if he obviously didn't know what it was, never mind what it had to do
with the argument?

The same reason that I proposed before. He returned to G4 as something
we never discussed. I brought it up again because it was needed to do
so.

Post by Newton Haights
-- Haights
P.S.: And learn to fucking quote correctly. Seeing these digests throws me
off. Also, the

Post by Anonunit
quote
delimiters
on the left
of the screen

are there for a reason.
"Because when you see a few paragraphs in quotes,"
those paragraphs don't stand out nearly as well.
It's a USEnet standard. You're on USEnet. Standardize.

You yourself have told me that my posts are already too long the way
they are. By quoting every single little thing and replying to post
after post, our posts would continue escalating to a tedious
magnitude. To cut our posts short, we have removed unneccasary quotes.
Once those quotes have been removed, it's difficult to reuse quotes
from old posts. To do so, I must use those quotation marks to show
that I'm quoting something. And to not confuse anybody, I try to use
one type of quoting throughout the entire post. You yourself have used
quotation marks to quote things used in old posts. And that's another
reason why I don't always "back up my evidence" and "send" you to do
the "legwork" in finding things that have been mentioned. Quoting my
"evidence" will only make posts much longer.

Newton Haights

2004-08-20 16:26:30 UTC

Welcome to the intarweb, bub.

I've been here before. This is nothing new. However, I was expecting
more from you than this.

And what, exactly, prompted this expectation?

...

Post by Anonunit
_<

...?

...keep on reading.

Post by Newton Haights
(a) You had me look it up instead of showing me yourself. I'm not
surprised.

The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.

YOU HAD ME LOOK UP _YOUR_LONG_MEANDERING_POST_ INSTEAD OF SHOWING ME
YOURSELF.

Is it clear now? Do you see what I was clearing up before?

Well, is it?

Ok, why did you insist I check the post to see whether it was indeed long?
If it was (which obviously it was) it didn't help anything. Even if it
wasn't, you (now obviously) didn't know for sure, so that wasn't it.
Stop sitting on the fence during this argument and ridiculing me and Steffan
for being on the wrong side.

I said "probably" because it wasn't 100% certain. It was pretty damn
probable that it was. (And, now that I checked it, that wave equation
collapsed and it IS 100% certain.

In other words, you realized I might be wrong, so you called my bluff. I
was right. Now what?

IN GENERAL.
Read your paragraph again. It talks about your history in trolling. It
talks about instances you've been called a troll. It talks about instances
you've been accused of spamming. We were talking about trolling, AND
spamming. THE FACT THAT G4 FACTORED INTO THIS AT ALL IS IRRELEVANT. He
replied as if he knew what he was going on about WITH REGARDS TO TROLLING
AND SPAM, not with regards to what G4 is. With regards to the definitions
of trolling and spam, not the people who define them.

And why would he return to G4 as something we never discussed?
BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Christ almighty, your logic is flawed. Why would he bring up G4 out of the
blue if he obviously didn't know what it was, never mind what it had to do
with the argument?

The same reason that I proposed before. He returned to G4 as something
we never discussed. I brought it up again because it was needed to do
so.

...for god's --

You brought it up again BEFORE HE "RETURNED" TO G4. He had no reason to
bring G4 up, as a topic of discussion or a remark that it wasn't discussed.
None. NONE. He would not -- could not -- mention it unless someone else
brought it up first. AND GUESS WHO THAT WAS

Post by Newton Haights
-- Haights
P.S.: And learn to fucking quote correctly. Seeing these digests throws me
off. Also, the

Post by Anonunit
quote
delimiters
on the left
of the screen

are there for a reason.
"Because when you see a few paragraphs in quotes,"
those paragraphs don't stand out nearly as well.
It's a USEnet standard. You're on USEnet. Standardize.

...

Is it THAT FUCKING HARD TO ADD THE GREATER-THAN SYMBOL BEFORE EACH LINE
QUOTE?! ARE YOU THAT FUCKING LAZY?

Post by Anonunit
And to not confuse anybody, I try to use
one type of quoting throughout the entire post. You yourself have used
quotation marks to quote things used in old posts.

Ok, watch this space. There's a subtle difference.

************Start Examples*****************

Post by Anonunit
And to not confuse anybody, I try to use
one type of quoting throughout the entire post. You yourself have used
quotation marks to quote things used in old posts.

You idiot. And if you check the next example you'll see why I said that.

Example two:

What is this about you saying "you yourself have used quotation marks?"
When it's part of WHAT I'M WRITING, part of MY PARAGRAPH, part of MY REPLY,
of course I'm going to use quotations. When it's YOUR TEXT and I'm only
quoting it to show what I'm replying to -- nothing more -- I use the
greaterthan symbol, LIKE ALMOST EVERY OTHER PERSON ON USENET DOES! And even
the ones that don't use some other symbol IN THE SAME WAY!

**************End Examples*******************

Post by Anonunit
And that's another
reason why I don't always "back up my evidence" and "send" you to do
the "legwork" in finding things that have been mentioned. Quoting my
"evidence" will only make posts much longer.

Look, the problem isn't so much that the posts are long, as you bring from
so many separate parts of the thread to make them. And they're composed
weird -- the quote marks thing. Why do you break the course of discussion
in another sub-thread of this thread, just to compile it and other
subthreads into one post? Is it that hard to keep posting like normal?

Anonunit

2004-08-22 06:56:40 UTC

Post by Newton Haights
(a) You had me look it up instead of showing me yourself. I'm not
surprised.

The thing I had Steffan looked up was for Steffan, not you.

YOU HAD ME LOOK UP _YOUR_LONG_MEANDERING_POST_ INSTEAD OF SHOWING ME
YOURSELF.

Is it clear now? Do you see what I was clearing up before?

Well, is it?

Post by Anonunit
I didn't actually insist. By employing the word "probably" you implied
that you have assumed that the post was long without you actually
checking it first. Once I saw this, I suggested for you to look
yourself. It was your choice to check it or to not.

Ok, why did you insist I check the post to see whether it was indeed

long?

Post by Newton Haights
If it was (which obviously it was) it didn't help anything. Even if it
wasn't, you (now obviously) didn't know for sure, so that wasn't it.
Stop sitting on the fence during this argument and ridiculing me and

Steffan

Post by Newton Haights
for being on the wrong side.

I said "probably" because it wasn't 100% certain. It was pretty damn
probable that it was. (And, now that I checked it, that wave equation
collapsed and it IS 100% certain.
In other words, you realized I might be wrong, so you called my bluff. I
was right. Now what?

Are you expecting something?

IN GENERAL.
Read your paragraph again. It talks about your history in trolling. It
talks about instances you've been called a troll. It talks about

instances

Post by Newton Haights
you've been accused of spamming. We were talking about trolling, AND
spamming. THE FACT THAT G4 FACTORED INTO THIS AT ALL IS IRRELEVANT. He
replied as if he knew what he was going on about WITH REGARDS TO

TROLLING

Post by Newton Haights
AND SPAM, not with regards to what G4 is. With regards to the

definitions

Post by Newton Haights
of trolling and spam, not the people who define them.

And why would he return to G4 as something we never discussed?
BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Christ almighty, your logic is flawed. Why would he bring up G4 out of

the

Post by Newton Haights
blue if he obviously didn't know what it was, never mind what it had to

Post by Newton Haights
with the argument?

The same reason that I proposed before. He returned to G4 as something
we never discussed. I brought it up again because it was needed to do
so.

...for god's --
You brought it up again BEFORE HE "RETURNED" TO G4. He had no reason to
bring G4 up, as a topic of discussion or a remark that it wasn't discussed.
None. NONE. He would not -- could not -- mention it unless someone else
brought it up first. AND GUESS WHO THAT WAS

Let's look at a little timeline:
1. I replied to this thread for the first time.
2. Steffan mentions something of which I replied to and mentioned G4.
3. Steffan replied back.
4. There was soon no mention of G4 after Steffan had asked me for the
link to it.
5. I once again mentioned G4 for the same reason I mentioned it not so
long ago.
6. Steffan replied back.

Post by Newton Haights
-- Haights
P.S.: And learn to fucking quote correctly. Seeing these digests

throws me

Post by Newton Haights
off. Also, the

Post by Anonunit
quote
delimiters
on the left
of the screen

are there for a reason.
"Because when you see a few paragraphs in quotes,"
those paragraphs don't stand out nearly as well.
It's a USEnet standard. You're on USEnet. Standardize.

...
Is it THAT FUCKING HARD TO ADD THE GREATER-THAN SYMBOL BEFORE EACH LINE
QUOTE?! ARE YOU THAT FUCKING LAZY?

Putting the "greater-than symbol" before every line of something I
quote doesn't prove much of the fact that it's a quote to those that
are new here. Usually when something has been quoted, not only is
there a greater-than symbol to the left of every line but the text's
color changes as well. If newbies recognize that something of which
has been copied and pasted but see that the text is the same color of
the rest of the post they will think it's not a quote. Therefore, I
use quotation marks for text which color I cannot change. Quotation
marks are most commonly used for quoting something outside of Usenet.

Post by Anonunit
And to not confuse anybody, I try to use
one type of quoting throughout the entire post. You yourself have used
quotation marks to quote things used in old posts.

Ok, watch this space. There's a subtle difference.
************Start Examples*****************

Post by Anonunit
And to not confuse anybody, I try to use
one type of quoting throughout the entire post. You yourself have used
quotation marks to quote things used in old posts.

You idiot. And if you check the next example you'll see why I said that.
What is this about you saying "you yourself have used quotation marks?"
When it's part of WHAT I'M WRITING, part of MY PARAGRAPH, part of MY REPLY,
of course I'm going to use quotations. When it's YOUR TEXT and I'm only
quoting it to show what I'm replying to -- nothing more -- I use the
greaterthan symbol, LIKE ALMOST EVERY OTHER PERSON ON USENET DOES! And even
the ones that don't use some other symbol IN THE SAME WAY!

Quotation marks have been used here to quote what others say by people
other than me.

Post by Newton Haights
**************End Examples*******************

Not really hard. Just that I usually reply to things within one post
because I find it of use to me to do so. Not replying to everything
that someone has posted. Which is actually a harder than replying to
every post I wish to reply to.

Chriz

2004-08-22 10:26:33 UTC

Post by Newton Haights
"Because when you see a few paragraphs in quotes,"
those paragraphs don't stand out nearly as well.
It's a USEnet standard. You're on USEnet. Standardize.

...
Is it THAT FUCKING HARD TO ADD THE GREATER-THAN SYMBOL BEFORE EACH
LINE QUOTE?! ARE YOU THAT FUCKING LAZY?

I'm sorry to say that you don't understand this bit of Usenet. No one
changes any colours when they have quotes. It's the newsreader that does
that when you view it to make more legible. It identifies the ">" sybol as
quoting, and colours the quotes (if such a function is available in your
newsreader). OE users, get OE Quote Fix. Google does this as well. It
wouldn't show up when you write your message, but when you open to read it
you'll see that it's colour coded.

--
The End.

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-22 13:52:51 UTC

In a daze, I read Chriz's post, then collasped.

Post by Chriz
I'm sorry to say that you don't understand this bit of Usenet. No one
changes any colours when they have quotes.

HAHAHAHAHA

Man, that was so simple, yet so great. I bet you didn't even realize it

Steffan Alun

2004-08-22 11:36:52 UTC

Post by Newton Haights
You brought it up again BEFORE HE "RETURNED" TO G4. He had no reason to
bring G4 up, as a topic of discussion or a remark that it wasn't discussed.
None. NONE. He would not -- could not -- mention it unless someone else
brought it up first. AND GUESS WHO THAT WAS

1. I replied to this thread for the first time.
2. Steffan mentions something of which I replied to and mentioned G4.
3. Steffan replied back.
4. There was soon no mention of G4 after Steffan had asked me for the
link to it.
5. I once again mentioned G4 for the same reason I mentioned it not so
long ago.
6. Steffan replied back.

See, the mistake you made was never actually linking me to what I wanted -
specifically, G4's definition of certain words.

Post by Anonunit
Putting the "greater-than symbol" before every line of something I
quote doesn't prove much of the fact that it's a quote to those that
are new here.

No, but Usenet isn't meant to cater for those who are new. Newbies are
expected to learn over time. That's like saying authors shouldn't use
exclamation marks in books in case new readers don't understand what they
mean.

Post by Anonunit
Usually when something has been quoted, not only is
there a greater-than symbol to the left of every line but the text's
color changes as well.

That depends on your newsreader. I see you're posting from Google. I'm
using Outlook Express, which is purely plain text, and no colour change
occurs.

Post by Anonunit
If newbies recognize that something of which
has been copied and pasted but see that the text is the same color of
the rest of the post they will think it's not a quote.

Exactly.

Post by Anonunit
Therefore, I
use quotation marks for text which color I cannot change.

You change the colour with the greater-than signs. That is the whole point.
Google sees the signs and converts the colour automatically.

In fact, Google also makes it obvious when line breaks should occur, so you
really have no excuse not to format your posts properly.

Post by Anonunit
Quotation
marks are most commonly used for quoting something outside of Usenet.

Yes. They are. But this IS Usenet, and quoting is different here.

Post by Anonunit
Not really hard. Just that I usually reply to things within one post
because I find it of use to me to do so.

You're making others' lives difficult in order to save yourself a bit of
time? I spend more time reformatting replies to your posts than you would
in formatting them correctly in the first place.

If you must, reply to multiple posts. Incorrect formatting looks vile.

--
Steffan

Anonunit

2004-08-24 05:01:12 UTC

Post by Newton Haights
You brought it up again BEFORE HE "RETURNED" TO G4. He had no reason to
bring G4 up, as a topic of discussion or a remark that it wasn't

discussed.

Post by Newton Haights
None. NONE. He would not -- could not -- mention it unless someone

else

Post by Newton Haights
brought it up first. AND GUESS WHO THAT WAS

See, the mistake you made was never actually linking me to what I wanted -
specifically, G4's definition of certain words.

We've already discussed this.

Post by Anonunit
Putting the "greater-than symbol" before every line of something I
quote doesn't prove much of the fact that it's a quote to those that
are new here.

Yes, but in Usenet newbies are criticized for being newbies.

Post by Anonunit
Usually when something has been quoted, not only is
there a greater-than symbol to the left of every line but the text's
color changes as well.

That depends on your newsreader. I see you're posting from Google. I'm
using Outlook Express, which is purely plain text, and no colour change
occurs.

For those who ARE using Google should see a color change as I have
been told here.

Post by Anonunit
Yes. They are. But this IS Usenet, and quoting is different here.

I meant that those that are new to Usenet recognize that quotation
marks are most commonly for quoting. Greater-than signs are for those
who are used to posting to these forums/newsgroups.

Post by Anonunit
Not really hard. Just that I usually reply to things within one post
because I find it of use to me to do so.

You're making others' lives difficult in order to save yourself a bit of
time? I spend more time reformatting replies to your posts than you would
in formatting them correctly in the first place.
If you must, reply to multiple posts. Incorrect formatting looks vile.

I've already used the word "harder" to mean that it is more difficult
for me to do what I've been doing than doing the things you're telling
me to do. Even though it is difficult to type it up, in the end it is
just much easier for me to review my own post.

Steffan Alun

2004-08-20 17:22:07 UTC

Post by Anonunit
You yourself have told me that my posts are already too long the way
they are.

Too long? No. Too verbose? Certainly.

By the way, breaking a block of text into lines by double-tapping Enter
makes posts look nicer and more managable.

Post by Anonunit
By quoting every single little thing and replying to post
after post, our posts would continue escalating to a tedious
magnitude. To cut our posts short, we have removed unneccasary quotes.

That's not true. *I* do that. YOU quote everything, but only reply to some
things. This means your posts get clogged with quotes that you don't even
respond to.

Post by Anonunit
Once those quotes have been removed, it's difficult to reuse quotes
from old posts. To do so, I must use those quotation marks to show
that I'm quoting something.

Must?

Here's a hint:

Choose the post from which you want to quote. Hit "reply". Copy the quote,
complete with the ">" signs. Paste it into your other reply.

Post by Anonunit
And to not confuse anybody, I try to use
one type of quoting throughout the entire post.

It is still confusing, because when quoting POSTS, ">" are used. Quotation
marks are used when quoting something other than a post or email.

Post by Anonunit
You yourself have used
quotation marks to quote things used in old posts.

Probably short things so insignificant that it doesn't even deserve a new
line.

Length doesn't matter as long as what you say is relevant and necessary.

--
Steffan

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-12 14:11:06 UTC

In a daze, I read Steffan Alun's post, then collasped.

Post by Anonunit
What about Haights and Pahsons, do you think of them as trolls?

Pahsons is an idiot. Haights is a bully. Neither of them are trolls.

Notice there is no dispute from anyone on this.

Newton Haights

2004-08-06 05:25:29 UTC

Post by Anonunit
I still don't have my exact meaning of what a troll is.

Oh, so you're just stupid.

There's a difference between knowing the meaning of what a troll is
and knowing Steffan's meaning of what a troll is.

Translation: "Steffan's defined it, but I don't like that definition so I'm
ignoring it tra la la."

Post by Anonunit
Of course, spam like many other words now have at least two meanings
now that the Internet was invented. That means that no word now has an
exact meaning. There is "troll" for the Internet. And "troll" before
the Internet.

Let's go back, shall we?

Post by Steffan Alun
Well, yes, but that's why the word "internet" is in capitals - I didn't

mean

Post by Steffan Alun
the fairy tale trolls. The INTERNET troll has ONE definition

CONTEXT, sir. CONTEXT.

Stop going off on tangents, damnit. You know we're not talking about fairy
tale trolls, and you know that reminding us (mainly Steffan) of them in a
halfhearted effort to weaken Steffan's definition isn't going to work.

Anonunit

2004-08-07 17:22:18 UTC

Post by Anonunit
I still don't have my exact meaning of what a troll is.

Oh, so you're just stupid.

There's a difference between knowing the meaning of what a troll is
and knowing Steffan's meaning of what a troll is.

Translation: "Steffan's defined it, but I don't like that definition so I'm
ignoring it tra la la."

I'm not ignoring it. And I neither like it or dislike it.

Let's go back, shall we?

Post by Steffan Alun
Well, yes, but that's why the word "internet" is in capitals - I

didn't
mean

Post by Steffan Alun
the fairy tale trolls. The INTERNET troll has ONE definition

CONTEXT, sir. CONTEXT.

I never planned to weaken Steffan's definition.

Newton Haights

2004-08-07 20:46:35 UTC

Post by Anonunit
There's a difference between knowing the meaning of what a troll is
and knowing Steffan's meaning of what a troll is.

Translation: "Steffan's defined it, but I don't like that definition so I'm
ignoring it tra la la."

I'm not ignoring it. And I neither like it or dislike it.

You could have fooled me.

Post by Newton Haights
Stop going off on tangents, damnit. You know we're not talking about fairy
tale trolls, and you know that reminding us (mainly Steffan) of them in a
halfhearted effort to weaken Steffan's definition isn't going to work.

I never planned to weaken Steffan's definition.

Then why do you insist on returning to this whole "what about the old
original definitions" angle?

Look, Steffan's definition IS the correct definition. A. TROLL. IS.
SOMEONE. WHO. POSTS. TO. GENERATE. REPLIES. That is the definition.
There is NO OTHER DEFINITION. If you see another definition, it's either
reworded or WRONG. Why will you not accept this? Everyone else on the
Internet has figured it out.

Chriz

2004-08-08 02:24:21 UTC

Post by Newton Haights
Look, Steffan's definition IS the correct definition. A. TROLL. IS.
SOMEONE. WHO. POSTS. TO. GENERATE. REPLIES. That is the
definition. There is NO OTHER DEFINITION. If you see another
definition, it's either reworded or WRONG. Why will you not accept
this? Everyone else on the Internet has figured it out.

But the one thing wrong with that definition is that most, if not all posts
on usenet are posted to generate replies. Trolls deliberately stir up the
group with controversial or antagonistic posts to generate many replies.

--
The End.

Newton Haights

2004-08-08 03:23:20 UTC

No, you see, no.

Non-trolls posts to further discourse and contribute to the subject at hand.

Or, to put it another way, trolls post to generate replies.

Non-trolls reply.

Steffan Alun

2004-08-08 09:33:29 UTC

But the one thing wrong with that definition is that most, if not all posts
on usenet are posted to generate replies.

Trolls post PURELY to generate replies. Just for the sake of it. Maybe I
should have clarified that this is almost always done by trying to provoke
people and generally trying to get them to feel negative emotions.

Post by Chriz
Trolls deliberately stir up the
group with controversial or antagonistic posts to generate many replies.

Actually, they needn't be controversial or even atagonistic. I agree that
most are, but I've seen successful trolls getting away with simply being
quite friendly.

--
Steffan

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-02 01:56:58 UTC

In a daze, I read Anonunit's post, then collasped.

Post by Anonunit
Now I'm guessing you're going to reply with something smart to say.

Wow, and I though other people had emotion in newsgroups. Damn, even I
couldn't make fun of that. It does that itself so well.

Chriz

2004-08-02 03:45:59 UTC

Post by Anonunit
Subject: Re: A Boost to Morale/Filler
Newsgroups: tnn.games.pokemon
Date: 2004-07-27 20:23:01 PST
"agp seems to have died completely which is a shame because I used to
hang around there more than in agnp before I found that agp didn't
have enough posts to keep me only there."
Hey, what's AGP? I'm just asking because I remember being told once a
long time ago that a new newsgroup was going to be made called
"alt.games.pokemon". I'm just wondering if that's it.

Yes it's alt.games.pokemon. I didn't really join there till the group was
actually towards it's dying days. Now it's dead. If I ask something there,
it's likely that Gene Poole may answer because he seems to be one of the old
regs who checks by in case there's action.

--
Insert advertisement here.

Newton Haights

2004-07-28 11:37:32 UTC

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Because we will never give into your trolling.

So says the person who has resorted to calling anything on-topic in a
desperate attempt at revival.

Except for this post, of course.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
We shall perservere.

"I'VE MOVED ON

OH WAIT NO I HAVEN'T"

--
Haights

Case in point: Lynn insists on calling Chriz' statposts as on-topic, nay,
INTEGRAL to the newsgroup. Funny how he's doing it in just about every
other group he's doing it in. (And I think there are a few. I know AGNP's
one of them, and if Pahsons' word is any good, every group he's in is one of
them too.)

Chriz

2004-07-28 11:59:49 UTC

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Haights
Case in point: Lynn insists on calling Chriz' statposts as on-topic, nay,
INTEGRAL to the newsgroup. Funny how he's doing it in just about every
other group he's doing it in. (And I think there are a few. I know AGNP's
one of them, and if Pahsons' word is any good, every group he's in is one of
them too.)

I do stats at alt.games.nintendo.pokemon, tngp, alt.games.final-fantasy and
alt.music.mp3.winmx. That's only a few of the groups I'm subscribed to. Some
other people do it in other groups, such as aus.tv. I don't know how long
I'll keep it up though because it does get a bit annoying if I've got other
things to do and I'm feeling lazy about it.

--
Insert advertisement here.

Jonathan Thomas

2004-07-28 21:43:00 UTC

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Because we will never give into your trolling.

So says the person who has resorted to calling anything on-topic in a
desperate attempt at revival.
Except for this post, of course.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
We shall perservere.

"I'VE MOVED ON
OH WAIT NO I HAVEN'T"

I believe I said something along the lines of I've moved on in regards
to the whole AGNP-TGP thing. If not, you are most welcome to enlighten
me on the subject. I'm not reviving the group because I feel obliged
too. I'm just reviving it because I feel like it. You can troll the
hell out of it, if you so wish to, but the point is- I'm still going
to be here. And I'm certain Chriz will too. And I doubt you'll be able
to stop the both of us from posting. That's what I was trying to get
at. You're still, however, welcome to join us.

-Jonathan Thomas

Steffan Alun

2004-08-01 00:06:28 UTC

Post by Jonathan Thomas
We shall perservere.

"I'VE MOVED ON
OH WAIT NO I HAVEN'T"

I believe I said something along the lines of I've moved on in regards
to the whole AGNP-TGP thing.

But you're still hooked up on TGP itself?

Post by Jonathan Thomas
I'm not reviving the group because I feel obliged
too. I'm just reviving it because I feel like it.

Actually, you're not reviving it AT ALL. You're just trying to ensure that
there's at least TWO posts here each week so that Chriz's stats don't have
to report the death of the group.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
You can troll the
hell out of it, if you so wish to, but the point is- I'm still going
to be here.

What do you think trolling IS, Lynn?

Post by Jonathan Thomas
And I'm certain Chriz will too. And I doubt you'll be able
to stop the both of us from posting.

Seriously, we're not trying to stop you from posting. We're just pointing
out that posting here is a complete waste of time. Neither you nor Chriz
will be here forever, so don't bother kidding yourself. Chriz will probably
leave first - after Anonunit, of course - since he seems to care the least.
You'll leave when you have nobody left to play with, and then either the
spambots will swallow the group or the group will be erased due to
inactivity.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
That's what I was trying to get
at. You're still, however, welcome to join us.

Why do you say this as though we WANT a place to talk about Pokémon? We
already have somewhere to do that.

--
Steffan

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-07-28 22:00:17 UTC

In a daze, I read Jonathan Thomas's post, then collasped.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
ignoring

SPNAK

--
http://animehistory.keenspace.com/d/20020310.html
http://www.cafeshops.com/creexul.2534632
Charlie Sheen: I'm gonna carve this turkey, WITH MY MANHOOD!
Loading Image...

T Iceduck: For the record
T Iceduck: I think that post is mean
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/bushcrimefamily.htm

Anonunit

2004-07-29 03:24:41 UTC

Well you know if TGP has lasted this long chances are it will last
forever. Now that I'm here, I will join Jon and Chriz in their on
going posting in TGP. By the way, for all of those people who might
remember me I'm ClayFromCA; I used to post here a few years back. If
this helps I hope that many others will come back to TGP. Anyway Jon,
where's PK and Sci?

Steffan Alun

2004-07-30 01:42:04 UTC

Post by Jonathan Thomas
This is kinda stupid

Glad you saved me the effort of typing that.
"Must" is a bit strong.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
The will of TGP shall never be destroyed.

"TGP" is you and Chriz. It's an ongoing trend.

You say "let's do something".

Chriz says "ok".

Repeat ad infinitum.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Chriz, you rock man. You really do.

Why? Because he's the only person willing to participate in this pantomime?

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Haights, Steffan, you're welcome to join us. Why do I offer
you this?

Because if we joined, we'd double the number of regulars in the group.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Because we want no quarrels with you. But you know why else?
Because we will never give into your trolling.

What? You know, we're barely even trolling. We certainly have no real
aims. The group's dead, so it's not like it can be killed further. We
don't expect you to stop posting just because we're here grinning in the
background. We expect you to stop posting when you stop caring. Which you
will.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
As long as I am here, I
will keep posting. I did this and then Chriz showed up.

A wish come true, eh?

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Eventually , others will join us.

I see.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
For the first time in ages, regs equal trolls

Ah. I was wondering why you hadn't invited Pahsons to join you as well.
Trying to forget he exists so that the reg-to-troll ratio is higher, are
you?

Post by Jonathan Thomas
and the trolls here are the lamest bunch I've seen.

Really? Name the best bunch you've seen, then.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Together, just by
posting and continually ignoring them, they will not be a problem.

If we were a problem before, your group has major issues. It's not even a
group - it's a couple.

--
Steffan

Anonunit

2004-07-30 07:44:37 UTC

So, these are the trolls, Jon? Whatever happened to Alex?

Chriz

2004-07-30 07:53:45 UTC

Post by Anonunit
So, these are the trolls, Jon? Whatever happened to Alex?

I think the "trolls" have got a thing against Jonathan rather than the
group.

Steffan Alun

2004-07-30 16:17:34 UTC

Post by Anonunit
So, these are the trolls, Jon? Whatever happened to Alex?

I think the "trolls" have got a thing against Jonathan rather than the
group.

It's a symbiotic relationship. Lynn IS the group, the group IS Lynn.
Seeing new members - specifically Anonunit - doesn't make us all scared and
nervous, it just makes us pity the group all the more. It's a dead group,
and Lynn's attempts at keeping it alive are pathetic.

Let me make things a bit clearer.

On Usenet, groups don't start when someone says "let's start a group". They
start when there's demand and a hefty interest to sustain it. Once that
interest has died and the demand no longer exists, there's no point in
keeping the group up. It's not even like there's any worthwhile history to
this place. You may as well let the group die peacefully. If you want to
discuss Pokémon, there are other places you can do that, places with many
more members, and where there's a much greater chance of getting questions
answered and discussions started.

The truth is, AGNP would also have died years ago were it not for certain
specific factors, and it's not a competition. This group serves no purpose,
so the only reason for you to try to keep it alive is if, for some reason,
you're still emotionally connected to it in some way.

You need to move on. We're here to remind you of that and to have some fun
watching you learn it the hard way.

--
Steffan

Chriz

2004-07-31 00:10:40 UTC

Post by Anonunit
So, these are the trolls, Jon? Whatever happened to Alex?

I think the "trolls" have got a thing against Jonathan rather than
the group.

It's a symbiotic relationship. Lynn IS the group, the group IS Lynn.
Seeing new members - specifically Anonunit - doesn't make us all
scared and nervous, it just makes us pity the group all the more.
It's a dead group, and Lynn's attempts at keeping it alive are
pathetic.
Let me make things a bit clearer.
On Usenet, groups don't start when someone says "let's start a
group". They start when there's demand and a hefty interest to
sustain it. Once that interest has died and the demand no longer
exists, there's no point in keeping the group up. It's not even like
there's any worthwhile history to this place. You may as well let
the group die peacefully. If you want to discuss Pokémon, there are
other places you can do that, places with many more members, and
where there's a much greater chance of getting questions answered and
discussions started.
The truth is, AGNP would also have died years ago were it not for
certain specific factors, and it's not a competition. This group
serves no purpose, so the only reason for you to try to keep it alive
is if, for some reason, you're still emotionally connected to it in
some way.
You need to move on. We're here to remind you of that and to have
some fun watching you learn it the hard way.

Hehe. I'm not emotionally connected to it. I remember seeing Pokemon groups
in the list of Pokemon related groups that were offered by my news server,
but I didn't check out this group for quite a while. I remember first seeing
Pahsons, who posted to alt.games.final-fantasy so I decided to stick around.
I was interested to see why he believed this group belonged to him. lol

--
The End.

Steffan Alun

2004-07-31 01:12:42 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
The truth is, AGNP would also have died years ago were it not for
certain specific factors, and it's not a competition. This group
serves no purpose, so the only reason for you to try to keep it alive
is if, for some reason, you're still emotionally connected to it in
some way.
You need to move on. We're here to remind you of that and to have
some fun watching you learn it the hard way.

Hehe. I'm not emotionally connected to it.

No, that's pretty clear. From what I've seen of you, your attitude towards
Usenet groups is that they're just groups - means to an end. Lynn, however,
does seem to be emotionally attached to TGP. You're wasting your time in
responding to him, because he doesn't care one bit for what you have to
say - all he cares about is that you contribute and keep the group alive.

I don't bother telling people what to do - or, indeed, what not to do -
unless I'm being ironic. However, I go through phases - such as this one
I'm in now - where I just analyse the real situation, but most people label
me a troll and don't actually listen when I'm saying something worthwhile.
Lynn falls into this category.

Post by Chriz
I remember seeing Pokemon groups
in the list of Pokemon related groups that were offered by my news server,
but I didn't check out this group for quite a while. I remember first seeing
Pahsons, who posted to alt.games.final-fantasy so I decided to stick around.
I was interested to see why he believed this group belonged to him. lol

Pahsons gets around. Unlike me, if he's trolling a group, pretty much
everything he posts will be a troll. However, he DOESN'T troll EVERY group
he's a part of, but those who recognise him from one group will
automatically ignore him in others.

I mean, if you judged me purely by my behaviour here, would you bother
corresponding with me in AGNP?

--
Steffan

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-07-31 12:44:50 UTC

In a daze, I read Steffan Alun's post, then collasped.

Post by Steffan Alun
Pahsons gets around. Unlike me, if he's trolling a group, pretty much
everything he posts will be a troll. However, he DOESN'T troll EVERY
group he's a part of, but those who recognise him from one group will
automatically ignore him in others.

I like to have members of different groups start a new thread with my name
in it.

But this group is mine, it now stands for The Great Pahsons. Damn LJ has
been taking most of the glory, but I think I should post there and here at
the same time.

BTW Chriz, FFV? Vespa?

Chriz

2004-07-31 13:59:28 UTC

Once upon a time Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic decided to

Post by Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic
In a daze, I read Steffan Alun's post, then collasped.

Post by Steffan Alun
Pahsons gets around. Unlike me, if he's trolling a group, pretty
much everything he posts will be a troll. However, he DOESN'T troll
EVERY group he's a part of, but those who recognise him from one
group will automatically ignore him in others.

I like to have members of different groups start a new thread with my
name in it.
But this group is mine, it now stands for The Great Pahsons. Damn LJ
has been taking most of the glory, but I think I should post there
and here at the same time.
BTW Chriz, FFV? Vespa?

Not familiar with the term vespa (I know a brand of scooter was Vespa), but
from what I found it seems to be a category of insects or something. Anyway
I assume, you're asking what I think of it [FFV] since you asked people from
agff, but I can't say because I haven't played it. I'm what you'd consider
more of a recent follower of the FF series. VII, VIII and X are all I've
played thus far. Which titles have you played? If IRC, you have only played
the earlier titles.

--
The End.

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-01 03:31:35 UTC

In a daze, I read Chriz's post, then collasped.

Post by Chriz
Not familiar with the term vespa (I know a brand of scooter was
Vespa), but from what I found it seems to be a category of insects or
something.

It's french. I've probably mispelled it

Post by Chriz
Anyway I assume, you're asking what I think of it [FFV]
since you asked people from agff, but I can't say because I haven't
played it. I'm what you'd consider more of a recent follower of the FF
series. VII, VIII and X are all I've played thus far. Which titles
have you played? If IRC, you have only played the earlier titles.

I've played all the pre PS releases.

Newton Haights

2004-08-01 04:53:50 UTC

Post by Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic
In a daze, I read Chriz's post, then collasped.

Post by Chriz
Not familiar with the term vespa (I know a brand of scooter was
Vespa), but from what I found it seems to be a category of insects or
something.

It's french. I've probably mispelled it

(Wasp * Italian) / (Haruko's scooter) = Vespa.

Yay FLCL disc 1 liner notes.

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-02 00:46:11 UTC

In a daze, I read Newton Haights's post, then collasped.

Post by Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic
In a daze, I read Chriz's post, then collasped.

Post by Chriz
Not familiar with the term vespa (I know a brand of scooter was
Vespa), but from what I found it seems to be a category of insects
or something.

It's french. I've probably mispelled it

(Wasp * Italian) / (Haruko's scooter) = Vespa.
Yay FLCL disc 1 liner notes.

My wife said it stood for yes/no, when used in a question

Steffan Alun

2004-08-04 01:08:35 UTC

Post by Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

Post by Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic
It's french. I've probably mispelled it

(Wasp * Italian) / (Haruko's scooter) = Vespa.
Yay FLCL disc 1 liner notes.

My wife said it stood for yes/no, when used in a question

Is she French?

--
Steffan

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-04 04:00:53 UTC

In a daze, I read Steffan Alun's post, then collasped.

Post by Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

Post by Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic
It's french. I've probably mispelled it

(Wasp * Italian) / (Haruko's scooter) = Vespa.
Yay FLCL disc 1 liner notes.

My wife said it stood for yes/no, when used in a question

Is she French?

No, she took it school

Jonathan Thomas

2004-08-01 22:05:54 UTC

Hehe. I'm not emotionally connected to it.

Baloney. I do care what Chriz has to say. It's been ages since anyone
has actually discussed Pokemon and he has some thoughtful insight on
the subject. If he wasn't in a completely different time zone, I'd be
IMing him with the other olde TGPers, PK and Sci, and we'd all be able
to discuss anything in this group.
If Chriz wants to leave, he is certaintly free to. I will miss him but
I'm use to people leaving this group, because that's just how it
is...or something.

-Jonathan Thomas

Steffan Alun

2004-08-04 01:11:37 UTC

Post by Chriz
Hehe. I'm not emotionally connected to it.

Baloney. I do care what Chriz has to say. It's been ages since anyone
has actually discussed Pokemon and he has some thoughtful insight on
the subject.

There! See my point? Reread what I said, and you'll see that what YOU said
is perfectly consistent with it.

You don't care for Chriz or what he has to say other than the fact that he's
SOMEONE and is saying SOMETHING - it's all the same to you. As long as the
group is still alive with discussion, they could be PAHSONS for all you
care.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
If he wasn't in a completely different time zone, I'd be
IMing him with the other olde TGPers, PK and Sci, and we'd all be able
to discuss anything in this group.

Does nobody else see the flaw I'm seeing here? Lynn only cares for people
here on the basis that they're willing to actually use the group. I swear,
if you stop posting, he'll only miss the activity, not you as people.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
If Chriz wants to leave, he is certaintly free to. I will miss him but
I'm use to people leaving this group, because that's just how it
is...or something.

See? Reinforces my point entirely. He won't miss Chriz himself - only what
he brings to the group.

--
Steffan

Someones Friend

2004-08-07 02:05:09 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Untrue. The easiest way to kill this group would be to leave it. Every
group needs someone to hate - that's human nature

this is the biggest load of bullshit i have ever seen stefen. the
counter to you point is here, www.gamerulers.com . check it out

Steffan Alun

2004-08-07 02:12:37 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Untrue. The easiest way to kill this group would be to leave it. Every
group needs someone to hate - that's human nature

this is the biggest load of bullshit i have ever seen stefen. the
counter to you point is here, www.gamerulers.com . check it out

Wha

--
Steffan

Someones Friend

2004-08-07 06:51:43 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Untrue. The easiest way to kill this group would be to leave it. Every
group needs someone to hate - that's human nature

this is the biggest load of bullshit i have ever seen stefen. the
counter to you point is here, www.gamerulers.com . check it out

Wha

really good counter there stefen, so when someone new joins the talks
you lose you ablity to talk?

Steffan Alun

2004-08-07 10:37:32 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Untrue. The easiest way to kill this group would be to leave it.

Every

Post by Steffan Alun
group needs someone to hate - that's human nature

this is the biggest load of bullshit i have ever seen stefen. the
counter to you point is here, www.gamerulers.com . check it out

Wha

really good counter there stefen, so when someone new joins the talks
you lose you ablity to talk?

It's not that. It's just that what you said was so utterly dumb and
unprovoked that I didn't want to speak to you for too long since I'm a big
believer in intellectual osmosis, and I was afraid my own intelligence would
suffer.

--
Steffan

Someones Friend

2004-08-07 08:16:24 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Untrue. The easiest way to kill this group would be to leave it. Every
group needs someone to hate - that's human nature

this is the biggest load of bullshit i have ever seen stefen. the
counter to you point is here, www.gamerulers.com . check it out

Wha

do you lose your ablitity to speak when someone new comes in and you
have no dirt to dig up on them?

Steffan Alun

2004-08-07 10:41:08 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Untrue. The easiest way to kill this group would be to leave it.

Every

Post by Steffan Alun
group needs someone to hate - that's human nature

this is the biggest load of bullshit i have ever seen stefen. the
counter to you point is here, www.gamerulers.com . check it out

Wha

do you lose your ablitity to speak when someone new comes in and you
have no dirt to dig up on them?

What are you talking about? I don't "dig up dirt" on people. I mean, I've
never even MENTIONED Lynn's past, because I don't think it's relevant. I
know nothing about Anonunit other than what I've seen of him here. I've
seen Chriz in various other groups, but then, I never really argue with him.

In summary, it's not that I'm incapable of arguing with you because you're
new and unfamiliar. I'm incapable of arguing with you because you've said
nothing thus far that I have any interest in discussing.

--
Steffan

Someones Friend

2004-08-09 01:41:00 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
What are you talking about? I don't "dig up dirt" on people. I mean, I've
never even MENTIONED Lynn's past, because I don't think it's relevant. I
know nothing about Anonunit other than what I've seen of him here. I've
seen Chriz in various other groups, but then, I never really argue with him.
In summary, it's not that I'm incapable of arguing with you because you're
new and unfamiliar. I'm incapable of arguing with you because you've said
nothing thus far that I have any interest in discussing.

so your whole point in being here is to argue? thats a pretty lame
excuse for being on a newsgroup.

Newton Haights

2004-08-09 02:28:02 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
What are you talking about? I don't "dig up dirt" on people. I mean, I've
never even MENTIONED Lynn's past, because I don't think it's relevant.

Post by Steffan Alun
know nothing about Anonunit other than what I've seen of him here. I've
seen Chriz in various other groups, but then, I never really argue with him.
In summary, it's not that I'm incapable of arguing with you because you're
new and unfamiliar. I'm incapable of arguing with you because you've said
nothing thus far that I have any interest in discussing.

so your whole point in being here is to argue? thats a pretty lame
excuse for being on a newsgroup.

...whoahwhoahwhoah wait a MINUTE. WAIT - A - MINUTE.

Inabilty to grasp concepts, beating an argument into the ground, and that
name --

HOLY SHIT STEFFAN, IT'S DRAGON FRIEND!

Steffan Alun

2004-08-09 21:35:18 UTC

Post by Someones Friend
so your whole point in being here is to argue? thats a pretty lame
excuse for being on a newsgroup.

...whoahwhoahwhoah wait a MINUTE. WAIT - A - MINUTE.
Inabilty to grasp concepts, beating an argument into the ground, and that
name --
HOLY SHIT STEFFAN, IT'S DRAGON FRIEND!

OMG WTF!

By the way, I returned to alt.fan.harry-potter a year or so after that
thread. Dragon Friend was still there, and just as insane as ever. I
continued to provoke her until she eventually pulled out the big guns and
used Google to find me. She realised I was the one who started the Too
Tasty For Geeks thread, and pulled it out, saying "zomg, look what i found,
steffans an idiot". I said "I wasn't going to post this link, since I
thought you deserved a fighting chance, and I wanted to make people realise
you were an idiot WITHOUT showing this grade A evidence - thanks for doing
it for me".

She hasn't posted since.

--
Steffan

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-09 09:39:06 UTC

In a daze, I read Someones Friend's post, then collasped.

Post by Someones Friend
so your whole point in being here is to argue? thats a pretty lame
excuse for being on a newsgroup.

Shut up loser

Steffan Alun

2004-08-09 21:32:29 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
What are you talking about? I don't "dig up dirt" on people. I mean, I've
never even MENTIONED Lynn's past, because I don't think it's relevant.

so your whole point in being here is to argue? thats a pretty lame
excuse for being on a newsgroup.

I prefer "debate". And since arguments are the only activity the group
sees, there is no other reason for ANYONE being here.

This includes you.

--
Steffan

Someones Friend

2004-08-16 10:53:09 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
What are you talking about? I don't "dig up dirt" on people. I mean,

I've

Post by Steffan Alun
never even MENTIONED Lynn's past, because I don't think it's relevant.

Post by Steffan Alun
know nothing about Anonunit other than what I've seen of him here. I've
seen Chriz in various other groups, but then, I never really argue with

him.

Post by Steffan Alun
In summary, it's not that I'm incapable of arguing with you because

you're

Post by Steffan Alun
new and unfamiliar. I'm incapable of arguing with you because you've

said

Post by Steffan Alun
nothing thus far that I have any interest in discussing.

so your whole point in being here is to argue? thats a pretty lame
excuse for being on a newsgroup.

I prefer "debate". And since arguments are the only activity the group
sees, there is no other reason for ANYONE being here.
This includes you.

ok so why are you still here in a "dead" group? ill leave if i think
the group has no chance at revial, but get rid of you, Haights, and
Pahsons, this group will make it through.

Jonathan Thomas

2004-08-01 22:02:06 UTC

<snip>

Post by Steffan Alun
Let me make things a bit clearer.
On Usenet, groups don't start when someone says "let's start a group". They
start when there's demand and a hefty interest to sustain it. Once that
interest has died and the demand no longer exists, there's no point in
keeping the group up. It's not even like there's any worthwhile history to
this place. You may as well let the group die peacefully. If you want to
discuss Pokémon, there are other places you can do that, places with many
more members, and where there's a much greater chance of getting questions
answered and discussions started.

Is there really a place we can discuss Pokemon, Steffan? To my
knowledge, the only remotely active Pokemon newsgroups are
alt.games.nintendo.pokemon and alt.games.pokemon. Now, let me say this
- I'm not soley basing this on my own experience. If you were try and
discuss Pokemon in AGNP, odds are you would be flamed. Yes, some
people do answer the question. The rest merely nitpick at grammar and
spelling, others that they should have read the FAQ, and others on
commenting how stupid the poster was for asking the question in the
first place. Why I came back to TGP wasn't just so I can have a place
to discuss Pokemon. It was to discuss anything and everything. You
know why? Because Usenet has gone to hell. Every group is infested by
trolls, spammers, and the like. Few newsgroups are worth going to
anymore. If TGP could be that place, then I think we can have things
like they use to be. And TGP didn't die because there "no longer was
demand". It died because of three years of trolling, from Wonky Cyber
to HUGOFER22, out of some idea that TGP "got what it deserved".

Worthwhile history? 3 years of non-stop trolling is a helluva lot for
a single newsgroup. A conflict between two groups much akin of the
Middle Eastern conflict, I say. I met pretty much everyone I know
online some way or another through TGP. Because of TGP, ADGP was
formed and you know the massive story of that. Because of TGP, a
massive troll-reg war in some other Webtv only group occurred -
seriously. Yeah, we might not have had some historic landmark post
like some celebrity posting here or some new revalation about Pokemon,
but it has history to some people.

Clay, here's the answer to your question- PK and Sci arn't posting
here, along with the others, because they're afraid of the trolls,
thats why. I don't mean to suggest that they have nightmares of
Haights or Pahsons terrorizing them as they sleep but rather they are
afraid to post because of them because they are intimidated. Well, let
me say this - I'm sure not intimidated. That's why there appears to be
no demand.

Post by Steffan Alun
The truth is, AGNP would also have died years ago were it not for certain
specific factors, and it's not a competition. This group serves no purpose,
so the only reason for you to try to keep it alive is if, for some reason,
you're still emotionally connected to it in some way.

So what if I am? What business is it if I am? Do you really think
you're going to make me change my mind? Do you think I'm going to say
"Oh, because Steffan keeps trolling, I'll just stop posting in TGP". I
don't care. When everyone else gets tired, I won't. You know why?
Because I'll keep posting in TGP. I don't care if nobody reads, I'll
still post for the helluva it. It'll be like, a blog in a newsgroup. I
won't stop posting until I die, or until they finally pull the plug on
TGP, formally. Yeah, I might be emotionally attached in some way but
what's so wrong with that?

Post by Steffan Alun
You need to move on. We're here to remind you of that and to have some fun
watching you learn it the hard way.

Why don't you and your little troll friends do that first? Haights, I
saw you post some post on AGNP where you asked CatGonk to help out
here when I first declared NGO. You still havn't moved on, and you
still like to live in this little fantasy world where it's AGNP vs.
TGP and how it's fun to troll all the TGPers. But see, CatGonk hasn't
come because he's moved on. He realized it's stupid to troll the
group.

For the same reason, I've stopped trolling the AGNP chatroom. Yeah,
sure, Jose did use an underhanded method that was pure evil, refusing
to deny access to one Lance Alvers, to "punish" him for giving me a
humorous mp3 Jose made of me, but I could go back to AGNP any day. A
tipster from AFD IMed me one evening some time ago, about a year and a
half ago, informing me that Lance Alvers was really one Dima.
Furthermore, I have not seen Lance in ages. So I could go back to AGNP
but you know what? I don't want to. AGNP didn't officially do anything
to TGP or me. I've given up on all that because I've moved on.

What business is it of yours to make sure I learn that? Why dont' you
try learning that yourself? You have no business in making sure I
learn anything. If I want to post here, I can. Hey, consider this - at
least I'm not posting in AGNP. If you don't like the fact I'm posting
here, leave. You can either join us or leave. There's no middle
ground.

That's all I have to say.

-Jonathan Thomas

Chriz

2004-08-02 03:43:57 UTC

Once upon a time Jonathan Thomas decided to write:

<snip>

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Is there really a place we can discuss Pokemon, Steffan? To my
knowledge, the only remotely active Pokemon newsgroups are
alt.games.nintendo.pokemon and alt.games.pokemon. Now, let me say this
- I'm not soley basing this on my own experience. If you were try and
discuss Pokemon in AGNP, odds are you would be flamed. Yes, some
people do answer the question. The rest merely nitpick at grammar and
spelling, others that they should have read the FAQ, and others on
commenting how stupid the poster was for asking the question in the
first place.

It's different now though. There really aren't too many people there and the
questions are usually left to be answered by the people who actually know
about the Pokemon games.

--
This space is available for advertising.

Pahsons - Somnolent - Insomniac - Narcoleptic

2004-08-03 01:31:20 UTC

In a daze, I read Jonathan Thomas's post, then collasped.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Pahsons terrorizing them as they sleep

This one line screamed out at me, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Steffan Alun

2004-08-04 01:33:19 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
On Usenet, groups don't start when someone says "let's start a group".

They

Post by Steffan Alun
start when there's demand and a hefty interest to sustain it. Once that
interest has died and the demand no longer exists, there's no point in
keeping the group up. It's not even like there's any worthwhile history to
this place. You may as well let the group die peacefully. If you want to
discuss Pokémon, there are other places you can do that, places with many
more members, and where there's a much greater chance of getting questions
answered and discussions started.

Is there really a place we can discuss Pokemon, Steffan? To my
knowledge, the only remotely active Pokemon newsgroups are
alt.games.nintendo.pokemon and alt.games.pokemon.

I'm referring to the former.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Now, let me say this
- I'm not soley basing this on my own experience. If you were try and
discuss Pokemon in AGNP, odds are you would be flamed.

I discuss Pokémon there on a regular basis, and I never get flamed.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Yes, some
people do answer the question. The rest merely nitpick at grammar and
spelling, others that they should have read the FAQ, and others on
commenting how stupid the poster was for asking the question in the
first place.

Clearly, you've not been there in years. Sure, you'll get your fair share
of flames simply because you're you, but there is no FAQ, those who'd
nitpick language are gone, and nobody makes fun of people for not knowing
the answer to a question.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Why I came back to TGP wasn't just so I can have a place
to discuss Pokemon. It was to discuss anything and everything. You
know why? Because Usenet has gone to hell. Every group is infested by
trolls, spammers, and the like. Few newsgroups are worth going to
anymore. If TGP could be that place, then I think we can have things
like they use to be. And TGP didn't die because there "no longer was
demand". It died because of three years of trolling, from Wonky Cyber
to HUGOFER22, out of some idea that TGP "got what it deserved".

TGP was always a redunant group. A group that cannot resist trolling is a
group that cannot survive. AGNP's seen a hell of a lot of trolls in the
past as well, and has even seen some regulars switching back and forth
between discussion and trolldom. It doesn't matter. The group adapted to
handle it, so there are no trolls there any more. No troll survives long
there, because you need to be incredibly intelligent to spot weaknesses in
the group.

TGP's weaknesses are and have always been obvious. A troll knows exactly
where to target, which is why the group is doing so badly now.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Worthwhile history? 3 years of non-stop trolling is a helluva lot for
a single newsgroup. A conflict between two groups much akin of the
Middle Eastern conflict, I say.

Oh, please. If everyone in TGP had killfiled everyone in AGNP, there'd have
been no problem. Nobody - no group of people, even - can destroy a group.
Only apathy can do so, and TGP's members clearly stopped caring quickly.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Yeah, we might not have had some historic landmark post
like some celebrity posting here or some new revalation about Pokemon,
but it has history to some people.

History doesn't mean anything, though. It's the present that counts, and
TGP's present ain't too hot.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Clay, here's the answer to your question- PK and Sci arn't posting
here, along with the others, because they're afraid of the trolls,
thats why. I don't mean to suggest that they have nightmares of
Haights or Pahsons terrorizing them as they sleep but rather they are
afraid to post because of them because they are intimidated. Well, let
me say this - I'm sure not intimidated. That's why there appears to be
no demand.

If they find anyone in this group intimidating, they have problems.

Post by Steffan Alun
The truth is, AGNP would also have died years ago were it not for certain
specific factors, and it's not a competition. This group serves no purpose,
so the only reason for you to try to keep it alive is if, for some reason,
you're still emotionally connected to it in some way.

Dude, I'm not trolling. How many times do I need to say this? I want you
to actually LISTEN to WHAT I'M SAYING. What I WANT is for you to realise
that what you're doing is futile. That the best you can hope for is a few
months of a few half-hearted threads before the group degenerates into
emptiness again.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
I
don't care. When everyone else gets tired, I won't. You know why?
Because I'll keep posting in TGP. I don't care if nobody reads, I'll
still post for the helluva it. It'll be like, a blog in a newsgroup. I
won't stop posting until I die, or until they finally pull the plug on
TGP, formally. Yeah, I might be emotionally attached in some way but
what's so wrong with that?

The fact that it's an empty group, that's what. Meaningless data.
Completely intangible. You say you met a lot of friends through TGP. The
point is, you should value THEM. Be emotionally attached to THEM. NOT to
the group itself. That's just illogical.

Post by Steffan Alun
You need to move on. We're here to remind you of that and to have some fun
watching you learn it the hard way.

Why don't you and your little troll friends do that first?

Why do you direct this at me and then have a rant at Haights? I am not
Haights, so his behaviour is bound to be inconsistent with mine. Haights,
Pahsons and I are three very different people, and we don't plot behind your
backs or anything - everything we say about TGP is said here.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
For the same reason, I've stopped trolling the AGNP chatroom. Yeah,
sure, Jose did use an underhanded method that was pure evil, refusing
to deny access to one Lance Alvers, to "punish" him for giving me a
humorous mp3 Jose made of me, but I could go back to AGNP any day. A
tipster from AFD IMed me one evening some time ago, about a year and a
half ago, informing me that Lance Alvers was really one Dima.
Furthermore, I have not seen Lance in ages. So I could go back to AGNP
but you know what? I don't want to. AGNP didn't officially do anything
to TGP or me. I've given up on all that because I've moved on.

You HAVEN'T moved on. You've just realised that AGNP is everything TGP has
failed to become - an actual thriving community.

One day, AGNP will die as well. However, it won't have anything to do with
you. All you are to the chat is a mild irritation, and there are plenty of
people to fill that space now that you're gone.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
What business is it of yours to make sure I learn that? Why dont' you
try learning that yourself?

I have done. You're once again mistaking me for Haights.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
You have no business in making sure I
learn anything. If I want to post here, I can.

Sure you can. And so can I. I'm not stopping you. You're not stopping me.
We're just talkin' here.

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Hey, consider this - at
least I'm not posting in AGNP. If you don't like the fact I'm posting
here, leave. You can either join us or leave. There's no middle
ground.

Hey, you've already said everything's on-topic here, so technically, I've
already joined you simply by posting.

--
Steffan

Jonathan Thomas

2004-07-31 17:12:15 UTC

Post by Anonunit
So, these are the trolls, Jon? Whatever happened to Alex?

I can explain.

Last time I checked, when he e-mailed me, he said he "got a life" or
something and he left.

Alex is, unfortunately, still alive and kicking.

Of course, these trolls make Alex look serious.

-Jonathan Thomas

Steffan Alun

2004-08-01 00:00:37 UTC

Post by Jonathan Thomas
Of course, these trolls make Alex look serious.

You know, if you keep acknowledging our existence, we've already succeeded
to troll you without even trying.

--
Steffan

Jonathan Thomas

2004-07-31 17:21:00 UTC

Post by Steffan Alun
Really? Name the best bunch you've seen, then.

Be glad to (not in chronological order):

WonkyCyber
AGNP Troll Brigade
CatGonk (solo)
Jose Solano (solo)
MechaGorijja (solo)
HUGOFER22 (a.k.a. ALEX)
T_T-P (ALEX's troll group)
PK (for a week as "BiZzArR0")
DW (when he trolled to have TGPers join ADGP)
RRBD or whatever the guy's name was

Out of all these, you and Haights are the lamest. That is all.

-Jonathan Thomas

Steffan Alun

2004-07-31 23:59:39 UTC

Post by Jonathan Thomas
<snip the rest of Steffan's post >

Shame you snipped the actual context to which you were replying. Still,
seeing as my post represented about 50% of the posts worth reading here, I
guess it's not too much effort to go back and check.

Still, I'm more considerate, so I've replaced quotes.